Latest / Radically Genuine / 125. Making Sense of Cancer w/ Dr. Jarle Breivik

Transcript

125. Making Sense of Cancer w/ Dr. Jarle Breivik · Radically Genuine

• Radically Genuine (00:01.98) Welcome to the Radically Genuine Podcast. I am Dr. Roger McFillin. Memento mori, the Latin phrase for remember death or remember you will die, reminds us we are human and our life is time limited. It can be a healthy reminder to live fully in the now and cherish our lives precious moments. In many ways, without the promise of death, It is hard to imagine we could truly appreciate life. Without inevitable loss, can we truly love? Without sadness and depression, can we really understand and appreciate joy and happiness? With light comes darkness. There were an estimated 20 million new cancer cases in 2022, with more than 35 million new cases predicted by 2050. The number of new cancer cases globally will reach 35 million in the year 2050, 77% higher than the figure in 2022. This is according to the predictions from the World Health Organization's cancer agency. When it comes to cancer, it appears the more money we devote to cancer research, the outcomes remain the same. The more runs, walks, and efforts to create a war against cancer has led to more treatments, supposed innovations, but we're still unable to win the war against an aging and ever deteriorating body. The fundamental problem is our cells are slowly evolving toward cancer. If we continue to kill cancer cells, we eventually kill ourselves. In many ways, those who have been stricken with cancer and their loved ones suggest that the treatment is more lethal than the disease itself. We are certainly not designed to live forever. To even cure cancer, it would have to be a much more radical idea than killing cancer cells. And that is from the book of our guest today. In today's technological advancements, is that what we really want? Radically Genuine (02:25.704) Death defines what it means to be human. Is the only cure to cancer the cure to death? Today's discussion, although to help better understand cancer and its evolutionary function, I believe it leads us to more crucial conversations around bioethics, the meaning of life, and what it truly means to be human. For that conversation today, I want to welcome Jarle Bravik. He's a professor of medicine at the University of Oslo. He's an MD with a PhD in the field of cancer immunotherapy. He also got a doctorate in education management from the University of Pennsylvania, where he was a visiting Fulbright scholar. He is internationally recognized. for his research on the evolutionary dynamics of cancer development and his thought-provoking analysis featured in PNAS, EMBO reports, Scientific America, Wired Magazine, The New York Times. They've all stimulated a profound debate about the understanding of cancer. Dr. Bravik's new book, Making Sense of Cancer from Its Evolutionary Origin to Its Societal Impact and the Ultimate solution has received stellar reviews from both experts and lay people. It's a captivating story what it means to be human. I just finished reading it. It really is going to serve the foundation for today's interview. Dr. Breivik, I want to welcome you to the radically genuine podcast. Jarle Breivik (04:10.157) Thank you Rogers, very nice to be here. Radically Genuine (04:13.352) So doc, we'll get right to it. In cancer research, there is a common metaphorical framework that portrays cancer as an enemy in a war we're trying to defeat. In fact, an opinion article that you wrote in the New York Times, I believe it was 2016, was titled, We Won't Cure Cancer. I know that you didn't choose that headline, but what is the general public missing when it comes to understanding this disease. Jarle Breivik (04:48.998) I think, I'm not sure if the general public is missing something because I really enjoyed your introduction, although it was perhaps a bit dramatic and scary for some. I think that the general public get what you're saying. And I think that the general public realized that we have to die of something. And that something is cancer. But there are other forces that are pushing the message that we are going to cure cancer. We are going to end the problem. There is the war on cancer going all the way back to Richard Nixon. And then President Obama had his... speech where he said that we're going to, finally, we're going to solve the problem. And now the saying is, or the slogan is that we're going to end cancer as we know it. And that's just a talking point because everybody knows that that's not going to happen. in the foreseeable future. Everybody in cancer research knows that there will be more cancer, just like you said with the statistics from the all around the world. We're going to get more cancer and we have to prepare for that. And the reason for that is, as you mentioned, it has to do with how our body is organized, how we are made. We are not made to live forever. Radically Genuine (06:48.58) Sean here, you know, it's almost impossible to live and not know somebody who is stricken with cancer. That's how common it is. So I decided to pose some questions to people who have either had cancer, lost somebody close to them and witnessed the treatment of cancer, or even younger people who have like genuine concerns about developing cancer because... There's so much disease and fear mongering that exists, at least in the United States, that provokes that fear from what you eat, from the way you live. It's like constantly bombarded in the media for us, that this is a disease that's knocking on our door and you have to do things to prevent it. And one of the most common questions that I got, Doc, was, well, why isn't there more advanced care at this point? Given how much money we've devoted. for scientific study, how do you see ongoing cancer research? And what is the outlook for people who ask that question? Jarle Breivik (07:56.066) Well, where are we going with cancer research? That's the really interesting question that I'm asking the cancer research community because I don't think they are addressing that. I'm going to the Norwegian Radium Hospital tomorrow morning to have that speech and I've been invited there by the medical community. we're going to discuss what are we aiming for with cancer research. And the general answer, of course, is that we are going to cure cancer. But as we have already discussed, the better we get at curing cancer, the longer we live, and because cancer is so closely related to aging, the more cancer there will be. in the population. And that's exactly what we see. So the more we are pushing longevity, the more cancer there will be. And therefore I'm asking the research community, what is our answer to this? Are we just going to keep on going or are we aiming for something different? And the something different is of course, are we aiming for a cure for aging? And where will that take us? How will that work? Radically Genuine (09:27.996) Dr. Breivik, when it comes to the way the media portrays cancer research, they often talk about these scientific breakthroughs. How much of that money and how much of that research is really going towards, I'm going to use the word delaying cancer instead of preventing it, but is it really going towards just the treatment of cancer and trying to then, you know, kind of remove it from your system once you have it? Jarle Breivik (10:00.51) Well, I can't give you specific numbers like at the global scale, but the amount of money going into prevention is very little. I know that the Norwegian Cancer Association are spending about 5% of their budget on prevention and like around 90% on research towards, mainly towards Cures. Radically Genuine (10:31.356) Well, that's where the money is as well. Jarle Breivik (10:34.102) Sure. And that's where the interesting and exciting science is also, of course. So, and there is both the scientific... process driving this. There is the money, but of course there is also the public. People don't want to die of cancer and that's completely understandable. And cancer is seen as the most terrible way of dying. We can maybe discuss that too. What's the worst way of dying? But there are extremely strong forces driving