Two statements are usually being made
a. the technique is life threatening
b. it has not been scientifically proven
Let’s take a look at each statement in detail.
A. LIFE THREATENING
There exists a unreasonable fear among physicians for the drop in a patient’s blood sugar. The reason is that the doctors are not trained to lower blood sugar for therapeutic reasons as in the IPT protocol. The only training that doctors receive in conventional medicine is the medical emergency procedure where a diabetic patient has overdosed him or herself with Insulin and the patient usually arrives in a comatose state at the emergency room. Since this is the background of conventional medicine when it comes to a lowered blood glucose it is no wonder that doctors fear it. However during IPT the blood sugar is lowered in a controlled environment, while the patient is constantly being monitored. As mentioned before the patient never looses consciousness either. In contrast to the emergency situation, the controlled situation is very safe. Not one patient world wide has died in 65 years while undergoing this procedure. (Which is more than can be said of general anesthesia).
B. NOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN
In conventional oncology most treatments being utilized today has been tested with so called randomized controlled trials (RCT’s). If it has not been proven to work through a RCT, we don’t believe that it works in conventional medicine.
As mentioned before, the results and claims with IPT is based on anecdotal evidence, which means doctors have witnessed case after case in their private consulting rooms, however their patients were never part of an organized RCT.
The question now arises – why has there not been any broad RCT’s done with IPT? The answer is not so simple. In the first place are RCT’s done randomized. This usually means that the patient is chosen randomly and that the patient doesn’t know whether he or she is receiving the old proven or the new experimental drug. Usually all patients in such a trial are told that they are receiving experimental treatment in order to oust patient bias, although half of the group will receive old medication and the other half the new experimental medication.
The results are then statistically compared at the end of the trial and the two groups are compared. If there is a statistical significant improvement in the group receiving the new experimental drug, then the new drug will be entered as another therapy in the current list of protocols.
However, due to the fact that with IPT we
* Lower the patients blood sugar,
* The patient is clearly aware of the procedure and
* The patient doesn’t have nearly as much side effects as with conventional therapy
makes it impossible to test/compare IPT with conventional therapy following the current scientific methodology of RCT’s. We are thus stuck with a scientific conundrum.
It is however very interesting that some of the patients in our practice who didn’t have any further response to conventional chemotherapy, actually had response on the same chemo agents when they received it under IPT conditions.