Using Phenergan (promethazine) to treat cancer

This article by Dr. Robert Jones, explores the theory that tricyclic drugs should be able to have an effect in the mitochondria of cancer cells, and that one in particular, the common drug phenergan, primarily used to fight nausea, could hold this potential.  Elsewhere on this website, we carry a similar argument in an article by Professor Pilkington on his work with Chlomipramine and brain tumours. 

We stress that this alternative cancer approach is all highly theoretical as yet and no hard clinical trial evidence exists.

Whilst Dr. Jones lists phenergan as a ’Self-treatment’, we cover this purely for thoroughness and interest. It is crucial that all cancer patients check the use of any treatment or drug with their registered GP and oncologist before embarking on any alternative cancer therapy.
Using Phenergen (Promethazine) to treat cancer
By Dr Robert Jones MA PhD

Robert Jones is a scientist who began cancer research in 1959. He argues that the cancer establishment has not taken new treatments offering hope to many sufferers sufficiently seriously.

Examination of mummified bodies has established that the ancient Egyptians knew forms of cancer. Considering the problem from a philosophical standpoint, it appears odd that no generally effective treatment has been found when temporary regression of malignant disease is a phenomenon, which though rare, is by no means unknown.

Examination of mummified bodies has established that the ancient Egyptians knew forms of cancer

Cancer chemotherapy began in the wake of World War II, when American doctors obtained limited success in treating patients with derivatives of highly toxic mustard gas. Since those early days a huge variety of chemical means of inducing the death of cancers in the living body have been devised.

Conventional chemotherapy has for the most part sought to prevent the growth of cancers by using poisons to block the division of cancer cells. Unfortunately maintenance of the mammalian body involves cellular division within all organs, especially the bone marrow and mucosal surfaces of the intestine. The poisons act indiscriminately against normal and cancerous tissues alike, and are responsible for the unpleasant side effects commonly experienced by so many patients. Nature has shown her resentment of the imposition of unnatural forms of cell death by stubbornly refusing to cooperate with clinicians. The underlying strategy is fundamentally flawed, which is why the current impasse prevails.

The basic difficulty has stemmed from ignorance of how tumour cells die. In fact the seeds of understanding were sown centuries ago. Long before the role of bacteria in infection was understood, it had been known that cancers in hosts developing certain kinds of infection, notably erysipelas, underwent regression, usually temporary. In 1891 the American surgeon William Coley recognised the importance of the observations. "Nature often gives us hints to her profoundest secrets," he wrote, "and it is possible she has given us a hint which, if we will but follow, may lead us to the solution of this difficult problem." He treated patients with a mixture of preparations of pathogenic and nonpathogenic bacteria. Unfortunately the responses were highly variable and much too unsuccessful to use clinically. Therapy with mixed toxins remains the province of the truly heroic, determined to hang on to life come what may.

It was not until the 1970s that the destructive changes underlying the few successes Coley reported were at last understood. When tumour-bearing mice were treated with a purified form of a bacterial toxin, it was found that the production of chemical energy within the cancers was rapidly halted. Within a day tumours were quite dead, and sloughed off the bodies of the animals within two weeks. Nature’s profound secret was revealed at last; the trick is to disrupt the main source of energy of the malignant cell.

The quest for safe pharmacological alternatives began on a very modest scale. Serendipity ended the search. Anti-cancer activity is present in a number of so-called tricyclic drugs, at least one of which, Largactil, was shown in 1959 to attack energy production in tumours selectively. Most of these drugs act on the brain. In 1990 Dr Riad Mahmud, a diabetelogist working in a London teaching hospital passed on experiences gained while working at a hospital in Kuwait in the early 1970s. He had three patients with inoperable cancer of the pancreas, a painful form of cancer with a bad prognosis. Initially he gave promethazine, an anti-histamine and paediatric sedative, by the intravenous route. The drug was followed by calcium, and then given orally every eight hours. One patient died thirteen years later, but not from cancer; in 1990 the other two were still alive. Dr Mahmud was urged to publish, but before the paper could be written, he died.

