Joining us today is a respected voice in integrative oncology, doctor fran Cisco Contreras, and we're going to talk about Glyphassett and the amazing flip flop that we've seen out of the Trump administration over Glyphysett. Not only have we had hundreds of thousands of cases over the last few years and many many jury awards billions of dollars. As a matter of fact, I think it's eleven billion dollars
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 Production 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, doctor.
Contrash, thank you very much for having me.
And tell us your statement about this. What do you know about Glifa said 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 there are some reports that it could be beneficial for 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 that are not that are not easy on the patients, or or or easily reversible, and so in our experience, we are not using it at all.
Well, talk to me about 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 know.
No, No, there are some reports, as you know with chemotherapy. Yeah, all chemotherapies are our any 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 how uncogenic it is, I really don't know. But but you know, I do not recommend it and I would avoid it if possible.
Well, when you look at these statistics, there's been anywhere from one hundred and seventy thousand to two hundred thousand lawsuits in just the last ten years, one hundred and twenty five thousand of those, so it's accelerating. Terms of the lawsuits. They have paid out eleven billion dollars, and so I guess we could say, really, the jury is not out. The jury's 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 seven and a half billion dollars. Now they have paid out already eleven billion dollars. 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 sixty to sixty seven thousand cases that are outstanding with this as well.
Wow, so that's a you know, that's a big problem. But I would imagine that if somebody started something with many of the communal therapies that we are, you know, currently using, that losses like that could pop up at any time. And so that's it's going to be complicated because radiation therapy, for instance, that is widely used, is a well known carcinogen.
Yes, there's like so many of the things we see in these ask your doctor commercials.
You know, you're.
Taking something for particular condition, and when they start rattling off all the different adverse possible adverse effects, and usually one of the first things that they rattle off is that may give you what you were taking it for.
Right exactly, So that 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 immune therapy is available. They all have you know, the possibility of causing other very major diseases like out immune diseases. But yet when a cancer patient is in an advanced stage, these products can help the patient survive maybe you know, 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 if they develop other diseases.
So all drugs have have you know, risks.
As well as benefits, and so man, the disincentive of producing new things is going to be curtailed if if there's always going to be this possibility of being sued about it, I doubt 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 when these products have some possibility of helping a patient that is in you know, in the in the last that that could be the last resort.
So I am understand that, you know, companies.
Need to be very careful in what they produce, but especially for cancer patients in advance stages, there's always going to be risks in.
Oh, yeah, 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 nineteen eighties, 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 laan type of thing, and they
had 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 Hotchkins lymphoma. And that was the first time I made the connection. Was I heard on the radio report about how these agricultural workers were coming down with non Hodgkins lymphoma and they thought it was because of glycost and roundup.
It's not that.
Oh, maybe that's it. And then we had a friend who came down with it about the same time and died from non Hodgkins lymphoma. So this is something that I've had my eye on since the early nineteen eighties, and it's amazing the number of cases that we've had. Of course, there's been a lot of studies as well, haven't there.
Oh yes, there's many says 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 glycyst weedkiller. 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 poison their land and they couldn't afford on a regular, on an annual basis to buy the expensive seeds that Monsanta 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 decoration 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 delicious to our health.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's in the turis 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, it did the production increases, but I think that diseases are also going to exponentially increase due to the manipulation of the DNA of the of our food.
Yeah. Absolutely, yeah.
And in the the email we're talking back and forth, you had a picture, it's kind of a picture that somebody had of RFK Junior drinking the Gli, which hearkens 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 said, well, never mind, I don't think I'll do that. But I guess it brings a kind of drinking the kool aid, isn't it.
We've got that happening with.
A study published some years ago, you know, the Ascent colleges. Would you give chemotherapy to a with stage four I think it was a lung cancer And they said, of course. And then they asked me, if you had lung cancer, would you take chemotherapy?
And they most of them said no. Wow.
Yeah, 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?
Right?
