Speaker 1: Joining us today is a respected voice in integrative oncology,
Speaker 1: doctor fran Cisco Contreras, and we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: Glyphassett and the amazing flip flop that we've seen out
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration over Glyphysett. Not only have we
Speaker 1: had hundreds of thousands of cases over the last few
Speaker 1: years and many many jury awards billions of dollars. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, I think it's eleven billion dollars
Speaker 1: in terms of awards. So it's been pretty well established
Speaker 1: not only by the lawsuits but also by studies the
Speaker 1: increased risk of this. And now we're seeing that the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is going to compel production of this as
Speaker 1: well as to protect them from lawsuits, because that's all
Speaker 1: part of the Defense Production Act that if you make
Speaker 1: something that the government says is necessary for defense, you
Speaker 1: also get protected legally from it. So this is truly
Speaker 1: a wake up call for people, I think. Thank you
Speaker 1: for joining us, doctor.
Speaker 2: Contrash, thank you very much for having me.
Speaker 1: And tell us your statement about this. What do you
Speaker 1: know about Glifa said that you've been watching as an oncologist,
Speaker 1: You've been following this pretty closely. Tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit about it from your perspective.
Speaker 3: Yes, you know, there there are some reports that it
Speaker 3: could be beneficial for for cancer patients, but in our experience,
Speaker 3: we have not seen sufficient evidence of help, and that's
Speaker 3: one of the reasons that I do not recommend it
Speaker 3: for our patients.
Speaker 2: On top of the.
Speaker 3: Fact that you know, it can have some side effects
Speaker 3: that are that are not that are not easy on
Speaker 3: the patients, or or or easily reversible, and so in
Speaker 3: our experience, we are not using it at all.
Speaker 1: Well, talk to me about I've never heard of this
Speaker 1: being used as a treatment for cancer patients. I've only
Speaker 1: heard it as a risk of starting cancer. But people
Speaker 1: are actually using it to know.
Speaker 3: No, No, there are some reports, as you know with chemotherapy. Yeah,
Speaker 3: all chemotherapies are our any so there are some reports
Speaker 3: that it could be used as an anti tumor agent,
Speaker 3: but again the evidence to us was not sufficient. Now,
Speaker 3: how how uncogenic it is, I really don't know. But
Speaker 3: but you know, I do not recommend it and I
Speaker 3: would avoid it if possible.
Speaker 1: Well, when you look at these statistics, there's been anywhere
Speaker 1: from one hundred and seventy thousand to two hundred thousand
Speaker 1: lawsuits in just the last ten years, one hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty five thousand of those, so it's accelerating. Terms of
Speaker 1: the lawsuits. They have paid out eleven billion dollars, and
Speaker 1: so I guess we could say, really, the jury is
Speaker 1: not out. The jury's delivered its verdict on a lot
Speaker 1: of these, and of course there's been when we look
Speaker 1: at the massive amounts of money. That was the first
Speaker 1: thing that came out. I was surprised at it because
Speaker 1: they had some kind of a class action lawsuit that
Speaker 1: set up a deal saying well, we're going to limit
Speaker 1: your future liability to only seven and a half billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Now they have paid out already eleven billion dollars. How
Speaker 1: do they know how many people are going to get
Speaker 1: cancer in the future. I mean, they've really limited their
Speaker 1: liability in regards to that. There's still at least sixty
Speaker 1: to sixty seven thousand cases that are outstanding with this
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 3: Wow, so that's a you know, that's a big problem.
Speaker 3: But I would imagine that if somebody started something with
Speaker 3: many of the communal therapies that we are, you know,
Speaker 3: currently using, that losses like that could pop up at
Speaker 3: any time. And so that's it's going to be complicated
Speaker 3: because radiation therapy, for instance, that is widely used, is
Speaker 3: a well known carcinogen.
Speaker 1: Yes, there's like so many of the things we see
Speaker 1: in these ask your doctor commercials.
Speaker 2: You know, you're.
Speaker 1: Taking something for particular condition, and when they start rattling
Speaker 1: off all the different adverse possible adverse effects, and usually
Speaker 1: one of the first things that they rattle off is
Speaker 1: that may give you what you were taking it for.
Speaker 3: Right exactly, So that I don't know how they're going
Speaker 3: to manage that, because I don't think that there's anything
Speaker 3: out there.
Speaker 2: That is completely safe.
Speaker 3: You know, for instance, the new immune therapy is available.
Speaker 3: They all have you know, the possibility of causing other
Speaker 3: very major diseases like out immune diseases. But yet when
Speaker 3: a cancer patient is in an advanced stage, these products
Speaker 3: can help the patient survive maybe you know, a year
Speaker 3: or more without so many side effects as with chemotherapy.
Speaker 3: And so I don't know how these companies are going
Speaker 3: to be protected from lawsuits if if they develop other diseases.
Speaker 2: So all drugs have have you know, risks.
Speaker 3: As well as benefits, and so man, the disincentive of
Speaker 3: producing new things is going to be curtailed if if
Speaker 3: there's always going to be this possibility of being sued
Speaker 3: about it, I doubt that In America, especially in stage
Speaker 3: four cancer patients, the.
Speaker 2: Law is that you can now try things that are not.
Speaker 3: Completely approved by the FDA, when when these products have
Speaker 3: some possibility of helping a patient that is in you know,
Speaker 3: in the in the last that that could be the
Speaker 3: last resort.
