No abstract

The use of complementary and alternative medicines including dietary supplements, herbals and special diets to prevent or treat disease continues to be popular. The following paper provides a description of an alternative dietary approach to the self-management and treatment of cancer, the Bill Henderson Protocol (BHP). This diet encourages daily intake of raw foods, a combination of cottage cheese and flaxseed oil and a number of supplements. Some foods and food groups are restricted (e.g., gluten, meat, dairy). Early background theory that contributed to the protocol’s development is presented as is a summary of relevant evidence concerning the anti-cancer fighting properties of the individual components. Supplement intake is considered in relation to daily recommended intakes. Challenges and risks to protocol adherence are discussed. As with many complementary and alternative interventions, clear evidence of this dietary protocol’s safety and efficacy is lacking. Consumers of this protocol may require guidance on the ability of this protocol to meet their individual nutritional needs.

This study sought to describe how consumers found the Bill Henderson protocol, a dietary intervention for cancer treatment, and to describe their perceptions and evaluation of its effects. In all, 630 surveys were completed online. Most respondents were ages 55 to 74 years old, well-educated, and had experience with a cancer diagnosis. Most respondents identified the Bill Henderson protocol through Internet searches. More than two thirds had used the protocol, although adherence to its components varied. A number of positive attributions were made to the protocol, including cancer cure (n ¼ 73) and improvements in health status indicators (n ¼ 170). Negative attributions included disease progression (n ¼ 10) and death (n ¼ 2). Consumers search for disease management options online. Attributions regarding this intervention's success or failure are based on anecdotal experience. There has been no empirical investigation of the Bill Henderson protocol's safety and efficacy to date, limiting the information on which choice can be made. This could place protocol adherents at risk.

The 2 cases provide a preliminary, detailed description of Bill Henderson Protocol adherence. They do not provide clear evidence of the protocol's effectiveness but do suggest further research be undertaken to assess the extent to which the Bill Henderson Protocol is followed in real-world settings, including consideration of adherence, side effects, and outcomes.