I notice that I say it maybe far too usually, however, actually, since COVID-19 hit 4 years in the past the whole lot outdated is new once more. It began out with the whole lot outdated being new once more on this planet of antivaccine misinformation, full with false claims of infertility, demise, most cancers, and the identical outdated, standard “vaccine accidents” attributable to COVID-19 vaccines. Then, as predictably as evening follows day follows evening, “new college” antivaxxers began to embrace “old fashioned” antivax tropes and turned simply antivax. Then, given the affinity between quackery and antivax, “new college” antivaxxers began embracing extra basic quackery, together with most cancers quackery, as they shortly “repurposed” medication that they claimed as efficient in opposition to COVID-19 (e.g., ivermectin) to deal with most cancers after which embraced different extra basic quackery, together with even homeopathy. So it ought to come as no shock that co-founder of that group of COVID-19 cranks often called the Frontline COVID-19 Essential Care Alliance (FLCCC Alliance), Dr. Paul Marik, is now selling a really outdated narrative lengthy promoted by most cancers quacks that chemotherapy doesn’t work.
It’s so clearly the outdated narrative in that the declare goes additional than that, to say that chemotherapy “solely cures” 5% of all cancers. Sound acquainted? It ought to. I’ve written about it earlier than, though again within the day it was claimed that “solely 2%” of cancers have been curable with chemotherapy. That’s why, seeing this outdated trope once more all these years later, I felt that I ought to see what new kind it’s taken and what new, if any, proof Marik cherry picks to attempt to promote this deceptive impression, whereas being shocked that quacks have now admitted greater than double the efficacy of chemotherapy in comparison with what they used to confess.
I had seen mentions of Marik’s earlier within the week, however what actually tweaked me to jot down about this yesterday, as I used to be perusing my ordinary sources, was seeing former Trump administration HHS science advisor Dr. Paul “We Need Them Contaminated” Alexander selling this declare in a Substack put up with one in all his characteristically annoying and prolonged headlines that learn BOOM! 2nd Smartest Man within the World (assist this stack) once more delivers a seminal piece with a hero of mine, Dr. Paul Marik on the fraud of most cancers chemotherapy; by no means labored!
As an apart, what’s it with the “BOOM!” in so many proper wing articles and social media posts? Every time I see that “BOOM!” I can’t assist however be reminded of Marvin the Martian, as a result of there often is not any “BOOM!” in these “exposés,” besides within the deluded head of somebody like Alexander:
However I digress.
It was the blurb for Alexander’s Substack entry that bought my consideration:
Identical to the Malone Bourla Bancel COVID mRNA vaccine, it by no means labored, it labored in your head! Marik: “solely “about 5% of all cancers are literally curable with chemotherapy.” not for 95%
And there you go. Certain, it’s not 2%, however it’s only 5%. I used to be additionally amused, primarily as a result of it in a short time turned clear to me that Marik will not be up-to-date with respect to most cancers chemotherapy, given the claims that he spews. I’m very happy to slap him within the face with some precise knowledge. Alexander, Marik, and the self-proclaimed “2nd Smartest Man within the World” (2ndSGitW) additionally willfully misunderstand that almost all cancers as of late are handled with multimodality remedy that may embody a mix of all or any of modalities together with surgical procedure, chemotherapy, radiation remedy, immunotherapy, endocrine remedy, and focused therapies, the precise mixture and identities of which depend upon the tumor sort, stage, and general well being of the most cancers affected person. Few cancers, primarily hematologic malignancies, are handled with simply chemotherapy anymore.
The article being referred to by Alexander and 2SGitW was revealed early final week by the disinformation spreader The Vigilant Fox below the title, Dr. Paul Marik Exposes the Reality About Chemotherapy, with the tagline, “You received‘t hear this out of your typical oncologist.” In fact, there’s a cause you “received’t hear this out of your typical oncologist,” primarily as a result of it’s, to place it mildly, bullshit. Additionally, one can’t assist however be aware that Marik isn’t even an oncologist or any specialist associated to oncology. I imply, holy hell, as a lot as I can’t stand Dr. William “turbo most cancers” Makis, at the least as a nuclear drugs radiologist he did picture most cancers sufferers and use some focused radiotherapies to deal with some most cancers sufferers again within the day earlier than he misplaced his medical license. Marik doesn’t even hav that tenuous hyperlink to oncology. I additionally be aware that there’s what I might name a paucity of precise citations to the literature—or any sources aside from Marik—on this article. There may be, nonetheless, a hyperlink to the FLCCC web page on The Position of Repurposed Medicine and Metabolic Interventions in Treating Most cancers, the place I hoped to search out the “rationale” (resembling it’s) for Marik’s claims.