this process in the direction of finding the cure. Radically Genuine (11:17.704) So, I mean, one of the things I'm hearing from you is that cancer is a natural consequence of aging. We're all going to die of something and this is part of a natural process. But then what happens when children and young people die of cancer? What is the evolutionary purpose of pediatric cancer, for example? Jarle Breivik (11:40.674) Of course, there is no evolutionary purpose for that. And the reason why you get cancer at a younger age, of course, is that it's mainly bad luck. But you can also explain it in terms of molecular mechanisms, in terms of inheritance. But it is the same mechanisms that happen... at a more probable rate later in life can happen at, it's very improbable, but it does happen also earlier in life. So that's what we see. So it's the same mechanisms that drives cancer development early in life as late in life, but You are just unlucky to get the mutations and the epi mutations in the wrong place. And of course in combination with environmental factors and inheritance. So you have to see the whole combination of factors leading to cancer. Radically Genuine (12:51.924) Okay, so you do believe that there's some genetic link and when you're exposed to something in the environment, maybe that's a carcinogen, something that's toxic to the human body, that in itself could lead to what you identified as being maybe in the wrong place at the wrong time, like this unlucky aspect of it, because it's hard for us to grasp why children would develop cancer without some... exposure to something that was carcinogenic. Jarle Breivik (13:25.97) Well, a lot of childhood cancers have genetic components, so there is some degree of inheritance. But then what happens in the womb when you develop is a very complex process. Things can go wrong. And if it doesn't happen right after birth, it can happen later on because cancer development is like an... accumulative process. And even more so it's an evolutionary process where things develop over time. The genes are mutating and they are adapting to their given environment inside our body. That's what it's actually I'm basing my whole book and the theory and that's where I got my PhD. That's in the evolutionary dynamics of cancer development and how you can explain this relationship between genetics, environmental factors and aging. And you have to have all three to explain the process. Radically Genuine (14:40.776) So I'd like to go back to that question you kind of posed about ways to die. And I recall in your book there was maybe an opinion piece about all the other ways that you could die. And this gentleman was making the argument that dying from cancer is one of the best ways. Can you explain to me, we have this fear of cancer. And there are some cancers that might kill us quickly, and there's others that we could live with forever. you know, provide some perspective to our listeners on what cancer is and how we might be living with it. Jarle Breivik (15:17.994) Well, the person you're referring to is actually Dr. Richard Smith, the former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal. He wrote this blog some years ago, where he said that cancer is the best way of dying. That, of course, resulted in a huge uproar on social media. And I don't think he regretted, but he was really surprised by how much fear and maybe anger that generated. But his line of argument is actually quite straightforward. And that is, he says there are basically four ways of dying. You can die of... Jarle Breivik (16:17.354) heart attack or an accident, like a sudden death. And a lot of people prefer that if you ask them. Until you ask maybe a bit more deeper and you ask, what about those that are left behind? Wouldn't it be nice to have a proper goodbye? Wouldn't it be nice to prepare? So that's the first way of dying. The second way of dying is dementia. And Richard Smith says that for him, that is absolutely the worst way of dying. That's when your identity, your soul disappears before your body. And the third way is organ failure, like heart failure, kidney failure, obstructive lung disease. And That is kind of like a roller coaster. You were in and out of the hospital. You got a lot of medication and death is unpredictable. So maybe that's not the best way of dying either. So then you were left with cancer and like he presented, cancer comes usually with a few years or months of warning, but when it really sets in, it's pretty quick. And then he admittedly romanticized and he said that, well, he can cope with the pain by whiskey and morphine. And of course that didn't help the backlash of it all. But I think his main message is that, well, if we think about it, cancer is not necessarily. Radically Genuine (18:00.781) Mm-hmm. Jarle Breivik (18:14.582) the worst way of dying. But of course we should be very careful about rating other people diseases and how they experience it. And I'm not trying to diminish the pain that many cancer patients are experiencing. That's absolutely not what I'm arguing here. I'm just saying that cancer is something we should prepare for. And I've gone out in the Norwegian media and said that I hope to die of cancer. And my argument is that I'm trying to live healthily. I'm hoping to get old. And in hoping so, I must prepare to die of cancer because the longer I live, the more likely I am to die of cancer. Radically Genuine (19:13.785) I'm gonna put myself in the shoes of our listeners right now. And Doc, so first of all, they're gonna say, I don't give a fuck about being old. I want to grow old, right? I want to be 80 if I die of cancer and I'm 80. What does it matter? I care about getting cancer at 35 and not being there for my kids. I care about not being able to live a full life. And they're not gonna just sit here and accept, well, cancer is a part of life. Let's prepare for it. And You know, most of our money going into research is kind of being wasted. So, first of all, I want to get a sense of what was some of the backlash from that opinion article in the New York Times? How did people react to you from making some of these comments? Jarle Breivik (19:55.686) Well, I actually wrote an article in the EMBO report about exactly those comments I received from that. And there are different categories. And the first one, of course, is that you're a moron. We cannot put enough money into cancer research. But then there were also some people saying that... You're right. People in cancer research saying, yes, what you're saying is right, but we shouldn't say that to the public because we need the funding. We need the drive of the cancer research. And then there were other cancer researchers saying that you're absolutely right. Uh, I congratulate you on your piece and you're really brave to say this. If I. Maybe it's because I'm a researcher in Norway and I'm not deeply into the molecular biology funding that I can say this because other people would probably be more careful. And there are other voices too, like from the alternative medicine, complementary medicine, saying that this is stupid because you can solve cancer with the keto diet or all other kind of strange things, of course. Radically Genuine (21:24.528) Okay, we're gonna go down that road. There is a growing distrust of the medical establishment globally, I think, even more so in the United States. And reading your book, and then me checking through some of the references from some of the studies, there seem to be some of those party line kind of statements about vaccines and diets that haven't necessarily held empirically over certainly the last few years. So like one of your statements was that people not getting the COVID vaccine, you know, was responsible for many deaths based on disinformation. I think right now we're learning a lot more about the outcomes of that mRNA gene therapy. And they haven't necessarily prevented death and certainly hasn't prevented COVID or the transmission of COVID. So would you agree right now that least that we know scientifically is pretty well accepted? Jarle Breivik (22:26.395) Uh... I'm not sure if I'm prepared to have a debate about the Corona vaccines. Jarle Breivik (22:43.11) It's