Speaker 2: So I am understand that, you know, companies.
Speaker 3: Need to be very careful in what they produce, but
Speaker 3: especially for cancer patients in advance stages, there's always going
Speaker 3: to be risks in.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, my father died from his first round of chemotherapy,
Speaker 1: went into a coma and died from it. So yeah,
Speaker 1: the chemo stuff can be extremely dangerous. That's not there.
Speaker 1: And when it comes to the roundup stuff we had
Speaker 1: our personal story was in the early nineteen eighties, we
Speaker 1: had a dog that we tried to keep in the backyard,
Speaker 1: but it would regularly escape. And we had some neighbors
Speaker 1: who used a kim laan type of thing, and they
Speaker 1: had they would come out spray the lawn. They'd put
Speaker 1: up signs keep pets and children off of the lawn.
Speaker 1: It's like oh, okay, Well he got out and he
Speaker 1: was eating the grass over there, and then shortly after
Speaker 1: that he got non Hotchkins lymphoma. And that was the
Speaker 1: first time I made the connection. Was I heard on
Speaker 1: the radio report about how these agricultural workers were coming
Speaker 1: down with non Hodgkins lymphoma and they thought it was
Speaker 1: because of glycost and roundup.
Speaker 2: It's not that.
Speaker 1: Oh, maybe that's it. And then we had a friend
Speaker 1: who came down with it about the same time and
Speaker 1: died from non Hodgkins lymphoma. So this is something that
Speaker 1: I've had my eye on since the early nineteen eighties,
Speaker 1: and it's amazing the number of cases that we've had.
Speaker 1: Of course, there's been a lot of studies as well,
Speaker 1: haven't there.
Speaker 3: Oh yes, there's many says that show that people that
Speaker 3: work on the lawns of golf courses have a terribly
Speaker 3: high incidence of lymphoma and prostate cancer in comparison to
Speaker 3: the rest of the population.
Speaker 2: Wow. So that's all of that is very well established.
Speaker 1: And the other aspect of this, which I think is
Speaker 1: kind of unique in addition to the cancer issue, is
Speaker 1: of course the fact that once you poison your ground
Speaker 1: with this glycyst weedkiller. You can't grow anything except the
Speaker 1: Monsanto genetically modified seeds that they sell you. And I
Speaker 1: remember covering this from the standpoint of farmers in India
Speaker 1: who were committing suicide because they'd poison their land and
Speaker 1: they couldn't afford on a regular, on an annual basis
Speaker 1: to buy the expensive seeds that Monsanta was selling them.
Speaker 1: And I thought, you know, what is that going to
Speaker 1: do to our ability to grow food? And yet we
Speaker 1: have as this decoration was made by Trump, we had
Speaker 1: Republicans who were cheering it in Congress because Big Agro
Speaker 1: is concerned about food production because that makes them money.
Speaker 1: They don't really are not that concerned about any adverse
Speaker 1: effects that might come from that kind of food production.
Speaker 3: Oh and there's a lot of research done that GMOs
Speaker 3: or genetically modified products can be very delicious to our health.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's in the turis to the bugs, and if
Speaker 3: the bugs don't get close to it, we shouldn't either.
Speaker 2: So I.
Speaker 3: Don't think that that is the answer. Of course, you know,
Speaker 3: it did the production increases, but I think that diseases
Speaker 3: are also going to exponentially increase due to the manipulation
Speaker 3: of the DNA of the of our food.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 1: And in the the email we're talking back and forth,
Speaker 1: you had a picture, it's kind of a picture that
Speaker 1: somebody had of RFK Junior drinking the Gli, which hearkens
Speaker 1: back to one of their marketing guys saying it's so safe,
Speaker 1: I could drink it. They said, okay, let's see you
Speaker 1: drink it, and he said, well, never mind, I don't
Speaker 1: think I'll do that. But I guess it brings a
Speaker 1: kind of drinking the kool aid, isn't it.
Speaker 2: We've got that happening with.
Speaker 3: A study published some years ago, you know, the Ascent colleges.
Speaker 3: Would you give chemotherapy to a with stage four I
Speaker 3: think it was a lung cancer And they said, of course.
Speaker 3: And then they asked me, if you had lung cancer,
Speaker 3: would you take chemotherapy?
Speaker 2: And they most of them said no. Wow.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you know that's not loving your patient as
Speaker 3: you love yourself.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's right. Yeah, first do no harm doesn't
Speaker 1: apply there, does it?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: It is as very dangerous as many of these things are.
Speaker 1: And I think I've said for the longest time, especially
Speaker 1: because the cancer of my family, I said, I think
Speaker 1: in the future, people are going to look back on
Speaker 1: chemotherapy and many of these cancer treatments in the same
Speaker 1: way that we look back on leeches, you know, being
Speaker 1: used in the past and you know things right, Yeah.
Speaker 3: The last chemotherapy developed was probably fifteen years ago. Chemotherapy
Speaker 3: is going to be a thing of the past in
Speaker 3: probably ten fifteen years.
Speaker 1: So what do you use, what do you what are
Speaker 1: you leaning towards in terms of your treatment? There at
Speaker 1: hope possible.
Speaker 2: Mentioned My experience is in integrative medicine.