Paul Marik echoes most cancers quacks going again at the least 50 years
Let’s begin the dialogue of the “meat” of Marik’s declare (if you happen to can name it that) by seeing what Marik says, at the least in his interview with The Vigilant Fox:
Dr. Paul Marik, a famend crucial care doctor, has make clear the cruel realities of chemotherapy’s ineffectiveness in treating most cancers. He revealed that solely “about 5% of all cancers are literally curable with chemotherapy.”
This small fraction of cancers which can be chemo-responsive contains testicular most cancers, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, acute lymphatic leukemia, and a brief listing of others. (See picture under)
The picture is that this:
I attempted to discover a supply to again up Marik’s declare, each in his e-book and slideset, and was unable to find one. Quelle shock. Marik additionally says:
However for the remaining 95% of most cancers circumstances, the prognosis is way much less optimistic. Dr. Marik acknowledged, “Chemotherapy is palliative at finest,” highlighting that whereas chemotherapy may lengthen survival by one or two months, it comes with a major price to the affected person’s high quality of life.
And:
The actually sobering element that Dr. Marik talked about was that regardless of developments in chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and surgical therapies over the previous 30 years, the general life expectancy of a most cancers affected person has been prolonged by a measly 3.9 months.
Once more, that is extremely misleading, and Marik gives no citations. He additionally conflates the minority of cancers which can be identified when metastatic, for many of which chemotherapy is palliative and certain solely to offer a survival enchancment on the order of months, with the sooner stage, operable, treatable cancers that make up what most most cancers sufferers are identified with. Marik’s conflation of the 2 is extremely misleading.
As I’m positive that any precise oncologist studying this put up will instantly acknowledge, that is an instance of the misrepresentation and outright omission. Initially, it’s misleading to incorporate a column of metastatic illness in a slide about chemotherapy “curable” most cancers, as a result of, with uncommon exceptions (e.g., testicular most cancers, for which even stage IV illness continues to be doubtlessly curable with chemotherapy, surgical procedure, and radiation—simply ask Lance Armstrong), chemotherapy for stage IV illness is nearly all the time palliative. Furthermore, Marik’s antivax “pondering” is at play right here, in that, simply as antivaxxers appear to suppose that any endpoint aside from demise (e.g., extreme sickness) will not be essential with respect to COVID-19 interventions, he appears to suppose that palliation of superior most cancers is nugatory. Whereas palliative chemotherapy may not lengthen survival by lengthy for a lot of of those cancers, opposite to this stereotype, it might stop cancer-related problems and enhance high quality of remaining life.
There are additionally curious—and evident—omissions and inclusions within the “prolongs survival” a part of this chart. For instance, chemotherapy most positively does lengthen survival when used as adjuvant remedy after surgical procedure colorectal most cancers, which makes its omission from the “improves survival” group mainly a lie by omission. For colon most cancers that’s stage III (or excessive danger stage II), chemotherapy is beneficial and does lower the chance of recurrence and lengthen survival, at the same time as scientists are additional personalizing therapy. Additionally, a number of myeloma must be within the “doubtlessly curable” column, as chemotherapy may end up in long run survival. It’s true, after all, that as of late monoclonal antibodies (e.g., in opposition to CD38 or SLAMF7) play an essential position in a number of myeloma therapy, however excessive dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue (bone marrow transplant, BMT) will be healing for extra superior illness. (I’ve a childhood pal who underwent BMT for a number of myeloma and has been disease-free for years. I even not too long ago ran into her at my most cancers heart as she got here in for a followup go to together with her oncologist.) I used to be additionally puzzled by the inclusion of thyroid most cancers within the “improves survival” column. Most thyroid most cancers is handled with surgical procedure alone, typically with radioactive iodine to ablate remaining microscopic illness. Chemotherapy is rarely used for thyroid most cancers and, when it’s, is often palliative for the significantly nasty subtype, anaplastic thyroid most cancers.
