Interview: The Cancer Industry vs Natural Medicine
Dr. Francisco Contreras critiques the Trump administration's Defense Production Act mandate for glyphosate, which shields manufacturers from billions in cancer-related lawsuits despite evidence linking the chemical to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. He contrasts this with the financial disincentives for studying unpatentable natural remedies like high-dose vitamin C, arguing that Big Pharma prioritizes profit over safety while modern chemotherapy and vaccines contribute to rising cancer rates among youth. Highlighting his Oasis of Hope integrative protocols, which combine conventional care with immune-based therapies to achieve superior stage four breast cancer survival rates, Contreras concludes that addressing emotional and spiritual needs alongside physical treatment is essential for true healing. [Automatically generated summary]
Joining us today is a respected voice in integrative oncology, Dr. Fran Chisco Contreras.
And we're going to talk about glyphosate and the amazing flip-flop that we've seen out of the Trump administration over glyphosate.
Not only have we had hundreds of thousands of cases over the last few years and many, many jury awards, billions of dollars.
Matter of fact, I think it's $11 billion in terms of awards.
So it's been pretty well established, not only by the lawsuits, but also by studies, the increased risk of this.
And now we're seeing that the Trump administration is going to compel production of this as well as to protect them from lawsuits because that's all part of the Defense Protection Act, that if you make something that the government says is necessary for defense, you also get protected legally from it.
So this is truly a wake-up call for people, I think.
Thank you for joining us, Dr. Contreras.
Thank you very much for having me.
And tell us your statement about this.
What do you know about glyphosate that you've been watching as an oncologist?
You've been following this pretty closely.
Tell us a little bit about it from your perspective.
Yes, you know, there are some reports that it could be beneficial for cancer patients, but in our experience, we have not seen sufficient evidence of help.
And that's one of the reasons that I do not recommend it for our patients.
On top of the fact that, you know, it can have some side effects that are not easy on the patients or easily reversible.
And so in our experience, we are not using it at all.
Talk to me about it, I've never heard of this being used as a treatment for cancer patients.
I've only heard it as a risk of starting cancer, but people are actually using it to start.
No, no, no.
There are some reports, as you know, with chemotherapy, virtually all chemotherapies are oncogenic.
So there are some reports that it could be used as an anti-tumor agent.
But again, the evidence to us was not sufficient.
Now, how oncogenic it is, I really don't know.
But I do not recommend it, and I would avoid it if possible.
Well, when you look at the statistics, there's been anywhere from 170,000 to 200,000 lawsuits.
In just the last 10 years, 125,000 of those.
It's accelerating in terms of the lawsuits.
They have paid out $11 billion.
And so I guess we could say, really, the jury is not out.
The jury has delivered its verdict on a lot of these.
And of course, there's been, when we look at the massive amounts of money, that was the first thing that came out.
I was surprised at it because they had some kind of a class action lawsuit that set up a deal saying, well, we're going to limit your future liability to only $7.5 billion.
Now they have paid out already $11 billion.
How do they know how many people are going to get cancer in the future?
I mean, they've really limited their liability in regards to that.
There's still at least 60 to 67,000 cases that are outstanding with this as well.
Wow.
So that's a big problem.
But I would imagine that if somebody started something with many of the chemotherapies that we are currently using, that lawsuits like that could pop up at any time.
And so that's going to be complicated because radiation therapy, for instance, that is widely used, is a well-known carcinogen.
It's like so many of the things we see in these Ask Your Doctor commercials.
You know, you're taking something for a particular condition and they start rattling off all the different adverse, possible adverse effects.
And usually one of the first things that they rattle off is it may give you what you were taking it for, right?
Exactly.
So I don't know how they're going to manage that because I don't think that there's anything out there that is completely safe.
You know, for instance, the new immunotherapies available, they all have the possibility of causing other very major diseases like autoimmune diseases.
But yet, when a cancer patient is in an advanced stage, these products can help the patient survive maybe a year or more without so many side effects as with chemotherapy.
And so I don't know how these companies are going to be protected from lawsuits if they develop other diseases.
So all drugs have risks as well as benefits.
And so, man, the disincentive of producing new things is going to be curtailed if there's always going to be this possibility of being sued about it.
I thought that in America, especially in stage four cancer patients, the law is that you can now try things that are not completely approved by the FDA when these products have some possibility of helping a patient that is in, you know, in the last, that could be the last resort.
