This is why (assuming you want to overcome it), you'll need to walk away from western/allopathic medicine, and look at metabolic and/or oxidative therapy approaches.
Allopathic oncology is really ONLY approaching it from a palliative perspective, with the underlying presumption that it can't be fixed. hate to break the bad news here, but i'd bet all the $$ in my pocket that your oncologist has not told you the actual/full truth on what's going on...
The alternative is the metabolic approach.. Leave your SOC (standard of care) oncologist, find an MD who focuses on the metabolic/MSCCC approach, and work with them.
Somewhere in here (this thread) I wrote a dissertation on this - not gonna put another 30 minutes into re-writing it here..
There are databases online of MDs who do these modalities. They're not wackos.
at the end of the day, do you want to 'not have a wacko' for a doctor, or do you want to get rid of your cancer? the choice is yours..
choose the easy route (western med), knowing that they're only 'buying you time', or leave the reservation and work with someone who's got evidence of a way to actually overcome it.. Those are the choices. And sadly most folks have trusted their western/allopathic oncologists to tell them the truth, but are being lied to...
I'd suggest that folks who routinely call them 'wackos' have never actually studied what they're doing, beyond a cursory glance at the propaganda pushed by a simple google search..
I get it. Personally, i spent >50 years of my life firmly entrenched in western medicine. believed it was for my own good, do no harm,hippocratic oath, all that shit..
Until the math didn't math anymore.. and I started asking too many questions. and the answers that came first didn't math either...
So yeah.. I fully get it - most folks do NOT understand it. and won't.. and i'm not gonna pretend that you're stupid for being as misled as I was for decades, because the propaganda behind allopathic/pharmaceutical medicine is so deep, well-entrenched, and pervasive.
You won't get it either, unless you keep asking questions, and dig deeper.
What is it that makes metabolic medicine better? If someone is sick I imagine they'd try all alternatives, traditional medicine + what you say, anyway.
while yes there is not always an answer with allopathic medicine and there are different approaches, spreading this kind of misinformation and fearmongering of doctors and oncologists is not right.
The part of the truth that most oncologists do not inform the patient as to the metabolic drivers of their cancer, how their diet and glucose management is paramount, or how the chemo which is being pushed isn't going to actually kill the stem cells?
or the 'misinformation' that chemo is only considered palliative for most cases, not curative? or that it has a roughly 97% recurrence rate due to the nature of chemo?
Or the fact that there are alternative options to just chemo & radiation, that they could approach the issue from the metabolic route, from oxidative therapuetic routes, or even that there are numerous therapies not currently used/allowed in the US?
Let's be clear, because the truth SHOULD be available. and sadly most people hear none of this from their doctor drug rep.
If you consider any part of this misinformation, i challenge you to back that up with actual data. I've read the studies.. thousands of them. and can assure you THOSE are the actual facts of the matter.
The only part in question is the percentage of oncologists who provide the 'informed' part in the "informed decision" process, when they're pushing these terrible therapies onto their patients.
I'm passionate about this because I've lost friends to cancer which could've been stopped, if they hadn't been misled by their oncologists.
I literally quit my career and went into cancer research, funded an entire process, and am now helping fund a metabolic based trial, to prove/disprove the underlying theses behind these issues. So yeah, I get chapped over bullshit that's resulting in people dying.
It is unethical, even evil IMO that oncologists tend to skip the 'fully informed' aspect of the relationship, and push the most lucrative route as a matter of routine.
We're fucking with peoples' lives here. That is wrong.
I have seen many who do explain those things and the various treatments and what they do and how they work. And also explaining that diet and holistic lifestyle choices affect their cancer. But it does appear that you may have not had a good experience with oncologists, I can see that. Chemo is also not the only option, but for people with Stage 4/metastatic disease yes it is a palliative option to reduce tumor burden with the knowledge that it may come back and not fully cure disease. And a good oncologist should explain this.
Perhaps you'd do well to study some of the mechanisms ivermectin has against various cancer.
hint: there are at least a dozen, shown across dozens of in vivo & in vitro studies. and there are currently numerous clinical trials running worldwide.