The quest for safe pharmacological alternatives began on 
                                                                a very modest scale

A safe and humane treatment for cancer based on Dr Mahmud’s observations and effective in the early stages of disease became available at the end of 1994. Promethazine, the active principle of the therapy, was introduced into clinical practice in 1947 and is long out of patent. In marked contrast with standard cancer drugs, no fatalities appear to have been recorded despite widespread international use.

The first patient to adopt the procedure was a lady in her early forties with breast cancer. Through an administrative failure by the hospital she was made to wait for nine months before receiving specialist attention, by which time her cancer was well advanced. Surgery failed to remove the malignancy completely and chemotherapy produced only a transitory regression. Radiotherapy led to neuritis and caused such intense pain that she sought to have her arm amputated on the affected side. Promethazine brought permanent relief, and two of the four secondaries lodged in the bone disappeared.

Tragically the treatment was stopped prematurely after five months, far too soon. Recommencement produced no advantage, and the patient died eighteen months later. It cannot be overstressed that, once begun, the treatment has to be continued for at least six months beyond the complete elimination of disease.

The procedure was published on the Internet in 1996. An updated version together with the scientific rationale is available on www.cancersupportwa.org.au/Spotlight/index.htm A farmer’s wife in Western Australia diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 1997 began the new treatment at the age of 55. Eight months later she was declared cancer-free. Unfortunately she too stopped prematurely. Nine months later her condition returned and, as in the previous case, a return to the therapy was ineffective. She underwent a variety of treatments in the hope of regaining sensitivity, including cutting gluten out of the diet. The cancer did become sensitive again but returned once more, and she died five years after the original diagnosis.

Since then a variety of cancers have displayed sensitivity to promethazine, including further cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and pancreatic carcinoma, a grade III astrocytoma, a chordoma, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, Ewing’s sarcoma and an instance of breast cancer with secondaries in liver and lung. Although the data are anecdotal and the patients were receiving a wide range of conventional treatments, the common factor has been that improvements began only after the initiation of therapy with promethazine. Even those patients whose cancers failed to regress have enjoyed a better quality of life and prolonged survival.

The health of sufferers has not always improved

The health of sufferers has not always improved. Three patients taking high-dose supplements of vitamin E (400, 750 and 1200 units daily) failed to respond, as did others whose disease was seriously advanced. The ability of tumours to accumulate vitamin E has been known since 1940, and the protective effects of the trace nutrient now seem to extend to tumours. More serious is the intractable condition of multi-drug resistance; a single cell clone arising from a mutation caused by orthodox treatment becomes, in effect, immortal.

Simultaneous discovery is rather more common in science than the general public might believe. For a number of years Professor David Wilkie, a geneticist, suspected that the sedative clomipramine might find use against tumours of the brain. The study is still in its early days, but Professor Geoffrey Pilkington together with several clinical consultants has been obtaining encouraging results with these intractable forms of the disease.

Unexpected problems have beset introduction of the therapy of cancer with promethazine. Although the cost is less than two pounds a week, patients given the advice may decide not to proceed. Second, the attitude of the medical profession has been consistently indifferent. Letters written to doctors caring for individual patients who are getting better never receive replies; one consultant even went so far as to equate the offered advice with gossip. In sharp contrast, what is remarkable is the willingness of doctors to embark upon clinical trials with newly patented drugs, which more often than not, fail to realise the anticipated success.

Before amalgamating with the Cancer Research Campaign to form Cancer Research UK, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund was sent the rationale for the procedure in 1996. By way of response a senior clinician refrained from comment; the organisation had nobody working in that area, and there were no plans to begin. Approached at the same time, the Cancer Research Campaign preferred to place its faith in molecular biology, and looked to gene therapy to provide the solution to the problem of cancer.