So I understand that companies need to be very careful in what they produce, but especially for cancer patients in advanced stages, there's always going to be risks in high risks.
My father died from his first round of chemotherapy, went into a coma and died from it.
So yeah, the chemo stuff can be extremely dangerous that's not there.
And when it comes to the Roundup stuff, we had our personal story was in the early 1980s, we had a dog that we tried to keep in the backyard, but it would regularly escape.
And we had some neighbors who used a Kim Lawn type of thing.
And they would come out, spray the lawn, they'd put up signs, keep pets and children off of the lawn.
It's like, oh, okay.
Well, he got out and he was eating the grass over there.
And then shortly after that, he got non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
And that was the first time I made the connection was I heard on the radio a report about how these agricultural workers were coming down with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and they thought it was because of glyphosate and Roundup.
And so I thought, oh, maybe that's it.
And then we had a friend who came down with it about the same time and died from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
So this is something that I've had my eye on since the early 1980s.
And it's amazing the number of cases that we've had.
And of course, there's been a lot of studies as well, haven't there?
Oh, yes, there's many studies that show that people that work on the lawns of golf courses have a terribly high incidence of lymphoma and prostate cancer in comparison to the rest of the population.
Wow.
So that's all of that is very well established.
And the other aspect of this, which I think is kind of unique, in addition to the cancer issue, is, of course, the fact that once you poison your ground with this glyphosate weed killer, you can't grow anything except the Monsanto genetically modified seeds that they sell you.
And I remember covering this from the standpoint of farmers in India who were committing suicide because they'd poisoned their land and they couldn't afford on a regular basis on an annual basis to buy the expensive seeds that Monsanto was selling them.
And I thought, you know, what is that going to do to our ability to grow food?
And yet we have, as this declaration was made by Trump, we had Republicans who were cheering it in Congress because Big Agro is concerned about food production because that makes them money.
They don't really are not that concerned about any adverse effects that might come from that kind of food production.
Oh, and there's a lot of research done that GMOs or genetically modified products can be very deleterious to our health.
Immune System and Cancer Treatments00:15:59
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know, it's deleterious to the bugs.
And if the bugs don't get close to it, we shouldn't either.
So I don't think that that is the answer.
Of course, you know, the production increases, but I think the diseases are also going to exponentially increase due to the manipulation of the DNA of our food.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah.
And in the email, we're talking back and forth, you had a picture.
It's kind of a picture that somebody had of RFK Jr. drinking glyphosate, which harkens back to one of their marketing guys saying, it's so safe.
I could drink it.
They said, okay, let's see you drink it.
And he's like, oh, well, never mind.
I don't think I'll do that.
But I guess it brings kind of drinking the Kool-Aid, isn't it?
We know we've got that happening with Mars.
There was a study published some years ago, you know, that they asked oncologist, would you give chemotherapy to a patient with stage four?
I think it was lung cancer.
And they said, of course.
And then they asked, if you had lung cancer, would you take chemotherapy?
And most of them said no.
Wow.
So, you know, that's not loving your patient as you love yourself.
That's right.
That's right.
Yeah.
First, do no harm doesn't apply there, does it?
It is very dangerous as many of these things are.
And I think I've said for the longest time, especially because of the Cancer My Family, I said, I think in the future, people are going to look back on chemotherapy and many of these cancer treatments in the same way that we look back on leeches, you know, being used in the past.
For red.
And, you know, you're right.
Yeah.
The last chemotherapy developed was probably 15 years ago.
Chemotherapy is going to be a thing of the past in probably 10, 15 years.
Wow.
So what do you use?
What are you leaning towards in terms of your treatment there at HOPE possibly?
So as you mentioned, my experience is in integrative medicine.
So what we have is we have all of the therapies available from the alternative and the conventional, because there are some tumors that respond extremely well to conventional chemo.
For instance, lymphomas, the cure rate is, you know, in the 90 percentile.
So, of course, in those tumors, we still recommend this therapy.
But for most cancers, chemotherapy is of very little use to the patient.
So there, the alternatives can be very effective.
And so our main therapies are on the metabolic side, like high-dose vitamin C converts itself, like chemotherapy kills the cells, with the same mode of action as chemo, without any of the side effects, really.
And our, our strongest uh therapies are immunologic.