not my field of research and I think I should stick to talking about cancer. But to be honest, I think the discussion right now is very sad. I think there are. Yes, there are too much disinformation out there and I'm careful about going into that because it's not my field. Radically Genuine (23:12.456) Let me rephrase that question then. Is it possible that this lack of trust about the mRNA technology, could there impact some advancements that could be happening in the field of cancer research when it comes to things like immunotherapy? It's just a general lack of understanding from the public perspective of how these therapies could potentially work in delaying or preventing cancers. Jarle Breivik (23:41.478) I can definitely see that the general skepticism towards vaccines could harm the introduction of cancer immunotherapy. Yes. And I also, the reason why I'm putting this message forward is that I think that the way cancer research is being presented to the public. continuing to say that we are going to solve the problem, just give us more money, we're going to solve the problem. That is not building trust. We should communicate a more balanced perspective. We have to go out there and tell people that there will be more cancer. And there is more cancer because biomedicine has been so successful. Radically Genuine (24:21.937) Yeah. Jarle Breivik (24:39.37) that we are living longer than ever before. That's why we're getting more cancer. That's the primary reason. A lot of people think we are getting cancer because of the Corona vaccine or whatever. That's absolutely not true. Radically Genuine (24:57.092) Yeah, I think that I think the most honest way to say is it's unknown. Not necessarily it's not true. It's unknown when you don't study something long term. That's relatively new when you're introducing it to the human population without being able to understand its long term implications, we can't make any definitive answers. And I don't think this is about expertise in the mRNA COVID vaccine. Neither of us have it. It is actually about trust. And it's about reporting the limitations of the scientific literature accurately for people to make informed decisions. And that's what matters here when we start having this conversation. If we're going to be thinking about our health and our health care system outside the limited view that's been provided to us, we have to be flexible enough to open up to critical questions of what we do know and what we don't know and why. So one of the... statements you also included in your book and you did include this in your book, so I think it's open for discussion, is also preventative measures on how to live a life that's healthy and there's a lot of distorted research around like red meat for example, and it's coming out of in the United States there's a lot of industry funded research to serve industry, specific forms of industry, especially big food, big farm and other things. So the skepticism is well-founded. because the sicker we are, the richer some of these industries become. And so when we look at regenerative farmed grass-fed meat without chemicals, it's very nutrient dense, bioavailable, and it tends to be something that the human body, you know, really functions at a high level on, but it was demonized for a lot of years as if it was a, it would cause cancer. But we now know a lot of that correlational data was completely misrepresented, right? If you talk about people who eat fast food, maybe it's not necessarily the meat that is causing cancer, but maybe the chemicals, how it's prepared, the ketchup, the condiments, the sodas, the fries, everything they have with it. So we get these oversimplified recommendations and we assume that they are based on really strong scientific data. The same thing with sunscreen. You start slapping a sunscreen on you, Radically Genuine (27:19.004) that has known carcinogens in it, I don't necessarily believe that's going to prevent cancer. But being out in the sun and if you're certain skin tone and you burn, that can possibly be risky. And maybe we should talk about other options as far as getting sun exposure or building up tolerance to the sun without putting a known carcinogen in. And that's where you get the mixture of the research and... where an industry and we make these blanket statements as if it can necessarily prevent cancer. Jarle Breivik (27:57.59) Well, this is complicated, very complicated. And as you said, it's a lot about trust. And I, of course, am an expert at some level myself, but I also have to trust other people. I have to trust researchers, I have to trust experts. And I... Radically Genuine (28:00.469) Very. Jarle Breivik (28:28.334) actually trust the public recommendations on the dietary recommendations that we have in Scandinavia and they are not really that different from what you have in the US. And of course we can talk about special interests and how The food industry is driving its agenda and I'm sure they're working very hard to influence the political processes. But my office is actually right next to Norway's biggest community on dietary research. And I trust those people. And they tell me that the public recommendations are the best we have. And I can look at the research myself also, and I definitely know that with related to cancer, it isn't like people are putting a lot of, or that we can explain that like the big increase in cancer that we see in the. in society today, the cancer epidemic, that's related predominantly to aging. It is not because we are eating something terrible. And if you look at the big picture, we are now getting older than ever before. So we must be doing something right. We must be eating pretty good since we are getting older than before. The medication we are getting. can't be that terrible since we are getting older than we have ever done before. Radically Genuine (30:26.056) The life expectancy in the United States is actually decreasing, so I want to make sure that fact is well known. When's the last time you've been to the US? Jarle Breivik (30:34.63) It's been a few years now, but I lived there in 2012 to 2014. But I know about that. And that's of course is a scary statistics because that has a lot to do with the general level of prosperity in the US. Jarle Breivik (31:03.366) Inequality, the opioid crisis, and the poverty in general. And it's terrible for a developed country like the United States to see that the life expectancy is declining because the society is in big trouble. Radically Genuine (31:32.252) Yeah, it's been about a decade, I suppose, since you've lived here. Um, what we're seeing is rapid increase in chronic disease. Uh, there's an obesity crisis and not just from those who were impoverished. I mean, you walk around the American cities and you just start counting how many people are overweight. Something is going on and you're speaking to us from one of the healthiest countries in the world. Uh, there's cultural differences here that we have to probably parse out. Jarle Breivik (31:35.786) Mm. Jarle Breivik (31:47.435) Yes. Radically Genuine (32:01.252) as we're going to move on with this conversation. So what is different in your country in comparison to the United States culturally, in the way that you live, in the way that you treat your bodies, and the healthcare system that can potentially account for improved health outcomes, which do exist. And so I think you're coming from a little bit different perspective than what we're seeing. And then I'll get into some other aspects about our culture that I think contribute to it. Jarle Breivik (32:28.938) Well, I won't pretend that everything is just happy days in Scandinavia, because what we often see is that we're just 10 or 15 years behind you in several trends that we see with regard to health and disease. Yeah. But what we have is we got more trust. We got more trust in... Radically Genuine (32:47.048) That's good. Then you can prevent what's happening here. Don't follow us. Jarle Breivik (33:00.274) the authorities, we probably got more trust in our experts and we also got less inequality. We have a welfare system, we got free health, we got free education, or it's not free, we pay taxes, but