It is as very dangerous as many of these things are. And I think I've said for the longest time, especially because the cancer of 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 and you know things right, Yeah.
The last chemotherapy developed was probably fifteen years ago. Chemotherapy is going to be a thing of the past in probably ten fifteen years.
So what do you use, what do you what are you leaning towards in terms of your treatment? There at hope possible.
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 cre rate is you know, in the ninety percentile, So of course in those tumors we
still recommend this therapies. But for most cancers, chemotherapy is a very little use to the patient, so they're the alternatives can be very effective, and so our main therapies are on the metabolic side, like how dose vitamins ce converts itself like chemotherapy kills the cells with the same mode of action as chemo without any of the side effects, and our strongest therapies are immunologic. So we have our IMPACT protocol which stands for Immune Personalized of Tooleogus cell Therapy,
and it's based on dendritic cells. And I don't know if you've heard the term of dendritic cell vaccine that was developed in America early this century and it's still in clinical trials in America, whereas in Mexico has already approved. And so we work for the patients rather than against the tumor. So we create within the immune system of the patient an anti tumor task force with natural killer cells, and this has been very, very effective and it has.
Zero side effects.
So there are many things that can help cancer patients. Diet alone can make a tremendous difference in how a patient responds to therapy, and so we have all of these natural 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 and dritic cells. Lymphokind activated cells, and I think this is the future. Now, there are some conventional immunotherapies as well, like ki Truda is one of the most used now that can be combined with the natural anti tumor agents and natural immunity 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 we're conventional therapies have very little to our where we only offer now natural therapies with very good results.
Yeah.
I spoke recently to Rick Hill and that was one things he was talking about in terms of, you know, this is a cooperative thing and you're going to change your diet and some other things like that. It wasn't just something that they were going to do to treat the cancer. But as you point out, I guess 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, conventional 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 failed.
Otherwise we wouldn't do other cancer.
I'm sure that you've heard of people that are ninety years old. They smoke all their life, and they you know, mashed potatoes and meat, and they never developed cancers 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 that doctor Ryan Cole, who's a pathologist, said that the people that he was saying that had been vaccinated had a tremendous deficit of killer tea 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 is natural defenses. Have you seen a large surge in terms of reported cancer patients where you treat people?
Yes, Unfortunately, we know we cancer was a disease of the elderly, let's say sixty and over and right now, my patients more than half or forty years or less.
Oh wow, and with very aggressive cancers.
And when COVID hit, we had a number of patients that were, you know, in complete remission and they got vaccinated and their cancers reactivated. And I agree, it's you 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 this viruses.
Now you're talking about the new approach, she said, relatively new approach. Is this something came down with RFK Junior that they would relax some of the restrictions. Let's say people had a terminal disease, relax some of the restrictions
on people trying drug 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 routined to see if it is effective. So as long as you can show that it's safe, you can 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 fuzz about it, and so he opened up that possibility. I don't know the excitement 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 would be tried on those patients, as you say, when they were proven to be safe, because safety is very difficult to.
Prove and take sometimes years, where efficacy is very easy to prove. You know, the tumor is larger and not smaller.
So in patients where some therapies were proven to be effective but the safety issue is not yet proven, but the patient is at stage four and has no other options, those therapies could be used on cancer patients. But that wasn't his first term, and I don't know if it continues to be true or not, but that you 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 lyposomic vitamin C or you had a qualifier there for vitamin C.
Yes, well, the vitamin C in terribly high dosages, so we know that that you know, vitamin C is a very potent antioxidant, but in very high dosages like fifty grams or to one hundred grams, it converts into an occident 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 and the NCI in the late nineties and there
were you know, many published studies. It never got into clinical trials because they're the disincentive is that you could never get a patent for it.
Yeah, because it's natural.
And you still have to spend you know, the billion dollars to prove to the FDA that it's safe and effective. And so it stayed at the level of you know, of the laboratory. But we've been using vitamin C in very high dosages sixty grams a day for the last ten years with.
Very good results.