Speaker 3: So what we have is we have all of the
Speaker 3: therapies available from the alternative and the conventional. Because there
Speaker 3: are some tumors that respond extremely well to conventional chemo,
Speaker 3: for instance, lymphomas, the cre rate is you know, in
Speaker 3: the ninety percentile, So of course in those tumors we
Speaker 3: still recommend this therapies. But for most cancers, chemotherapy is
Speaker 3: a very little use to the patient, so they're the
Speaker 3: alternatives can be very effective, and so our main therapies
Speaker 3: are on the metabolic side, like how dose vitamins ce
Speaker 3: converts itself like chemotherapy kills the cells with the same
Speaker 3: mode of action as chemo without any of the side effects,
Speaker 3: and our strongest therapies are immunologic. So we have our
Speaker 3: IMPACT protocol which stands for Immune Personalized of Tooleogus cell Therapy,
Speaker 3: and it's based on dendritic cells. And I don't know
Speaker 3: if you've heard the term of dendritic cell vaccine that
Speaker 3: was developed in America early this century and it's still
Speaker 3: in clinical trials in America, whereas in Mexico has already approved.
Speaker 3: And so we work for the patients rather than against
Speaker 3: the tumor. So we create within the immune system of
Speaker 3: the patient an anti tumor task force with natural killer cells,
Speaker 3: and this has been very, very effective and it has.
Speaker 2: Zero side effects.
Speaker 3: So there are many things that can help cancer patients.
Speaker 3: Diet alone can make a tremendous difference in how a
Speaker 3: patient responds to therapy, and so we have all of
Speaker 3: these natural options available to our patients in conjunction with
Speaker 3: conventional therapy, because there are some patients that are definitely
Speaker 3: going to be benefited by surgery or radiation. But our
Speaker 3: main therapies are immunologic in nature, and so we produce
Speaker 3: them from the patient's own cells, immunological cells like natural
Speaker 3: killer cells and dritic cells. Lymphokind activated cells, and I
Speaker 3: think this is the future. Now, there are some conventional
Speaker 3: immunotherapies as well, like ki Truda is one of the
Speaker 3: most used now that can be combined with the natural
Speaker 3: anti tumor agents and natural immunity that we give our
Speaker 3: patients with very very good results. So we have the
Speaker 3: possibility of integrating conventional therapies with natural therapies. And there
Speaker 3: are patients that we're conventional therapies have very little to
Speaker 3: our where we only offer now natural therapies with very
Speaker 3: good results.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I spoke recently to Rick Hill and that was one
Speaker 1: things he was talking about in terms of, you know,
Speaker 1: this is a cooperative thing and you're going to change
Speaker 1: your diet and some other things like that. It wasn't
Speaker 1: just something that they were going to do to treat
Speaker 1: the cancer. But as you point out, I guess is
Speaker 1: that what's meant by integrative oncology that you're trying to
Speaker 1: build up the body to fight the cancer.
Speaker 3: Integrative means that we can integrate both sides of the aisle,
Speaker 3: let's say, conventional and.
Speaker 2: Unconventional. The immune therapies.
Speaker 3: Are the ones that where we stimulate the areas of
Speaker 3: the immune system designed to attack cancer, because we develop
Speaker 3: cancer because these areas of the immune system failed.
Speaker 2: Otherwise we wouldn't do other cancer.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that you've heard of people that are ninety
Speaker 3: years old. They smoke all their life, and they you know,
Speaker 3: mashed potatoes and meat, and they never developed cancers because
Speaker 3: their immune system.
Speaker 2: Is up to par.
Speaker 3: And so we only develop cancer when our immune system fails.
Speaker 3: And so this is what we're trying to repair with
Speaker 3: our immune therapies, so that the patients can counteract that
Speaker 3: cancer and heal themselves.
Speaker 1: I remember at the beginning of all this vaccine stuff
Speaker 1: that doctor Ryan Cole, who's a pathologist, said that the
Speaker 1: people that he was saying that had been vaccinated had
Speaker 1: a tremendous deficit of killer tea cells. And he said,
Speaker 1: we're going to see an explosion of cancer, of turbo
Speaker 1: cancer and that type of thing because of that. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly what he was talking about. Your body is
Speaker 1: natural defenses. Have you seen a large surge in terms
Speaker 1: of reported cancer patients where you treat people?
Speaker 3: Yes, Unfortunately, we know we cancer was a disease of
Speaker 3: the elderly, let's say sixty and over and right now,
Speaker 3: my patients more than half or forty years or less.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, and with very aggressive cancers.
Speaker 3: And when COVID hit, we had a number of patients
Speaker 3: that were, you know, in complete remission and they got
Speaker 3: vaccinated and their cancers reactivated. And I agree, it's you
Speaker 3: to the fact that the immune system is affected tremendously
Speaker 3: with these it's not really a vaccine. These drugs that
Speaker 3: were developed to fight this viruses.
Speaker 1: Now you're talking about the new approach, she said, relatively
Speaker 1: new approach. Is this something came down with RFK Junior
Speaker 1: that they would relax some of the restrictions. Let's say
Speaker 1: people had a terminal disease, relax some of the restrictions
Speaker 1: on people trying drug experimentally. I know that in Japan
Speaker 1: a person that I know who is covering stem cell research,
Speaker 1: he said, in Japan, as long as you can demonstrate
Speaker 1: to them that your treatment is not harmful, they'll let
Speaker 1: you go ahead and do it, and then they'll use
Speaker 1: the data that you get from your treatment routined to
Speaker 1: see if it is effective. So as long as you
Speaker 1: can show that it's safe, you can it opens up
Speaker 1: the door for you to do treatments to see if
Speaker 1: it's effective. Is that where we are now with changes.