then we use that on We share that around. But we're also a small country, so it's probably a lot easier. Radically Genuine (33:36.348) Yeah, the best way I would describe the United States is we're in the business of business. It's why we exist. Businesses come here, they thrive here. We support businesses because we look at businesses as the ultimate tax source to continue for the United States to be prosperous, generating new jobs. And I think it's that business of business that allows a lot of manipulation and influence to happen so that in order for a business to continue to be profitable. people suffer because they become customers and probably customers when it comes to food or processed foods a lot more than they should. And that's what's resulting in a lot of this obesity crisis and ultimately more cancers. Well, you know, we have to have this conversation right now before we get to the next part of which I have to have a conversation about. So there is a cultural difference here. So Jarle is gonna speak about the trust of authorities that might exist in his culture. And maybe for good reason, there's maybe a collectivist culture. Jarle Breivik (34:27.54) Yes. Radically Genuine (34:36.516) a different mindset in the way they treat each other that may be really beneficial. Many of the people who have immigrated to the United States have come here for a better life with many of their ancestors in war, authoritarian governments, so forth. So there is a distrust of authority. In fact, our constitution is built, developed to prevent authoritarian and totalitarian control and injustices that exist from infringes on the individual rights of the person, where in your culture, it's an interesting collectivist culture, because even when you're determining how to distribute health care dollars, you know, you're actually identifying like a financial value to each person's life, and you're trying to do what's in the best interest of the collective. But Stanford professor, John Ionitis, for example, are you aware of his work? Jarle Breivik (35:29.258) Yes. Jarle Breivik (35:33.243) Not really, no. Radically Genuine (35:34.78) He is a meta researcher. And for good reason, there is distrust of the medical authority in the United States. His research has shown that a large proportion of the medical research is either fraudulent or it reaches conclusions that the data doesn't necessarily suggest that drives specific health protocols that are ultimately turning out to harm us. So in the United States, There are certainly chemicals and preservatives and toxins that exist in our food source that are banned in other countries. So this is a multifaceted issue on why we get sick. And it's not just necessarily related to lack of activity. And what that is, is creating a large degree of chronic disease. So younger people are getting sick at points that have not been identified So I'm not going to just accept the hypothesis that cancer is going to increase because our medical system has improved. We're going to live longer and we have better medicine because I don't believe the data is actually showing that. People are getting sick younger. I think people are getting cancer younger and I think we're living unhealthy lives. And then we're going into a sick care system that is treating the symptoms with pharmaceuticals that have not been evaluated long term. And those create sickness in themselves. So there's an argument to say that we might have at maybe a decade ago or 20 years ago, we were extending life but living sicker. So that I think was clear. Now I think the data says that overall our lifespan is decreasing and the quality of our life is decreasing. Jarle Breivik (37:28.142) I don't disagree with you at all on that. That we should definitely work on preventive measures. We can do a lot and that's where we can do the most on preventive measures. First of all, we have to stop smoking, of course. That's the most terrible thing we can do. Radically Genuine (37:49.413) But to be honest, that's decreased dramatically. Yeah. Jarle Breivik (37:52.402) Yes, but there is still a lot we can do there. Radically Genuine (37:56.412) So that's clear. That's where public health recommendations have informed the health of our populace. That has decreased dramatically. But what are some things that people are doing now that are based on conventional wisdom or even public health recommendations that could potentially be problematic? Jarle Breivik (38:08.08) But it's. Jarle Breivik (38:19.242) Well, we should eat more healthily, of course. And then we can discuss what is healthy food. In my opinion, the easiest way of eating as healthily as possible is to follow the public recommendations. And those are to eat, first of all, less sugar. Radically Genuine (38:38.864) What are those? Jarle Breivik (38:49.162) like refined sugar, but not necessarily take away all the carbohydrates. Like we can eat whole grain and beans and potatoes. But of course, not too much of that. And then we should eat more fish. We should eat less salt and... Yes, I should have a nutritionist here to tell me, to give you the specifics, but of course, more greens and probably less red meat, because like in Norway, I'm pretty sure that has increased dramatically in the US as well, the amount of red meat that we eat. I think we eat about twice as much red meat in Norway now as we did 10 or 15 years ago. Radically Genuine (39:39.156) All right, we're going to disagree on that one. So no, we should just, you know, move past that. I've had a lot of podcast episodes on this. What about sun exposure? So I feel like there's been a fear mongering about sun in the United States that has led to less activity and outdoor activity and exposure to sun and actually putting on carcinogens. you know, some of these sunscreens are actually damaging and it hasn't led to improved outcomes in skin cancer. So there are other experts in the United States who will say that a lot of what were the recommendations that have been made conventionally are actually leading to problems with our health. Jarle Breivik (40:11.852) Well... Jarle Breivik (40:25.658) Well, if protection or measures to protect us from the sun are inhibiting people from activity, outdoors activity, that would be terrible. And if there, if we have statistics that shows that would be really concerning, I would say. And but the. relationship between sun exposure and skin cancer, that is very easy to document. So there is a clear connection there. But on the other hand, we need vitamin D that we get from the sun to protect us from several diseases, including cancer. It has been shown that D vitamin is... is important for a lot of processes and especially in like northern countries like ours D vitamin is important that's why we in Norway we have a tradition for giving our kids cod liver oil so that they would get enough D vitamin. Radically Genuine (41:39.528) That's child abuse here. Dr. Bravik, I wanna go back to something Roger brought up because he shared and was in your book, the calculation, it's almost like a quality of life measurement when you're determining some treatments. So, do we need to change the way that we perceive cancer as whether or not we'll be dying with cancer or dying from cancer? Jarle Breivik (41:41.47) Yeah, probably. Jarle Breivik (41:53.906) Yeah, the quality, yeah. Radically Genuine (42:08.913) Where do we draw the line there? Jarle Breivik (42:14.134) Uh, I'm not sure if I get your question because we're dying more with the cancer and, but we are also dying more from cancer. So if you look at the disease, like prostate cancer, a lot of people, a lot of men, of course, are dying with the disease and not from the disease. And there is in general for a lot of types, different types of cancer. is a development where we're seeing that because of treatment, people are living, successful treatment, people are living longer with their disease. And we're talking about cancer becoming a chronic disease in many cases. Is that where you were taking the conversation or did I misinterpret you? Radically Genuine (43:02.352) No, you are. And I guess it comes down to age. And I think that's where we're trying to identify. At