Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Therapy
Non-Toxic Biological Approaches to the Theories,
Treatments and Prevention of Cancer

Our 53rd Year

Cellular TherapyBy Anthony R. Schenk, MD, PhD.

This discourse was presented before the Cancer Convention in New York at the Statler Hilton Hotel, Grand Ballroom on April 29, 1978.

This article deals with the important role of cellular therapy in the nontoxic anti-cancer treatment as: preventive therapy; therapy against existing malignancy; post-operative and post-radiation therapy, auxiliary therapy in conjunction with other biological anti-recurrent therapy.

Before we proceed to this rather intriguing chapter of cancer therapy by means of cellular therapy, it might appear indicated to summarize first the nature of cellular therapy, its indications, techniques and latest research and experimental results, to set a solid, well-understood ground for the evaluation of the forthcoming criteria.

What Is Cellular Therapy?

Cellular therapy is a parenteral application (by means of intramuscular injection with spec. canule) of suspended, specially selected and prepared fetal or juvenile organ cells from a donor to the recipient. It is a form of mini-transplantation by injection under well observed and prepared conditions.

Actually, this procedure was first discovered and carried out as early as 1912 by Dr. Kuettner, but, as it unfortunately so often happens, the method was ridiculed and eventually forgotten. In 1931, Dr. Paul Niehans rediscovered the method almost by coincidence when an emergency patient, whose parathyroid gland was coincidentally extirpated, was treated under Niehans by means of desperately implanting in her a rapidly diced parathyroid gland, obtained from the nearby slaughterhouse from a young calf.

As grave as the present prognosis seemed to be, a miracle happened when the patient did not develop any significant tetanic blood-calcium drop as typical in parathyroid deficiency. The patient finally recovered satisfactorily. From then on, under ‘the leadership of Niehans and associates, numerous experiments in that direction were performed over the years on animals and on humans.

This technique, called Fresh Cell Transplantation or Fresh Cell Therapy, made it imperative that cell samples had to be collected under perfect sterile conditions from the donor, then chopped into tiny particles within a biologically conditioned time limit of 7-10 minutes, then put into a syringe with a larger than normal canule and suspended by adding saline. This mixture, called the suspension, had to be injected within a few minutes into the recipient, before the vitality of the cells ‘in vitro’ decayed, which according to our Nobel-Laureate Professor Letree of Heidelberg, subsists fully for approximately seven minutes, but then diminishes in about 13 minutes. After that time, the quality of the cell substrate has reduced so much that it becomes unreasonable to attempt the procedure, because of several upcoming problems.

The range of cells, the formulas of the different combinations, kept increasing constantly in the pace of scientific progress! What was a great disadvantage in those times was the fact that you needed to bring your patient into the slaughterhouse’s close vicinity and keep him prepared in some room for the implantation. Meanwhile, you had to go through the ordeal of getting your cell samples from a freshly killed donor animal, select them properly and sufficiently, watch for sterility and keep in the given short time limit. This frequently made for problems and meant loss of time because of the arrangements and also because lots of experience, skill and organization was necessary.

Partial removal of the liver in rats shows under normal conditions only very slow self-repair. Under cellular therapy, however, we observe increased velocity of liver regeneration.

It was a relief when finally in 1951 the Lyophilized dry-cell method was perfected, which is still in use to the present day. Now you can collect all types of cells you can get hold of from the donor, sample them properly and select the largest amount of this materia prima with the purpose of quickly freeze-drying them for later production of measured amounts of ampouled cell types or cell combinations. Still, you have to work quickly in the preparation process of the product as well as during the administration procedure, but you save yourself so much hectic turmoil, as was the rule in the fresh-cell-procedure. Donor cell samples are introduced into a portable freezing machine, speeding them quickly to the freezing point, then slowing down to one degree centigrade per minute until minus 60 C. This freezing procedure has to be done precisely; otherwise you destroy the cells’ vitality. From 60 C and below you can go as quickly as you like and start simultaneously your vacuum to achieve the drying-up to practically powdery form. If this is accomplished, the dried cell substrates can be properly divided into the desired doses and combinations of cell types, ampouled and then brought to normal temperature for storage, almost indefinitely. Just adding saline with homoeopathic additions gives you a practical well defined suspension, ready to use. Additional biological substances like RNA (ribonucleic acid), CC (co-carboxylase), CSA (chondroitin sulfate-A) are being used simultaneously with cellular therapy by the foremost experts, to minimize side reactions, improve the absorption and maximize the efficacy.

