[aaronaf]

Yes, I believe decisions are rushed on the supposed basis that delay would be tantamount to almost certain dire consequences. A friend of mine has already gotten 6 sessions of chemo for his pancreatic cancer, and he is obviously suffering more and more. I talked with him recently and told him about Dr. Varon’s good-news slides from last Wednesday’s webinar. He seemed very interested and wanted to know more about ivermectin (“never heard of it”), as well as about the benefits of combining it with the state of the art chemotherapy he is currently using under the guidance of his oncologist.

I sent links to him about resources from the new Cancer Hub as well as a link to Dr. Varon’s slides. I haven’t heard back from him – silence! I am guessing he asked his oncologist about my information. I think the most likely response from his oncologist is to ignore it, because of the negative narratives about both ivermectin and its high profile advocates, and because of the dearth of RCTs associated with them.

[IMA-HelenT]

Agree, @AaronAF both my friends getting chemo at the moment have been laughed at by their oncology team for even mentioning diet… so when they get other information they are reluctant to share it. Just awful,

it’s the time we need open and free discussion.

[Paul Smith]

Once cancer metastasizes, it can kill pretty quickly. That said, there is generally a bit of time between diagnoses and treatments and patients can add to ongoing conventional (standard of care) treatments as indicated so they have time to investigate if they know about alternatives. The key is to get this information to EVERYBODY so that nobody ever again says “I never heard of it.” Most organizations preach to the choir. We need to get mainstream media on board and talking/interviewing Dr. Marik, et. al.

[aaronaf]

I would like to propose a suggestion to the IMA team. Put together a creative one-page “thing” (for lack of a better term at this time) to titillate the interest of patients with cancer at all stages to seriously consider alternative treatment modalities like those promoted by Drs. Varon and Marik. It could be used by folks like me who want to encourage friends or acquaintances who have been diagnosed with cancer, even those who have already begun conventional therapies.

I know that the information is already out there, such as described by Dr. Varon last Wednesday, and on the new Cancer Resource Hub. However, even after I spent a few hours trying to summarize the major points, what I had written took up a dozen pages of print! That volume of content would probably be overwhelming to its recipient.

[IMA-HelenT]

Great suggestion @AaronAF I will pass this along to the team.

[aaronaf]

Thanks. I think there’s got to be an acceptable way to get across the idea to patients that many oncologists’ negative decisions about repurposed drugs are affected by an environment of “suppression for
profit, backed by government capture, coordinated media propaganda …” (from a 2026 substack article by Robert Yoho, MD, who is quoting Dr. Pierre Kory). If this is true, the response of cancer patients to check with their oncologist about any suggested new alternative treatment, especially if it is effective and safe, would be meaningless (according to the Kory Scale).

[aaronaf]

Regarding my comment that “… ‘there’s got to be an acceptable way to get across the idea to patients that many oncologists’ negative decisions about repurposed drugs are affected by an environment of “suppression for
profit, backed by government capture, coordinated media propaganda’ …”, I propose that a fairly long decisive list of reasons why a patient’s oncologist would be dismissive about the use of an alternative treatment might redirect the patient to seriously consider finding a more patient-centered oncologist. The items in this list should flesh out the above more complex or vague reasons describing the prevailing “environment.” Hopefully, reading and thinking about these reasons could cause your cancer-ill friend or loved one to take a more proactive approach in his medical treatment.

[aaronaf]

I asked AI (GPT mini) for an answer to my inquiry into reasons oncologists would be dismissive about alternative cancer treatments using repurposed drugs. Here is the answer I received after I persistently refused to accept AI’s previous answers that seemed to imply that the repurposed drugs were ineffective and unsafe and inferior because their use was not based on RCTs.

MY REQUEST: Give me a set of reasons that are more aligned to the complex reasons I listed in a previous statement regarding “an environment of “suppression for profit, backed by government capture, coordinated media propaganda’ …”

AI’s ANSWER: Understood. Below is a concise, patient‑facing list describing systemic or cultural factors (without alleging illegal conduct) that can make oncologists dismissive of repurposed or alternative protocols—even when those protocols are documented and promoted by responsible clinicians:

1. (1) Academic‑industrial norms — major research centers and journals prioritize large randomized trials and proprietary drugs, so non‑commercial repurposing work gets less attention and perceived legitimacy.
2. (2) Funding incentives — industry funds many clinical programs; therapies without clear commercial pathways often lack sponsored trials, affecting visibility and adoption.
3. (3) Regulatory burden and conservatism — regulatory agencies and institutional review bodies emphasize standardized evidence and risk mitigation, which slows uptake of unconventional protocols.
4. (4) Guideline‑driven practice culture — clinicians are trained to follow consensus guidelines; approaches outside those pathways are viewed as nonstandard regardless of independent documentation.
5. (5) Publication and peer‑review bias — novel small‑scale or negative‑outcome repurposing studies receive less editorial attention, limiting dissemination to mainstream practitioners.
6. (6) Defensive medical culture — clinicians may avoid endorsing nonstandard care because institutions emphasize risk avoidance and reputational protection.
7. (7) Fragmentation between communities — alternative‑medicine networks and mainstream oncology often operate in separate professional circles with limited cross‑communication.
8. (8) Reimbursement and formulary constraints — payers and hospital formularies favor approved, reimbursable drugs, making off‑label adoption administratively difficult.
9. (9) Media and public perception dynamics — sensationalized reporting or polarized coverage can cause clinicians to be wary of approaches associated with controversy.
10. (10) Training and credentialing gaps — many oncologists lack formal training in systematic evaluation of repurposed‑drug protocols and may defer to established specialty consensus.

