Latest / Intellectual Medicine / Say NO to Prostate Cancer Biopsies, Surgery, and Radiation

Transcript

Say NO to Prostate Cancer Biopsies, Surgery, and Radiation · Intellectual Medicine

0:00
Well, what about all this mantra?
0:01
I have to get the early diagnosis so we can cure your
0:04
cancer. It's another myth, folks.
0:08
Prostate cancer is not getting cured.
0:11
It is my hypothesis that prostate cancer cells are the
0:16
inevitable consequence of your lifespan lived a long time.
0:21
There's not another organ that I can think of that will
0:25
inevitably develop these type of atypical dormant cells.
0:29
So the issue at hand folks, is not whether or not we're going
0:33
to make cancer cells, right, We are.
0:36
The question is what triggers them?
0:38
Why do those indolent sleeping cells inside the prostate gland
0:43
suddenly start to become active? Just say no, right?
0:53
I'm going to tell you why I think you should just say no to
0:58
prostate biopsies, to prostatectomy, to radiation
1:02
therapy. I'm going to share with you the
1:06
risks involved and the incredible overwhelming
1:11
corporate subsidized bias pumping in to the studies and
1:17
affecting opinion and affecting marketing.
1:21
So let's start with a biopsy. It can spread cancer.
1:28
I think that's pretty widely acknowledged.
1:30
We know for a fact that when a trocar is jammed into the
1:34
prostate, boom, boom, boom. Not little tiny needles, folks,
1:38
right? Trocars that cells disseminate.
1:42
That is irrefutable fact acknowledged by every doc who
1:47
has ever looked at the studies. A cascade of prostate cells,
1:52
cancer cells, and prostate cells disseminated into the
1:56
bloodstream and into the lymphatics.
1:59
Now hold on to that fact for a moment.
2:01
An an indisputable fact, right? How do we get from that
2:07
cascading of cells to the conclusion that it really can't
2:14
'cause metastatic spread? Like, how do we make that leap
2:17
of faith? There is no sufficient research
2:22
to eliminate that possibility. That's like saying I'm going to
2:25
blow these dandelion sleeves all over the front lawn and no
2:29
guarantee that they're going to make a little baby dandelions.
2:31
But, you know, probably won't happen.
2:35
And if it does, the degree to which it occurs is probably
2:38
insignificant. We're making this up, folks.
2:42
There's never been a study comparing people who get
2:46
biopsies to those who don't with regard to future metastatic
2:51
outcomes. It's not been done.
2:53
It's considered unethical. So this is the the box that
2:58
we're in. I don't mind that the studies
3:00
haven't been done so much as it offends my sense of logic, my
3:05
knowledge of biology, and my sense of honest consultative
3:09
reflection. For a urologist to tell a
3:12
patient, Nah, that doesn't happen.
3:14
It's been shown not to happen. So I heard of urologist, very
3:17
famous urologist trying to defend this on a YouTube video
3:21
and he was talking about the fact that, yes, we know the
3:24
cells disseminate, but somehow there's adna phenomenon within
3:31
those cancer cells that makes them like not likely to cause.
3:36
What are you telling us? You're making that up.
3:41
At least be honest. At least tell them.
3:43
Well, you know, I don't know. Maybe it does.
3:47
That kind of honesty would dissuade men from getting the
3:50
biopsy. Well, by golly, I don't think
3:53
you should get it at all. Well, what about all this
3:55
mantra? I have to get the early
3:57
diagnosis so we can cure your cancer.
4:01
So another myth, folks. Prostate cancer is not getting
4:05
cured. It is my hypothesis that
4:09
prostate cancer cells are the inevitable consequence of your
4:14
lifespan lived a long time. When you look at cadaveric
4:18
studies, we know that those cancer cells are there in the
4:22
majority of men past 80 based upon studies that have been
4:25
done. There's nothing else like that
4:27
now, is there? There's not another organ that I
4:30
can think of that will inevitably develop these type of
4:35
atypical dormant cells. So the issue at hand, folks, in
4:39
my theory, in my approach, my belief based upon studies is not
4:45
whether or not we're going to make cancer cells, right?
4:47
We are. The question is what triggers
4:50
them? Why do those indolent sleeping
4:53
cells inside the prostate gland suddenly start to become active?
5:00
And how can you know if it's happening?
5:02
Well, here's how you don't know if it's going to happen by doing
5:06
a biopsy. Oh, but we have to know how
5:08
aggressive these cells are. No, we don't need tissue to
5:13
determine that. It can be determined by
5:15
sequential monitoring. The PSA test, ladies and
5:18
gentlemen, was never intended to be a diagnostic test.
