Cancer Part 1 - The History Of My Newfound Interest In Treating Cancer

I have been transformed by the scientific insights into cancer that my colleague Paul Marik imparted to me after the publication of his book called "Cancer Care." Here I tell my story.

In Part 1 of this series on cancer, I gave a brief overview of the current situation in oncology which is that the prevailing consensus theory as to the cause of cancer is… wrong. Here I discuss how I came to understand that fact (note I include a self narrated audio version of this post for those who prefer to listen than read).

I first started learning about cancer a little over a year ago when my friend, colleague, and mentor, Professor Paul Marik, started to talk to me about a book he had just read. For those who know me and Paul, this should be a familiar story – Paul developing a scientific insight and then I become really passionate about it in his wake 😊.

Recall that Paul Marik’s ICU career was notable for his overturning of scientific consensus numerous times as I wrote about at length in Chapter 4 of The War On Ivermectin called, “The Legacy of Paul Marik.” He first revolutionized the understanding of circulatory physiology and fluid management in critical illness, later discovered the life-saving properties of intravenous Vitamin C in septic shock, and more recently, he was one of the first to identify ivermectin as one of the most potent and applicable medicines in the prevention and treatment for both Covid and vaccine injury/long Covid.

Although he did not construct the Metabolic Theory of Cancer (MTOC), his recognition and appreciation of both the validity and the import of the theory may eventually have more impact than all of his prior contributions. There are several reasons for this, the first is that cancer rates have been increasing for a while and more recently have exploded (particularly among young people) in the wake of the mRNA campaign. Second is that cancer mortality has barely budged in decades (in fact it has increased). Third is that the available therapies used to treat cancer are often toxic, largely (but not completely) ineffective at improving survival (especially in solid tumors), and immensely costly.

Anyway, he was immensely excited about what he was learning about cancer and it became a frequent topic of conversation. That book inspired him to begin working on a project where he reviewed almost 2,000 studies on the metabolic mechanisms of hundreds of repurposed medicines and nutraceuticals as well as other metabolic interventions to treat cancer (i.e. diet).

He was the first to tell me that cancer was a “metabolic disease” but I have to be honest - I wasn’t totally sure what he meant by that and simply understood it to mean that he was studying metabolic aspects of cancer (FYI - “metabolism” is defined as the biochemical processes that lead to the buildup or breakdown of substances in the body, in particular the creation of energy).

I was happy for Paul as he was clearly committed to his new project (which later evolved into his celebrated book called “Cancer Care” (the 2nd edition of which will come out within about a week). But I hadn’t yet understood the central underlying premise behind the book given that at the time I was drowning in finishing and promoting my own book, The War on Ivermectin. Plus, soon after his book, I embarked on my own massive research effort studying the science and implications behind Covid mRNA vaccine “shedding” which me and my partner Scott Marsland were seeing cause symptom flares and relapses amongst our patients at the Leading Edge Clinic. That work eventually led to a collaboration with my favorite writer and physician on Substack, “A Midwestern Doctor” which can be found here.

However, at the time I already knew a little about the topic of repurposed drugs in cancer because early in Covid I had become friendly with the amazing physician and journalist Justus R. Hope (a pen name) based on his writings on ivermectin for the Desert Review and his book called “Ivermectin For The World.” More importantly, I had also read his book called Surviving Cancer, Covid-19, & Disease: The Repurposed Drug Revolution. It was Justus (check out his Substack) who first “schooled me” on the threat that repurposed (i.e. off patent) drugs present to Pharma, and how Pharma has systematically suppressed and attacked both off-patent drugs and inexpensive, unprofitable interventions whenever they show efficacy in treating “profitable” diseases.

Justus’s book on cancer was inspired by the case of a close friend of his who developed glioblastoma multiforme (a nasty brain cancer) which motivated him to search and study for therapeutic interventions and/or repurposed drugs which might help his friend. He found solid evidence for a four-drug protocol which he recommended to him. His friend then proceeded to far outlive his predicted prognosis, and although he died eventually, it was from the radiation injury to his brain that he had received initially and not from the effects of his cancer.

Hearing of this (still way early in Covid), I took a close relative of mine who had recently been diagnosed with melanoma to an integrative oncologist. Although her melanoma was completely resected and she showed no evidence of disease (NED) on imaging, the pathologists who looked at the tumor tissue (including my friend Ryan Cole, a dermatopathologist) found it suggested a high risk of recurrence and/or metastasis.

Her “system” oncologist was proposing she use a cancer drug (immune checkpoint inhibitor) to prevent recurrence. This was a novel use given she was cancer free at the time so she wasn’t sure she wanted to use it. The reason for that is the oncologist rightly explained that the drug had risks of adverse effects which worried her. It didn’t help that I was a pulmonologist who had been referred numerous patients over the years with pulmonary toxicity from it (i.e. organizing pneumonia).