Lastly, let’s take a look at the most cancers that I deal with routinely, breast most cancers, the second commonest reason for most cancers demise within the US in ladies. Roughly one-third of all breast cancers are both triple-negative in that they don’t make estrogen or progesterone receptor proteins and/or have amplified HER2 oncogene. For these cancers, as I wish to say, the oncologists is perhaps placing us surgeons out of enterprise. Right here’s what I imply. Utilizing the KEYNOTE-522 routine (neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus immunotherapy) earlier than surgical procedure, we see a higher than 60% pathologic full response fee; i.e., there isn’t a viable most cancers seen by pathologists within the resection specimens. Outcomes are so good that there are now scientific trials being carried out to find out whether or not surgical procedure is even essential after a scientific full response (tumor not detectable on imaging research) and the right way to decide whether or not a scientific full response equates to a pathologic full response. Related outcomes are being achieved for HER2-positive cancers after therapy with chemotherapy plus the HER2-targeting medication trastuzumab and pertuzumab, which produce pathologic full response charges nearly as excessive as KEYNOTE-522 does for triple detrimental breast most cancers. As I mentioned, 5 or ten years from surgical procedure may not even be essential for as much as one-third of breast cancers. (Good factor I plan on retiring inside a decade.)
I might go on, however will for now depart discovering further errors, omissions, and doubtful decisions for this chart as an train for the reader, significantly my oncologist colleagues. Consider it this fashion. There are already so many errors, doubtful placements, and questionable categorizations within the chart that it ought to make you doubt the whole lot else that Marik says, provided that he can’t even get this chart proper. As for the chart itself, it didn’t take me lengthy to see that it got here from a Webinar slideset on the FLCCC web site that so flagrantly mixes nonsense with info that I might (and possibly ought to) do a sequence selecting it aside, or maybe selecting aside, chapter by chapter, Marik’s most cancers quackery e-book on the web site, proven under with its cowl and Desk of Contents:
Does Marik’s declare have any validity? I believe you recognize the reply: It’s a grain of fact distorted.
Paul Marik vs most cancers science
Taking a look at all of this, I questioned the place Marik bought his determine of “solely 5%” of cancers being cured with chemotherapy; so I subjected myself to the CHD podcast during which Polley interviewed him. It was lower than three minutes in that Marik was repeating the straw man about most cancers beloved of quacks, one which I’ve mentioned so many instances that Marik’s repetition of it most likely brought on harm to my extraocular muscle tissues, so onerous did I roll my eyes. In short, Marik claimed that oncologists would say that most cancers is attributable to mutations and chromosomal abnormalities, when in actuality it’s a “metabolic illness.” (And, sure, he did invoke Otto Warburg, who first proposed this concept in 1928.) Solely an individual who hasn’t been to a most cancers convention or learn the scientific literature on most cancers critically over the past 10-20 years might say one thing so out of contact with the fact of what oncologists and most cancers scientists truly say in regards to the causes of most cancers. Significantly, simply do a PubMed seek for “most cancers” and “metabolism.” It’s so well-accepted that metabolism contributes to most cancers formation and development that there are quite a few overview articles about it going again a decade. (If Marik actually needs to have his thoughts blown, he ought to do a PubMed seek for “most cancers” and “metabolic reprogramming.”) Oh, positive, he concedes that we all know that some folks have genetic susceptibilities to most cancers—who can deny that?—however blithely goes on to say that these genetic susceptibilities most likely all trigger metabolic adjustments that trigger most cancers.
To supply some perspective, I can’t assist however interject right here that Douglas Hanahan and Robert Weinberg even up to date their basic “hallmarks of most cancers” article from 2000 to embody most cancers metabolism (“deregulating mobile energetics”)…in 2011. As time has gone on, I’ve come to suspect that the explanation quacks like to invoke “metabolism über alles” as the reason for most cancers (and most different illness) is as a result of that makes it a lot simpler for them to argue for dietary interventions because the remedy for all illness. Certainly, Marik even cites BRCA1 and BRCA2. Lots of you is perhaps conscious that sure mutations in these genes may end up in a lifetime danger of breast or ovarian most cancers approaching 80% (for breast most cancers). Furthermore, BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumor suppressor genes that code for proteins whose perform is DNA injury restore. After they don’t work attributable to a mutation, most cancers turns into more likely as a result of DNA mutations accumulate with out being repaired, one thing that would appear to belie Marik’s claims that most cancers is metabolic derangement über alles.
