|
Other common
name(s): many possible names
Scientific/medical
name(s): none
Description
Some practitioners of alternative medicine who treat cancer
using unproven and unapproved therapies -- especially those who market
their treatment as a "cure" -- have moved just across the Mexican
border, where they are still able to attract US patients. Although
there are certainly many legitimate cancer treatment centers in Mexico,
many of these "border clinics" offer treatments that are unproven or
simply don't work. Some also have offices in San Diego or other U.S.
towns near the Mexican border. These offices are used as contact points
to find U.S. patients, who are then referred to the actual clinics in
Mexico. Specific information can be difficult to obtain because of
secrecy requirements: in some cases the clinics are operating illegally
in Mexico and are subject to closure by Mexican authorities if they are
caught.
Overview
One estimate is that there are about 35 to 50 alternative
medicine clinics and hospitals in Mexican border towns, especially
Tijuana. Investigative news reporters offer some accounts of what the
clinics do, but getting good information on their actual practices can
be difficult. Before entering some of these clinics, patients are
reportedly required to sign agreements stating that they will not to
talk to the press. Oftentimes, reporters, investigators, and other
outside observers are not allowed in.
Despite these secrecy requirements, some family members have
come forward to place complaints that their loved ones got worse or
died shortly upon returning home, often after being told they were
cured. Families have also told tragic stories of loved ones whose
cancer was detected early enough to be treated effectively, but who
instead sought care in these border clinics. By the time many of these
people learned their cancer had progressed during alternative
treatment, it was too late for conventional treatment that could have
cured them.
How is it promoted for use?
Some clinics offer a "cure," while others have toned down
their advertising and no longer claim to cure cancer. However, most
patients who ask are told they "can be helped" or that there is a "good
chance" their cancer can be cured. Treatment in these clinics is often
advertised as an alternative to traditional medical care, a "natural"
or "non-toxic" alternative to cancer treatment.
Treatment may be promoted based on some of the beliefs listed
below about how cancer begins and progresses:
- The belief
that a "buildup of toxins" from foods, food additives, and
environmental pollution is the main cause of chronic diseases. While
it is true that there is a link between diet and disease, available
scientific evidence does not point to food "toxins" or additives as the
cause of disease. The idea that sugar feeds cancer cells is often cited
as a reason to avoid certain foods. But even the healthiest foods
contain some form of sugar or carbohydrate. The body converts these
sugars into glucose as a fuel to supply energy to all of its cells,
which cannot function without it. For example, whole fruits and
vegetables contain sugars, but have actually been proven to help reduce
cancer risk.
- The belief
that removing toxins from the body (a process called detoxification)
and dietary changes can reverse cancer after it has developed and
spread. Available scientific evidence does not support
claims that removing certain foods or other substances from the diet or
environment will change the outcome of cancer once it has been found.
While dietary changes may be helpful to a cancer patient, there is no
proof that they will cure cancer. Other measures used for
detoxification, such as colon cleansing, can be harmful.
- The belief
that tumors can and do thrive without oxygen and are killed by
substances that increase the oxygen supply to the tumor.
The idea that cancer cells thrive in low oxygen levels is based on the
lower-than-normal rates of respiration in tumors. However, modern
researchers attribute the reduced respiration rate and lower oxygen
levels in tumors to the poor blood supply and lack of blood vessels in
tissue surrounding rapidly growing tumors. Currently, there is no
available scientific evidence supporting the use of products that claim
to kill tumors by raising levels of oxygen in the blood (also called
hyperoxygenation or oxymedicine), such as hydrogen peroxide and ozone
(see Oxygen Therapy).
- The belief
that food additives, such as artificial colors and preservatives, cause
cancer and that "natural" substances are not harmful.
There is no evidence that food additives are a major threat when used
properly and in normal amounts. It is known that some types of
industrial pollution and hazardous substances in the workplace have
been linked with a higher number of some tumors. However, even if these
substances could be removed from the body of a person with cancer (and,
in most cases, this is not possible), doing so would not influence
growth of a cancer that has already formed.
What does it involve?
Border clinics offer a variety of treatments. They often
advertise "individualized therapy," which combines different kinds of
alternative and complementary treatments. Metabolic therapy is one of
the main treatments offered in these clinics (see Metabolic Therapy).
Metabolic therapy is not well defined and includes many different kinds
of treatment. Although some of the individual methods used in metabolic
therapy can be found in the United States, border clinics commonly
offer a number of those different treatments used in metabolic therapy
in each facility. Because the focus in metabolic therapy is more on the
body's function or condition than on the specific treatments, an
endless variety of activities that are supposed to help the body's
function can be included. These treatments are claimed to be for the 3
purposes described below: detoxification, immune system support, and
fighting the cancer.