what point are we 75 years old? We find out we have cancer, and we think it's the end of our life. But depending on what type of cancer it is, we could live for another 10 years with that cancer, not be killed from the cancer. But I think there's a public perception that I need to eradicate this cancer as quickly as possible from my body and take this course of. Jarle Breivik (43:05.792) Yeah. Jarle Breivik (43:20.246) Sure. Radically Genuine (43:31.472) pursuing a treatment and that treatment leads to suffering and death. Jarle Breivik (43:36.734) Yes. I talked to our medical community last week, where we discussed prostate cancer. And we were discussing, like, how do we present this disease to the general public? Are we going to pretend that we are about to find a cure for prostate cancer for old people? Like there is of course treatment for prostate cancer. And as you say, people can live with the disease for a long time. Uh, it's very hard to predict who, who will, who have an aggressive type and who don't. Uh, but most people live with their disease and many die with it and not from it. But to pretend that we are about. to tell the public that we are working on finding a cure for prostate cancer so that nobody will get prostate cancer anymore. That is very misleading. So we should tell people that dying from prostate cancer is actually, at an old age, is actually quite natural. Radically Genuine (44:55.132) So if we were to have an ethical discussion about where cancer research funding should go, should we dedicate all research towards childhood cancers? Radically Genuine (45:08.456) Good question. Jarle Breivik (45:11.836) Interesting. I don't think it's like an either or because there are, as I said earlier, there are general mechanisms. A lot of cancer research is really very fundamental molecular biology and it is not like you... Of course, there is also a lot of specific research. But it's more like research on fundamental mechanisms, research on immunotherapy. If it works in one context, it will probably also work in another. Although there are some important differences between most childhood cancers and like prostate cancers or other age, more age-related cancer types. So, I think any more interesting question perhaps, although I won't dismiss what you're saying because it is a very interesting question, but if we can ask, should we spend more money on preventive medicine, on cancer prevention as opposed to treatment, especially for older people? I would say definitely yes. But it's not as interesting from a scientific perspective. It's not very interesting from a financial perspective either. So I think it's very hard to do what we should do in terms of prevention. And a lot of prevention is not really very specifically related to cancer as a disease. It's more related to... society is more related to what we already discussed. What is happening to our society that increases obesity and cancer because of lifestyle and the way we organize ourselves. Radically Genuine (47:29.736) Docs and Sum, a clinical psychologist, I'm certainly intrigued by alternative approaches, mind-body medicine, some of these complimentary integrative treatments that are actually even being applied with mainstream medicine. You gave them some lip service in your book, not a whole lot of time, but you referred to the placebo effect or the placebo response. And I can't help but wonder and think If we expanded our desire to learn more about that mind-body connection, that if research money was driven more in that way, that we could potentially unlock some secrets into our own capacities to maybe heal ourselves. So what do we understand about spontaneous remission or how people are given a placebo and their cancer goes into remission? I mean, there's... documented mainstream scientific literature that supports these case reviews. So maybe you can give us an idea of what we know about this currently. Jarle Breivik (48:43.53) Hmm, that's another difficult question, but we definitely agree. And I've listened to several of your other podcasts about the importance of the bio-psycho-social perspective on disease. And I'm a huge promoter of that. I even teach it to our first year students and I think it needs to be modernized. in the way that we have to take into account everything we now know about the connections between neurology, immunology and the hormonal systems and everything like that. So we... need to have an integrated perspective on disease. And what you're saying now is you're asking me about like spontaneous remission and how can we connect that to like mental processes, for example. Jarle Breivik (50:03.302) Unfortunately, spontaneous remission is not that frequent. And there are a lot of... Jarle Breivik (50:18.29) Unfortunately, it's not so easy to treat cancer without the harsh treatment that cancer therapy usually is. So this idea that we can have a softer approach to cancer, that we can cure cancer with diet and with like mental approaches. Jarle Breivik (50:48.386) I unfortunately, I don't think there is much to get there. Although I think there is a lot to get on how we cope with the disease. And yes. Radically Genuine (51:02.932) So I think it has, I do think it has to do with how we frame the question. So I've only been getting to start dabbling into quantum physics and quantum mechanics. And the idea that we are creators of our own reality. So I think in the typical way that we study disease and symptoms, if this idea in consciousness is that we are sick, Jarle Breivik (51:07.871) Mm-hmm. Radically Genuine (51:32.336) and that we are only going to be saved by a pharmaceutical generally lends itself to very poor outcomes. I think we can agree on that. So when I talk about the mind-body connection experience, I don't know if it's something you just jump into and you change your diet and you change your mindset and that cures cancer, because we have to also think about what is cancer doing, especially if you get it at a young age. What is its mechanism? Is there an underlying disease state in which the cancer cells are reacting to? Is there emotional component to this, to cancer? Life is really, really hard. And there's a lot of people who live life who aren't necessarily suicidal, but understand that life is very difficult and really are kind of neutral whether they are to live or die. Is there something even ingrained in us? Um, that there's this, when there's a desire and intention to really live and this strong belief that we can heal, that then we unlock other opportunities to strengthen the immune response. Uh, what about meditation? Uh, what about a lifestyle that lends itself to restoring the body to homeostasis that can at least open up future research? We don't dump money into that. We dump money into the allopathic model. Jarle Breivik (53:01.658) Well, I think that both diet and mental health is very important, but I think it is very dangerous to go in the direction of saying that children are getting cancer because they have psychological instability or something like that. Radically Genuine (53:29.892) No, yeah, I don't think we're certainly not. That's certainly not the question at all because we understand, it goes back to you mentioning biopsychosocial. So we certainly understand that. That's why I asked the question. Well, you know, why would children get cancer? It just seems like it, you know, it doesn't fit this model that you get, you're gonna get cancer as you get older. Something else is happening there. So we're not saying that it's causal, right? We're not saying it's causal. Jarle Breivik (53:30.444) Okay. Jarle Breivik (53:39.807) Mm. Radically Genuine (53:58.364) What we're saying is what are our alternative options to strengthen the human body, even when we are exposed to toxins and carcinogens? Some people get sick, other people don't get sick. And you mentioned epigenetics as the potential reason for that. But again, it's about where are we going to devote research as a global community, as a culture? If you're saying that there's really no cure for cancer. we're still going to continue to dump money into the same kind of novel medical approaches, and we're not going to see great results, then