In a mind-bogglingly silly assertion, Marik doesn’t state the perform of the proteins produced by BRCA1 and BRCA2, treats the 2 as if they have been a single gene “the BRCA1/BRCA2 gene” (which they most positively are usually not), after which cites a declare that the chance of most cancers in mutation carriers was once “solely” 50% 20-30 years in the past, however now could be 70%, which left me scratching my head. He additionally neglects to notice that the chance is totally different relying on which gene has a mutation, with oncogenic BRCA1 mutations portending a a lot larger lifetime danger of breast most cancers than oncogenic BRCA2 mutations. Significantly, Marik has no concept what he’s speaking about right here, however that doesn’t cease him from claiming that “one thing” else should be occurring. OK, so what? Let’s say Marik is right right here. Even in that case, then a gene mutation may cause most cancers 50% of the time, and “different components” at most improve that danger by a further 20%. He undermines his personal argument that most cancers is all the time a “metabolic illness” by his personal misunderstanding. Furthermore, I couldn’t discover any quotation or reference in Marik’s most cancers e-book to assist his deceptive factoid. Furthermore, it by no means happens to him that newer and extra intensive testing for BRCA mutations and higher epidemiological research may play a job in adjustments within the estimates of lifetime danger of most cancers in mutation carriers. (Today, much more ladies endure genetic testing than within the Nineties.
Unsurprisingly, to assist his declare that most cancers is a “metabolic illness,” Marik cites Thomas Seyfried, one of many essential proponents of the overblown declare that most cancers is primarily a metabolic illness. It’s been nearly precisely a decade since I final wrote about Seyfried, particularly his risibly overblown declare that ketogenic diets “beat” chemotherapy for the therapy of most cancers. As I mentioned on the time, just a few years previous to my writing that put up, the speculation that most cancers is primarily a metabolic illness was all the craze in oncology, and I remembered attending a number of classes and lectures on the Warburg impact and most cancers on the AACR conferences. I additionally famous that, by 2014, curiosity within the speculation had been waning considerably, most probably as a result of it had so far did not ship a lot in the way in which of therapeutic targets and techniques. I additionally famous that Seyfried had expressed delight at having been interviewed by Joe Mercola. Right here’s a touch: In the event you’re science-based, you keep away from Mercola just like the plague. It was true ten years in the past, and it’s much more true now, provided that Mercola has not too long ago fallen below the spell of a psychic medium grifter claiming to channel an historic highly effective entity even to the purpose of taking his recommendation on the right way to run his enterprise and firing longtime associates, together with even his sister, and ghosting associates. Thus far, not an awesome supply.
In fact, the query of whether or not the metabolic adjustments trigger the mutations and chromosomal adjustments seen in most cancers or vice-versa is a longstanding debate that Marik glides by as if it have been completely settled. As is the case with most cancers quacks, he vastly oversimplifies most cancers science in favor of 1 speculation and ignores the probability that a number of adjustments contribute to the event, progress, and development of most cancers cells, seemingly in numerous mixtures at totally different instances, relying upon the step in carcinogenesis that the most cancers has reached. I wish to cite my earlier major space of analysis, tumor angiogenesis, the flexibility of most cancers cells to stimulate the ingrowth of latest blood vessels to assist their progress. You may recall that with out that means most cancers cells can solely kind tumors the dimensions of a small lump of cells, as a result of diffusion of oxygen and vitamins limits their progress to that. Till a brand new most cancers someway flips the “angiogenic change,” that’s all it may be, a lump of cells. Nonetheless, as soon as it begins stimulating the ingrowth of latest blood vessels, it might develop nearly unchecked. I additionally recall that again within the Nineties concentrating on tumor angiogenesis was considered as a possible remedy for most cancers, or at the least as a method that might flip most cancers right into a persistent, manageable illness like hypertension or diabetes by extended use of angiogenesis inhibitors. Sadly, it didn’t end up that manner, though angiogenesis inhibitors have taken their place within the multimodality pharmacological therapy of most cancers as an incremental development—identical to most new most cancers therapies.