Detoxification ("detox") refers to removing so-called toxic
agents from the body. It can use many methods:
- large quantities of pressed liver and carrot juice (see Juicing)
- removal of mercury-amalgam fillings
- cleansing enemas or colonics, some of which may include
coffee, wheat grass, or other substances (see Colon Therapy,
Wheat Grass)
To reduce the risk of fluid and mineral imbalances, small
amounts of juices or other foods may be given. Enemas or colonics may be
given as often as every 2 hours to remove "toxic buildup" in the bowel.
The claim that colon cleansing improves the body's ability to digest
food shows a basic error in understanding human anatomy and physiology,
since almost all of the nutrients are actually absorbed in the small
intestine. The digested material then enters the large intestine
(colon), which absorbs only water and a few minerals. The belief that
detox will help the large intestine absorb nutrients is false.
Immune system support is another part of metabolic therapy and
may include vitamins, special diets, and nutrition treatments, as well
as herbs and other practices, that are supposed to help the body fight
the cancer. Large amounts of nutritional supplements are included in
most metabolic therapies. Supplements are claimed to balance the diet,
detoxify the body, help restore the patient's normal metabolic
patterns, strengthen the immune system, and destroy tumors. Various
"tumor-specific" substances are promoted and sold with the claim that
they are effective, natural, and non-toxic.
A number of different supplements may be offered:
- other products including para-aminobenzoic acid, carnitine,
lecithin, inositol, RNA, DNA, and a number of herbs and herbal products
(see Inositol,
DHEA, and
listings of individual herbs)
Some of these treatments have not been studied by scientists.
Others have been tested and appear to have no helpful effect. Some are
known to cause harm.
Anti-tumor treatments are supposed to attack the cancer.
Various substances and devices are promoted and sold with the claim
that they are effective, natural, and non-toxic to normal cells.
Although there are many types of treatment available in Mexico, the
treatments listed below are some of the most common:
- electronic "zappers" -- electromagnetic devices that are
supposed to kill cancer cells (see Electromagnetic Therapy)
- light therapy, including UV blood irradiation (see Light Therapy)
- oxygen therapy, such as ozone or hydrogen peroxide (see Oxygen Therapy)
- anti-cancer vaccines (other than those that been researched
by conventional immunologists and oncologists and found to be helpful
in carefully controlled clinical trials)
- laetrile, which is often given with massive doses of
vitamins, and dimethylsulfoxide (see Laetrile,
DMSO)
- glandular (organ) extracts, or live cells or blood from
animals, promoted to boost the affected organ system (for example,
liver extract for liver cancer, lung extract for lung cancer, and other
injections of animal organ extracts; see Cell Therapy
for more information)
- urea, based on the idea that urine has cleansing powers
(see Urotherapy)
- cesium chloride, claimed to inhibit cancer growth by making
the pH of cancer cells "basic" instead of acidic (see Cesium Chloride)
- low-dose chemotherapy (using doses not researched or
recommended by mainstream oncologists) sometimes in combination with
other types of treatments
Few of the dozens of products promoted as anti-tumor agents by
metabolic therapists have been approved for use or even recognized as
experimental drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Several
products, such as Laetrile and germanium sesquioxide, have been tested
and found to be toxic and/or ineffective. Hyper-oxygenators have no
demonstrated benefits, and both hydrogen peroxide (given by mouth and
into the vein), and ozone (given rectally) can be harmful. Several
clinics use low-dose (also called micro-dose) chemotherapy in
combination with other treatments.. Available scientific evidence does
not support the claim that micro-dose chemotherapy is effective.
What is the history behind it?
According to an article in Time magazine, no one is exactly
sure when U.S. citizens began going to alternative medicine clinics in
Mexico. Since the early 1960s, U.S. regulatory agencies have become
increasingly stringent in their requirements for treatments' proof of
effectiveness. Ralph Moss, in his brief history of the Tijuana clinics,
notes that the clinics were set up mainly by U.S. citizens in response
to stronger regulation of non-standard treatments, many of which were
unproven.
According to Mr. Moss, the number of clinics in Tijuana
increased in the 1970s because of interest in laetrile. The popularity
of these clinics began to decline after the mid-1980s and many have
since closed. This decline was caused partly by the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was passed in the 1990s. Among other
things, NAFTA allows the United States, Canada, and Mexico to work
together to take action against cross-border health fraud. The three
countries banded together in 1994 to form the Mexico-United
States-Canada Health Fraud Work Group, or MUCH.