Pharmaceutical companies have shown hardly any interest. Almost all tricyclic drugs are out of patent, so no fat profits can be expected from the introduction of these novel treatments. One manufacturer has argued that it would cost too much to mount a clinical trial for a return expected to be only meagre, though that has not prevented an American company from hiking the price of its generic product up last year from 3 cents to a whopping 31 cents per tablet.

Phenergan - The answer to a prayer, one might think

So can a solution to the cancer problem ever emerge? Imagine a cheap and humane self-treatment that works against most cancers, has a good success rate, produces so few side effects that patients can go about their business normally while sustaining the full force of the therapy, causes no deaths and is active against secondary spread. The answer to a prayer, one might think. When used exactly in the manner described, promethazine fulfils these criteria, and is moreover available in most countries without a doctor’s prescription. Some, though, conclude that the idea of treating a merciless disease with a paediatric sedative is not to be taken seriously. Proof is urgently needed. Meanwhile no cancer research organisation or commercial enterprise is prepared to undertake a necessary trial. Until cancer patients themselves are prepared to take the initiative, the scourge of cancer will persist unchallenged.

Self-Medication: The Treatment Of Cancer With Phenergan?

Introduction

The successful treatment of cancer calls for the total eradication of malignant cells from the body. The therapy aims to destroy both primary and secondary (metastatic) growths by a process of attrition. In marked contrast with conventional treatments the procedure is highly selective; side effects and associated risks are negligible. These are early pioneering days; patients are asked to be realistic and not to allow hopes to rise too high. Although much experience has been incorporated into the following, that there is room for improvement is readily acknowledged. Strict adherence to the advice provided is essential.

No guarantee of a fully successful outcome can be given. Individuals stricken with the disease understandably respond with resentment at the injustice of their dreadful predicaments. As if the initial diagnosis is not bad enough, to be told abruptly that a treatment is not successful is a worse experience that may be lurking in store. Cancer patients deserve respect and dignity; the intention is that the advice provided below should provide a chance of physical healing and spare further anguish. Sincere apologies are made to patients whose malignancies may fail to respond.

An advantage is that its effects on the central nervous system are less marked

Certain drugs acting on the central nervous system possess the additional property of causing injury to tumours by interfering with energy production. Some belong to the large group known a phenothiazines, many of which have been used for half a century. Their diverse uses include the treatment of schizo- phrenia, nausea and pain. The active drug in this form of cancer treatment is the phenotianzine Phenergan (promethazine), currently used as an anti-histamine, as a paediatric sedative, and to quell travel sickness. An advantage is that its effects on the central nervous system are less marked than those of most other phenothiazines.

This novel and unconventional therapy has several unusual features. First, a new chemotherapeutic target is selected within the cancer cell. Phenothiazines active against cancer trigger a cytotoxic mechanism (necrosis) within the cancer cell itself. The continual state of partial disablement of the power-houses (mitochondria) that supply the malignant cell with much of chemical energy marks the organelles out as its Achilles heel. The intention of the therapy is to intensify this weakness, forcing gradual destruction upon the tumour. In other words, rather than imposing an artificial (and frequently unsuccessful) form of death upon the cell, a natural phenomenon is invoked.

Second, in order to produce its anti-cancer action Phenergan has to be taken according to a specific schedule with the aim of maintaining continuous destructive pressure against malignant growths. Third, provided the primary tumour displays sensitivity to Phenergan, secondary growths will in all probability respond and disappear (see below). Fourth, the treatment is the result of a long investigation standing fully in the tradition of applied medical research.

Logically the next step is to put the therapy to the test in the form of a clinical trial. Despite the impressive weight of supportive scientific evidence (see below), numerous requests and the urgency of the situation, no cancer charity, research council or pharmaceutical company has agreed to do so. Patent cover for Phenergan has long since run out; in consequence the costs are too modest to attract commercial interest. As a point of general advice, although this treatment is no substitute for surgery, Phenergan does seem to be able to reach those parts that the scalpel cannot.