Sources of donor cells are sheep, calves, pigs,horses, humans and monkeys. They are derived from the unborn fetus or the early baby stage. Fetal cells have the advantage that they are more easily obtained in sterile condition. Being in their prime stage, they render stronger, more effective therapeutic action and since they do not seem to have developed yet their final characteristic properties, they absorb better in the recipient’s body and create none or insignificant anaphylactic reaction.

Thyroid damages, caused experimentally by methylthiouracil overdoses, can be rehabilitated by cellular therapy, when any other therapy, including hormones, fails.

Juvenile cells have already developed more of their characteristic specific properties and are liable to create mild anaphylactic reaction, which can be controlled. You just have to know how. They have to be chosen in cases where certain cell types are not satisfactorily developed yet in the embryonic stage.

Mechanism of Action

This is not completely understood yet in spite of all research and experiments. The method was discovered accidentally and further developed empirically, which put the van before the horse, to start out with. What is known is that there is no cellular survival of donor cells in the body of the recipient.

The implanted cells disintegrate in the body of the recipient to the basic primitive particles and further to specific, so to say, ‘earmarked’ amino acids. Special ferment systems of the cell play an active role as well as parts of the plasma. Mitochondria (those are the numerous double-membraned small bodies in the cells’ cytoplasm, which are responsible for the energy conversion and have their own DNA) seem to play the main role as well as minute granules of the cell nucleus. Important for the therapeutic action of the cellular therapy is obviously the totality of the administered cell unions. The old theory that cell migration is taking place in the recipient’s body after cellular therapy is generally suspended, yet there is a possibility that mitochondria from the donor cells could eventually travel in the bloodstream of the recipient.

Therapeutic Efficacy

There were scientific controversies for many years between the pro and contra group of cellular therapy.

The contra group claimed just unspecific action, like unspecific stimulation, is being accomplished by cellular therapy, as can be done with olobentine, turpentine, sterile milk, irradiated blood etc. Injections or at best results like those, following glandular extract injections, would be obtained, or, maybe results as from hormone injections could be paralleled, but no more!

The pro group proved that there definitely is a very small unspecific action, which is very unimportant and insignificant. The main effect, however, is the specific organotrophic action of cellular therapy, produced by the young and undamaged RNA, DNA, mitochondria, nucleus granula and enzymes of the donor cells in the direction of rehabilitation or reactivation or generally in strengthening of the biological activity of the organ or organ groups at which the cellular therapy is aimed. Therefore, cellular therapy does not produce those short-lasting effects, as observed in extractor hormontherapy, but quite lasting, almost permanent effects, particularly if administered under the proper conditions with the proper preparations.

There are numerous experimental proofs documenting beyond any doubt the specific efficacy in cellular therapy. To mention just a few:

Radiation damage of the bone marrow in test animals can still be rehabilitated by bone-marrow cell therapy, even after any medication including bone-marrow extracts fail. (Letree).)

Partial removal of the liver in rats shows under normal conditions only very slow self-repair. Under cellular therapy, however, we observe increased velocity of liver regeneration. When using radioactivated nuclear cell substance in the experiment, increased radioactivity can be proved in the chromosomes of the liver of the recipient.

Cellular therapy is also very good in cases of nephrosis, myocardosis and hepatosis, for improvement of general health and that is where the prevention of degenerative diseases, including cancer, is automatically included.

The non-mitotic liver of the rat shows mitosis after liver-cell injection.

Recipient brain, treated by radioactive phosphorus-marked brain cells, shows distinct radioactive increase that cannot be accomplished by doses of radioactive phosphorus alone or ligated with brain-cell extracts.

Thyroid damages, caused experimentally by methylthiouracil overdoses, can be rehabilitated by cellular therapy, when any other therapy, including hormones, fails.

Tetany (parathyroid deficiency), can be cured or significantly improved for long periods of time by cellular therapy but not by extracts.

