In this part of the story on cancer I can only ask you to realise what this wonderful woman had to endure right up to her death in 1990 - unbelievable red tape and ridicule. Virginia Livingston never gave up on her cancer research and although she continued to learn so much from fellow peers, she would have to be the only possible woman that actually understood cancer in its many forms and how to cure it.

This amazing woman put cancer in permanent remission and in doing so not only cured it but also exposed cures for so many other deadly diseases that all had one thing in common - They all had bacterium as their nucleus, all were possibly infectious and all could be cured. It’s sad when a person has gained so much respect in the medical profession, written so many medical journals that were praised by all, and then was suddenly attacked and ridiculed because she had found a cure for cancer!

All the respective governments, health departments, oncologists, cancer foundations and the massive pharmaceutical industry suddenly went on the attack when they realized that not only had she found a cure, but also had the ability to cut their multi-billion dollar scam research into ‘not finding a cure’.

Dr Virginia Livingston continued her research and her fight with various authorities right up to her passing; they actually commenced to issue a subpoena the day after her death.

The following is an extract -

[1983] The Conquest of Cancer: Vaccines and Diet by Virginia Livingston Wheeler M.D. by Edmond G. Addeo

Virginia C. Livingston–Integrating Diet, Nutritional Supplements, and Immunotherapy

The story of Virginia C. Livingston, a physician who died in her late eighties in 1990, is at once dramatic and prototypical of those who venture off the path of mainstream cancer medicine. After undertaking some exacting research, she claimed that she had discovered a microbe that caused cancer and then developed a vaccine that she claimed would help control that microbe. Whether or not her claim has any validity has not yet been fully evaluated, although it has been categorically dismissed by mainstream medicine.

In addition to her vaccine, Livingston also developed a multifaceted nutritional, medical, and immune-supportive program, which can be traced back in part to the German naturopathic tradition of Max Gerson and Josef Issels. She can therefore be considered a “second-generation” nutritional cancer therapist, especially since fully half of her program is nutritional in content. Livingston’s treatment is still being offered at the Livingston Clinic in San Diego.

Livingston’s Biography

Virginia Livingston started her medical career as one of the pioneering women physicians of her time. Her great-uncle and father were both physicians, and her father was one of the early members of the American College of Physicians. She was one of only four women to receive her M.D. from New York University in 1936 and was appointed the first woman resident physician at a New York hospital - the prison hospital for venereally infected prostitutes.

While at the prison hospital, she became interested in tuberculosis and leprosy, which were being treated in nearby infectious disease units. As a school physician a few years later, she became interested in scleroderma, a degenerative disease of the skin and tissue that Livingston came to see as related etiologically to tuberculosis, leprosy, and cancer.

Livingston found that a red dye staining technique revealed numerous “acid-fast” organisms (organisms that stained when exposed to diagnostic dye) in scleroderma. These organisms, she believed, were similar to those found in leprosy and tuberculosis. Because she saw scleroderma as similar to cancer, she began to wonder whether she might not find similar organisms in cancer tissue. “At this point,” she writes, “I reasoned that perhaps scleroderma was a kind of slow cancer. I decided to begin examining cancer tissues with the same method. … Upon examining all kinds of cancerous tissues … I found that a similar microorganism was present in all of them.”

Livingston then made contact with Eleanor Alexander-Jackson, M.D., of Cornell University, who had found that the tubercle bacillus undergoes many changes in shape, and hence is “pleomorphic” (able to change shape and size.) At that time, cancer was thought to be caused by a virus, and the technique for differentiating a virus from a bacillus was to see whether it passed through a special filter; viruses are much smaller than bacilli and could pass through the filter. Her association with Alexander-Jackson led Livingston to conceive of the acid-fast organisms she saw in scleroderma, leprosy, tuberculosis, and cancer as a family of pleomorphic organisms that sometimes assumed very small forms similar to viruses and at other times had large forms similar to bacilli.

Against considerable odds, Livingston was able to develop a research program to explore this world-class research hypothesis: a family of microbes - able to change dramatically in size and shape - were responsible for the development of cancer, tuberculosis, leprosy, and scleroderma. At a time when women physicians were scarcely welcome in leading roles in cancer research - much less as champions of major breakthrough concepts - she created the Rutgers-Presbyterian Hospital Laboratory for the Study of Proliferative Diseases associated with the Bureau of Biological Research of Rutgers University.

She received funds from the American Cancer Society and an impressive group of foundations and medical laboratories. “The next few years at Rutgers,” Livingston writes, “were to be the most significant period of my work in cancer research. Our research team was enthusiastic that our work would prove once and for all that the Progenitor cryptocides [or PC, the name she would later give the organism she believed she had discovered] microbe was the cause of cancer and that a vaccine could be made to defend against it.”