Speaker 3: Well, during Trump's first term, there was a big fuzz
Speaker 3: about it, and so he opened up that possibility. I
Speaker 3: don't know the excitement in Mexico. I don't know if
Speaker 3: that continues to be the policy, that if a patient
Speaker 3: is in stage four and the treatment has not helped
Speaker 3: that patient, that treatments that are in the process of
Speaker 3: being approved or disapproved by the FDA would be tried
Speaker 3: on those patients, as you say, when they were proven
Speaker 3: to be safe, because safety is very difficult to.
Speaker 2: Prove and take sometimes years, where efficacy is very easy
Speaker 2: to prove. You know, the tumor is larger and not smaller.
Speaker 3: So in patients where some therapies were proven to be
Speaker 3: effective but the safety issue is not yet proven, but
Speaker 3: the patient is at stage four and has no other options,
Speaker 3: those therapies could be used on cancer patients. But that
Speaker 3: wasn't his first term, and I don't know if it
Speaker 3: continues to be true or not, but that you would
Speaker 3: offer a tremendous amount of hope to many, many patients
Speaker 3: that have really nothing that they could use.
Speaker 1: Now, one of the things that you mentioned earlier was
Speaker 1: vitamin C. Did you say it was lyposomic vitamin C
Speaker 1: or you had a qualifier there for vitamin C.
Speaker 3: Yes, well, the vitamin C in terribly high dosages, so
Speaker 3: we know that that you know, vitamin C is a
Speaker 3: very potent antioxidant, but in very high dosages like fifty
Speaker 3: grams or to one hundred grams, it converts into an
Speaker 3: occident and it kills malignant cells with the same mode
Speaker 3: of action as radiation therapy, but without any of the
Speaker 3: side effects. And this was discovered at the NIH and
Speaker 3: the and the NCI in the late nineties and there
Speaker 3: were you know, many published studies. It never got into
Speaker 3: clinical trials because they're the disincentive is that you could
Speaker 3: never get a patent for it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because it's natural.
Speaker 3: And you still have to spend you know, the billion
Speaker 3: dollars to prove to the FDA that it's safe and effective.
Speaker 3: And so it stayed at the level of you know,
Speaker 3: of the laboratory. But we've been using vitamin C in
Speaker 3: very high dosages sixty grams a day for the last
Speaker 3: ten years with.
Speaker 2: Very good results.
Speaker 3: For instance, our five year survival and stage four breast
Speaker 3: cancer is five times higher than with conventional therapy.
Speaker 2: Wow. Wow.
Speaker 3: So impatients that arrived to us that with stage four
Speaker 3: breast cancer that didn't receive chemotherapy and are treated with
Speaker 3: high dose vitamin C, our five year survival rate is
Speaker 3: seventy five percent, whereas in America is sixteen percent Wow,
Speaker 3: conventional therapy. So there we've been able to prove that
Speaker 3: vitamin C has a tremendous potential to help cancer patients.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's so much that's there that if people would
Speaker 1: avail themselves of getting out of the box that they
Speaker 1: put us in. We had a very dear friend of
Speaker 1: ours who died of breast cancer, and she was a nurse,
Speaker 1: and she was really of closed off to investigating anything
Speaker 1: that was alternative to that.
Speaker 2: I talked.
Speaker 1: As I said to Raquil, one of things he was
Speaker 1: talking about was vitamin B seventeen. And they're saying a
Speaker 1: lot of times people looking at cancer as really kind
Speaker 1: of a nutritional deficiency in a way, in a sense
Speaker 1: like scurvy. You know, when the deficiency of vitamin C,
Speaker 1: do you use B seventeen?
Speaker 3: Yes, we've been using B seventeen for sixty years.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: Here at the Oasis of Hope, We've we've been in
Speaker 3: My father founded our institution, the Oasis of Hope in
Speaker 3: nineteen sixty three, and it was the first alternative that
Speaker 3: he used. And so it's a mild, natural anti tumor
Speaker 3: agent that is very effective in several types of cancers,
Speaker 3: and so we use it widely because it's completely non toxic. Now,
Speaker 3: the B seventeen vitamins isnomer. It is not a vitamin.
Speaker 3: That the discoverers two Americans, you know, father and son,
Speaker 3: doctor Krebs, which interestingly enough, it Crebs means cancer in German.
Speaker 3: So they discovered that there was a tribe in the Himalayas,
Speaker 3: the Hunter, that have the lowest incidents of cancer in
Speaker 3: the world, and they consume tremendous amount of B seventeen
Speaker 3: from Aprica pits, and so they believed in the fifties
Speaker 3: that it was a vitamin, and so the name stuck
Speaker 3: and it's widely known as vitamin B seventeen. But amigdoland
Speaker 3: is not a vitamin, but it is a natural anti
Speaker 3: tumor agent that has virtually no side effects.
Speaker 1: And I guess you know, because it is a food
Speaker 1: that it is not under the kind of scrutiny that
Speaker 1: some of the other things out there that are used
Speaker 1: alternatively to treat cancer. It's not an that kind of scrutiny.