The specific organotrophic action of injected cells can furthermore be proved by the collodion particle test, which shows that organ specific antibodies are being formed by specific cellular therapy.

Female placenta cells repair post-climacteric vaginal atrophies, although they don’t contain proliferatively acting hormones, nor stimulating prolan (urinary gonadotrophin).

Male castrated animals develop the typical ‘castration pituitary.’ This can be avoided by testicle cell injections, not by any other type of cell injections!

Many more proofs can be given to demonstrate beyond any doubt that cellular therapy works specifically and reconstructively, differently from the short-lasting effects of hormones, cell extracts or unspecific biological stimulants.

Significant is the impressive demonstration of a cellular culture in degenerative condition, marked by the vacuolization of the plasma and dissolving of the nuclear structure. After the application of sicca cells, there was a regeneration of the plasma as well as of the nuclear structure, observed and documented in 1972 by the New York Academy of Sciences.

Indications for Cellular Therapy in General

  • disturbances in biological processes;
  • chronic degenerative failure;
  • ear and tear conditions;
  • evidence of exhaustion;
  • consequences of damages from birth, disease or age;
  • deficiencies, hypo function of cells;
  • arteriosclerosis.

Cellular therapy is also very good in cases of nephrosis, myocardosis and hepatosis, for improvement of general health and that is where the prevention of degenerative diseases, including cancer, is automatically included.

It is important to always realize that the administered cells do not act as substitutes, but normalize dysfunctional activity. Hormones, on the other hand, can only stimulate the activity, but never normalize it.

Contraindications for Cellular Therapy

Infections, inflammations, acute or chronic toxicosis, bacterial foci are among the conditions where the therapy is not indicated.

Here is a good question: How is it that such a significant therapy could be so neglected and fought by the conservative doctors? First of all, the methods of cellular therapy were impractical at the beginning and nobody understood clearly the action of this therapy, so that many doctors were turned away. Then, as pointed out before, they were very time-consuming and consequently expensive. Eventually, just a few people learned about the continuing progress of this method with its increased simplicity of the procedure, as presented by the dry-cell therapy or sicca cell therapy. These people often underestimated the more severe (so it seemed) rules during the procedure of the therapy, or misunderstood the indications or ignored existing foci of infection, marked arteriosclerosis, etc., leading to poor or no results. This left only a very few of us who continued to pursue the matter. We are convinced, and prove it over and over again, that cellular therapy is a very important weapon in the field of medical therapy, and very often when everything else fails or when there is no other way to go, it is effective.

In this connection, I find it necessary to point out a method which was actually derived from cellular therapy and was developed by the expert Professor Dyckerhoff. It is called the regeneresen therapy.

Regeneresen is one or multiple specific cell-RNA. The idea is that RNA is necessary for the protein synthesis in our body. Protein cultures stop synthesis if RNA is being removed, whereas addition of the specific RNA resumes the synthesis in the culture. RNA links amino acids to build the protein, which can be demonstrated on brain and heart-muscle tissue.

RN- 13 is a widely used multi-specific RNA (from 13 different organs) for geriatric use. There is also a special RN-Dyckerhoff preparation for leukemia. More formulas are being developed presently. After this introduction into cellular therapy, it is now easier to understand the principles upon which it is based, and how it acts.

These remarks are aimed at three groups of people:

  • cancer-endangered and pre-cancerous people;
  • cancer-stricken patients;
  • post-operative and post-radiation cases, and to prevent recurrent formation.

We can now approach the main topic of my discourse: ‘What Can Cellular Therapy Do in the Fight Against Cancer?’

Procedure for Group 1

Start first with the study of heredity. If one of the parents of your patient (and worse, if both), perished with any form of malignancy, then there may be a dormant trend to malignancy in the offspring and precaution as well as protective measures are most indicated. Now the time has come to analyze certain basic expressions, because the scholastic conservative medical doctors are using certain words like we biologically-oriented doctors do, but the meaning and interpretation is much different.