5:23
It was intended to be a test that enables doctors to monitor
5:27
the condition over time. That's its strength.
5:32
It's weakness is when people believe it's diagnostic.
5:36
Well, your PSA is above 4. We must.
5:39
We have to do a biopsy. No way.
5:42
No biopsy, sequential blood monitoring, PSA, get an MRI.
5:48
What about the evidence about extending life?
5:51
Can these treatments help? Well, we're going to reflect
5:55
upon that. I'm going to talk about the
5:56
ARCHES study in a moment, but before I get to that,
6:00
fundamental questions need to be answered.
6:03
So in a materialistic sense, we know how the prostate operates.
6:07
It makes PSA prostate specific antigen.
6:10
Its purpose is to help liquefy the the ejaculate so that the
6:16
sperm can make its way to the egg more easily.
6:20
It's important for reproductive outcomes.
6:24
So it's teleological. Its purpose is to enhance
6:29
fertility. What about its purpose?
6:32
Why is it there? Like everything has a purpose,
6:37
even if we don't know what it is, right?
6:39
The the body, the human body is not haphazardly constructed,
6:43
folks. And when we say, well, that's a
6:46
vestigial organ, it's not needed anymore, how do we know that?
6:51
I think that's presumptuous. I think whoever made us kind of
6:55
knew what they were doing. And the prostate gland must have
6:59
a purpose after reproduction, right?
7:02
Your heart does, your lungs do. Why not your prostate gland?
7:07
The idea that, well, you know what?
7:09
You're no longer need it. We got to take it out.
7:12
Wait a minute. What's it going to do to me?
7:15
What's it going to do to me? Well, my body miss having a
7:19
prostate gland within it. I think it will.
7:24
Judging from the experience that I've had interviewing hundreds
7:27
if not thousands of men. Things are different.
7:31
This is really hard to quantify. It's hard to just nail it based
7:36
upon a blood test or simple questionnaire.
7:42
You know, you don't, You don't give up these organs, folks,
7:46
unless there's an overwhelming, compelling, incredibly needful
7:52
benefit to be had, right? So hey, surgery has its role and
7:55
every now and then, you know, diseased gallbladder for
7:58
instance, maybe it needs to come out.
8:00
But let's slow this train down when it comes to the prostate.
8:04
Just because you have a high PSA, just because you have an
8:08
MRI that shows up pyrides of five with nodules inside of it,
8:13
does not mean that it will be in your interest to have that gland
8:16
removed. Evidence that it will help you
8:18
live longer does not exist. Can I emphasize that anymore?
8:23
It's not just my opinion. Those are the best studies
8:26
published to date. Early diagnosis treated by
8:30
surgical removal of the gland does not help you live longer.
8:36
It does not make you less likely to die from prostate cancer.
8:41
The same thing can be said for radiation therapy.
8:44
So here we have unequivocal research based evidence that is
8:49
showing these interventions have questionable, if any value.
8:54
They're guaranteed to cause you harm.
8:57
Guaranteed. We need another approach.
9:00
How do we get there? The urologist, the oncologist,
9:05
big pharma, the hospitals, they got us cornered, folks.
9:09
It's a multi billion dollar juggernaut.
9:12
How are we going to get out of this box by this, by this, by
9:18
artificial intelligence, by research, by grassroots, by you
9:23
just saying no, no, I'm not going to do that biopsy.
9:26
No, I'm not going to get my gland out.
9:28
No, I'm not doing radiation. All right, then what?
9:32
That's the conundrum. That's one of the dilemmas.
9:34
It's in the book. Do that before you do anything
9:38
else. You ought to yourself to think
9:41
before you let them do irreversible damage to your
9:44
body. We need time at every stage of
9:48
the process. We need time.
9:50
We know that you don't get a biopsy.
9:52
If you've had one, don't panic, just stop it already, right?
9:56
You had that biopsy done. It showed a Gleason of seven.
9:59
Not worth much in my book, but anyhow, it's done, so let it be.
10:04
Now we move. Now we move to the non tissue
10:08
assessment. Now we move to the path that I
10:11
advocate for you. Safer, less likely to do harm.
10:16
There's no evidence that it's inferior to these aggressive
10:20
interventions, right? We're building that evidence as
10:23
I speak. Had a wonderful conference this
10:25
past weekend. There are now 7 new Pedro de
10:30
Protocol certified practitioners ready to serve you, and we're
10:34
going to get them in every state.
