---

 

---

Robert Jones MA PhD read Natural Sciences at Cambridge University. Entering cancer research in 1959, he was awarded a PhD in pathology in 1966. He has held appointments at the Royal College of Surgeons and London medical schools. He has worked in the Universities of Munich and Tubingen and at the German Cancer Research Centre at Heidelberg.

Although cancer has been his major professional interest, Dr. Jones has published original work on histochemistry, quantitative analysis, reagent design and synthesis, organ transplantation and toxicology.

Dr. Jones' biggest breakthrough has been finding a way, using an over-the-counter medication called Promethazine (Phenergan) along with specific health supplements, to alter cancer cells' mitochondrial energy metabolism so that toxins are produced that kill off just the cancer cells. This is an effective, selective and inexpensive cancer treatment that allopathic medicine does not want you to know about.

If you are interested in knowing more about this cancer treatment, please use the link menu above. Dr. Jones has also written a book called In the Darker Shadow of Science — The Subjugation of Cancer covering this remarkable cancer treatment and the negative reaction to it from other doctors. This is the new revised edition of the book and is highly recommended.

Dr. Jones can be contacted at crackcancer@hotmail.com.

Synopsis by Dr Jones -July 2010
[ISBN: 978-1-4401-7374-5]

A few decades ago mention of cancer emerged from hushed embarrassed silence into the brightness of the public arena. Previously the affliction had been referred to as little as possible; its victims were described as having died 'after a long illness'. Once the disease was out of the shadows fear, hopelessness, pain, tragedy, bereavement and enforced loneliness came to be openly spoken and written about. The gigantic costs of modern treatments, sometimes causing homes to be mortgaged in the illusory hope of saving loved ones, bring commerce, politics and financial blackmail into noisy public collision.

In the world of books what began as a slender trickle of cancer experiences and biographies has become a flood. A similar phenomenon attends Alzheimer's disease today. Always victims and relatives occupy centre stage; the doctors, the scientists, sensibly remain silent. One reason may be the poor record of success. One in three of the UK population will at some time be diagnosed with the disease; only a twelfth of them will survive. In cancer treatment there has not been a great deal to celebrate. The present autobiography grabs the vacant ground, and covers almost half the life of a scientist dedicated to finding a solution to the most difficult problem faced by medicine ancient and modern.

Let the reader not be put off by the word science in the title. In the experience of the author the dichotomy between science and the arts, eloquently described by CP Snow in his famous lecture The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, is very much alive and kicking. In a modern society, where so much of the ease of our existence is due to the advances made by science and technology, everybody has a social duty to keep him/herself informed. The benefits of science are everywhere around us. Cars, aeroplanes, TVs, computers, medicine; the list is endless. Nobody can afford to ignore its myriad manifestations, and that includes stories of discovery and politics. Some parade their ignorance of science as a badge of honour; their idle and insidious attitudes are dangerous for us all.

Despite unparalleled scientific progress during the last two centuries all is not well everywhere. Anyone who believes that the conduct of research and administration in cancer is guided by decency, morality and integrity is in for a violent shock. The world of science is presented in the raw. Nothing is spared, not even the author himself. Intrigue, ruthless double-dealing, commercial pressures, jealousy, deceit, sabotage, corruption and betrayal, especially the irreversible professional damage caused by drug-induced psychosis in a senior colleague, enliven the narrative. The scientific content has been simplified with a predominantly lay readership in mind; for easy avoidance the more technical passages, comprising 3% of the text, are rendered in italics. For a full comprehension of the remainder only a reasonable knowledge of the English language and competent eyesight are required. A glossary and an index are appended.

The peculiar arrival in 1974 of a radical idea led to a discovery which opened up an entirely new perspective on cancer treatment. Seriously disadvantaged by already being in his early forties at the commencement of the project, about to be out of a job, and lacking a medical qualification, the author was beguiled into making the naive and foolish error that, once established, a concept which humanely revolutionised the field of cancer therapy could not but find acceptance. The idea was simple, original and elegant; namely, that disrupting energy metabolism within cancer cells might perhaps be the key to controlling the growth of malignant tumours. In fact the concept turned out to be a revolutionary discovery. It had not been previously realised that this is the main mechanism whereby cancerous cells are selectively destroyed in the living body. How it was that the finding was not pounced upon at the time and rapidly exploited worldwide when competition was every bit as keen as it is today remains unclear.

A few years after the project began isolated reports in the medical literature of cancer regression in patients treated with relatively innocuous well-known drugs long out of patent were traced. Neither was any of these lines of enquiry properly followed up at the time. Much later a chance acquaintanceship revealed that a safe and long-established drug, promethazine, was for the moment the anti-cancer agent of choice. The outcome was a tangible, humane and inexpensive DIY therapy which began to prove successful in an encouraging number of cases. After it was published on the internet, the prototype treatment opened up valuable contacts in Australia. But in England no drug company, no cancer charity, no research council and not even a sympathetic clinician would look at it.