There have been a number of investigations and convictions of
fraudulent providers over the past decade. According to an
investigative report in the San Diego Times-Union, Mexican regulators
shut down or restricted about a dozen clinics in 2001 after finding
that many of the clinics were unlicensed and that some were offering
very dangerous treatments. One clinic founder pleaded guilty to fraud
and money laundering in 2002, after he set up a company that offered
"magnetic field" therapy. In an article on the Monterrey (Mexico)
Wellness Center, Dr. Stephen Barrett noted that the clinic operator
advertised a high cure rate for cancer and other serious diseases at
his clinic in Monterrey, Mexico. The clinic operator discouraged people
from getting standard medical care, and he and other company officers
solicited investments in their "new technology." The company reportedly
had received $675,000 in payments before it closed. Its owner, who had
represented himself as a world-renowned scientist, was sentenced to
more than seven years in federal prison. According to the U.S. attorney
prosecuting the case, all of the clinic's patients died.
In 2003, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stopped a
Canadian company that was marketing treatments with its "zoetron"
machine to U.S. consumers. According to an FTC press release, the
patients wired $15,000 to Canada, then traveled to Tijuana for
treatment with "Cell Specific Cancer Therapy," which was claimed to be
a pulsed magnetic field. The company's owners were charged with making
false claims about their device. The FTC states that the zoetron
machine turned out to be a ring of weak magnets that did nothing for
the cancer. Mexican authorities, working with the United States and
Canada, shut down the clinic where the "treatment" was offered.
In 2004, United States and Mexican authorities worked together
to shut down yet another Tijuana clinic. The owners, who were based in
Bonita (in San Diego County), were charged with fraud. In a separate
case, the clinic where Coretta Scott King was treated in 2006 was shut
down by Mexican authorities. Mrs. King died shortly after being treated
there, and Mexican investigators subsequently learned that the clinic
providing her treatment was not authorized to do surgery, laboratory
tests, or diagnostic procedures, according to an article in the San
Diego Union Tribune,. This clinic was headed by an American man.
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he had been charged with
practicing medicine without a license in 1970 in California and had
pleaded guilty to charges of smuggling illegal medicines into the
United States in 1996. As reported by Dr. Stephen Barrett, the clinic
operator had previously obtained a naturopathic license using a forged
degree, misrepresented hydrogen peroxide as a treatment for cancer and
arthritis, and pleaded guilty to tax evasion as well as the smuggling
charge. In this and other cases, clinic operators who have been
convicted of crimes in the United States have still been able to open
and run clinics in Mexico.
Despite regulatory agencies' attempts to stop illegal or
fraudulent activities, many clinics close and then reopen under other
names in new locations. According to Mexican official Dr. Alfredo Gruel
Culebro, "Even if they are shut down, they can request a new permit
altogether and start operating practically next door."
What is the evidence?
It is impossible to fully and precisely evaluate all of the
treatments described in this section in a single discussion. For the
most part, the methods promoted in Mexican border clinics are not
consistent with scientific understanding of how cancer and its
treatment work. On the other hand, there are many medical practitioners
in Mexico who use methods based in responsible science. Some
practitioners combine scientifically proven methods with other
therapies that show no evidence of helping. But because the hundreds of
regimens used in clinics change often, any full evaluation would be
outdated almost immediately. For information on each treatment, see the
description and evidence regarding that particular treatment.
Although these clinics often claim great success in
advertisements and books, they have not published convincing evidence
in medical journals to support those claims. Attempts by researchers to
study results from those clinics have been constrained by incomplete
records and limited follow-up with patients, which usually does not
allow any comparison with results of mainstream oncology treatment.
Are there any possible problems or
complications?
These
substances may have not been thoroughly tested to find out how they
interact with medicines, foods, or dietary supplements. Even though
some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published, full
studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of
these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions
below should be considered incomplete.
Patients traveling to the Tijuana area for treatment appear to
be subjecting themselves to costly and potentially hazardous regimens,
especially if they postpone standard medical care. They usually do not
know exactly what they are getting, and they do not know whether the
treatment is helpful until the time and money have been spent. During
the treatment, for example, patients are generally told that they are
improving. When symptoms worsen, it may be described as a "healing
crisis" or "the toxins coming out."
Most of these therapies have not been tested using the
safeguards put in place by U.S. regulatory agencies and the scientific
community to ensure treatments are effective and safe. Available
scientific evidence does not support claims that they work. Often, only
lay literature such as patient testimonials and books written by those
selling the treatments, is provided when promoters are asked for proof
that their treatments work.
There are reports of cancer patients leaving these clinics
very happy with their care, believing themselves cured. But most
clinics offer no proof of their cure rates and rarely follow up with
patients over the long term to see whether their conditions were
actually improved by treatment. There are many reports of people who
have had severe or life-threatening side effects from the treatments.
And there are far more who have died needlessly after coming to
mainstream oncologists too late to get timely, effective treatment
Finally, patients at these border clinics can expect to pay
$2,500 to $7,000 a week or more for treatment plus travel expenses.
