The David Knight Show - Interview: The Cancer Industry vs Natural Medicine

Episode Date: March 6, 2026

Integrative oncologist Dr. Francisco Contreras (OasisOfHope.com) warns that the explosion of cancer cases—especially among younger patients—may be tied to immune system damage, chemical exposure, and a food system saturated with substances like glyphosate. As the Trump administration moves to boost glyphosate production and shield manufacturers from lawsuits despite billions in cancer verdicts, Contreras argues the real solutions lie outside the pharmaceutical model. Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Joining us today is a respected voice and integrative oncology, Dr. Francichico Contreras. And we're going to talk about glyphosite and the amazing flip-flop that we've seen out of the Trump administration over glyphosate. Not only have we had hundreds of thousands of cases over the last few years and many, many jury awards of billions of dollars. As a matter of fact, I think it's $11 billion in terms of awards. So it's been pretty well established not only by the lawsuits, but also by studies, the increased risk of this. And now we're seeing that the Trump administration is going to compel production of this, as well as to protect them from lawsuits, because that's all part of the Defense Production Act, that if you make something that the government says is necessary for defense, you also get protected legally from it.

So this is truly a wake-up call for people, I think. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Contrares. Thank you very much for having me. And tell us your statement about this. What do you know about glyphos that you've been watching as an oncologist? You've been following this pretty closely. Tell us a little bit about it from your perspective. Yes, you know, there are some reports that it could be beneficial for cancer patients.

but in our experience, we have not seen sufficient evidence of help, and that's one of the reasons that I do not recommend it for our patients. On top of the fact that, you know, it can have some side effects that are not easy on the patients or easily reversible. And so in our experience, we are not using it at all. Talk to me about it. I've never heard of this being used as a treatment for cancer patients. I've only heard it as a risk of starting cancer, but people are actually using it to some degree.

No, no, no. There are some reports, as you know, with chemotherapy, all chemotherapies are on kidney. So there are some reports that it could be. be used as an anti-tumor agent. But again, the evidence to us was not sufficient. Now, how oncogenic it is, I really don't know. But, but, you know, I do not recommend it, and I would avoid it if possible. Well, when you look at the statistics, there's been anywhere from 170,000 to 200,000 lawsuits.

in just the last 10 years, 125,000 of those. So it's accelerating in terms of the lawsuits. They have paid out $11 billion. And so I guess we could say, really, the jury is not out. The jury has delivered its verdict on a lot of these. And, of course, there's been, when we look at the massive amounts of money, that was the first thing that came out. I was surprised at it because they had some kind of a class action lawsuit that set up a deal saying,

well, we're going to limit your future liability to only seven and a half. half billion dollars now they have paid out already 11 billion dollars how do they know how many people are going to get cancer in the future i mean they've really limited their liability in regards to that there's still at least 60 to 67 000 cases that are outstanding with this as well wow so that's a you know that's a big problem but i i would imagine that if somebody started something with many of the chemothera therapies that we are you know currently using um that that's losses like that could pop up at any time. And so that's going to be complicated because radiation therapy, for instance, that is

widely used is a well-known carcinogen. Yes. There's like so many of the things we see in these Ask Your Doctor commercials, you know, you're taking something for a particular condition and they start rattling off all the different adverse, possible adverse effects. And usually one of the first things that they rattle off is it may give you what you were taking it for, right? Exactly. So I don't know how they're going to manage that because I don't think that there's anything out there that is completely safe. You know, for instance, the new

immunotherapies available, they all have, you know, the possibility of causing other very major diseases like autoimmune diseases. Yeah. But yet when a cancer patient is in an advanced stage, these products can help the patient survive maybe, you know, a year or more without so many side effects as with chemotherapy. And so I don't know how these companies are going to be protected from lawsuits if they develop other diseases. So all drugs have, you know, risks as well as benefits. And so, man, The disincentive of producing new things is going to be curtailed if there's always going to be this possibility of being sued about it.

I thought that in America, especially in stage four cancer patients, the law is that you can now try things that are not completely approved by the FDA when these products have some possibility of helping a patient that is in, you know, in the last, that could be the last resort. So I understand that, you know, companies need to be very careful in what they produce. But especially for cancer patients in advanced stages, there's always going to be risks in high risk. Yeah, my father died from his first round of chemotherapy, went into a common. and died from it. So, yeah, the chemo stuff can be extremely dangerous that's not there.