Speaker 1: I know there's been a lot of harassment of doctors
Speaker 1: who have used it, and of course I've talked to
Speaker 1: Richardson at the RNC store about that. I've interviewed him
Speaker 1: a couple of times. And we know the stories from
Speaker 1: GEdward Griffin and his book A World Without Cancer, So
Speaker 1: we know that they frown upon it and they harass
Speaker 1: people significantly about it. But it is really a food.
Speaker 1: How do you shut down a natural food? They don't
Speaker 1: really and should not have the authority to be able
Speaker 1: to do that.
Speaker 3: No, And you know it's again the disincentive. It's that
Speaker 3: you cannot get a patent. For instance, my father in
Speaker 3: the seventies, god Be seventeen approved in Mexico for the
Speaker 3: use of in cancer patients, and he's spent that time
Speaker 3: in the seventies, I think, three hundred and eighty thousand dollars,
Speaker 3: and virtually the day that it was approved because it's natural,
Speaker 3: seven other laboratories started producing it.
Speaker 2: He never made his money back.
Speaker 3: And now we started buying from the other companies because
Speaker 3: they had much better equipment than we did, you're getting
Speaker 3: a better product. And so that's what's happened. And so
Speaker 3: vitamin C if it goes through the through the process,
Speaker 3: any company would would spend would have to spend about
Speaker 3: a billion dollars to get it through the FDA by
Speaker 3: doing all of the studies that need to be done,
Speaker 3: and without a patent.
Speaker 2: So there's there's.
Speaker 3: No way that anybody is going to do any studies
Speaker 3: on that, I mean, any effort on natural products to
Speaker 3: be approved by the FDA.
Speaker 1: And of course I've seen this type of thing happen
Speaker 1: before in the debate over medical marijuana. You know, they'd say,
Speaker 1: well there, you know, how many studies approve that it's effective.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, nobody has the financial incentive to do
Speaker 1: a study because you can't exactly, you can't patent that.
Speaker 1: And so we see this happening over and over again.
Speaker 1: And there's so many things. You know, we're just talking
Speaker 1: about two of them, but there's so many things out
Speaker 1: there that could be very very effective, you know, right,
Speaker 1: go back and I think about the ancient Greek physicians
Speaker 1: and they even said let food be your medicine exactly,
Speaker 1: and yet we don't have the studies that do that
Speaker 1: because there's no incentive for that.
Speaker 3: Yes, And and then the other misconception is that if
Speaker 3: it's not FDA approved.
Speaker 1: It's bad, and if it isn't approved, it's safe.
Speaker 3: Right, So there is a misconception that if something is
Speaker 3: not that if it's not if they approved, that it's bad.
Speaker 3: But it only means that it didn't go through the process.
Speaker 3: For instance, bananas are not approved by the FDA, right,
Speaker 3: and nobody can say.
Speaker 2: That they're bad.
Speaker 3: It's just that it didn't go through the process. So
Speaker 3: about banana is not safe and effective?
Speaker 2: Are you kidding me? So it's not appealing, I guess.
Speaker 3: So I hope that somebody comes with an idea to
Speaker 3: incentivize people to study natural products and that they can
Speaker 3: make money from them, because otherwise we will never have
Speaker 3: anything that's natural and that we know that it can work.
Speaker 3: For instance, Kirkman. There's about one hundred published studies on
Speaker 3: the value value that kirk could have for cancer patients,
Speaker 3: but it all stayed at the lab level. It never
Speaker 3: went into clinical trials because it's natural. On B seventeen,
Speaker 3: for instance, there's about seven publications that were done at
Speaker 3: the Slong kiddering in the fifties that prove that it
Speaker 3: was very effective in animals, but again because it was natural,
Speaker 3: it never went into clinical trials in humans.
Speaker 2: And so I hope that some bright mind out there.
Speaker 3: Comes up with an idea that can incentivize companies to
Speaker 3: get natural products approved, because the potential is enormous.
Speaker 1: And of course, the problem with a lot of the
Speaker 1: natural things like that is you know what dosage do
Speaker 1: you use? Like you're talking about kirckcomen and even BE seventeen,
Speaker 1: you know what type of But since they're not toxic,
Speaker 1: you can take large amounts of it. But again the
Speaker 1: question is, you know, are you taking a sufficient amount
Speaker 1: for it to be effective? I guess that's the issue
Speaker 1: when I look at it from my perspective as somebody
Speaker 1: who hasn't seen the studies. You know, what is your
Speaker 1: response to that?
Speaker 2: You're absolutely right.
Speaker 3: The difference between the needed dosage to survive of vitamins
Speaker 3: is extremely low in comparison to the for anti tumor activity.
Speaker 3: For instance, vitamin B seventeen, the normal doses five hundred
Speaker 3: milligrams a day that we need in order to not
Speaker 3: to develop scurvy, but to treat cancer. You need between
Speaker 3: one hundred between fifty and one hundred grams. That's a
Speaker 3: massive difference in dosage, and so you're absolutely right.
Speaker 2: The dosages that.
Speaker 3: We need to treat these c's are extremely high and
Speaker 3: not easily administered sometimes orally, so we need to create
Speaker 3: them in a drug form so that we can give
Speaker 3: to the patients IV or in liposomal forms nanoparticles. We've
Speaker 3: proven that nanoparticles, for instance, of quirkermen or B seventeen
Speaker 3: are so well absorbed in the body that it's almost
Speaker 3: as good as.