The high selectivity of the procedure allows a patient to go about his or her business almost entirely as normal

Last but by no means least, the high selectivity of the procedure allows a patient to go about his or her business almost entirely as normal while sustaining the full force of the therapy. There are no hidden snags or sudden ugly costs. If it all sounds too good to be true, that cannot be helped. And if a return to normal life does come about, patients are please requested to give a thought to those enduring the condition which, it is earnestly hoped, has been left behind, and try to interest others who find themselves with cancer in the advice.

Self-Medication - The Schedule

The treatment is in four parts:

If possible patients should begin to take nutritional supplements, especially polyunsaturated fatty acids, several days before starting with Phenergan.

All supplements should be continued for the entire duration of the therapy.

In most countries Phenergan can be freely purchased

In most countries Phenergan can be freely purchased in the form of 10mg and 25mg tablets; other phenothiazines are available only on prescription. Formulations in which the drug is provided in conjunction with other drugs are not recommended.

Success depends on maintaining continuous pharmacological pressure against the cancer throughout the entire period of treatment. Even if the treatment fails to half the progress of disease, Phenergan can enhance quality of life and extend survival. In other words, the therapy places the patient in a nolose situation.

Contra-Indications

Cancer patients are unlikely to benefit from this treatment if:

Serious pain calls for professional attention. Paracetamol in moderation is suitable; so are opiates (for example, morphine) given on prescription. Provided the pain is not too severe, electrical stimulation with a TENS device (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) can provide a limited measure of relief.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids are micro-nutrients and are required for normal health. Those which participate in the process of tumour destruction are thought to belong to the so-called omega-3 series, and have yet to be identified.

The question of vitamin E calls for special mention. Most diets already contain amounts adequate for a healthy life style. For individuals free from cancer dietary supplementation is highly beneficial, offering protection not only against the development of malignancy but also against coronary heart disease. Unfortunately it might be that the same beneficial properties are exploited by cancerous growths, which accumulate vitamin E as protection against successful therapy. Many dietary schedules drawn up expressly for cancer patients include substantial amounts of vitamin E. I personally question the wisdom of these recommendations.

I personally question the wisdom of these recommendations

Several patients on vitamin E supplements (400-1200iu daily) failed to respond to Phenergan. Current advice is therefore to stop supplementation immediately and to wait 7-10 days. Likewise, selenium supplementation above the RDA is not recommended.

The success of this treatment depends on various factors, of which one is the state of advancement of the disease. No matter how hopeless the situation may appear, a positive response to Phenergan is not out of the question. Under no circumstances should Phenergan treatment be discontinued prematurely; if treatment is interrupted before the growth is wholly eradicated the treatment will have no anti-tumour effect the second time round. No reason is known for this peculiar behaviour, and no means of resensitisation is known at the present time. The maxim is: if in doubt, don’t quit out.

In view of the serious consequences of premature discontinuation, if a marked improvement is maintained after a few weeks patients would be well advised to purchase sufficient Phenergan to last for two or three months in case procurement becomes difficult.

Response To Therapy

Lessening of pain is an encouraging sign

A general improvement in terms of weight gain, improved sleep, restored appetite and general well being should be perceptible at least by the end of the first week. Lessening of pain is an encouraging sign, but where there is involvement of bone several weeks may pass before relief is noticed. A record of body weight should be kept. The advice on offer is gentle and humane; for those with experience of the fiercer forms of chemotherapy and radiotherapy the difference will come as a welcome surprise.

Side Effects

The commonest of these is sedation; on the whole patients do not find the experience unpleasant, but driving a car and using machinery or sharp tools are not recommended, at least for the first fortnight. Some patients are quite unaffected. Drowsiness in the first few days after commencing Phenergan normally lasts not more than a week. In a few cases sedation persists; more rarely patients may become excited or ’twitchy’, as the experience has been described. In these instances the dosage can be halved, with a 10mg tablet every 8 hours and an extra 10mg at night, making a total of 40mg.

