Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D., who investigated and later adopted the dubious cancer treatment methods of William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., has stated that his investigation was supervised over a long period by the prominent cancer specialist and educator Robert A. Good, M.D., Ph.D. However, Good was extremely skeptical of Kelley’s treatment and referred to it as “garbage,” a “fake,” and “pure quackery.” [1]
In 1988 and 1989, Good wrote at least five letters in which he asked Gonzales to stop using Good’s name and reputation for promotional purposes [2]. A 1991 letter to Saul Green, Ph.D., expressed his frustration this way:
. . . . Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, as your surmise, has caused me much distress especially since he continues to link me to his unproven remedy for cancer. I have told Gonzalez repeatedly that I do not support his advocacy of the Kelly dietary regimen for treatment of patients with advanced cancer at this juncture.
I cannot advocate such treatment unless and until Dr. Gonzalez, or someone else, has established the effectiveness of this regimen by a randomized, controlled, blindfold-evaluated clinical trial. He could surely do such a trial if he really believed what he claims to be true. I did not directly or actively participate in his evaluation of the Kelly regimen. I carried out no independent analyses, I have made no claims for his analyses and I refuse to accept any credit or blame for his alleged observations. I did look at several microscopic slides and x-rays which Dr. Gonzalez said had come from the patients he said he had studied. If he were telling the truth about responses to treatment, the experiences he told me about would be most impressive and would extend beyond anything I have experienced or that I know to have been described in the current or past medical literature. This status is particularly true for his alleged studies of pancreatic cancer.
However, since I have no theoretical framework that could encompass the experiences he has described and since I made no direct analyses nor did I carry out any independent observations, I have no choice but to disclaim responsibility, association with or participation in his preliminary study. I cannot verify that Dr. Gonzalez followed the patients he says he has followed or that he compared the same patients described in the records he has displayed or described. Dr. Gonzalez must accept all the credit or all the blame for his claims. If he has falsified data, he and he alone is culpable. If the conclusions have been based on misinterpretations, he alone is responsible. If he is correct, he must accept all the credit.
As I have said repeatedly when asked, I have not been involved directly in his studies and have not carried out any of the studies myself.
If what Gonzalez says is true, it should be very easy for him to establish the fantastic claims he is making. Until that is done, there is no scientific relevance of his claims. Personally, I am not interested in any “whow stories.” Further, I do not plan to use any of his methods in my treatment of cancer patients or independently investigate any of his claims. This I have told him repeatedly and this I have also told anyone who has asked me about his treatments. I must insist that this is my only relationship to his independent work.
Dr. Gonzalez’ independent observations of Dr. Kelly’s results and his subsequent studies of the Kelly regimen are his own, not my work. Originally, as his advisor, I considered pursuit of his initial desire to make an inquiry into the possible value of the unproven Kelly treatment as being of potential heuristic value for a medical student.
I thought he might learn a great deal about the natural history of cancer that was unencumbered by modern and known toxic chemotherapy. I was thus willing to guide his inquiries and discuss his findings. Scientifically, however, I told him I could respond only to an appropriately randomized, blindfold-evaluated clinical trial of his therapeutic efforts.
To my knowledge, Dr. Gonzalez has published no descriptions or analyses of this method for treating cancer. I am disappointed that still, in spite of my urgings, he continues not to conduct appropriately randomized, blindfolded analyses of his allegedly revolutionary approach to the treatment of advanced cancer that he claims to be investigating [3].
In 2010, Gonzalez reported on 50 cases that Dr. Kelley had treated [4]. However, at least 41 had been treated with surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy that could have been responsible for the length of their survival—and the rest lacked biopsy evidence and/or had cancers that typically have long survival times [5]. The book also repeats the fairy tale that Good regarded Gonzalez favorably.
References
- Good RA. Letter to Victor Herbert. M.D., June 7, 2000.
- Good RA. Letter to John Renner, M.D. with attachments, Aug 20, 1991.
- Good RA. Letter to Saul Green, Ph.D., Jan 29, 1991.
- Gonzales N. One Man Alone: An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelly. New York City: New Spring Press, 2010.
- Moran PJ, Lubetkin L. Book Review: One Man Alone: An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelley. Cancer Treatment Watch, March 29, 2015.
This article was posted on March 29, 2015.