why aren't we considering all options in how to live well? Jarle Breivik (54:40.71) Well, I think at one level, I totally agree with you that we should focus more on life quality and less on life extension. And I think it's as simple as that. And then we have to find out what is life quality. And that's kind of... We can generally agree on some aspects, but it also is very different for each single person. How do they want to live their lives? For some, like eating. a great meal, drinking a glass of wine, enjoying oneself, smoking, having a cigar. If that's the meaning of life, I'm not going to take that away from people. Although I would know from the statistics that they are probably shortening their lives. So I think it's... We have to have the discussion about what is the quality of life, and then we have to relate that to that this life will end. Radically Genuine (56:08.436) Dr. Breivik, can the human body be immortal? Oh wait, you're going, you jumped too far ahead. No, I got, no. I'm building to that and you go to the end. No, no. Because of the idea of the human body, because if you eliminate stress, do we have the ability to live longer? We got three or four steps to get to that question. Okay, go for it. Okay. Jarle Breivik (56:15.062) Hehehe Jarle Breivik (56:31.222) Hahaha Radically Genuine (56:32.28) Obviously, your book is communicating a very important message. And I'm a little bit confused with, you know, on one end you're saying, we really need to trust the experts. The scientific advancements or attention in cancer research is the best quality of evidence. And I just have to trust that. And I'm going to cite it in my book and I'm going to communicate that. And in a lot of ways, we just have to prepare for that, we're going to die of cancer, it's a natural process, but now there's some greater philosophical questions. But however, throughout history, and you mentioned this in your book to your credit, that there's been a eugenics and depopulation movement that exists. And many of the super billionaires, these uber billionaires like Larry Ellison, for example, quote in your book, death has never made sense to me. You know, it's very clear that they're trying to play God and that we are playing a dangerous game with trying to extend life and create immortality for a few. But at the expense of mass experimentation through pharmaceuticals, through certain drugs, through mRNA gene therapy, and trying to promote it as a safe and healthy vaccination through lots of forms of vaccination, there's a transhumanist movement. that certainly exists that is trying to optimize the human condition, but not necessarily at the protection of the individual, y'all. So this feels like the potential for a eugenics movement where the population is carefully controlled by the powerful and wealthy, and they're also controlling the health recommendations or the interventions that are clearly experimental. We know they haven't been honest. We know what we're getting from the medical establishment around a lot of these health interventions, they're... Jarle Breivik (57:56.321) Yes. Radically Genuine (58:24.232) They're promoted as safe and effective, but they haven't even been studied long term. So how do we make sense of the two? On one end, you're saying, I just need to trust these are the experts. Let's do what they say. But on the other end, you're also making an argument that there's a depopulation movement. Historically, there's eugenics, there's an overpopulation, and there's some people who just want to live forever. Jarle Breivik (58:47.178) Well, if I'm unclear there, I think most of all, I, of course, I trust, like I said, I trust my colleagues that I think are good scientists. I don't think they are trying to manipulate me or that they're just trying to find out what's the scientific truth. And in my book, You probably don't agree, but I'm trying to present the signs that is really uncontroversial, the way I'm not, I'm not going out on, I'm not taking some fringe signs and putting it in there and making a huge argument of this. I'm just presenting the signs that is generally accepted, but perhaps in a somewhat different way. I'm putting the pieces together in a different way that makes a different picture. And one of the things I think is very clear is this, that the message we are presenting out there that we are going to cure cancer, we're going to fight end cancer, that is not true. Or if we are going to, if it is true, it means something very different than what what we are presenting to the general. If you get what I'm saying. So, so. Yes. Back to your question, please. Radically Genuine (01:00:30.764) I wanted my question to lead towards the area of regenerative medicine and how we could be investing dollars in this area under That's possible solution towards you know, replacing organs that could have cancer and using regenerative medicine But ultimately you you've said it like cancer you killing cancer cells doesn't solve the problem because cancer increases with age So, you know, what's the ultimate goal here and who would benefit from that? Jarle Breivik (01:00:34.527) Yes. Jarle Breivik (01:01:01.354) Yeah. Well, I think most cancer researchers today are occupied with curing cancer, finding a solution to cancer. But we're at the same time, we're seeing that we won't get to the goal by killing cancer cells. Just like you said, we have to do something in terms of regenerative medicine, because our body is aging. All our cells are moving either in the direction of aging and apoptosis and suicide, or they are moving in the direction of cancer. So if we want to keep the body alive beyond its expiration date, its biological expiration date, we have to do something dramatic. And that is to actually change or reprogram every single cell of our body. And if you ask me if I think that is possible, in theory or in principle, we are doing it already. We are doing it with stem cell transplantation. We are eradicating our old blood system and we are replacing it with a new one with stem cell transplantation for lymphatic diseases. Radically Genuine (01:02:29.692) So what are these ethical concerns with stem cell research and gene manipulation? Jarle Breivik (01:02:37.202) What are they? They are huge. So I'm concerned that today there is not much of a public debate about the issue of gene manipulation or gene therapy. Jarle Breivik (01:03:06.23) discussion about gene therapy and the ethics of biotechnology in the 80s and the 90s than there is today. And that troubles me because it's now things are really happening. A lot of things will happen in the next decades in terms of not only regenerative medicine, But how, basically how we make. new people. So in terms of in vitro fertilization and gene manipulations and yes, gene therapy. Radically Genuine (01:03:57.008) And Sean, that's where I wanted to get to, and I think is an important question. It is the attempt by some to almost try to play God, to recreate humans, that has unknown consequences. I think it's a dangerous game that is happening, and it's generally, even your colleagues, I do believe a lot of people are ethical. But the road to hell is often paved with really good intentions. So even what we choose to study has to be funded and has to be set up. And the uber wealthy have a significant role to play in society because they are funding these innovations. And so when you come from a transhumanist perspective, it is somewhat anti-human. It is the belief that humans that exist right now, we're really in a lot of ways peasants or we've talked about this earlier that we are kind of parasites that are there's too much of us. We don't serve a great purpose. We're killing the planet. We're destroying the planet and a large portion of the population just would be better served if you know, a lot of people just died. We didn't have this many people and so then how can we optimize human beings? So from a perspective of the elite, from the sociopath, who is seeking this godlike status to be able to control evolution, it is trying to use this technology to create the optimal human. And I believe a lot of what we do medically is more experimental than anything. That's why I