Under ‘precaution’ and ‘protective measures,’ words I just mentioned before, the conservative school means: the patient should eat well, whatever tastes good and is nutritious, stay away from stress (but the patient is not told what kinds of stress and how he or she can avoid it, so it’s more or less just a matter of speech). Then the patient is asked to come every six months or so for a good examination plus X-rays, etc. This is all, and no more is suggested for cancer precaution and cancer-protection, during the cancer-therapy and for post-operative and post-radiative cases.

Well, this is not so simple, as you might guess. The trouble is that these primitive measures don’t help your body at all, since your body keeps doing whatever it is going to do, and no X-rays or doctor examinations alone will change its course or decision. The only advantage you derive, if your body is going downhill health-wise, is that early diagnosis can often find a cancerous disorder, before you actually know it, and is often able to inform you about your pitfall. This can give you a therapeutic head-start, but that’s all.

We must not forget that every disease process is determined by the relation of the disease and the host, which makes it extremely important if there are toxic factors which favor the disease and disfavor the host.

Our procedure is quite more sophisticated and effective: You continue searching now for the history of diseases which are causing the development of bacterial toxins. To be exact, it was the particular bacterias, actually, which caused the disease in the first place and only small amounts of residual bacterial toxins would remain in your system if your body had fought off this bacterial insult by its own power or aided by resistance increasing biological medicines. But consider the facts, which are nowadays proven beyond any doubt, that considerably larger amounts of bacterial toxins result from a disease where, for example, sulfa drugs or antibiotics were employed, since these reduce the body’s defense, but only incompletely destroy the bacterial invaders. The initial therapeutic result of using these drugs is faster, and concurrent complications are cut short, but there is unfortunately another price to pay for it: a low-grade residual infection which often lingers a very long time. This is in particular the case where major amounts of bacterial toxins burden our defense for a long time partially even permanently depending on the type of disease causing bacteria. A good example of it are the ‘modern cures’ for chronic tonsilitis or infected teeth, but there are many others, too. Of further importance is the evidence of prolonged periods of chemical intoxication, again depending on the nature of the chemical, concentration and duration of the process.

Such studies are very essential, since they mostly reveal factors favoring malignant processes. The nature of all those toxins must be evaluated. The endotoxins and the exotoxins can be evaluated with modern techniques quite satisfactorily, so we can understand to what degree toxic damages are influencing the host.

Not only do these toxic levels, consisting of bacterial toxins, chemical toxins, endo-originating toxins (like intestinal dysbacteria) favor malignancy; they also reduce the host’s defense and finally create an additional problem namely that anti-cancerous therapy of almost any type is bound to act poorly, or not at all, depending on degree and stage of the disease.

Even now, there is not an end to the problem because complicating situations usually seem to become the rule during the course of the drug therapy, and often non-cancerous organs can be adversely affected in some uncomfortable way or other. So this is exactly what we have to avoid, otherwise we are confronted with poor therapeutic results, or eventually none at all.

It stands to reason that attention must be paid to factors such as general poor health in the first place. Damages and malfunctions of the body are as important as bad habits, vices, poor diet, overweight and overeating (this is proven by many experiments on underfed rats!), lack of activity in the physical sense and many others. From what I have observed in many years of experience, proper attention to all of these factors was lacking either because of shortness of time or underestimation of the importance of those things, or unfortunately because of absolute ignorance.

I want to emphasize at this point that the speed of malignant processes is not only determined by the nature of the cancer per se, but also by the presence of those before mentioned factors, particularly the toxins. The presence of these toxins also determines the patient’s poor defense, and you can imagine what this means. We must not forget that every disease process is determined by the relation of the disease and the host, which makes it extremely important if there are toxic factors which favor the disease and disfavor the host.

Unfortunately, too often those precautions and measures are neglected. Instead, cancer therapy is initiated instantly with two-faced chemical agents, causing tremendous side effects but nothing positive for the host. No wonder that we still have such poor cancer statistics. It is unimaginable how in the 20th century such primitive standard procedures are still prevalent and defended!

Procedure for Group 2 (cancer already manifest)

This involves the same basic considerations as in group 1. Again you have to turn your therapeutic attempts in the direction where you both try to hamper and hit the malignancy with whatever therapy is indicated for the particular case, simultaneously trying to favor the host’S. defense. So far, I have never observed any successful cancer therapy where those before mentioned postulates were not fulfilled, resulting in an extra-burdened host. Also, I believe, because of many observations that most of the recurrences in even apparently successful post-operative cases were caused by not observing those important rules in the follow-up period.