They are often required to pay all or most of the fee before entering
the program. Some clinics have additional costs for extra treatments,
and companions may be charged up to $300 a week to share a room with
the patient. The recommended stay is often several weeks. Outpatient
programs often cost $1,000 to $2,000 a week. Insurance programs almost
never cover these treatments, although some of the clinics with US
offices have tried to file for insurance reimbursement. Some of these
offices have been prosecuted for filing false or fraudulent insurance
claims. Most programs also recommend follow-up therapy at home for
additional fees, and some patients may be urged to return to the clinic
for more treatment. Those who look to these border clinics for
alternative treatments often bankrupt themselves in search of a cure.
For more specific information on complications and risks of
these kinds of treatments, see the sections on the individual therapies
being offered.
The American Cancer Society urges individuals with cancer to
seek treatment from qualified cancer care professionals who can offer
cancer treatments that have been proven to be safe and effective or
that are currently being studied in carefully monitored clinical
trials. If you believe you have experienced fraud at the hands of any
Mexican border clinic, you can contact the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration at 1-888-463-6332, or make a report online at
www.fda.gov/medwatch.
Relying on this type of treatment and avoiding or delaying
conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health
consequences.
Additional Resources
More information from your American Cancer
Society
The following information on complementary and alternative
therapies may also be helpful to you. These materials may be found on
our Web site (www.cancer.org)
or ordered from our toll-free number (1-800-ACS-2345).
References
American Cancer Society. Unproven methods of cancer
management. The metabolic therapy of Harold W. Manner, PhD. CA Cancer J Clin.
1986;36:185-189.
American Cancer Society. Metabolic therapy. Accessed at:
www.cancer.org on June 12, 2008.
Barrett S. The shady activities of Kurt Donsbach. Accessed at:
www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/donsbach.html on June 11,
2008.
Barrett S, Herbert V. Questionable cancer therapies. Accessed
at: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cancer.html on
June 11, 2008.
Barrett S. James Gary Davidson and the Monterrey Wellness
Center. Accessed at:
www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/davidson.html on June
11, 2008.
Cearley A, Dibble S. Clinics under the radar no longer. San Diego Union Tribune,
Feb 4 2006. Accessed at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060204/news_7m4clinics.html
on June 11, 2008.
Crabtree P, Dibble S. High hopes, false promises. San Diego Union Tribune,
Feb 25 2002. Accessed at:
http://utawards.signonsandiego.com/borderline_medicine2.html on July
10, 2007.
Crabtree P, Dibble S. Tijuana alternative clinics frustrate
regulators. San Diego
Union Tribune, Feb 24, 2002. Accessed at:
http://utawards.signonsandiego.com/borderline_medicine.html on June 11,
2008.
Federal Trade Commission. Press Release: FTC, Canada, and
Mexico officials crack down on foreign companies that offer bogus
cancer treatment. February 20, 2003. Available at:
www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/02/csct.htm. Accessed July 10, 2007.
Federal Trade Commission. Press Release: Canadian company
settles FTC charges that it offered bogus cancer therapy to US
citizens. February 25, 2004. Accessed at:
www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/02/csct.htm on June 11, 2008.
Gonzalez NJ, Isaacs LL. Evaluation of pancreatic proteolytic
enzyme treatment of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, with nutrition and
detoxification support. Nutr
Cancer.1999;33:117-124.
Green S. Nicolas Gonzalez treatment for cancer: gland
extracts, coffee enemas, vitamin megadoses, and diets. Accessed at:
www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/kg.html on June 11,
2008.
Judd A, McKenna MAJ, Keefe B. Clinic, founder operate outside
the norm. Feburary 1, 2006. Available at: www.ajc.com. Accessed April
11, 2006. Content no longer available.
Moss RW. Patient perspectives: Tijuana cancer clinics in the
post-NAFTA era. Integr
Cancer Ther. 2005;4:65-86.
Murphy GP, Morris LB, Lange D, eds. Informed Decisions: The Complete
Book of Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Recovery. New
York, NY: Viking; 1997.
Richardson MA, Russell NC, Sanders T, Barrett R, Salveson C.
Assessment of outcomes at alternative medicine cancer clinics: a
feasibility study. J
Altern Complement Med. 2001;7:19-32.
Underwood J. Mexico's controversial clinics. Feb 3, 2006.
Accessed at:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1156292,00.html on June
11, 2008.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Unconventional
Cancer Treatments. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1990.
Publication OTA-H-405.
Note: This
information may not cover all possible claims, uses, actions,
precautions, side effects or interactions. It is not intended as
medical advice, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for
consultation with your doctor, who is familiar with your medical
situation.
Last Medical Review: 11/01/2008
Last Revised: 11/01/2008
|