So we have uh our impact protocol, which stands for immune, personalized autologous cell therapy, and it's based on dendritic cells, and i'm I don't know if you've heard the term of dendritic cell vaccine.
That was developed in America early this um century and it's still in clinical trials in America, whereas in Mexico it's already approved.
And so we work for the patients rather than against the tumor.
So we, we we create within the immune system of the patient an anti-tumor task force, uh with natural killer cells, and this has been very, very effective and it has zero say, side effects.
So there are many things that can help cancer patients.
Diet alone can make a tremendous difference in in how a patient responds to therapy uh, and so we have all of these uh, uh natural uh options available to our patients in conjunction with conventional therapy, because there are some patients that are definitely going to be benefited by surgery or radiation.
But our main therapies are immunologic in nature.
And so we produce them from the patient's own cells, immunological cells, like natural killer cells, zandritic cells, lymphokine-activated cells.
And I think this is the future.
Now, there are some conventional immunotherapies as well, like Etruda is one of the most used now that can be combined.
with the natural uh anti-tumor agents and and natural immunity uh that that we give our patients with very, very good results.
So we have the possibility of integrating conventional therapies with natural therapies, and there are patients that you know where conventional therapies have very little to offer, where we only offer now, natural therapies with very good results.
Yeah, I spoke recently to Rick Hill and that was one of the things he was talking about in terms of uh, you know, this is a cooperative thing and you're going to change your diet and some other things like that.
Uh, it wasn't just something that they were going to do to treat the cancer but, as you point out, I guess that's uh.
Is that what's meant by integrative oncology, that you're trying to build up the body to fight the cancer?
Integrative means that we can integrate both sides of the aisle.
Let's say, you know, conventional and And unconventional.
The immune therapies are the ones that where we stimulate the areas of the immune system designed to attack cancer.
Because we develop cancer because these areas of the immune system fail.
Otherwise, we wouldn't develop cancer.
I'm sure that you've heard of people that are 90 years old, they smoke all their life and they just ate mashed potatoes and meat and they never develop cancer because their immune system is up to par.
And so we only develop cancer when our immune system fails.
And so this is what we're trying to repair with our immune therapies so that the patients can counteract that cancer and heal themselves.
I remember at the beginning of all this vaccine stuff, Dr. Ryan Cole, who's a pathologist, said that the people that he was seeing that had been vaccinated had a tremendous deficit of killer T cells.
And he said, we're going to see an explosion of cancer, of turbo cancer and that type of thing because of that.
And that's exactly what he was talking about.
Your body's natural defenses.
Have you seen a large surge in terms of reported cancer patients where you treat people?
Yes, unfortunately, you know, we cancer was a disease of the elderly, let's say 60 and over.
And right now, of my patients, more than half are 40 years or less.
Oh, wow.
And with very aggressive cancers.
And when COVID hit, we had a number of patients that were in complete remission and they got vaccinated and their cancers reactivated.
And I agree, is due to the fact that the immune system is affected tremendously with these.
It's not really a vaccine, these drugs that were developed to fight these viruses.
Now, you're talking about the new approach.
You said relatively new approach.
Is this something that came out with RFK Jr. that they would relax some of the restrictions?
If let's say people had a terminal disease, relax some of the restrictions on people trying drugs experimentally.
I know that in Japan, a person that I know who is covering stem cell research, he said in Japan, as long as you can demonstrate to them that your treatment is not harmful, they'll let you go ahead and do it.
And then they'll use the data that you get from your treatment routine to see if it is effective.
So as long as you can show that it's safe, it opens up the door for you to do treatments to see if it's effective.
Is that where we are now with changes?
Well, during Trump's first term, there was a big fuss about it.
And so he opened up that possibility.
I don't know, because I'm in Mexico, I don't know if that continues to be the policy that if a patient is in stage four and the treatment has not helped that patient, that treatments that are in the process of being approved or disapproved by the FDA could be tried on those patients, as you say, when they were proven to be safe, because safety is very difficult to prove.
It takes sometimes years, where efficacy is very easy to prove.
You know, the tumor is larger and now it's smaller.
So, in patients where some therapies were proven to be effective, but the safety issue is not yet proven, but the patient is in stage four and has no other options, those therapies could be used on cancer patients.
But that was in his first term.
And I don't know if it continues to be true or not.