Summary of Measures:

  • Strict elimination of infectious focichronic infections.
  • Detoxication of existing toxic blood levels by means of vaccines and anatoxins of specific choice.
  • Restoration of existing imbalances, blood status, defense-system, liver function, drainage, etc.
  • Establishing of proper diet, vitamin and enzyme levels.
  • Psychological and physical program as known.
  • Defense increasing vaccines like BCG, Elpimed and biological substances like pyrogenium, ecchinacea, etc.
  • Cellular therapy (see annexed chart).
  • Any necessary specific therapy, as indicated.

To discuss cellular therapy alone, we can claim in summary:

Group 1 (pre-cancerous):

Cellular therapy has been shown here to be of great help as auxiliary co-adjutants. Clear statistics do not exist, since it is understandably difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint single cases. Just the experience over many years has taught us to believe in the many favorable observations.

Group 2 (cancer cases):

Cellular therapy is of very limited value here; only in few selected cases have improvements been observed due to the build-up of the host. Anti-cancerous action in this stage has not been observed to my knowledge by cellular therapy.

[Editor’s note: This statement may seem like a contradiction and a negation of cellular therapy for patients who choose to follow a totally biological course to treat a malignant growth, but cellular therapy will accomplish for group 2 the same benefits which are available to group 1 and group 3; that is, an improvement in the well-being of the host which is the real goal of the treatment

The Foundation for Alternative Cancer Therapies does not consider cellular therapy a total treatment by itself but a valuable part of the process of restoring body chemistry to optimum function]

Group 3 (post-cancer):

In this particular group cellular therapy has rendered .very favorable results, mostly due to the fact that the host has been kept in very good shape, which made cancer relapses difficult or sometimes impossible. It should be mentioned at this point that most cancer relapses are due to very poor follow-up care and, with it, gradual debilitation of the patient, provoking the law of minoris resistenciae.

Following is a chart enumerating the different types of cellular therapy being used in cancer and related conditions:

Available cellular therapy, especially for pre-cancerous and cancerous diseases:

  • From CYBILIA, Heidelberg: RESISTOCELL

A special mixture of Ampule I = fetal mesenchyma cells; Ampule II = Heparin; Ampule III = polyglucose.

All three substances are mixed together and act in a synergistically potentiating modus. They represent a specific tumor-immunotherapy with the mesenchyme activator to stimulate body-specific defenses, particularly over the RHS (reticulohistiocytic S). They are being used in cases of all three groups discussed above.

  • From the Theurerlaboratory, Stuttgart: REVITORGAN #66.

A multidry-cell mixture, containing in particular proportions Diencephalon, placenta-materna, funciculus umbilicalis, thymus juvenilis, glandular pineale, testes, gland, suprarenalis, thyroides, medulla ossea, pulmo, hepar, pancreas, ren, lien, mucosa intestinales.

This preparation is employed in cases of groups 1 and 3, not 2.

  • From Prof. Dyckerhoff. Germany.

Regeneresen, with specific RNA (Ribonucleic acid). Used for special cases (consult literature).

  • From the Prof. Niehans Laboratory, Switzerland: A fresh cell mixture.

Directly derived from a special breed of black sheep, in which experimental cancer graft was never successful. It is not completely understood how those sheep cells can possess such strong anti-cancerous agents and how they can be transferred to the recipient, increasing his immunity, yet numerous therapies in that sense have shown that the procedure is valuable and worthwhile of consideration. The organs used are the pineal gland, the pituitary, thymus, thyroid, liver, spleen and lymph nodes and placenta. Niehans claimed that cell membranes and mitochondria might be responsible for the increased cancer-immunity created this way in the recipient. This therapy is being used for groups 1, 2 and 3, particularly 1 and 3.

  • Bone marrow cells, mostly pre-treated. Their use is very limited, mainly for bone cancer.

Only a small amount of literature is available. I should point out at this time that recently most promising results have been obtained with cellular therapy, using human donor cells, in the fight against cancer.