My relative was greatly concerned about this and instead chose to forego her system oncologist’s recommendation. The more integrative oncologist instead started her on 11 different repurposed medicines and nutraceuticals (which I was a little shocked by at the time). Although the integrative oncologist explained the conceptual scientific framework behind the regimen really well, I didn’t personally review the evidence base or scientific rationale for the treatment protocol she was placed on. That would come much later. I should note that my relative is doing well and cancer free three years later and has had no problems tolerating her medication regimen.

Anyway, Paul started becoming obsessed with studying cancer as a metabolic disease in the winter/spring of 2023 but it was not until 6 months later that that I finally read the book that inspired Paul so much, a book titled “Tripping over the Truth: How The Metabolic Theory of Cancer Is Overturning One of Medicines Most Entrenched Paradigms” by Travis Christofferson. That book would prove to be as scientifically transformative to me as “Turtles All The Way Down” was in regards to my understanding of the (non) importance and (non) safety of childhood vaccines.

I was inspired to read the book after meeting with Travis and Paul to design an observational trial of using repurposed medicines and dietary interventions in cancer We designed the study together and successfully obtained IRB approval from a rigorous IRB (we have over 200 patients enrolled already). For any interested, info on the study and enrolling into it is here.

I was intrigued by Travis’s knowledge base and the results of one protocol of repurposed medicines that had been studied in patients with one of the nastiest cancers, that of glioblastoma (same one that Justus’s friend had). Note that glioblastoma, when treated with current “standard of care” (SOC) consisting of surgery, radiation, and oral temozolomide, has a horrific but well defined and reproducible median overall survival of about 15 months and a 2 year survival between 26-28%.

In that study, named METRICS, a four drug repurposed medicine protocol was used alongside SOC (mebendazole, metformin, doxycycline, and atorvastatin). They found that the treated patients lived an average of 27 months from diagnosis and had a 2 year survival of 64% compared to the well established 28% observed with SOC (despite the patients not starting the repurposed drug protocol until a median of 6 months after diagnosis). Such a sudden improvement in one cancer’s survival rate is truly remarkable if not somewhat unprecedented.

Anyway, after reading the METRICS study and then “Tripping Over The Truth,” (TOTT) I then read Seyfried et al’s seminal paper from 2010 called “Cancer as a Metabolic disease.” This was followed by reading many parts of both his 2012 tome “Cancer As a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer” and the NY Times bestseller The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer by Siddhartha Mukherjee. The latter is described as one of the most important books of the 21st century (despite it not mentioning Warburg or the MTOC even once)! One quote he cited which I like is, “Great science emerges from great contradiction (although I prefer “conflict”).

Ultimately, what I learned from Seyfried and Christofferson’s papers and books (as well as lectures and interviews by Seyfried) essentially upended mine (and what should be millions of other doctors) understanding as to what causes a cell to become cancerous.

I was transformed at the knowledge imparted in those books, and in particular the work of Seyfried, who ultimately and nearly singlehandedly is the one who compiled all the scientific underpinnings into a coherent MTOC. He shows that cancer has a “metabolic” origin (i.e. problem with energy production) and not a “genetic “one (i.e. arising from mutations in genes). This might sound boring and geeky, but I cannot overemphasize the import and applicability of Seyfried’s work (which is the culmination of the work of a smallish group of other incredible scientists and researchers over the last 100 years).

What impressed me the most was the impressive readability of Travis Christofferson’s book, Tripping Over the Truth. He tells the story of the modern scientific research history into cancer in a truly captivating and gripping way, almost like a suspense novel. He also brilliantly translates challenging scientific concepts for the layperson reader in a easily understandable way. He reviews in deep detail the personal and scientific histories of the most impactful cancer researchers over the last 250 years, culminating in the seminal events that allowed the SMT to become the prevailing scientific consensus as to the cause of cancer.

More importantly, his book rightly concludes with all of the evidence showing that nearly the entire scientific and oncologic community has, as a result, misunderstood the true origin of cancer. The implications of the erroneous SMT has been devastating in that it has led to the development of a range of therapies that are indiscriminately cytotoxic (kills both cancer cells and normal, healthy cells) and minimally effective if not outright harmful in terms of quality of live vs. extension of life (the stats on chemo are deplorable, see my later post in this series coming soon).

It is a story transformative to me professionally because it now dwarfs the impact of the several other practice innovations that I have been instrumental in propagating in my career (induced hypothermia in cardiac arrest patients, point-of care ultrasound at the bedside of crashing patients in the ICU, the use of IV vitamin C in septic shock, and the utility and safety of ivermectin (and other repurposed drugs) in Covid.