But that would offer a tremendous amount of hope to many, many patients that have really nothing that they could use.
Now, one of the things that you mentioned earlier was vitamin C. Did you say it was liposomic vitamin C?
Or you had a qualifier there for vitamin C.
Yes, well, the vitamin C in terribly high dosages.
So we know that vitamin C is a very potent antioxidant, but in very high dosages, like 50 grams or to 100 grams, it converts into an oxidant and it kills malignant cells with the same mode of action as radiation therapy, but without any of the side effects.
And this was discovered at the NIH and the NCI in the late 90s, and there were many published studies.
It never got into clinical trials because there the disincentive is that you could never get a patent for it because it's natural.
And you still have to spend the billion dollars to prove to the FDA that it's safe and effective.
And so it stayed at the level of the laboratory.
But we've been vitamin C in very high dosages, 60 grams a day for the last 10 years with very good results.
For instance, our five-year survival in stage four breast cancer is five times higher than with conventional therapy.
Wow.
Wow.
So in patients that arrive to us with stage four breast cancer that didn't receive chemotherapy and are treated with high-dose vitamin C, our five-year survival rate is 75%, whereas in America is 16%.
Wow.
With conventional therapy.
So there we've been able to prove that vitamin C has a tremendous potential to help cancer patients.
Wow.
Yeah, there's so much that's there that if people would avail themselves of getting out of the box that they put us in, we had a very dear friend of ours who died of breast cancer.
And she was a nurse and she was really kind of closed off to investigating anything that was alternative to that.
I talked, as I said, to Rickel, one of the things he was talking about was vitamin B17.
And they're saying a lot of times people looking at cancer as really kind of a nutritional deficiency in a way, in a sense, like scurvy, you know, one of the deficiency of vitamin C. Do you use B17?
Yes, we've been using B17 for 60 years here at the Oasis of Hope.
We've been in, my father founded our institution, the Oasis of Hope, in 1963.
And it was the first alternative that he used.
And so it's a mild, natural anti-tumor agent that is very effective in several types of cancers.
And so we use it widely because it's completely non-toxic.
Now, the B17 vitamin is a misnomer.
It is not a vitamin.
The discoverers, two Americans, father and son, Dr. Krebs, which interestingly enough, Krebs means cancer in German.
So they discovered that there was a tribe in the Himalayas, the Hansa, that have the lowest incidence of cancer in the world.
And they consume tremendous amount of B17 from apricot pits.
And so they believed in the 50s that it was a vitamin.
And so the name stuck and it's widely known as vitamin B17.
But amygdalin is not a vitamin, but it is a natural anti-tumor agent that has virtually no side effects.
Wow.
Wow.
And I guess, you know, because it is a food that it is not under the kind of scrutiny that some of the other things out there that are used alternatively to treat cancer.
It's not under that kind of scrutiny.
I know there's been a lot of harassment of doctors who have used it.
And of course, I've talked to Richardson at the RNC store about that.
I've interviewed him a couple of times.
And we know the stories from G. Edward Griffin and his book, A World Without Cancer.
So we know that they frown upon it and they harass people significantly about it.
But it is really a food.
How do you shut down a natural food?
They don't really and should not have the authority to be able to do that.
No, and you know, it's again, the disincentive, it's that you cannot get a patent.
For instance, my father in the 70s got B17 approved in Mexico for the use of cancer patients.
And he spent at that time in the 70s, I think $380, $80,000.
And virtually the day that it was approved, because it's natural, seven other laboratories started producing it.
He never made his money back.
And now we started buying from the other companies because they had much better equipment than we did.
You're getting a better product.
And so that's what's happened.
And so vitamin C, if it goes through the process, any company would have to spend about a billion dollars to get it through the FDA by doing all of the studies that need to be done.
And without a patent, so there's no way that anybody is going to do any studies on natural, I mean, any effort on natural products to be approved by the FDA.
And of course, I've seen this type of thing happen before in the debate over medical marijuana.
You know, they'd say, well, there haven't been any studies that prove that it's effective.
It's like, well, nobody has the financial incentive to do a study because you can't patent that.
And so we see this happening over and over again.
Dosages and Drug Forms00:09:40
And there's so many things.
You know, we're just talking about two of them, but there's so many things out there that could be very, very effective.
You know, I go back and I think about the ancient Greek physicians and they even said, let food be your medicine.
Exactly.