For instance, our five year survival and stage four breast cancer is five times higher than with conventional therapy.
Wow. Wow.
So impatients that arrived to us that with stage four breast cancer that didn't receive chemotherapy and are treated with high dose vitamin C, our five year survival rate is seventy five percent, whereas in America is sixteen percent Wow, 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 of closed off to investigating anything that was alternative to that.
I talked.
As I said to Raquil, one of things he was talking about was vitamin B seventeen. 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, when the deficiency of vitamin C, do you use B seventeen?
Yes, we've been using B seventeen for sixty years.
Wow.
Here at the Oasis of Hope, We've we've been in My father founded our institution, the Oasis of Hope in nineteen sixty three, 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 B seventeen vitamins isnomer. It is not a vitamin.
That the discoverers two Americans, you know, father and son, doctor Krebs, which interestingly enough, it Crebs means cancer in German. So they discovered that there was a tribe in the Himalayas, the Hunter, that have the lowest incidents of cancer in the world, and they consume tremendous amount of B seventeen from Aprica pits, and so they believed in the fifties that it was a vitamin, and so the name stuck
and it's widely known as vitamin B seventeen. But amigdoland is not a vitamin, but it is a natural anti tumor agent that has virtually no side effects.
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 an 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 GEdward 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 seventies, god Be seventeen approved in Mexico for the use of in cancer patients, and he's spent that time in the seventies, I think, three hundred and eighty thousand dollars, 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 through the process, any company would would spend 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 there's.
No way that anybody is going to do any studies on that, 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, you know, how many studies approve that it's effective. It's like, well, nobody has the financial incentive to do a study because you can't exactly, you can't patent that. And so we see this happening over and over again.
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, right, 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 and then the other misconception is that if it's not FDA approved.
It's bad, and if it isn't approved, it's safe.
Right, So there is a misconception that if something is not that if it's not if they 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 about banana is not safe and effective?
Are you kidding me? So 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's natural and that we know that it can work. For instance, Kirkman. There's about one hundred published studies on the value value that kirk could have for cancer patients, but it all stayed at the lab level. It never
went into clinical trials because it's natural. On B seventeen, for instance, there's about seven publications that were done at the Slong kiddering in the fifties that prove 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 you know what dosage do you use? Like you're talking about kirckcomen and even BE seventeen, you know what type of But since they're not toxic, you can take large amounts of it. But again the question is, you know, are you taking a 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. You know, 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 the for anti tumor activity. For instance, vitamin B seventeen, the normal doses five hundred milligrams a day that we need in order to not to develop scurvy, but to treat cancer. You need between one hundred between fifty and one hundred grams. That's a massive difference in dosage, and so you're absolutely right.
The dosages that.
We need to treat these c's 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 nanoparticles. We've proven that nanoparticles, for instance, of quirkermen or B seventeen 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 and the blood for them to be effective. But you're absolutely right. The effective dose for nutrients or natural therapist 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 BE seventeen, you know what type of dosage you'reid looking at there in terms of not massive.
For instance, the dosage calculated that the hunts that people take is about five hundred milligrams today and that's what you and you can obtain five hundred milligrams from about a pound of apricot kernels. So yes, the the 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 gleypast 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 ten thousand dollars every three weeks wow, that were approved because it prolonged the life of a stage four cancer patient by three months.
Wow.
It was approved and they can have you know, a serious toxicity uh toxic side effects.
So that's such a short period of time.
I mean, how can you even.
Reliably say that you know you're gonna die three months ago, and you survived for three months. I mean, if somebody is talking about years, yeah you could 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 and and they and they and they have been approved. So there's a you know, a tremendous amount of corruption. I'm sure that there's there's many, many people involved that are that are truly with a purpose in their their hearts to help patients, but the money incentive is just so massive that it just makes you think twice about how virtuous. So you know many many of these researchers are.