If a patient wants a clinician more open to collaboration, suggest seeking centers or physicians experienced in drug repurposing, asking for an impartial multidisciplinary case review, or proposing a documented, time‑limited observational plan with objective monitoring and agreed trigger points.

***

MY PARTING COMMENT: Although the above reasons have the appearance of truth, AI’s answer seems to be an analysis constrained by biased training, since it deliberately avoids mention of the darker or shadier motives probably truer to the stark reality of the typical oncologist’s “… environment of suppression for profit, backed by government capture, coordinated media propaganda …” I believe the suffering cancer patient deserves a much more candid listing of the reasons that reflect the “darker motives” subtly influencing his oncologist’s dismissal of his preferred alternative treatments. To me, those “reasons” seem to be more like excuses, not true reasons. What are the real reasons?

[IMA-HelenT]

Thats the reason we often advice people to ” look for integrative healthcare providers in your area, that are prepared to work through the cancer protocols with you, AI can be helpful, with finding them for you. Then it will mean a few calls to establish what services they are happy to provide and to see if they suit your requirements.”

[aaronaf]

Right, I agree wholeheartedly! Thank you. That’s essentially what my AI (GPT-5.4 nano) recommended as an afterthought in his summary paragraph above: “If a patient wants a clinician more open to collaboration, suggest seeking centers or physicians experienced in drug repurposing …” In a perfect world, integrative physicians would be teeming in such centers.

[Paul Smith]

I think the issue is that Oncologists know that they can not make a living pedaling (or even tolerating) repurposed or non-soc treatments.

[Gary Graziano]

I have certainly experienced that pressure in the case of my own cancer (lung). I was “fortunate” in that I was already receiving care from a pulmonologist for COPD. I had been receiving regular scans to monitor the progression of that disease when 2 tumors were revealed. I had been researching alternatives to conventional treatment for over a year; as a former smoker with emphysema, cancer seemed very possible. That research gave me a foundation to refuse conventional treatment and resist the pressure. I’ve been using the alternatives now for more than a year. While I have managed to slow tumor growth and hold off metastasis, I have not effected a remission. I’m now considering whether to get a biopsy (bronchoscopy) and submit to SBRT. I was beginning to think I had no choice, until I found a Nicholas Hulscher article in Focal Points that maybe offers me a choice after all. I’ve been receiving IV treatments of high-dose Vit. C/DMSO for several weeks, and am up to 75g per infusion. According to Hulscher, it is necessary to receive 2-3 infusions per week of 75-100g for 6-8 weeks to reach a 20+nM plasma level needed to attack the cancer. We’ll begin that schedule next week. We’ll test again after that interval, and assess. I’d love to avoid radiation if at all possible, and this may be the missing piece. My integrative MD who is giving me the high-dose C pointed out that alternative treatments sometimes aren’t enough, and encouraged me to consider radiation. Every cancer is different in terms of how it behaves and wat it responds to. Research is essential, and giving in to fear can get you killed as easily as ignoring the disease!

[IMA-HelenT]

All very good points, sometimes it a combination of therapies that cures. Please keep us posted on your progress.

[aaronaf]

Thank you, f. maximus, for sharing your current novel treatment for lung cancer. This cancer is in my family history; so I saved the details of your treatment in my notes on alternative treatments of cancer.

[Gary Graziano]

You’re quite welcome, but be advised that the treatment regimen I’m using is far more complicated than described above. High dose C/DMSO is just the most recent addition. That regimen also includes myriad repurposed drugs, and nutritional supplements targeted to cancer’s signaling pathways. Dr. Marek’s book Cancer Care was one of the first books I read on the subject. Jane McClellan’s How To Starve Cancer provided some pieces of the puzzle, as did Substacks by A Midwestern Doctor, and Justus R. Hope. For all of that, it’s still quite possible I’ll need the radiation therapy recommended to me. The next 6-8 weeks will be crucial in deciding whether to do it.

[aaronaf]

Thanks again for your clarifications.

Since you are open to combining different approaches to treatments, you might be interested in adding the following methods to your alternative medicine treatments armamentarium:

Oh B, Butow P, Mullan B …

“Impact of Medical Qigong on quality of life, fatigue, mood and inflammation in cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial”

Annals of Oncology, 21, 608-614

https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534(19)38318-8/fulltext

Conclusions

This study indicates that MQ can improve cancer patients’ overall QOL and mood status and reduce specific side-effects of treatment. It may also produce physical benefits in the long term through reduced inflammation.