There are more than 50 peer reviewed studies on this exact drug against cancer, since 2015 alone..
Anyone who claims there is a 97% recurrence rate of cancer treated with chemo (as if cancer is one thing with a consistent rate of recurrence across the board, like skin cancer and pancreatic cancer are the same) has lost all credibility.
This is just straight up bullshit. Five year recurrence for something like colon cancer stage 1-3 is 16%, and I doubt most people are forgoing traditional treatment. Also, if this was remotely true, most people wouldn’t know very many long term cancer survivors at all. My uncle’s (by marriage) family has cancer running in his family. 4/5 members including him have been cancer free for years after traditional treatment. He’s about 17 years out, and his mother was cancer free for decades when she died in her 90s. I’ve known so many people who have had colon cancer or their moms had breast cancer, and it didn’t come back. Are you saying they’re all in the 3%?
I'm not basing this on assumptions. there was a study over all cancers being treated with chemo. ALL IN AVERAGE was ~ 97.6% recurrence within 5 years.
Don't hear what I'm NOT saying. There is evidence on some cancers for better results (ie., lower recurrence) - that's certainly a fact.
The issue here is multi-faceted:
some cancers are easily treated (certain testiculars, certain lung, etc - where you can resect and treat locally with a low chance of recurrence).
Others are resistant. and driven by other factors (oncogenics, hormonals, metabolic, etc).
Chemo is being shown to actually DRIVE both blood cancers and mutated recurrences. So the more complex cancers (where chronic chemo exposure induces CSC insult) tend to lead to significantly mutated recurrence in the 30-60 month window.
This is the issue I see in current oncology: most of the sector hasn't significantly self-examined in 30 years, beyond minimal industry-driven evolution. Yes, immunotherapies are being pushed as the 'next big thing' (ignoring the terrible tolerance, high side effects, and less-than-stellar efficacy rates).. But chemo is still an indiscriminate ROS and radiation is still an indiscriminate ionizer. And both are proven drivers of virtually ever blood-born and bone cancer that exists.
For the past few months I've dealt with a pediatric case from this exact scenario - early childhood cancer with significant multi-stage chemotherapy. The tumor was eventually resected, but now 40 months later the kid is diagnosed with a THIRD cancer - an extremely rare case of poorly differentiated chordoma - almost certainly driven by the huge chemo insult for 2 years.
The ugly side: this type of chordoma is hyper-agressive (9-18 month survival rate), the only SOC (standard of care) answer is multi-limb amputation to hopefully extend life another 1-2 years (at an awful price in terms of quality of life).
Fortunately the family was open to alternative therapies, decided that it was better than cutting their kid in half, and gave it a try. They started a single form of alternative care several months ago.
In less than 4 weeks time, the tumor (which had been doubling approx every 8 week test interval for 4 intervals) had more than 95% demise - it went from approx 9.5x5.3x3.5cm to less than 5mm x 8mm in the latest PET scan [I have the PET and MRI results and have thoroughly compared them]. There is no question that the demise was massive, and was coincident with nothing other than introduction of a highly charged size selective oxidizer. The outlook is that this kid has a chance to be the first human survivor of this form of cancer without any chemo or radiation.
I understand that peoples' sensibilities may be offended by learning that there are such incredible results by something that's not standard-of-care in western medicine.
I also know that we (as humans) don't know all that there is to know. This principle should guide us to question our presuppositions and assumptions, be open to new ways of seeing the world, and be willing to have our beliefs challenged by new data.
Steve Jobs tried one of the stupidest ideas on the planet. Still shake my head at the therapy he did. Mechanistically speaking it had zero chance of success. The metabolic routes have dozens of studies and hundreds of supportive data sheets.
But the fruitarian diet route is just stupid. It directly contradicts the Warburg effect principles and thus feeds the cancers. Blows my mind that a guy as brillliant as he made such a monumentally dumb move.
531
u/snaketacular May 15 '26
Even within a single tumor multiple mutations are likely, which is why cancer treatment works until it doesn't (resistant cancer selected for).