Speaker 2: If you would give them IV.
Speaker 3: So you can get very high concentrations in plasma and
Speaker 3: the blood for them to be effective. But you're absolutely right.
Speaker 3: The effective dose for nutrients or natural therapist is very
Speaker 3: high in comparison to the dosages used for nutritional purposes.
Speaker 1: And when we talk about nutritional purposes or even maybe
Speaker 1: as a cancer preventative, as many people take BE seventeen,
Speaker 1: you know what type of dosage you'reid looking at there
Speaker 1: in terms of not massive.
Speaker 3: For instance, the dosage calculated that the hunts that people
Speaker 3: take is about five hundred milligrams today and that's what
Speaker 3: you and you can obtain five hundred milligrams from about
Speaker 3: a pound of apricot kernels. So yes, the the the
Speaker 3: amounts that you use for prevention are much lower than
Speaker 3: the ones that you use for treatment.
Speaker 1: When we look at the synthetic drugs that are out there.
Speaker 1: Of course, there's also a lot of synthetic data as well,
Speaker 1: and that's one of the things that showed up that
Speaker 1: you have here and your information that you sent me
Speaker 1: in terms of gleypast ghost written scientific papers and things
Speaker 1: like that. That's not the first time we've seen that
Speaker 1: coming from pharmaceutical companies. I mean, you talk about the
Speaker 1: financial disincentive to show that something that's natural and not
Speaker 1: patented works, and yet there's a tremendous financial incentive for
Speaker 1: these people to pretend that something works that doesn't work,
Speaker 1: isn't it correct?
Speaker 2: For instance, there's a number of the new targeted.
Speaker 3: Therapies that are extremely expensive, like ten thousand dollars every
Speaker 3: three weeks wow, that were approved because it prolonged the
Speaker 3: life of a stage four cancer patient by three months.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: It was approved and they can have you know, a
Speaker 3: serious toxicity uh toxic side effects.
Speaker 1: So that's such a short period of time.
Speaker 2: I mean, how can you even.
Speaker 1: Reliably say that you know you're gonna die three months ago,
Speaker 1: and you survived for three months. I mean, if somebody
Speaker 1: is talking about years, yeah you could make that statement.
Speaker 1: But if it's just a couple of months, I don't
Speaker 1: know how anybody could even make that statement credibly.
Speaker 3: And and and they and they and they have been approved.
Speaker 3: So there's a you know, a tremendous amount of corruption.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that there's there's many, many people involved that
Speaker 3: are that are truly with a purpose in their their
Speaker 3: hearts to help patients, but the money incentive is just
Speaker 3: so massive that it just makes you think twice about
Speaker 3: how virtuous. So you know many many of these researchers are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. Well, when you look at the profit
Speaker 1: motives a big farm. But of course glyphyset speaks to
Speaker 1: the profit motives, a big pharma, a big ag right
Speaker 1: as well, because again they're looking at how much product
Speaker 1: they can sell, not well or not it is safe,
Speaker 1: effective and healthy. And we have glyphaset that is now
Speaker 1: permeating our food supply. Even if you're not out there
Speaker 1: as an agricultural worker getting direct exposure, you're getting indirect
Speaker 1: exposure from that. Talk a little bit about that, well, you.
Speaker 3: Know, there's a very interesting observationalist study that was done
Speaker 3: in Greece. Greece has a very high population density and
Speaker 3: so they have very little places for cemeteries. So when
Speaker 3: you die, you can only be in your grave for
Speaker 3: five years. Then they take your remnants out and somebody
Speaker 3: else can use the grave.
Speaker 2: But because kind of grade retire in Greece.
Speaker 3: At five years, they pull them up and they're fresh
Speaker 3: as to let us.
Speaker 2: They don't decay.
Speaker 3: Americans don't decay because they consume so many chemicals and
Speaker 3: preservatives in their foods, and so you know, it's a
Speaker 3: terrible trade of something that keeps you in your grave forever,
Speaker 3: that kills you younger. And it's all due to all
Speaker 3: of the chemicals used in food production. And so that's
Speaker 3: one of the things that I think Bobby Kennedy is
Speaker 3: trying to fight and reduce the amount of preservatives used
Speaker 3: in foods in comparison to Europe.
Speaker 2: It's it's tremendous.
Speaker 3: So it's it's it's very well known that many of
Speaker 3: those chemicals are very deliterious to our health, and then
Speaker 3: then that we.
Speaker 2: Shouldn't be using MH.
Speaker 3: So you're saying we will get back to consuming the
Speaker 3: food the way God put it.
Speaker 2: On dess Earth. Yes, so you're saying that the great
Speaker 2: life is the big thing to make money, if that's right.
Speaker 1: So you're saying the Greek people are getting a lot
Speaker 1: of chemicals and their bodies are therefore, No, they're not.
Speaker 3: They're not people in five years. They're completely disintegrated. Okay, okay,
Speaker 3: dust that went to retire there and died there and
Speaker 3: are buried there.
Speaker 2: The grapes they're fresh. Wow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they didn't have that Mediterranean diet that they keep
Speaker 1: pushing on all of us. I mean, especially since I
Speaker 1: have some mart issues as they get on that Mediterranean diet.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it's truly amazing. So the Americans are well preserved, right, Yes,
Speaker 1: that's amazing.