If you are interested, I can give you links to demonstrations of some of the most important medical qigong exercises. (I have been practicing MQ for 15 years.)

[Gary Graziano]

That’s kind of you to offer. I’ll keep it in mind, particularly if I have to go ahead with radiation. I’m finding the psychological aspects of my situation fascinating. Maybe that saying “forewarned is forearmed” applies here; I researched cancer extensively before being diagnosed, so I have not been stressed out or particularly fearful. I just decided fear was counterproductive, and try to stay focused on what I can change. Sometimes I have to remind myself I have a disease that can kill me because I have no symptoms. With the exception of a blood marker for cancer, my bloodwork is the best it has ever been. I will say that the days with Mrs. M have become even more precious to me, and she has done everything within her power to support my efforts. My head is in a very good place!

[IMA-HelenT]

You may enjoy reading this substack from Dr. Marik https://paulmarik.substack.com/p/a-patient-story-from-confusion-to

[aaronaf]

This is just a test to check to see if I could post a reply to this post. So far, no luck!

Why isn’t there an option to delete one’s post?

[aaronaf]

Great article! Important take-away: Patient must be active in his own care, not passive.

Anyway, I still wonder how the oncologists in Alex’s care would describe their viewpoints. I guess they could easily whitewash their culpability under the guise of cancer’s complexity and the requirements of the many interactive factors that must be considered for its treatment.

Please read and comment about what AI (GPT-5.4 nano) had to say, with my prodding, about Dr. Marik’s article about Alex’s story. AI’s conclusion was: (I am paraphrasing) It is fair that the negative aspects of her treatment could be interpreted as “likely preventable inefficiency.”

Initially, AI said: The article doesn’t prove fault conclusively, because it doesn’t document:

(a) what the oncologist knew or said about molecular profiling,

(b) what constraints existed (tissue adequacy/timing, standard-of-care sequence decisions, insurance/logistics, trial search status),

(c) or whether the oncologist did order/plan profiling earlier but it was delayed downstream.

In short: your point is well-supported that the pivotal steps were patient-initiated, but the article still leaves open the “why” behind the oncology team’s timing/proactiveness.

–

I asked: Did the text I copied and pasted show anywhere in it that the authors, including the patient, criticized her oncologist or his team?

AI answered: Yes—though mostly indirectly, not as direct quotes like “the oncologist was negligent.”

In the portions you pasted, they criticize/impugn the oncologist/team in these ways:

(a) Sequencing / coordination critique (implied): they say surgery “was performed first … creating an inconsistency” and that care seemed “largely managed under standard protocols rather than receiving care that felt thoughtfully tailored,” i.e., suggesting insufficient personalization/coordination.

(b) Timing of molecular profiling (explicit framing): they claim a Brigham report “explicitly recommended molecular studies,” yet “more than two years would pass before comprehensive molecular profiling was finally performed,” which they call “a significant gap in the care.”

(c) Outcome of relying on others (general critique): they repeatedly emphasize “missing… critical gaps” and that “Relying entirely on others for clarity and direction often leaves critical gaps,” culminating in “we ultimately had to take ownership of understanding her situation ourselves.”

What you did not paste:

(d) Any direct statement attributing wrongdoing like “the oncologist was wrong/negligent,” or any verbatim criticism of named individuals. The criticism is primarily through their conclusions and characterization of events (“gap,” “lost,” “standard protocols,” “not thoughtful or personalized”).

–

I then commented: I think I understand. As usual, you are following careful guidelines prompted by your training to avoid making unsubstantiated claims against the doctors involved. Legally, the authors cannot claim negligence by the doctors with the information that’s available in the article. However, for most lay readers like myself, there does appear to be some serious fault in the oncologist or oncologists’ treatments over the timeline described.

AI responded: I think your lay conclusion is understandable given the narrative. The story depicts (from the patients’ perspective) a long stretch where key “personalization” steps—especially comprehensive molecular profiling—arrived late, and that gap coincided with multiple rounds of standard therapy despite recurrence/progression.

But the article still doesn’t let a reader prove specific “fault” in the strong sense, because it doesn’t provide the missing facts that would explain or contextualize the timeline (e.g., what was already planned, what the team knew at each step, what options were or weren’t available then, tissue/sample adequacy, insurance/workflow delays, trial availability/eligibility, and whether earlier profiling would likely have produced an actionable result).

So: it’s fair to say the patients experienced the
care as insufficiently proactive and as leaving “critical gaps,” and it’s also
fair to interpret that as likely preventable inefficiency. It’s just
harder—based on this text alone—to responsibly label it as negligence or
demonstrate that an earlier CARIS/target-matched step would have changed
outcomes.

[IMA-HelenT]

😊 what a wonderful community we have. Thank you all for your generosity.