« Previous | Next »

Dr. Nieper on the Individuality of Protocols: Part I

# DrNieperOnIndividualityOfProtocolsPartI

Dr. Nieper on the Individuality of Protocols: Part I
(c) 1999 Brewer Science Library, All rights reserved Excerpted from New Horizons, Summer 1999

Over the years, doctors and patients alike have often asked Dr. Nieper how he determined the protocol he put patients on to treat their various diseases. The following few paragraphs have been excerpted from a workshop given in New York City at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in 1987.

When the discussion in this country comes to 'What is your protocol of treatment?' I always have to say, there is no protocol. There is no Protocol! It is a treatment program which adapts to the various patients with individuality and also at the same time may change according to the state of the art of our knowledge with a given time.

For instance, we learn, sometimes only after several years, that a certain product does not have the merits we expected it to have in the beginning. On the other hand certain products stay on our palate and they are offered over years and years and years because the main nurse on our ward says, 'Well, mandelonitrile, laetrile is still the best after all. I have been here 15 years and it is still the best.' Or, to make the long story short, the protocol is not a good program of so and so many pills and so and so many pills of this and that and that in combination; the protocol is practically the extraction of our belief in our guidelines, in the knowledge of what the essence is of our therapy, the understanding of the interaction of modern substances like EAP for instance and disease and damage. So, we play with our knowledge, and this is our protocol, our play with our knowledge. This play may change, it may not change. So, the easiest way to understand our protocol is to read what is in the literature."

"But, to give you an idea, when a patient comes and has this or that disease, lets say breast cancer, the first fraction of a second I look at this patient I see already, this lady possibly has a good chance, she is obese, she is not obese, she looks bright, she is well blood supplied, she is not, she is pale and so forth. And, from there I draw my conclusions, what can I do with this patient, what resources does she still have to possibly overcome the disease, what sources can I exploit, what will not be available for her to defend herself, what can I do about this, what compromise can I go into to help or not to help her? For instance, one of my assistant doctors, he is a trained chemist, a very good man, and now he is only in our hospital a couple of months and he says, this lady has breast cancer, we give a certain cytostatic drug to her, now he calculates the surface to calculate the dosage and it should be 17 mg or so. Okay, I said, 'Well, what is the thyroid metabolism and what is her body activity, how does she appear, what is her liveliness and so forth, all this has a major bearing on her detoxification.' So he calculates and says, 'Well she has this and this body surface...makes 16 mg.' I said, 'Well, this is as if you derive a conclusion from computing the surface of a lady to find out how pretty she is!' Or, in other words, there are protocols which do not apply to clinical reality with a respective individual, the individuality of such a patient."

"Coming to membrane protection therapy, multiple sclerosis in particular and management of diabetes, nephropathy, gastritis enteritis, a few other diseases, small vessel disease maybe, in general. Again, coming to the protocol. You have seen what Dr. Morrissette has pointed out, we have started the application of the colamine phosphates, namely potassium, magnesium, calcium colamine phosphate or EAP (or AEP), Calcium EAP in particular more than 20 years ago in the MS patient and you have seen the result. The protocol has not changed very much over all these years. We were unsuccessful to drastically improve our results in essence. We tried this and that. It is unfortunately necessary to inject the material intravenously, let's say in general about three times a week, 400 mg in each, rapidly, because otherwise the concentration on the membranes apparently is not high enough. We see in those people who carry portacaths who can have EAP injected easily, those do much better than those who have difficulties having the injection. The oral intake is mainly based on potassium/magnesium/calcium EAP and on Calcium EAP as such and the requirement, in general, about six tablets a day of 350 about that range, and two to three of Calcium EAP, but this may vary for various reasons. We tried, for instance to have suppositories done in order to replace the IV's and we were more or less unsuccessful (they are available). Also more pills wouldn't help more, I mean you cannot replace the intravenous injection by just giving more pills, this also does not work out to our satisfaction. Sublingual is not sufficiently absorbed; we also tried this; so this is for multiple sclerosis. For the other managements, especially in diabetes, the oral intake seems to be enough, it's satisfactory."

The next issue will contain PART II of this article which will continue with a discussion of the modes of administration of the intravenous Calcium EAP and some variations Dr. Nieper made in the IV therapy in the last year or two.

DISCLAIMER: The information contained on this website has not been evaluated by the Food & Drug Administration. It is not meant to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Individuals suffering from any disease or illness should consult with a physician or health care professional. The Brewer Science Library offers Dr. Brewer's writings for information purposes only and will assume no responsibility or liability for the use of any of the information we offer whether written by Dr. Brewer or others.

« Previous | Next »