And yet we don't have the studies that do that because there's no incentive for that.
Yes.
And then the other misconception is that if it's not FDA approved, it's bad.
And if it is FDA approved, it's safe, right?
So there's a misconception that if something is not that if it's not FDA approved, that it's bad.
But it only means that it didn't go through the process.
For instance, bananas are not approved by the FDA.
Right?
And nobody can say that they're bad.
It's just that it didn't go through the process.
So a banana is not safe and effective.
Are you kidding me?
It's not appealing, I guess.
So I hope that somebody comes with an idea to incentivize people to study natural products and that they can make money from them.
Because otherwise we will never have anything that is natural and that we know that it can work.
For instance, curcumin, there's about 100 published studies on the value that curcumin could have for cancer patients, but it all stayed at the lab level.
It never went into clinical trials because it's natural.
On B17, for instance, there's about seven publications that were done at the Sloan Kittering in the 50s that proved that it was very effective in animals.
But again, because it was natural, it never went into clinical trials in humans.
And so I hope that some bright mind out there comes up with an idea that can incentivize companies to get natural products approved because the potential is enormous.
And of course, the problem with a lot of the natural things like that is, what dosage do you use?
Like you're talking about curcumin and even B17.
But since they're not toxic, you can take large amounts of it.
But again, the question is, are you taking sufficient amount for it to be effective?
I guess that's the issue when I look at it from my perspective as somebody who hasn't seen the studies.
What is your response to that?
You're absolutely right.
The difference between the needed dosage to survive of vitamins is extremely low in comparison to for anti-tumor activity.
For instance, vitamin B17, the normal dose is 500 milligrams a day that we need in order not to develop scurvy.
But to treat cancer, you need between 50 and 100 grams.
That's a massive difference in dosage.
And so you're absolutely right.
The dosages that we need to treat disease are extremely high and not easily administered sometimes orally.
So we need to create them in a drug form so that we can give to the patients IV or in liposomal forms or nanoparticles.
We've proven that nanoparticles, for instance, of curcumin or B17 are so well absorbed in the body that it's almost as good as if you would give them IV.
So you can get very high concentrations in plasma or in the blood for them to be effective.
But you're absolutely right.
The effective dose for nutrients or natural therapies is very high in comparison to the dosages used for nutritional purposes.
And when we talk about nutritional purposes or even maybe as a cancer preventative, as many people take B17, what type of dosage are we looking at there in terms of preventative?
Not massive.
For instance, the dosage calculated that the Hansa people take is about 500 milligrams a day.
And that's what you and you can obtain 500 milligrams from about a pound of apricot kernels.
So, yes, the amounts that you use for prevention are much lower than the ones that you use for treatment.
When we look at the synthetic drugs that are out there, of course, there's also a lot of synthetic data as well.
And that's one of the things that showed up that you have here and your information that you sent me in terms of glyphosate, ghost-written scientific papers and things like that.
That's not the first time we've seen that coming from pharmaceutical companies.
I mean, you talk about the financial disincentive to show that something that's natural and not patented works.
And yet there's a tremendous financial incentive for these people to pretend that something works that doesn't work, isn't it?
Correct.
For instance, there's a number of the new targeted therapies that are extremely expensive, like $10,000 every three weeks that were approved because it prolonged the life of a stage four cancer patient by three months.
Wow.
Wow.
It was approved.
And they can have, you know, serious toxicity toxic side effects.
So that's such a short period of time.
I mean, how can you even reliably say that you're going to die three months ago and you survived for three months?
I mean, if somebody's talking about years, yeah, you can make that statement.
But if it's just a couple of months, I don't know how anybody could even make that statement credibly.
And they have been approved.
So there's a tremendous amount of corruption.
I'm sure that there's many, many people involved that are truly with a purpose in their hearts to help patients.
But the money incentive is just so massive that it just makes you think twice about how virtuous many of these researchers are.
Yeah, that's right.
Well, we look at the profit motives of Big Pharma, but of course, glyphosate speaks to the profit motives of Big Pharma, of Big Ag, right?
As well.
Because again, they're looking at how much product they can sell, not whether or not it is safe, effective, and healthy.
And we have glyphosate that is now permeating our food supply.
Even if you're not out there as an agricultural worker getting direct exposure, you're getting indirect exposure from that.
Talk a little bit about that.