Speaker 2: Well, tell us a.
Speaker 1: Little bit about Hope the hospital, and I think when
Speaker 1: I talked to Rick Hil he said it was helping
Speaker 1: other people escape. I think was the acronym that he used.
Speaker 1: I think that's a great way to look at it.
Speaker 1: Tell us a little bit about it.
Speaker 3: So the Oasis of Hope is an integrative oncological center
Speaker 3: that it's also holistic. My father began this work because
Speaker 3: as an oncologist, he noticed that the main reason that
Speaker 3: we were failing and helping cancer patients was that we
Speaker 3: were not addressing their emotional and spiritual needs. We were
Speaker 3: only addressing the physical needs. And so he began by
Speaker 3: you know, helping patients emotionally and spiritually and noticed that,
Speaker 3: you know, noticed.
Speaker 2: That the results were much better.
Speaker 3: And then a few years later, this was in the
Speaker 3: late fifties, a patient that participated in a clinical trial
Speaker 3: with B seventeen in Canada came back to San Diego
Speaker 3: and she needed to continue with the B seventeen and
Speaker 3: that nobody wanted to give it to her because it
Speaker 3: was not.
Speaker 2: If they approved. And so a.
Speaker 3: Oncologist that knew my father because my father was a
Speaker 3: pathologist as well and he did pathological work for the
Speaker 3: Mercy Hospital in San Diego, said, well, I know of
Speaker 3: a Mexican oncologist, then he might be willing to give.
Speaker 2: It to you.
Speaker 3: And so my father looked at it and was not
Speaker 3: approved in Mexico either. But the patient stayed for breast
Speaker 3: cancer with metastasists to deliver to the brain to the bones,
Speaker 3: and she had really no hope and my dad said,
Speaker 3: I will give it to you and Loewen Behose she
Speaker 3: started getting.
Speaker 2: Better and better and better, and so this lady.
Speaker 3: Started calling everybody on the study, and that's how people
Speaker 3: learned about my father, and that's how the alternative part.
Speaker 2: Of the of the equation came to be.
Speaker 3: And so my father was the virtually the father of
Speaker 3: B seventeen in America. I'm talking about the continent of
Speaker 3: America because.
Speaker 2: It was already been used in.
Speaker 3: Europe as well, not as much as in Canada. So
Speaker 3: that's how we how we started and since then we
Speaker 3: have then developed many options for our patients, both in
Speaker 3: the emotional realm and in the alternative realm. And so
Speaker 3: we're always looking out for scientific, scientifically proven natural elements
Speaker 3: to help our patients. So Kirkham in vitamin C VITAM
Speaker 3: will be seventeen. There's there are many studies that show
Speaker 3: that hyperthermia, for instance, is very effective in killing tumor cells.
Speaker 3: For instance, ozone therapy is very helpful in the treatment
Speaker 3: of cancer patients. And and so we have many elements
Speaker 3: to help our cancer patients from conventional in from the
Speaker 3: alternative realm.
Speaker 2: So and as I mentioned.
Speaker 3: To you, are in the few studies that we've been
Speaker 3: able to make prospective clinical trials.
Speaker 2: They're very expensive.
Speaker 3: We're a small institution, but we've been able to do
Speaker 3: about four different clinical trials with the most common tumors,
Speaker 3: and our results are so much better than with just
Speaker 3: conventional and that's why many people from all around the
Speaker 3: world come to the.
Speaker 2: Oasis of hope.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, most of them come when they hit the wall,
Speaker 3: when they've been sent home to die where the you know,
Speaker 3: conventional therapists didn't work, and then they start looking for alternatives.
Speaker 3: But in the patients that come here first, their results
Speaker 3: are much much better.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, your story is very similar to what
Speaker 1: we heard from Gee Griffin in terms of people, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of somebody kind of happens on this one way
Speaker 1: or the other. They know of somebody who has helped
Speaker 1: with this, and then they try it and it's kind
Speaker 1: of word of mouth that kind of evolves this thing
Speaker 1: the same way it did with your father, and that
Speaker 1: kind of thing. I think, to me, I put a
Speaker 1: lot of credibility on that because I've seen so much
Speaker 1: manipulation of clinical studies. I know that a clinical study
Speaker 1: would be a great goal standard, but I've seen so
Speaker 1: much dishonesty in it. To me, it matters a great
Speaker 1: deal to hear this word of mouth that people have.
Speaker 1: You know, I tried this and this is this work
Speaker 1: for me? Maybe you want to try it that type
Speaker 1: of thing, And to me, I think that kind of
Speaker 1: recommendation carries a lot of weight to.
Speaker 3: Me, definitely. And you know, what you have faith in
Speaker 3: usually works better for you. And it's amazing. We've been
Speaker 3: criticized for selling full soup. And so my question is
Speaker 3: always is what's true?
Speaker 2: Hope? You're ned. There's either hope or no hope.
Speaker 3: And in the power of the mind is tremendous, and
Speaker 3: we poo poo that in the scientific.
Speaker 2: World, right, But yet we do double blind studies. Why
Speaker 2: do we do double blind studies?
Speaker 3: Because the belief of the patient makes a difference.
Speaker 2: That's right, that's right, good point.
Speaker 3: And so the first blind is that the patients do
Speaker 3: not know who's taking the place ebo and who's taking
Speaker 3: the drug.
