Editor's note: Last year, Mr. Jay approached us with
this new idea for dealing with the cancer problem. In Cancer
Therapy, we had written about the therapeutic use of high­-
voltage alternating currents (AC). What Mr. proposes
is a way of using simple direct currents (DC) at low voltages
to better effect. He also proposes a mechanism by which such a
treatment might act. Mr.
did graduate work at the Uni­-
versity of California on the particular enzyme he discusses.

Uncontrolled cell growth is cancer. For one cell to grow
into two, it must replicate its DNA strand. The building
blocks of this strand--four bases--are in short supply in
a healthy, resting cell. However, the building blocks of a
related molecule, RNA, are always present in great
abundance, since RNA is needed for many cellular

When a cell is ready to divide, an enzyme called
ribonucleotide reductase (RR) converts the building
blocks provided by RNA into those of DNA.

The RR enzyme is thus pivotal for cellular growth.
Not surprisingly, the activity of this enzyme is tightly
linked, much more so than any other enzyme, to
cancerous growth.

Cancer researchers have tried to arrest the activity of
this enzyme by using various chemotherapeutic drugs.
The. best known of these is hydroxy-urea, sold as Hydrea
by Bristol-Myers Squibb. However, such drugs are of
limited use since their inhibition of enzymatic activity is
only partial, and there are many undesirable side effects.

A novel way of deactivating the RR enzyme is sug­-
gested by the fact that the core ("active site") of this
enzyme contains a free radical that is vi
tal to its activity.
(A free radical is a molecule containing an unpaired
electron.) Such a free radical can be disabled by a lone
electron, which is readily made available in the form of
a mild, direct electric current. Thus, low level direct
current (DC) electrotherapy should have a curative
effect on cancer.


Thus, low level direct current electrotherapy
should have
a curative effect on cancer.



All this is not just theoretical conjecture. In the scientific
literature, one can find at least three very encouraging
reports on the effects of mild direct current on cancer.
(None of these investigators knew about the possible

mechanism involving deactivation of the RR enzyme.)
The first such account was published in Science in 1959.
The most positive of all appeared in Cancer Research in
1985 (45:5625-5631). In this report, there was a 98 per­-
cent reduction in tumor--a virtual cure--after just five
days of gentle electrotherapy (2.4 milliampere at less
than 3.0 volts). Strangely, there were no follow-ups.

In his book, Cross Currents, Dr. Robert O. Becker, a
pioneering authority on bioelectricity, told the story of a
19th century English farmer whose cancer of the lower
lip and chin gradually disappeared after he was struck
by lightning. In 1776, a woman with breast cancer had
had a similar experience.

Since such incidents remain unexplained, Dr. Becker
called for a "sophisticated approach" in treating cancer
with electricity. When told about the effectiveness of
mild electrotherapy, and the likely role of the crucial RR
enzyme, Dr. Becker found the idea "probably correct."

In mid-1994, I informed the top cancer research insti­
tutions about the potential of low-level DC electrother­
apy, as well as the likely mechanism involving the RR
enzyme. Most of them replied evasively or did not reply
at all. The National Cancer Institute and M.D. Anderson
Cancer Center in Houston said that they found the infor-
mation "very interesting" and deserving of further
investigation. However, neither wanted to initiate any
studies, even though the money required to optimize the
parameters for this entire therapy would cost less than
what is often spent on ONE cancer patient.

It was observed in a series of 1993-1994 experiments
at the City of Hope Medical Center that concentrations
of the RR enzyme goes down when the body is exposed
to an electrical current. But the City of Hope, too,
showed no interest in establishing mild electrotherapy
as a cancer treatment.

An unpatentable, dirt-cheap therapy, almost a home
remedy, is clearly not what cancer researchers and
clinicians dream of.

Finally, two points of note :

The "high-level" electrotherapy of Dr. Bjorn
Nordenstrom of Sweden, which entails toxic
electrochemical products, differs from the "low-level"
electrotherapy suggested here, as the work approach
of a blacksmith differs from that of a goldsmith.

Chemicals cause cancer; chemicals are used to treat
cancer. Radiation causes cancer; radiation is used to
treat cancer. Electricity--alternating current, at steep
voltages--may cause cancer; electricity-- direct current,
at small voltages--could heal cancer.

 June 1996 The Cancer Chronicles  9

Back to Alternative Treatment page or Home page of

A Very Promising but Shunned Cancer Treatment GEIPE Cancer Therapy