Well, you know, there's a very interesting observational study that was done in Greece.
Greece has a very high population density.
And so they have very little places for cemeteries.
So when you die, you can only be in your grave for five years.
Then they take your remnants out and somebody else can use the grave.
But because they retire in Greece, at five years, they pull them up and they're fresh as a lettuce.
They don't decay.
Americans don't decay because they consume so many chemicals and preservatives in their foods.
And so, you know, it's a terrible trait of something that keeps you in your grave forever, that kills you younger.
And it's all due to all of the chemicals used in food production.
And so that's one of the things that I think Bobby Kennedy is trying to fight and reduce the amount of preservatives used in foods in comparison to Europe is tremendous.
So it's very well known that many of those chemicals are very deleterious to our health and that we shouldn't be using.
So you're saying we'll get back to consuming the food the way God put it on this earth.
Yes.
So you're saying that the Greek life is the big thing to make money if.
Right.
That's right.
So you're saying the Greek people are getting a lot of chemicals and their bodies are there for no.
People in five years, they're completely disintegrated, okay?
Oh, dust to dust.
I got it the other way around.
The Americans that went to retire there and died there and are buried there.
I got their graves, they're fresh as a lettuce.
Nothing happens to them.
Wow.
Yeah.
They didn't have that Mediterranean diet that they keep pushing on all of us.
Me, especially since I have some heart issues.
I say, get on that Mediterranean diet.
But yeah, it's truly amazing.
So the Americans are well preserved, right?
Yes, in their graves.
That's amazing.
The Integrative Oncological Center00:10:06
Well, tell us a little bit about Hope, the hospital.
And I think when I talked to Rick Hill, he said it was helping other people escape, I think was the acronym that he used.
I think that's a great way to look at it.
Tell us a little bit about it.
So the Oasis of Hope is an integrative oncological center that is also holistic.
My father began this work because as an oncologist, he noticed that the main reason that we were failing in helping cancer patients was that we were not addressing their emotional and spiritual needs.
We were only addressing the physical needs.
And so he began by helping patients emotionally and spiritually and noticed that, you know, noticed that the results were much better.
And then a few years later, this was in the late 50s, a patient that participated in a clinical trial with B17 in Canada came back to San Diego.
And she needed to continue with the B17, and nobody wanted to give it to her because it was not FDA approved.
And so an oncologist that knew my father, because my father was a pathologist as well, and he did pathological work for the Mercy Hospital in San Diego, said, well, I know of a Mexican oncologist, and he might be willing to give it to you.
And so my father looked at it.
It was not approved in Mexico either, but the patient stayed for breast cancer with metastasis to the liver, to the brain, to the bones.
And she had really no hope.
And my dad said, I will give it to you.
And lo and behold, she started getting better and better and better.
And so this lady started calling everybody on the study.
And that's how people learned about my father.
And that's how the alternative part of the equation came to be.
And so my father was virtually the father of B17 in America.
I'm talking about the continent of America because it was already been used in Europe as well, not as much as in Canada.
So that's how we started.
And since then, we have then developed many options for our patients, both in the emotional realm and in the alternative realm.
And so we're always looking out for scientifically proven natural elements to help our patients.
So curcumin, vitamin C, vitamin B17.
There are many studies that show that hyperthermia, for instance, is very effective in killing tumor cells.
For instance, ozone therapy is very helpful in the treatment of cancer patients.
And so we have many elements to help our cancer patients from the conventional and from the alternative realm.
So, and as I mentioned to you, in the few studies that we've been able to make prospective clinical trials, they're very expensive.
We're a small institution, but we've been able to do about four different clinical trials with the most common tumors.
And our results are so much better than with just conventional.
And that's why many people from all around the world come to the Oasis of Hope.
Unfortunately, most of them come when they hit the wall, when they've been sent home to die, where the conventional therapies didn't work.
And then they start looking for alternatives.
But the patients that come here first, the results are much, much better.
Well, you know, your story is very similar to what we heard from Joe Griffin in terms of people, you know, kind of somebody kind of happens on this one way or the other.
They know of somebody who has helped with this.
And then they try it.
And it's kind of word of mouth that kind of evolves this thing, same way it did with your father.
And that kind of thing, I think to me, I put a lot of credibility on that because I've seen so much manipulation of clinical studies.
I know that a clinical study would be a great gold standard, but I've seen so much dishonesty in it.