Alexander-Jackson left Cornell to work with Livingston at the new laboratory, and they built a small research team. In 1950, she and Alexander-Jackson published a paper in the American Journal of Medical Sciences, which was co-authored by four others including James Hillier, developer of the electron microscope and head of electron microscopy at RCA Victor Laboratories in Princeton, and John Anderson, head of the department of bacteriology at Rutgers and a noted histologist and pathologist. In this paper, they described how Koch’s postulates (“the accepted foolproof method of proving the cause of a disease”) could be satisfied in the case of P. cryptocides. Pure P. cryptocides cultures were obtained from both human and animal cancers and injected into animals capable of being infected. Disease areas then developed resembling those from which cultures were taken. Pure cultures were then re-isolated from the infected animals. “Koch’s postulates,” Livingston writes, “were fulfilled to the satisfaction of our entire group and to that of our biology superiors at Rutgers.”

Livingston had thus demonstrated to her own satisfaction, and to that of some colleagues, that she had isolated a microorganism that caused cancer in both animals and humans. Needless to say, for Livingston and anyone who credited her discovery, this was an historic accomplishment.

“The next step,” she says, “was to prove that the cancerous growth was not the whole disease. For more than one hundred years people like Rudolf Virchow thought that cancer cells themselves were parasites within the body. He did not understand that the small coccus-like granules he saw dividing in the cancers were not the development of daughter cells within mother cells, but instead they represented the true intracellular parasite that was the causative agent. … The whole truth may be that the parasite within the cancer cell transforms the normal cell into a sick cell that cannot mature by normal cell growth processes. In other words, the tumor is not the disease”.

Her claims did not, however, find approval in the medical community. In 1953, a spokesman for the New York Academy of Medicine, Dr. Iago Gladston, discounted her claims, echoing the attitude of most of the medical community. “This is an old story,” he said, “and it has not stood up under investigation. Microorganisms found in malignant tumors have been found to be secondary invaders and not the primary cause of malignancy.”

That Livingston’s bold thesis did not find approval in the medical community is not surprising, but the strong opposition to allowing her to continue her efforts to develop and defend her thesis was scientifically unconscionable. As a result, Livingston’s laboratory in New Jersey was forced to close in 1953 due, according to her, to the efforts of leading researchers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York opposed to her research. Deeply disappointed, Livingston moved to California to live near her family. But in Europe, and within a small fraction of the microbiology research community in the United States, interest in theories similar to hers continued to develop.

Livingston became an Associate Professor of Microbiology at the University of California in San Diego to continue her research. In 1969, she and Alexander-Jackson and their colleagues presented a group of papers at a New York Academy of Sciences meeting on “microorganisms associated with malignancy.” Some of the articles were published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Livingston viewed P. cryptocides as what she called an “obligate symbiont”: an organism necessarily present in all human cells, in fact one that plays a vital role in all reproductive life, including fertilization and pregnancy and the development of the cancer cell. But this obligate symbiont is susceptible to a malignant transformation and proliferation in disease states, especially those that depress normal immune function. She saw cancer as an immunodeficiency condition caused by environmental toxins and inadequate diet.

In other words, in the classic dispute between researchers who give primary importance to the infectious agent in a disease and researchers who believe that the infectious agent only takes hold in an organism weakened by poor nutrition, toxins, or other stressors, Livingston came down in the middle. The agent did, she believed, play a critical role: it could be isolated and a vaccine effective for the prevention of cancer and modulation of existing cancer could be developed. But the weakened terrain of the organism was also critical, for it provided the depleted environment in which the infectious agent took on pathological shape and multiplied out of control.

In 1990, the Office of Technology Assessment summarized the prevailing attitude about Livingston’s work within the research establishment:

[Dr. Livingston has] little support, outside of a few researchers, for her belief that the different microbes observed in the tissue and blood of cancer patients are actually different forms of the same microbe. At present, no independent evidence exists to corroborate her contention that the microbial forms are related to each other as different forms of a single, pleomorphic organism. Evidence does show that the bacterial culture Livingston isolated is not a new and unique species as claimed: P. cryptocides supplied by Livingston were identified as different species of the genus Staphylococcus and Streptococcus. The issue of isolating bacteria of any kind from tumor tissue and urine of cancer patients, however, is generally not disputed, since many groups of researchers have reported isolating various species and strains of bacteria from such sources. Some of these bacteria have also been showed to undergo morphogenic alterations characteristic of cell wall deficient (or pleomorphic) bacteria.

(To be continued…)

Courtesy Peter Eyre, Middle East Consultant, political analyst, investigative journalist and broadcaster; the views expressed are personal

https://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/is-there-a-cure-for-cancer-you-bet-there-is-part-3/