And when it comes to the Roundup stuff, we had, our personal story was in the early 1980s. We had a dog that we tried to keep in the backyard, but it would regularly escape. And we had some neighbors who used a Kim Lawn type of thing. And they would come out and spray the lawn. They'd put up signs, keep pets and children off of the lawn. It's like, well, okay. Well, he got out and he was eating the grass over there. And then shortly after that, he got non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

And that was the first time I made the connection was I heard on the radio report about how these agricultural workers were coming down with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. And they thought it was because of glyphosate and Roundup. And so I thought, oh, maybe that's it. And then we had a friend who came down with it about the same time and died from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. So this is something that I've had my eye on since. the early 1980s, and it's amazing the number of cases that we've had.

And, of course, there's been a lot of studies as well, haven't there? Oh, yes. There's many studies that show that people that work on the lawns of golf courses have a terribly high incidence of lymphoma in prostate cancer in comparison to the rest of the population. So all of that is very well established. And the other aspect of the... this, which I think is kind of unique. In addition to the cancer issue is, of course, the fact that

once you poison your ground with this glyphosate weed killer, you can't grow anything except the Monsanto genetically modified seeds that they sell you. And I remember covering this from the standpoint of farmers in India who were committing suicide because they'd poison their land and they couldn't afford on an annual basis to buy the expensive seeds that Monsanto was selling them. And I thought, you know, what is that going to do to our ability to grow food? And yet we have, as this declaration was made by Trump, we had Republicans who were cheering it in Congress because Big Agro is concerned about food production because that makes them money.

They don't really are not that concerned about any adverse effects that might come from that kind of food production. Oh, and there's a lot of research done that GMOs or genetically modified products can be very deleterious to our health. Yeah, yeah. You know, it's deleterious to the bugs. And if the bugs don't get close to it, we shouldn't either. So I don't think that that is the answer. Of course, you know, the production increases.

but I think that diseases are also going to exponentially increase due to the manipulation of the DNA of our food. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And in the email we're talking back and forth, you had a picture. It's kind of a picture that somebody had of RFK Jr. drinking glyphosate, which harkens back to one of their marketing guys saying, it's so safe I could drink it. They said, okay, let's see you drink it. And he said, oh, well, never mind. I don't think I'll do that. but I guess it brings

kind of drinking the Kool-Aid, isn't it? Yes. There was a study published some years ago, you know, they asked oncologists, would you give chemotherapy to a patient with stage four? I think it was lung cancer. And they said, of course. And then they asked if you had lung cancer,

would you take chemotherapy? And most of them said no. Wow. So, you know, that's not loving your patient as you love yourself. as a body mistake. That's right. Yeah, first do no harm doesn't apply there, does it? It is very dangerous as many of these things are. And I think I've said for the longest time, especially because of the cancer of my family, I said, I think in the future,

people are going to look back on chemotherapy and many of these cancer treatments in the same way that we look back on leeches, you know, being used in the past. Correct. And, you know, you're right. Yeah. The last chemotherapy developed was probably 15 years ago. Chemotherapy is going to be a thing of the past in probably 10, 15 years. Wow. So what are you using? What are you leaning towards in terms of your treatment there at Hope?

So as you mentioned, my experience is an integrative medicine. So what we have is we have all of the therapies available from the alternative and the conventional, because there are some tumors that respond extremely well to conventional chemo. For instance, lymphomas, the cure rate is, you know, in the 90 percentile. So, of course, in those tumors, we still recommend this therapy. But for most cancers, chemotherapies are very little use to the patient. So there the alternatives can be very effective. And so our main therapies are on the metabolic side, like high-dose vitamin C, converts itself like chemotherapy, kills the cells with the same mode of action as chemo

without any of the side effects. Really? And our strongest therapies are immunologic. So we have our impact protocol which stands for immune personalized autologous cell therapy. And it's based on dendritic cells.

And I don't know if you've heard the term of dendritic cell vaccine that was developed in America early this century. And it's still, in clinical trials in America, whereas in Mexico is already approved. And so we work for the patients rather than against the tumor. So we create within the immune system of the patient an anti-tumor task force with natural killer cells.

And this has been very, very effective. And it has zero side effects. So there are many things that can help cancer patients, diet alone can make a tremendous difference in how a patient responds to therapy. And so we have all of these natural options available to our patients in conjunction with conventional therapy because there are some patients that are definitely going to be benefited by surgery or radiation. but our main therapies are immunologic in nature. And so we produce them from the patient's own cells,

immunological cells, like natural killer cells, endritic cells, lymphokine-activated cells. And I think this is the future. Now, there are some conventional immunotherapies as well, like Ketruda is one of the most used now. that can be combined with the natural anti-tumor agents and natural immunity that we give our patients with very, very good results. So we have the possibility of integrating conventional therapies with natural therapies.