From Paul’s book:

In putting this document together, I have invested thousands of hours, read more than 1800 peer-reviewed papers, and consulted with dozens of doctors and experts. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting I have found a cure for cancer, nor am I the first to propose using repurposed drugs for cancer. What I hope to provide is a well-researched clearinghouse of information that picks up where traditional cancer therapies leave off. I aim to inspire providers caring for cancer patients to broaden their horizons and think creatively about readily available interventions, with science to back up their efficacy, and that could improve their patients’ outcomes. 

What I value so much about Paul’s book is that he essentially reviewed the scientific and clinical evidence for approximately 256 repurposed medicines and over 2,000 nutraceuticals. He then ranked and ordered them according to the strength of the totality of the available evidence to support their use in terms of efficacy and safety. What he found was, that although there are claims of efficacy and safety for hundreds if not thousands of treatments, only seventeen had sufficient data which met his criteria for a “strong recommendation.” Another eight he gave a “weak” recommendation. He also categorized another twenty as having “insufficient data” to recommend, despite many claims and use by various practitioners around the globe.

At this point in my life and career, learning that the current consensus theory as to the cause of cancer is built on an inaccurate scientific understanding is unsurprising to me. I add cancer to the list of “scientific dogmas” that have been exposed as being based on faulty or corrupt science (please know that I do not believe the SMT was built on corrupted science (just inaccurate/ignorant at the time) but I do believe that the current ignoring of the science and import behind the MTOC is likely corrupt.

In that vein, I will end here with some thoughts on how remarkable it is that, in the last 4 years of my career, I have ben made aware of an ever-increasing number of treatments for diseases which, although either useless or harmful, have been indoctrinated into the standard of care (SOC) in Medicine. Although I became aware of a few of these frauds on my own, I have to say that no-one exposes these medical “hoaxes” better or more expertly than my colleague A Midwestern Doctor (AMD).

Below is the list of what I now believe are largely scientific frauds propagated by 1) manipulated trials selectively published in peer-reviewed journals, 2) the censoring of negative studies by those same journals, 3) Pharma companies “hiding” (i.e. not publishing) the negative results of their own trials and 4) financially influencing both thought leaders and physicians (and media/agencies) such that the medications get recommended as SOC by professional societies and then become widely and often indiscriminately used (e.g. statins). Know the list below is not meant to be a complete list…

1.     The childhood vaccine schedule -  Turtles All The Way Down, Dissolving Illusions, and “How Much Damage Have Vaccines Done to Society” by AMD.

2.     SSRI Anti-Depressants – “The Decades of Evidence That SSRRI Antidepressants Cause Mass Shootings” by AMD.

3.     Statins and Cholesterol –“The Cholesterol Hoax” and  “The Great Cholesterol Scam And the Dangers of Statins” by AMD

4.     Skin Cancer – “Dermatology’s Horrendous War Against the Sun” by AMD

5.     Xygris for severe sepsis – “Withdrawal of Xygris from the Market; Old And New Lessons”

6.     Osteoporosis – “Exposing the Great Osteoporosis Scam” by AMD

7.     Alzheimers Disease – “Why Isn’t There A Cure For Alzheimers?” by AMD

But now it is time to start questioning the underpinnings of the biggest and baddest of all diseases - cancer. The truth, as always, needs help in coming out - something that Seyfried has near singlehandedly tried to do with his hundreds of interviews, lectures, papers and books.

As you will learn later, our track record treating cancer using current approaches is largely deplorable (with some modest exceptions). For instance, in the last 30 years, “advances” in chemotherapy have resulted in a paltry increase of only 3.4 months of survival while overall deaths from cancer have increased. Even in the era of supposedly “targeted therapies,” in the past 15 years the improvement in overall survival by new cancer therapies is a meager 2.4 months.

Those who know me know that one of my guiding mantras as a physician is “if what you are doing is not working, you need to change what you are doing.”  This is not dissimilar to what Paul wrote in his book introduction; “Providers need to care for cancer patients by broadening their horizons and thinking creatively about readily available interventions whose efficacy is supported by science and that could improve their patients’ outcomes. 

We are losing the war against cancer, and it is my hope that we can now start to turn the tide. I hope you will enjoy and learn from this series which I trust, like Paul’s book and our observational trial studying metabolic interventions and safe, repurposed medicines, will find benefits for the immense number of cancer sufferers out there.

Link to Part 2 The History And Evolution Of The Somatic Mutation Theory In Cancer

---

I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often a large amount of time that I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks. - Pierre

P.S Note we one of the treatment sites for the repurposed drug trial described here. Looking at the photo below, I just realized our staff is a lot bigger now - we just added our 20th employee!

P.P.S - Proud to report that my book has gained Best Seller status on Amazon in several countries and is still up there on U.S Amazon rankings. *If any of you have read it, I would love if you could post an honest review!