Few patients experience difficulty with Phenergan therapy. Two patients have maintained themselves on the full schedule for over three years; one xperienced a modest gain in weight. Only one patient found the therapy insupportable, but he responded to every medication in the same manner. There are very small chances that jaundice may develop within a few days, or that the white cell count may fall (leucopenia or agranulocytosis) after 4-6 weeks. The former can be recognised by a yellowing of the features, the latter by sore throat. Thrombocytopenia (fall in platelet count) is again highly unlikely, and may be indicated by unexplained bruising or cuts bleeding for longer than usual. In these instances medical attention should be sought immediately. To date none of these symptoms has arisen among cancer patients taking Phenergan.

Patients with breast cancer who find themselves suffering from radiation-induced peripheral neuritis may find that Phenergan will clear the condition up permanently.

Duration of Treatment and Outcome

Patients may ask whether their particular form of disease is likely to respond to the self-medication
procedure

Very reasonably, patients may ask whether their particular form of disease is likely to respond to the self-medication procedure described here. The therapy takes advantage of a metabolic weakness common to all malignant tissues so far examined; in theory, then, all cancers should be amenable to treatment. Forms of the disease which have displayed sensitivity include non-Hodgkins lymphoma, breast cancer with secondaries, glioblastoma, a chordoma, colorectal cancer and cancer of the oesophagus, both with secondaries. Whether a favourable outcome ensues depends basically on the circumstances of the patient. Early presentation is helpful. On the basis of previous experience the chances seem to be about fifty-fifty. Other factors which might affect the outcome have been discussed above. What is certain is that unless the therapy is started, it has absolutely no chance of succeeding

It might be added that it is not considered likely that there will ever be a "cure" for cancer in the fond sense of journalists. Whether all the problems recognised here can be overcome is impossible to say. What is sure is that until the principle of destroying cancer by selectively disrupting energy metabolism within malignant cells is accepted by the scientific establishment, which at present appears unlikely, the merciless toll will continue.

The effects of the therapy should be monitored by any means available. Even a dressmaker’s tape measure and a little native wit can provide useful information. The results of scans should be interpreted with care. If therapy is commenced between scans, it should be borne in mind that shrinkage may be offset by tumour growth prior to commencement of therapy. The temptation is to delay in order to make comparisons between the effects of different treatments is to be avoided.

The therapy works slow; just how long it will be necessary to keep taking Phenergan will depend, among other factors, on the extent of the disease when treatment is started and on the state of nutrition. It may be necessary to stay with Phenergan for two years or more, especially where there are secondary deposits in the bone.

Precautions

Alcohol does not interfere with the anti-cancer action, but abstinence is advised

A leaflet is provided with the Phenergan packet; the advice given should be read and, apart from discontinuation, adhered to. Alcohol does not interfere with the anti-cancer action, but abstinence is advised. Exposure to ultraviolet light and sunlight, especially sunbathing, are to be avoided as far as possible. The group of drugs known as monoamine oxidase inhibitors must not be taken in conjunction with Phenergan.

Relationship Of The Patient With The Doctor And Cancer Specialist

Cancer is a serious disease and should at all times be regarded accordingly. The help and support of medial advisers is valuable and must at all costs be enlisted and retained. Being secretive is discourteous; keeping your oncologist fully informed is essential, and may stimulate genuine interest and additional sympathy. The patient who manages best is sufficiently brave to face the future with equanimity. Accurate reports of progress need to be requested. Tumour regression is always welcome, but even if the news is not good the therapy should not be abandoned.