Speaker 2: Do you know what the double.
Speaker 1: Blind is the administrators don't know who's got the doctors.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because the doctors can also sway the results. Right,
Speaker 3: I can tell you listen, this is the best thing
Speaker 3: since popcorn.
Speaker 2: Because I have stock in the ptaceutical industry.
Speaker 3: Right, So that's why we do double blinds, meaning that
Speaker 3: the power of the mind is tremendous, Well, why don't
Speaker 3: we exploit it? And that's what that's that's giving hope
Speaker 3: to the patients, right, that's working with their emotions and
Speaker 3: letting them know that there's possibilities and in and so
Speaker 3: whenever you can help somebody emotionally, it makes that tremendous.
Speaker 3: There are a hundred studies at least that show that
Speaker 3: positive patients have better outcomes than negative patients.
Speaker 2: And so if you work with a.
Speaker 3: Patient in the emotional realm and the spiritual because your
Speaker 3: emotional reactions, your emotion emotional reactions are based on your
Speaker 3: spiritual fortitude.
Speaker 2: So when you provide spiritual.
Speaker 3: Resources, the patient will have more functional emotional responses. And
Speaker 3: and you know, it's a big part of our therapy here,
Speaker 3: and I believe that that's one of the reasons why
Speaker 3: our results are.
Speaker 2: So much better.
Speaker 1: I agree with that, and that makes so much sense.
Speaker 1: As you point out, why do you even have double
Speaker 1: blind or a blind study, you know, where you have
Speaker 1: shielded who's getting the placebo and who's getting the actual drugs,
Speaker 1: Because it makes a tremendous difference. Even that place bo
Speaker 1: effect is measurable and known from a scientific standpoint. That's
Speaker 1: why they do the studies that way. And yet they'll
Speaker 1: come around and say, no, no, you can't talk to people
Speaker 1: about anything other than the physical. You can't talk about
Speaker 1: the metaphysical or the spiritual or anything like that. That's
Speaker 1: that's a great point to take away from that. Now
Speaker 1: you've written a couple of books as well, Hope of
Speaker 1: Living Cancer Free and The Coming Cancer Cure. Tell us
Speaker 1: a little bit about that. Are those available on Amazon?
Speaker 3: Yes, in Amazon, you can get on our website, and
Speaker 3: also many of them you can download for free. The
Speaker 3: latest one is The Art and Science of Undermining Cancer,
Speaker 3: and so I explained all of the possibilities that patients
Speaker 3: have there for cancer treatment, all the conventional in many
Speaker 3: of the alternatives, the ones that have you know, sufficient
Speaker 3: scientific support. I do not recommend any any of the
Speaker 3: ones that have no scientific support. And so, yes, you
Speaker 3: can have them available at Oasis of Hope dot com.
Speaker 1: That's great, and that's what people can find out of
Speaker 1: a true clinic as well or your hospital. Yeah, that's great. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. It really is fascinating and it
Speaker 1: is something that we have never needed more than at
Speaker 1: this time, with the explosion of cancer that we're seeing,
Speaker 1: with the threats of additional things in our health, in
Speaker 1: our food, I should say, and I guess that's one
Speaker 1: of the really big disappointments that a lot of people
Speaker 1: have had. I was skeptical from the very beginning. I'm
Speaker 1: always skeptical politicians are making promises. But this is a
Speaker 1: big disappointment when you have somebody who has spent his
Speaker 1: entire life talking about the damaging effects of life. Is
Speaker 1: that and now he's just done a complete one to eighty.
Speaker 1: The good point about it is that Children's Health Defense
Speaker 1: organization that he created, they're still holding to the course
Speaker 1: that they had set some time ago. They have not changed.
Speaker 1: So even though there's been a change on our k
Speaker 1: Junior's side, hasn't been a change from the Children's Health
Speaker 1: Defense that I've seen. They are staying with the course.
Speaker 1: But thank you so much, and again, Oasis of Hope
Speaker 1: dot com is where you can go to find out
Speaker 1: about doctor Francisco Contreres, MD, as well as his books
Speaker 1: and the treatments that you can get there. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining.
Speaker 2: Us, sir, Thank you very much, God bless.
Speaker 1: Thank you, and I'll just remind everybody that again. If
Speaker 1: you go to RNC store dot com, you can get
Speaker 1: books and information there as well as the Jerar Griffins
Speaker 1: The World Without Cancer, and you can save ten percent
Speaker 1: off of apricot seeds as well as the pill forms
Speaker 1: of migdalen. You can get all that stuff at rncstore
Speaker 1: dot com and use the code night to save ten percent.
Speaker 1: The common Man. They created common Core and dumbed down
Speaker 1: our children. They created common Past to track and control us,
Speaker 1: their Commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing
Speaker 1: and the communist future. They see the common man as simple,
Speaker 1: unsophisticated ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity
Speaker 1: created in the image of God.
Speaker 2: That is what we have in common. That is what
Speaker 2: they want to take away.
Speaker 1: Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire
Speaker 1: to know everything about us, while they hide everything from us.
Speaker 2: It's time to turn that around.
Speaker 1: And expose what they want to hide. Please share the
Speaker 1: information and links you'll find at the Davidknightshow dot com.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you
Speaker 1: can't support us, financially. Please keep us in your prayers.
Speaker 1: The Davidnightshow dot com