The truth is, let’s check out a few basic figures from Hanahan and Weinberg’s 2011 “hallmarks of most cancers” overview, in comparison with the unique “hallmarks of most cancers” determine from their 2000 overview:
As I wish to say, liberally paraphrasing what Douglass Adams mentioned about area, most cancers is sophisticated. You simply received’t imagine how vastly, vastly, mind-bogglingly sophisticated it’s. I imply, it’s possible you’ll suppose rocket science is sophisticated, however that’s simply peanuts to most cancers. It must be an enormous pink flag any time you see somebody like Marik proclaiming only one trigger for most cancers.
However what in regards to the “5%” determine? I somewhat suspect that Marik pulled it out of his nether areas, or—let’s consider?—”repurposed” the outdated “2% gambit” by making it much less pessimistic. Provided that I can’t discover any new sources that I haven’t addressed earlier than I’ll subsequently refer you to my earlier posts refuting the outdated and misleading declare that chemotherapy “cures solely 2%” of cancers and explaining how chemotherapy does work in any case.
Chemotherapy vs. “repurposed medication”?
One declare by most cancers quacks like Marik that’s all the time irked me is that they’re someway the one individuals who have ever considered “repurposing” medication permitted for different functions to deal with most cancers. Significantly, I revealed quite a few papers investigating the potential of repurposing a drug for Alzheimer’s illness to deal with most cancers. My annoyance turned very acute after I noticed Marik flash this slide in his interview:
That is yet one more of Marik’s misleading tables. For instance, the declare that repurposed medication can have an effect on “all malignant cells” is simply nonsense. Completely different repurposed medication can goal totally different tumor cells, as such medication work in opposition to sure cancers primarily as a result of they aim sure signaling or metabolic pathways that the illness for which they have been permitted has in widespread with these particular cancers. Equally, there’s no proof that repurposed medication basically—cough, cough, ivermectin—improve adaptive immunity. And WTF does “improves/enhances” tumor microenvironment even imply? Whereas it’s true that tumor microenvironment (the mobile milieu, together with immune cells, surrounding the tumor) can have an enormous impact on tumor progress and development, no proof is introduced that any of the “repurposed medication”—cough, cough, ivermectin—has any impact on the tumor microenvironment.
Significantly, I laughed out loud on the declare that tumor cell resistance doesn’t develop in opposition to “repurposed medication.” Right here’s a touch for Marik: Tumor cell resistance can develop in opposition to just about any drug, chemotherapy, focused remedy, immune remedy, or no matter. I bear in mind within the Nineties the way it was broadly speculated that cancers wouldn’t develop resistance to antiangiogenic remedy as a result of the remedy focused regular vascular cells. Guess what? Identical to in Jurassic Park, life (on this case, most cancers) wasn’t contained and did discover a manner. There are actually a number of mechanisms by which tumors obtain resistance to angiogenesis inhibitors. The identical will nearly actually be true for repurposed medication that, not like most of what Marik lists, truly do work for most cancers. Most cancers finds a manner, and resistance will develop. It’s an enormous pink flag for quackery when anybody claims in any other case, Marik’s claimed “deep dive into the literature” during which he supposedly personally reviewed “over 900 peer-reviewed” papers in one in all his movies however.
“New college” COVID-19 antivaxxers and quacks have now grow to be simply antivaxxers and quacks, full with the identical claims of getting “executed their very own analysis” during which they cherry decide the research that the like, ignore the longstanding historical past of most cancers analysis, and painting themselves as somebody who has found one thing about most cancers that “they” don’t need you to learn about. The declare that chemotherapy “solely cures 5%” ignores the distinction between adjuvant chemotherapy and first chemotherapy as therapy and that almost all cancers are actually seldom handled with only one modality anymore. It’s, in essence, a advertising device during which the most cancers quack disparages the competitors with a view to promote you one thing. Within the case of Paul Marik, he’s promoting ivermectin and different “repurposed” medication for most cancers, whereas within the case of The Vigilant Fox and 2ndSGitW, it’s the Joe Tippens protocol, which each embody on the finish of their articles that includes Marik.
The extra issues change, the extra they keep the identical in quackery world, and, after all, the whole lot outdated is new once more. Marik is simply peddling the identical outdated snake oil that most cancers quacks have been peddling ever since chemotherapy began to enter the therapy regimens for numerous cancers, at the same time as he portrays himself as selling “integrative oncology.”