And there are patients that, you know, where conventional therapies have very little to offer, where we only offer now natural therapies with very good results. Yeah, I spoke recently to Rick. Hill. And that was one of the things he was talking about in terms of, you know, this is a cooperative thing and you're going to change your diet and some other things like that. It wasn't just something that they were going to do to treat the cancer. But as you point out, I guess that's is that what's meant by integrative oncology that you're trying to build up the body to fight the cancer? Integrative means that we can integrate both sides of the aisle, let's say, conventional

and unconventional. The immune therapies are the ones where we stimulate the areas of the immune system designed to attack cancer. Because we develop cancer because these areas of the immune system fail. Otherwise, we wouldn't develop cancer. I'm sure that you've heard of people

that are 90 years old, they smoke all their, life and they, you know, mashed potatoes and meat, and they never develop cancer. It's because their immune system is up to par. And so we only develop cancer when our immune system fails. And so this is what we're trying to repair with our immune therapies so that the patients can counteract that cancer and heal themselves. I remember at the beginning of all this vaccine stuff, the doctor Ryan Cole, who is a pathologist, said that the people that he was seeing that had been vaccinated had a tremendous deficit of killer T cells. And he said, we're going to see an

explosion of cancer, of turbo cancer and that type of thing because of that. And that's exactly what he was talking about. Your body is natural defenses. Have you seen a large surge in terms of reported cancer patients where you treat people? Yes, unfortunately, we know, we, we, cancer was a disease of the elderly, let's say, 60 and over. And right now, my patients, more than half are 40 years or less. Oh, wow. And with very aggressive cancers. And when COVID hit, we had a number of patients that were, you know,

in complete remission and they got vaccinated and their cancers reactivated. And I agree is due to the fact that the immune system is affected tremendously with these. it's not really a vaccine, these drugs that were developed to fight this viruses. Now, you're talking about the new approach. You said a relatively new approach. Is this something that came out with RFK Jr., that they would relax some of the restrictions if, let's say people had a terminal disease, relax some of the restrictions on people trying drugs experimentally?

I know that in Japan, a person that I know who is covering stem cell research, he said in Japan, as long as you can demonstrate to them that your treatment is not harmful, they'll let you go ahead and do it. And then they'll use the data that you get from your treatment routine to see if it is effective. So as long as you can show that it's safe, it opens up the door for you to do treatments to see if it's effective. Is that where we are now with changes? During Trump's first term, there was a big fuss about it, and so he opened up that possibility. I don't know, because I'm in Mexico. I don't know if that continues to be the policy that if a patient is in stage four and the treatment has not helped that patient, that treatments that are in the process of being approved or disapproved by the FDA could be tried.

on those patients, as you say, when they were proven to be safe, because safety is very difficult to prove. It takes sometimes years where efficacy is very easy to prove. You know, the tumor is larger and now smaller. So in patients where some therapies were proven to be effective, but the safety issue is not yet proven, but the patient is in stage four and has no other options, those therapies could be used on cancer patients. But that wasn't his first term. And I don't know if it continues to be true or not. But that would offer a tremendous amount of hope to many, many patients

that have really nothing that they could use. Now, one of the things that you mentioned earlier was vitamin C. Did you say it was liposomic vitamin C? You had a qualifier there for vitamin C. Yes. Well, the vitamin C in terribly high dosages. So we know that, you know, vitamin C is a very potent antioxidant. But in very high dosages, like 50 grams or to 100 grams, it converts into an oxidant.

And it kills malignant cells with the same mode of action as radiation therapy. But without any of the side effects. And this was discovered at the NIH and the NCI in the late 90s. and there were, you know, many published studies, it never got into clinical trials because, you know, they're the disincentive is that you could never get a patent for it. Yeah. Because it's natural. Yeah.

And you still have to spend, you know, the billion dollars to prove to the FDA that it's safe and effective. And so it stayed at the level of, you know, of the laboratory. But we've been vitamin C in very high doses, just 60 grams. a day for the last 10 years with very good results. For instance, our five-year survival in stage four breast cancer is five times higher than with conventional therapy. Wow.

Wow. So in patients that arrived to us that with stage four breast cancer that didn't receive chemotherapy and are treated with high-dose vitamin C, our five-year survival rate is 75%, whereas in America is 16% conventional therapy. So there we've been able to prove that, you know, vitamin C has a tremendous potential to help cancer patients. Wow. Yeah, there's so much that's there that if people would avail themselves of getting out of the box that they put us in, We had a very dear friend of ours who died of breast cancer. And she was a nurse.