don't see tremendous outcomes. I believe, you know, and you can... argue with this to an extent, but I believe the major innovations that have existed in humanity that have led to prolonging our lives are sanitation, antibiotics, for the most part and having the availability of food. So if you look back at why we've died and why we've had shorter lifespans, spread of Radically Genuine (01:06:18.936) Obviously lack of scientific understanding of that, famine, accidents, and bacterial diseases. Right? And we've made major advancements from there that has led to a prolonged life, but not much from there. And now we're on the decline. So isn't it really questionable where a lot of this experimental science is taking us as far as improving our collective humanity? Jarle Breivik (01:06:49.118) Yes, I think that. That is also the message in my book, that we should worry about this. Jarle Breivik (01:07:02.546) I don't think there is a grand conspiracy that all of science or cancer research, regenerative medicine is going to try to take over the world or exploit us. I think a lot of this, as you said, I've done in good intention. But I really worried about... the lack of debate about this. I worry that we are telling the public that we are going to solve the problem. If we only put more money into research, we will cure cancer. Maybe we will even cure aging. And people perhaps, they buy that. But then we need to ask the question, what does that really mean? If we cure aging, where will they take us? What kind of society are we thinking about? What does it mean to... If we get this technology that makes us live until we are 200 years old, it certainly won't be cheap. It will be very expensive and then... If we talked about inequality earlier, this will make an equality where today we see that, well, in some parts of the world, people die a lot earlier. But what will happen when the rich and famous can live on to be 200 or 300 years old and the poor, they die perhaps even earlier than they do today? Radically Genuine (01:08:59.54) Well, it's not sustainable. And this is where I don't think it's a conspiracy theory. It's logic. If we have more and more people living longer on a planet that is overpopulated, at least assumed to be so by many in these positions of power, well, then you're going to continue to increase the population. That's not sustainable. And if you are a, if you're the top 1% of the top 1% and you are someone who believes you have a powerful role in shaping humanity, then you think for the greater good to save the planet would be to eliminate a large portion of the population. In fact, there are some books out there that suggest that the population should be under one billion, the world population. We're now what, around eight billion? So that's pretty dramatic. So this is where it ties back to the earlier question and why it was We didn't want to address it because it's around bioethics. The mRNA COVID vaccination was never studied long-term on a human population. It was an experiment. There's no randomized placebo controlled trials, but yet it was attempted to be mass produced and to be given to everyone around the world. and we were lied to. It was, we were told that it was safe. We were told that it's effective without that knowledge. And now we can say that it's not a vaccination, it's a gene therapy with, it has not been able to spread COVID, stop the spread of COVID, and it did not prevent you from getting it. For a disease that 99... over 99% of people are going to be able to easily recover from, especially young people. And there's a great portion of your book that explains T cell immunity and almost how our body is so beautifully designed to be able to fight off infections. And it's so, it's really hard from a bioethics standpoint for me to be able to parse out the intention. Radically Genuine (01:11:23.24) to mass produce that vaccine, given all the concerns, the lack of science and the small degree of people that it was going to kill. And most of them are going to be the elderly, of course. So when we're talking about, you know, collectively how we're gonna distribute healthcare and interventions, it didn't make sense and it doesn't make sense to the long-term goals of the wealthy. Jarle Breivik (01:11:48.746) Well, um. I'm not going to give my support to that perspective on the cancer vaccine. And as I said earlier, I came on to discuss cancer. So if we are having a discussion about the corona vaccine being a conspiracy, Radically Genuine (01:11:58.096) What's the alternative perspective though? What am I missing? Radically Genuine (01:12:09.223) Yeah, but... Radically Genuine (01:12:13.468) Bioethics. Jarle Breivik (01:12:20.255) That's not the discussion I'm here for really. Radically Genuine (01:12:21.72) I don't think it's that I think it's about bioethics doc. And so I don't want you to scan over my larger point, because we do have a question about trust in the medical authority. You do in your book address transhumanism, the depopulation movement, and how there are select few in society. Now, I can say that's a conspiracy theorist. Jarle Breivik (01:12:40.906) Yes. Jarle Breivik (01:12:46.735) But I don't agree that the development of the Corona vaccine to prevent a global pandemic is a part of the transhumanistic agenda. I'm not buying into that. Radically Genuine (01:13:03.216) Yeah, I don't necessarily think it's at that level either. I was making the connection that he's making as well, that this was a way to globally put out a gene therapy to see what would happen, to learn from it, so that you then apply it towards the next thing, the next thing, the next thing. Yes, I think it's about mass experimentation and how human beings are generally viewed. Maybe, Dr. Brabeck, maybe I could bring it back to a question you feel. more comfortable addressing now, but when it comes back to this, finding a cure for aging and regenerative medicine, you know, part of me thinks the joke's going to be on them, right? Living to 200 or 300 jokes on you. I don't think, I don't think life is going to be worth living, uh, if you're going to live for that long. So my question is really, can we outsmart mother nature? Jarle Breivik (01:13:58.742) I think we can in some way, but we're in danger of outsmarting ourselves. I think that if we are seeking immortality for ourselves, then what will we end up with? It's not really... Radically Genuine (01:14:06.6) Say more. Jarle Breivik (01:14:27.146) the human body we care about. The human body is the problem. The aging body, that's the problem. What we want to live forever is really our mind, our ego, our soul, if you like. And how can we make that immortal? It's the best way of making our... ego immortal to try to make the body immortal? I'm not sure about that. I think the solution to making the mind immortal is very more refined than trying to keep the body alive for an indefinitely amount of time. And therefore I think that the solution to this problem The solution to aging has more to do with artificial intelligence and what's going on in that direction than in the terms of regenerative medicine. How it will end up in the end? Well, I think your fantasy is as good as mine on how it will really turn out. But if we cure ourselves from aging... and we eliminate death, then we definitely won't be human anymore. So we will become something different. And some people think that is what we should strive for. We should strive to become something different. I think being human and dying and leaving the planet to the next generation so that they can do their own thing is pretty good. I am prepared for that. And I think it's a nice tradition. that we should keep going. Radically Genuine (01:16:26.632) So I asked that question, can the human body be immortal? But I think what you're leaning towards now is that the human body cannot, but maybe our consciousness can. Jarle Breivik (01:16:36.054) I think it will be possible to, with the help of regenerative medicine, to replace or reprogram all the cells of our body so that our body can live on more or less indefinitely. The problem is related to our mind. Can we regenerate our brain and still be ourselves? And I'm discussing with