To me, it matters a great deal to hear this word of mouth that people have.
You know, I tried this and this is this worked for me.
Maybe you want to try it, that type of thing.
And to me, I think that kind of recommendation carries a lot of weight to me.
Definitely.
And, you know, what you have faith in usually works better for you.
And it's amazing.
We've been criticized for selling false hope.
And so my question is always, what's true hope?
You're dead?
There's either hope or no hope.
And the power of the mind is tremendous.
And we poo-poo that in the scientific world, right?
But yet we do double-blind studies.
Why do we do double-blind studies?
Because the belief of the patient makes a difference.
That's right.
That's right.
And so the first blind is that the patients do not know who's taking the placebo and who's taking the drug.
Do you know what the double-blind is?
The administrators don't know who's getting it.
Yeah, the doctors, yeah.
Because the doctors can also sway the results, right?
I can tell you, listen, this is the best thing since popcorn because I have stock in the pharmaceutical industry, right?
So that's why we do double-blinds, meaning that the power of the mind is tremendous.
Well, why don't we exploit it?
And That's giving hope to the patients, yeah, right?
That's working with their emotions and letting them know that there's possibilities.
And so, whenever you can help somebody emotionally, it makes a tremendous difference.
There are a hundred studies at least that show that positive patients have better outcomes than negative patients.
Oh, yeah.
And so, if you work with a patient in the emotional realm and the spiritual, because your emotional reactions, your emotional reactions are based on your spiritual fortitude.
So, when you provide spiritual resources, the patient will have more functional emotional responses.
And, you know, it's a big part of our therapy here.
And I believe that that's one of the reasons why our results are so much better.
I agree with that.
And that makes so much sense.
As you point out, why do you even have double blind or a blind study where you have shielded who's getting the placebo and who's getting the actual drug?
It's because it makes a tremendous difference.
Even that placebo effect is measurable and known from a scientific standpoint.
That's why they do the studies that way.
And yet they'll come around and say, no, no, you can't talk to people about anything other than the physical.
You can't talk about the metaphysical or the spiritual or anything like that.
That's a great point to take away from that.
Now, you've written a couple of books as well.
Hope of Living Cancer Free and the Coming Cancer Cure.
Tell us a little bit about that.
Are those available on Amazon?
Yes, and Amazon.
You can get on our website and also many of them you can download for free.
The latest one is the art and science of undermining cancer.
And so I explained all of the possibilities that patients have there for cancer treatment.
All the conventional in many of the alternatives, the ones that have sufficient scientific support.
I do not recommend any of the ones that have no scientific support.
And so, yes, you can have them available at oasisofhope.com.
That's great.
That's where people can find them out at your clinic as well or your hospital.
Yeah, that's great.
Well, thank you so much.
It really is fascinating.
And it is something that we have never needed more than at this time with the explosion of cancer that we're seeing, with the threats of additional things in our health, in our food, I should say.
And I guess that's one of the really big disappointments that a lot of people have had.
I was skeptical from the very beginning.
I'm always skeptical of politicians who are making promises.
But this has been a big disappointment when you have somebody who has spent his entire life talking about the damaging effects of glyphosate, and now he's just done a complete 180.
The good point about it is that Children's Health Defense, the organization that he created, they're still holding to the course that they had set some time ago.
They have not changed.
So even though there's been a change on RFK Jr.'s side, there hasn't been a change from the Children's Health Defense that I've seen.
They are staying with the course.
But thank you so much.
And again, oasisofhope.com is where you can go to find out about Dr. Francisco Contreras, MD, as well as his books and the treatments that you can get there.
Thank you so much for joining us, sir.
Thank you very much.
God bless.
Thank you.
And I'll just remind everybody that again, if you go to rncstore.com, you can get books and information there, as well as Jero Griffin's A World Without Cancer.
And you can save 10% off of apricot seeds as well as the pill forms of Mygdalin.
You can get all that stuff at rncstore.com and use the code NIGHT to save 10%.
Exposing What They Hide00:01:16
The Common Man.
They created Common Core to dumb down our children.
They created Common Past to track and control us.
Their Commons project to make sure the Commoners own nothing and the Communist Future.
They see the Common Man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
But each of us has worth and dignity, created in the image of God.
That is what we have in common.
That is what they want to take away.
Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidnightshow.com.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for sharing.
If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.