As scientific writing goes the story is explosive. The public has been deceived into believing that the entire machinery of cancer, from fund raising and charities to scientists, clinicians and drug companies, is genuinely committed to defeating this monster of a disease. Although the majority of the personnel in cancer are convinced they are doing a solid, honest job, a manipulative clique arranges matters very differently. Does society really want a simple solution to the cancer problem? Or is it content to allow the drug companies to rip off the National Health Service and patients alike? Is it acceptable to allow those with the power to stifle unconventional yet promising lines of enquiry to behave autocratically? Was it justified to suppress competition from a project in the hope of the future award of the Nobel prize? Is financial gluttony on behalf of shareholders more important than genuinely helping the victims of cancer? Let it not be forgotten that at the end of the day the ultimate sacrifices are made by dying patients and relatives keenly feeling the sharp distressing shock of bereavement.

As the project progressed scientifically, professional support waned and fell away. Opposition mounted until peer communication broke down in an atmosphere increasingly charged with hostility. Demoralisation set in as a consequence of being shunned by the medical profession and an inability to persuade a sufficient number of patients in this country that the new treatment had anything to offer. No matter how closely a general solution to the cancer problem is neared, it is now largely for commercial reasons that advances in treatment are being deliberately restricted to small, highly costly steps.

An essentially pragmatic view of science was taken throughout a career spanning fifty years. In the company of many others it was keenly felt that scientists are under an obligation to advance the human condition in terms of health and social improvement. In scope the book spills over into other areas of concern. These include the elevated cancer risk from increasing levels of radioactivity over the planet; hazards arising from the scandalous and totally unnecessary poisoning of battlefields by munitions containing depleted uranium; the safety of the riot control agent and irritant CS as both aerosol and spray; scientific backup for the Insight team of The Sunday Times over the thalidomide campaign; concern over the hideous effects of caisson disease; the damaging effect on potential improvements in cancer treatment of the increasingly intimidating and senseless economic agenda of the European Union. Examples of the dishonest and suppressive manipulation of science by scientifically illiterate individuals in government are also described.

James Watson's highly successful autobiography The Double Helix (1968) and June Goodfield's Cancer under Siege (1975) are the nearest examples of comparable works in the genre. Step by step an age-old enigma is seen to be logically unravelled, beginning with a premonition and leading to ultimate scientific, though not clinical or commercial, success. The story follows the central character across the switchbacks of success and failure in his isolated quest at the cutting edge of research, intimately sharing emotional highs and lows. Despite running into an occasional blind alley, the basic aim of developing a safe therapy for cancer was kept in steady focus throughout. Progress largely depended upon a combination of persistence and serendipity.

Only very recently did the covert role of the drug companies in thwarting the project become apparent. The offensive continues to intensify. For example, the publication of this edition prompted the appearance on the web of a document, Promethazine - Teratogenic Agent, which is brought up by entering promethazine and cancer into Google. Not only is the drug not teratogenic, but several other sites recommend its use as the agent of choice for the treatment of morning sickness. Similar problems are anticipated in the future.

This is the kind of story which the reading public likes to read about decades after the event; but the situation could not be more different. Events at the interface between cancer and its human victims are happening now, every minute of every day all over the world. And that concerns each and every one of us.

The narrative ends on an ambivalent note; had the effort of a lifetime had been foolishly squandered, or was the hope that one day vindication might be achieved genuine and not illusory? Let the reader judge.

The Promethazine or Phenergan^® cancer treatment was developed by Robert Jones MA PhD as an effective and inexpensive means to kill cancer cells and increase survival rates.

Please note: This guide is not a cancer treatment or a substitute for treatment. It has been compiled to help you find the right treatment for you. If you choose to go down the alternative or complimentary medicine path, we strongly advise that you do so under the supervision of a qualified healthcare practitioner.

 

PROMETHAZINE (known under the tradenames Phenergan^®, Promethagan^®, Romergan^®, Fargan^®, Prothiazine^® and Avomine) is an over-the-counter medication used as an anti-histamine, a pediatric sedative and to quell travel sickness. Research by Dr. Robert Jones, however, has shown that, along with specific nutritional supplements, this medication is able to manipulate the mitochondrial metabolic pathways of cancer cells so that they produce toxins which kill only those cells.

Please use the menu on the top-right of this page to navigate between different pages of Dr. Jones' protocol, the most important of which is the TREATMENT section which outlines the actual cancer treatment programme. (There are also links on the bottom of each section to take you to the next section or the previous section.)

Please note that Dr. Jones is not pedaling a "magic bullet" all-cancer cure. He specifically lists contra-indications that should be read before deciding whether to embark on the program. You can find these listed in the TREATMENT paper. Amongst others they include steroid use, exposure to phenothiazines, analgesics (such as aspirin and ibuprofen) and multi-drug resistance. Finally, there is no evidence at the present time that this protocol is effective for prostatic, melanoma or mesothelioma cancers.

If you are interested in researching further into Dr. Robert Jones' work, he has written a book called In The Darker Shadow of Science — a narrative volume (in a similar vein to The Double Helix) that covers both the science and the politics of his research and why it has not been given the recognition that it deserves. If you have specific questions on his work, you can always email him [see right panel for Dr. Jones' email].

Finally and most importantly, although this is a self-medicating programme, we advise you to inform your doctor if you decide to follow it. Note that Dr. Jones is adamant that his cancer treatment programme is not "alternative medicine" as it is based entirely upon conventional medical research.

[There has recently been some misinformation placed online that Promethazine is teratogenic — in other words it can be dangerous for pregnant women. Dr. Jones strongly contests this and states that not only is this not the case, but the drug is actually recommended in some situations specifically for morning sickness.]

 

 

© 2010 / Copyright Notice & Disclaimer