10:35
Folk, they're coming there. In the meantime, be patient, be
10:39
patient and keep listening. Why should you be listening to
10:43
me? Well, let me give you a list of
10:47
my corporate sponsors. OK, I'm done.
10:50
Done. Now, I don't know if that's good
10:54
or bad. Maybe I have no corporate
10:56
sponsors because I'm not worth sponsoring.
10:59
It's a possibility I have to consider.
11:02
Perhaps the message that I'm giving you is so off the beaten
11:07
path that it is intrinsically harmful.
11:10
I mean, I don't think so. You'll have to make your own
11:12
decision on that The evidence supports it.
11:14
That's why I wrote a book but now let's go to the other side
11:18
of that equation, right The idea that the da Vinci machine this
11:24
is a robotic device designed it's like Edward Scissorhands,
11:28
right? It's designed to take out your
11:30
prostate and they're going to do nerves spare.
11:33
Are you out of your mind? You look at that anatomy.
11:37
The nerves are nearly invisible and the outcomes with the da
11:42
Vinci equipment have not been shown to be much better at all
11:47
than you know, when it comes to preservation of erectile
11:50
function. When it comes to urinary
11:52
continents, the outcomes are not much, if any better.
11:56
But let's back it up a step. Keep the gland in.
11:58
Taking it out doesn't help you. They promote the snot out of
12:02
this because they have to. This da Vinci equipment cost
12:05
that hospital millions, and it's a razor blade business.
12:10
Those little blades on Edward Scissorhands.
12:12
Yeah, they got to be replaced. It's recurring revenue.
12:16
And if the da Vinci machine is not harvesting prostate glands,
12:20
it's hard for it to break even. It becomes a money loser.
12:24
So now we've got a built in counseling bias.
12:28
You go to a surgeon, they're likely to recommend surgery.
12:32
It's what they believe in, it's what they've come to do.
12:36
It's how the machine works. So how about if you have more
12:41
advanced cancer, can conventional medicine help you
12:44
live longer? Short answer, if you have a high
12:49
burden of advanced cancer metastatic to the bone, there's
12:52
research evidence showing that it can in fact, help you live a
12:55
little longer. How much longer to be
12:58
determined? But the evidence is out there.
13:01
The only thing we're measuring is how many sunrises we get to
13:06
see and if you have advanced disease.
13:10
I'm not talking about in the prostate.
13:13
If it's there, there's no evidence of any of the
13:16
conventional treatments. In my view, based upon my
13:19
interpretation of the literature, that has value.
13:23
I think it's all harmful, but it's also informative to look at
13:26
the study. So the Arches study was
13:28
published in 2022. In this study, they looked at
13:32
men with advanced prostate cancer metastatic disease, and
13:37
they wanted to know comparing conventional androgen
13:41
deprivation therapy to a combination of androgen
13:45
deprivation therapy with enzalutamide with that
13:49
combination work better than the drug alone.
13:51
So notice what's missing. Yeah, nobody is getting a
13:54
treatment using the alternative pathways that I advocate.
13:59
That's a whole separate issue. Let's focus on this one.
14:03
The conclusion of the study was, yes, in fact, men can live
14:07
longer with a combination. But hold on a second.
14:12
Let's back up the camera a little bit.
14:15
In this study, there were 12, at least 12 corporate sponsors.
14:21
OK, Doesn't mean the study's invalid, but it makes you a
14:24
little makes me a little skeptical. 12 pharmaceutical and
14:29
corporate sponsors in this study, they authors of it, the
14:34
people involved in the study, they had a list their their
14:38
conflict of interest. You know who they work for what
14:40
money they get, not they, you know, would necessarily work for
14:43
them, but they are somehow getting funding or that list was
14:48
as long as the damn study. I mean, there are a lot of sort
14:52
of overlaps here, so I'm questioning it.
14:55
I'm curious about how you can come to such a clean conclusion.
15:00
And what happens in these studies is the conclusions get
15:02
promoted, the details get buried.
15:05
And the details show that if you had metastatic disease, but it
15:09
was not high burden, for instance, if the metastatic
15:12
disease had gone to the lymph nodes but not the bone, a
15:16
relatively low burden, so to speak, less certain.
15:21
There may not have been any advantage combining therapy.
15:25
But what happens when it goes from a study out into the
15:28
community? The indications tend to get
15:31
expanded. You know, docs get paid to do
15:35
stuff. There's a, there's an incentive
15:38
to do a little more. The thinking is, well, I'd
15:42
rather overtreat than undertreat.