Yeah, that's right. Well, when you look at the profit motives a big farm. But of course glyphyset speaks to the profit motives, a big pharma, a big ag right as well, because again they're looking at how much product they can sell, not well or not it is safe, effective and healthy. And we have glyphaset 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 observationalist 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 kind of grade retire in Greece.
At five years, they pull them up and they're fresh as to let us.
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 trade 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.
It's it's tremendous.
So it's it's it's very well known that many of those chemicals are very deliterious to our health, and then then that we.
Shouldn't be using MH.
So you're saying we will get back to consuming the food the way God put it.
On dess Earth. Yes, so you're saying that the great life is the big thing to make money, if that's right.
So you're saying the Greek people are getting a lot of chemicals and their bodies are therefore, No, they're not.
They're not people in five years. They're completely disintegrated. Okay, okay, dust that went to retire there and died there and are buried there.
The grapes they're fresh. Wow.
Yeah, they didn't have that Mediterranean diet that they keep pushing on all of us. I mean, especially since I have some mart issues as they get on that Mediterranean diet. But yeah, it's truly amazing. So the Americans are well preserved, right, Yes, that's amazing.
Well, tell us a.
Little bit about Hope the hospital, and I think when I talked to Rick Hil 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 it's also holistic. My father began this work because as an oncologist, he noticed that the main reason that we were failing and 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 you know, 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 fifties, a patient that participated in a clinical trial with B seventeen in Canada came back to San Diego and she needed to continue with the B seventeen and that nobody wanted to give it to her because it was not.
If they approved. And so a.
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, then he might be willing to give.
It to you.
And so my father looked at it and was not approved in Mexico either. But the patient stayed for breast cancer with metastasists to deliver to the brain to the bones, and she had really no hope and my dad said, I will give it to you and Loewen Behose 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 of the equation came to be.
And so my father was the virtually the father of B seventeen 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 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 scientific, scientifically proven natural elements to help our patients. So Kirkham in vitamin C VITAM will be seventeen. There's 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 and so we have many elements to help our cancer patients from conventional in from the alternative realm.
So and as I mentioned.
To you, are 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 you know, conventional therapists didn't work, and then they start looking for alternatives. But in the patients that come here first, their results are much much better.
Well, you know, your story is very similar to what we heard from Gee 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 the 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 goal 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 work 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 full soup. And so my question is always is what's true?
Hope? You're ned. There's either hope or no hope.
And in 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, good point.
And so the first blind is that the patients do not know who's taking the place ebo and who's taking the drug.
Do you know what the double.
Blind is the administrators don't know who's got 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 ptaceutical 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 what that's that's giving hope to the patients, right, that's working with their emotions and letting them know that there's possibilities and in and so whenever you can help somebody emotionally, it makes that tremendous. There are a hundred studies at least that show that positive patients have better outcomes than negative patients.
And so if you work with a.
Patient in the emotional realm and the spiritual because your emotional reactions, your emotion emotional reactions are based on your spiritual fortitude.
So when you provide spiritual.
Resources, the patient will have more functional emotional responses. And 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, you know, where you have shielded who's getting the placebo and who's getting the actual drugs, Because it makes a tremendous difference. Even that place bo 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 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, in 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 you know, sufficient scientific support. I do not recommend any any of the ones that have no scientific support. And so, yes, you can have them available at Oasis of Hope dot com.
That's great, and that's what people can find out of a true 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 politicians are making promises. But this is a big disappointment when you have somebody who has spent his entire life talking about the damaging effects of life. Is that and now he's just done a complete one to eighty. The good point about it is that Children's Health Defense 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 our k Junior's side, 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, Oasis of Hope dot com is where you can go to find out about doctor Francisco Contreres, 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 RNC store dot com, you can get books and information there as well as the Jerar Griffins The World Without Cancer, and you can save ten percent off of apricot seeds as well as the pill forms of migdalen. You can get all that stuff at rncstore dot com and use the code night to save ten percent. The common Man. They created common Core and dumbed 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 the Davidknightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us, financially. Please keep us in your prayers. The Davidnightshow dot com