transhumanists on Twitter and they're saying, are we looking into that problem? That's what we're going to solve. And I'm saying, good luck with that. But I think what is happening with, so I like to see, look at things in terms of evolution and how information is developing, not just genetic information, but I spent a lot of time in my book explaining how we can understand genetic, epigenetic, and mimetic, like cultural information in terms of evolution, and how we can see that in an integrated perspective. And as I said earlier, that's kind of how I see the modern perspective to the biopsychosocial model. That is to see how different types of information. are integrating and connecting. In terms of how will this develop when we see that biotechnology, we will be able to control genetic information, epigenetic information, and then we get artificial intelligence on top of that. And how will this evolve? I think that is very exciting. but also very scary. But probably I won't be here to experience what will happen of course. But again, I think we need a discussion because things could be happening faster than we really imagined it to be. Radically Genuine (01:18:47.708) That is why life is best served by having various perspectives. So there's the scientific perspective. There's also the artists, the philosophy, the philosopher, the theologian, right? We are beautifully designed. And I think the piece we're missing out of the biopsychosocial is the spiritual. There's a lot of people that are going to be listening to this podcast to either have devout faith or spiritual. And I've mentioned before that I believe that we are a soul. I might be in this human experience, playing this character called Roger or Dr. MacPhillan, but I do think I'm a soul. And when my body dies, I believe I just change forms, that we are energy. And everyday people that I speak to are never talking about wanting to live forever. I rarely come across anyone who says the purpose of my life is to extend life as long as possible. But people do really care about living well. They care about their family. They care about experiences. They just care about love and they care about learning and they care about creating. And I do think that is the purpose of life. And what Dr. Breivik is saying that even with even with the pain, even with suffering, even with dying, that there is a greater purpose to all that. Because there is a life and a death cycle, the old die, the newer born. And there are real important ethical questions that we're not asking by how we're using our technology to disrupt how we have evolved over the natural cycle of life and what it means within the context of the universe. And that we didn't get into today, but it is the important questions that I think we have to think about, because I do think it's a dangerous game, and that's how I'm gonna end this, that the more you continue to try to mass manipulate humanity through technological means, the more you have unintended consequences. And I certainly am concerned about how those with power do view the masses. Radically Genuine (01:21:05.26) As a psychologist, I'm very aware, and we've talked about this, 4% of the population does meet this criteria for sociopathic personality, antisocial personality disorder, a disconnect, a lack of empathy. And you combine that with intelligence and enormous wealth, and those people can be very dangerous to humanity. And you get them involved in things like medical research, transhumanism. And an anti human movement, this is what eventually begins to happen. You know, even Elon Musk, you know, he's really concerned about AI. And he said, at least when there is an evil dictator, that human is going to die. But for AI, there would be no death. You know, we're walking down a very dangerous path with our technology evolving faster than we are. And there's got to be some takeaways from today's discussion. I think one of the areas that I think I walk out of this differing with Dr. Breivik is his trust that he puts into those positions of authority. I think he's asking great questions that need to be asked. And that's why it's important that we have these philosophical bioethical questions when it comes to this advancement of research. Because if that goes unchecked, then these positions of people with power and with sociopathic personalities have really no concern with ending humanity, or at least a large degree of people who they view as more, you know, parasitic and of destroying the planet, destroying the earth and having those depopulation agendas, which are written about, it's not a conspiracy theory when, you know, the uber powerful are actually talking about it. Certainly, they talk about it in a way. that can be easily digestible by most of the world population. And you can start getting into a framework of saving the planet. Utilitarian in nature. Yeah. The greater good. But those are important questions that we have to ask. I understand that Dr. Ryvik has to, he wants to focus on his areas of research, his areas of focus, and he works within a general community. And within that general community, there's diverse thought and there's diverse opinion. And he has to be able to integrate that. And I think. Radically Genuine (01:23:27.208) To be honest with you, if more people were willing to say, I don't know, then we would be better off. And that's my problem with some of these technologies. There's not enough, I don't know, or we're not sure, or it's an experiment. Because when those things happen, then we are infringing on individual rights, individual freedoms for choice in healthcare, and in how someone wants to live their life. And as long, obviously this is my libertarian kind of viewpoint, as long as we're not infringing on the health or the rights or the safety of others, then, you know, our lives are to be, you know, lived in the way that we best see fit. And that's where there's concern for this movement for me is the infringement of those rights by the restriction of information, the restriction of information for people to make informed decisions about their health care and how to live their life, especially when in terms of... if it's inevitable that we're always going to be aging towards cancer, well, then how do we live the longest and healthiest life possible? And that's where the free access to information, open discussion, open debate, and being clear about informed consent, the potential consequences to experimental medical interventions are necessary to maintain our own sovereignty. Any final words, Dr. Ravich, that you want to end with our listeners? Jarle Breivik (01:24:54.366) Well, I really enjoyed your comment about that the important is to see things from different perspectives and to even challenge oneself and our own convictions about these fundamental aspects. And most of all, I think we need a discussion about where our technology is heading. And of course, my agenda is to question what is, how are we communicating cancer research to the general public? And as I said before, I'm not, I think we need the discussion. I'm not saying that somebody, that people are wrong, that cancer research is doing something wrong. I just need, we need an open democratic discussion about where things are heading. Radically Genuine (01:25:58.228) agreed and well said. So how can people discover more about you, read the book, get access to some of the things that you're promoting? Jarle Breivik (01:26:11.978) Well, my book is on Amazon and that's the only thing I'm promoting. I'm not promoting, I haven't got any, as I said earlier, I haven't got any other agenda than to try to spread understanding about cancer, cancer research, and how do we communicate around these difficult things that are really existential in nature and it has to do with where our society is heading. So you can read my, find my book on Amazon. It's also on audio and you can visit me on jarlebreivik.com. Radically Genuine (01:26:51.644) book is making sense of cancer from its evolutionary origin to its societal impact and the ultimate solution. Dr. Jarle Breivick, thank you for a radically genuine conversation. Jarle Breivik (01:27:07.658) Thank you. It's been a pleasure.