15:45
I'd rather, you know, be sure folks, this is where you really
15:50
have to scrutinize it. The other thing that was missing
15:52
in the study for my reading of it was a fair, honest and
15:56
complete description of side effects and adverse effects.
16:00
Enzalutamide combined, combined with that androgen deprivation
16:04
therapy does harm to men. It is not fighting cancer like a
16:09
man, it is sacrificing your masculine virility, your
16:14
masculine health, your human health, sacrificing that
16:20
inevitably the disease progresses.
16:22
So before it does, you will first lose your libido, you will
16:27
lose your confidence, you will lose muscle, you will lose bone,
16:32
your heart will get weak, your fat will grow, you may get
16:36
gynecomastia. All that, all that diminished if
16:42
the only thing men are chasing is a couple of more sunrises, I
16:48
question where you're going. Furthermore, there's no evidence
16:53
that doing an alternative pathway will make you more
16:56
likely to die sooner, right? That is a speculation based upon
17:01
the presumption of placebo versus treatment.
17:05
We will never get those studies completed.
17:09
We will never see the type of support for the complementary
17:14
alternative protocols that I advocate coming from big Pharma.
17:19
So we have to do it. It doesn't mean it can't be
17:22
done. It just means we have to be
17:24
patient. We have to then work to achieve
17:28
these outcomes. And that's what we're doing,
17:29
folks. That's what we're doing.
17:32
It's grass roots observational cohort, right?
17:36
This all ties together. There's something absolutely
17:40
fascinating happening. So we all know the human body is
17:44
a machine. We all know that the parts work.
17:47
But wait a minute, we're more than that.
17:50
It's been called the ghost in the machine, and it sounds
17:53
ethereal and spooky. It's called quantum
17:57
entanglement, spooky quantum physics.
18:02
It has to do with the communication of one part of the
18:07
anatomy 1 cell to another distant component.
18:11
Not directly connected by a nerve, not directly connected by
18:15
a hormone, but connected. We know folks that have had a
18:19
limb removed. They have phantom pain.
18:21
They imagine the limb is still there.
18:24
You can feel things. It's not magic.
18:27
It's been validated in physics studies.
18:31
Quantum entanglement. What does it mean to you?
18:34
It means when they start harvesting organs for no good
18:37
reason, it has domino effects that are hard to quantify but
18:44
tangible. That is, you'll never be quite
18:48
the same again. I'm very hesitant to have any
18:55
organic flesh and blood organ material removed from my body.
19:01
Very slow. Yeah.
19:03
I have arthritic joints. Yeah.
19:05
Maybe you should get that knee replaced.
19:07
I mean, in some cases, Right. This is a life changing moment.
19:10
However, go slow down that path. When you put metal in it starts
19:16
to rust and it is not healing itself.
19:18
Your body's a self healing machine.
19:21
I mean one of the latest breakthroughs in cancer therapy.
19:24
Oh shockingly they're moving away from poisoning the cancer
19:29
to stimulating your own immune system.
19:33
Maybe that's the key. Can you do that without drugs?
19:36
Can you do it when you're otherwise pretty healthy in a
19:40
way that prevents those indolent sleeping prostate cancer cells
19:44
from turning on? I think you can.
19:48
We know the immune system can be damaged.
19:51
By golly, it can sure be supported.
19:53
So at the end of the equation, you're in charge.
19:57
You just say no to the biopsy. You just say no to the removal.
20:00
Yeah, Doc, I understand. I know you want to try to cure
20:02
me. You know, but I have a feeling
20:05
that my body has a capacity to handle this.
20:08
And if I tilt it in its favor, if I make my body inhospitable
20:13
toward cancer cells, I'm going to gain more global benefit.
20:18
I'm going to become inhospitable not just to prostate cancer but
20:22
to all cancers. Oh, by the way.
20:24
And while I'm at it, I'm going to strengthen my heart because,
20:27
you know, men with prostate cancer more often die from heart
20:32
attacks than prostate cancer. We need a bigger view.
20:37
You need to step away from the exclusive dominion of urology
20:42
and oncology if you really want to get the full picture.
20:45
That's why you listen to my podcast.
20:47
And I thank you for doing so. Sticking together, we're going
20:50
to push forward and eventually we're going to find validation
20:55
or not of what we're doing. We track it honestly.
20:58
And so far, I like what we're seeing.
21:01
All right, team, thanks a lot. We'll talk to you the next time.