If attempts are made to dissuade, it may be asked what the dangers of the treatment with Phenergan are perceived to be: reassurance that the risks are very small is likely to be given. This is a procedure with a firm scientific base. Reference can be made to "Successful Cancer Therapy with Promethazine: the Rational," published in Medical Hypotheses 46, 25029 (1996). Further evidence can be found in Notes on the Treatment of Cancer with Low-Dose Phenotiazines with Special Reference to Promethazine, currently available on the Spotlight section of the Cancer Support Association of Western Australia. (There are plans to move it to Research). The site address is www.cancersupportwa.org.au. It is necessary to click on the Figure in the text to ensure that the document prints out completely.

Orthodox Treatment and Self-Medication

In England doctors make great efforts to sustain hopes of remission, and are the beneficiaries of measures of deep faith from their patients. Optimism is seen as a valuable asset. An understandable reluctance exists to tell a patient that a condition is incurable, a shattering experience for which few are prepared. Self-delusion, though, is dangerous. Patients have turned self-medication down because they are unaware of the gravity of their situations. In Australia patients are often told there is no chance of recovery. Faced with the inevitable, a common response has been to accept the advice on offer on the understanding there can be no guarantee of permanent benefit.

Optimism is seen as a valuable asset

In some countries there may be less time for deceptive sympathy, and the message can be blunt and uncompromising. Too often patients may be lulled into a dangerous sense of false security by a favourable report of tumour shrinkage and cannot accept the significance of a subsequent relapse. Remissions from conventional treatment are not always permanent. In addition it is not generally understood that once secondary growths become established, chances of recovery with orthodox treatment are remote. On the other hand, when a cancerous cell migrates and establishes itself elsewhere in the body there is no reason why its genetically-determined properties should undergo change. Secondaries originating from Phenergan-sensitive primary growths generally regress and disappear. Experience to date indicates that when the therapy is sufficiently prolonged, relapses do not occur.

Alternative Approaches

Modern medicine is often miraculous. Antibiotics, transplants, open-heart surgery, joint replacements come to mind. Unhappily the conventional treatment of cancer has not kept pace with other advances in healthcare. The failure of medicine opens the door to the glib operator anxious to line his pockets at the expense of the desperate.

Critics of alternative treatments are right to point out that claims of success are never substantiated and that the methodology is never divulged. In stark contrast the scientific evidence in support of Phenergan is in the public domain (see above).

There is a belief that the treatment of cancer with phenothiazines amounts to alternative medicine, fringe medicine. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes one can sympathise with the opposition of doctors to complementary practices, especially when patients and their families are sometimes charged formidable sums for worthless advice and/or nostrums. The more expensive a treatment or preparation is, the greater the need for sceptiscm. Some complementarists are honest enough to admit they offer only palliation, but understandably patients and their families expect more and are often unwilling, unable even, to accept reality.

Sometimes one can sympathise with the opposition of doctors to complementary practices

Here the situation is totally different. Your doctor is unlikely to have heard of the therapy, and may be sceptical. In these circumstances the only question one can reasonably expect to have answered if whether or not harm is likely to ensue. Phenergan was introduced into medical practice as long ago as 1947; most unusually, not a single fatality therefrom has been reported.

In this materialistic age there is a general feeling that everything must have its price. In stark contrasts with private clinics and a majority of alternative approaches, no fee has ever been charged. Patients are expected to meet the modest costs (currently under 2 a week in the UK) of their treatment on their own. Some have mistakenly concluded that advice which costs nothing must by definition be worthless. They have later found themselves to have taken an expensive stance.

Action

If, after reading the above, uncertainty persists, the question remains: what is there to lose? Now is the time to decide whether or not to go ahead, and if so, to make plans this very moment. Experience has shown that when the outcome is unfavourable, a point of no return is reached when nothing more can be done. What is certain is that the sooner the treatment begins, or, put another way, the smaller the tumour burden is, the quicker the patient may become cancer-free. Delay confers no advantage whatsoever. The big errors that cancer patients commonly make are to believe that time is on their side and to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Nothing could be more mistaken. Time is never on the side of the cancer patient. The overriding aim must, as a matter of pressing urgency, be to begin as soon as possible to get well gain.

Once more, then: what is there to lose?