And she was really kind of closed off to investigating anything that was alternative to that. I talked, as I said, to Rick Hill on things he was talking about was vitamin B-17. And I was saying a lot of times people are looking at cancer as really kind of a nutritional deficiency in a way. And in a sense like scurvy, you know, one of the deficient. C of vitamin C. Do you use B-17? Yes, we've been using B-17 for 60 years. Wow. Here at the Oasis of Hope. We've been in my father founded our institution, the Oasis of Hope, in 1963. And it was the first alternative that he used. And so it's a mild, natural anti-tumor agent that is very effective in several types of cancer.

and so we use it widely because it's completely non-toxic. Now, the B-17 vitaminism is Nomer. It is not a vitamin. The discoverers, two Americans, you know, father and son, Dr. Krebs, which interestingly enough, Krebs means cancer in German. So they discovered that there was a tribe in the Himalayas, the Hansa, that have the lowest incidence of cancer in the world,

and they consume tremendous amount of B-17 from apricot pits. And so they believed in the 50s that it was a vitamin. And so the name stuck, and it's widely known as vitamin B-17, but amygdalen is not a vitamin, but it is a natural anti-tumor agent that has virtually no side effects. Wow, wow. And I guess, you know, because it is a food that it is not under the kind of scrutiny that some of the other things out there that are used alternatively to treat cancer. It's not under that kind of scrutiny.

I know there's been a lot of harassment of doctors who have used it. And, of course, I've talked to Richardson at the R&C store about that. I've interviewed him a couple of times. and we know the stories from G. Edward Griffin and his book A World Without Cancer. So we know that they frown upon it and they harass people significantly about it. But it is really a food. How do you shut down a natural food? They don't really and should not have the authority to be able to do that.

No. And, you know, it's again, the disincentive is that you cannot get a patent. For instance, my father in the 70s got B-17 approved in Mexico for you. of cancer patients. And he spent at that time in the 70s, I think $380,000. And virtually the day that it was approved, because it's natural,

seven other laboratories started producing it. He never made his money back. And now we started buying from the other companies because they had much better equipment than we did. You're getting a better product. And so that's what's happened. And so vitamin C, if it goes through the process, any company would have to spend about a billion dollars to get it through the FDA by doing all of the studies that need to be done.

And without a patent, so there's no way that anybody is going to do any studies on that, I mean, any effort on natural products to be approved by the FDA. And of course, I've seen this type of thing happen before. the debate over medical marijuana, you know, they'd say, well, you know, have been any studies that prove that it's effective. It's like, well, nobody has the financial incentive to do a study because you can't, you can't patent that. And so we see this happening over and over again. And there's so many things, you know, we're just talking about two of them, but there's so many things out there that could be very, very effective. You know,

go back and I think about the ancient Greek physicians and they even said, let food be your medicine. Exactly. And yet we don't have the studies that do that. because there's no incentive for that. Yes, and then the other misconception is that if it's not FDA approved, it's bad. And if it is FDA approved, it's safe, right? So there is a misconception that if it's not FDA approved, that it's bad.

But it only means that it didn't go through the process. For instance, bananas are not approved by the FDA. Right? And nobody can say that they're bad. It's just that it didn't go through the process. So a banana is not safe and effective. Are you kidding me? It's not appealing, I guess.

So I hope that somebody comes with an idea to incentivize people to study natural products and that they can make money from them. Because otherwise, we will never have anything that is natural and that we know that it can work. For instance, curcumin, there's about 100 published studies on the value that curcumin could have for cancer patients, but it all stayed at the lab level. It never went into clinical trials because it's natural.

On B-17, for instance, there's about seven publications that were done at the Sloan Kettering in the 50s that proved that it was very effective in animals. But again, because it was natural, it never went into clinical trials in humans. And so I hope that some bright mind out there comes up with an idea that can incentivize companies

to get natural products approved because the potential is enormous. And of course, the problem with a lot of the natural things like that is, you know, What dosage do you use? Like you're talking about curcumin and even B-17, you know, what type of, but since they're not toxic, you can take large amounts of it. But again, the question is, you know, are you taking sufficient amount for it to be effective? I guess that's the issue when I look at it from my perspective as somebody who hasn't seen the studies. What is your response to that?

You're absolutely right. The difference between the needed dosage to survive of vitamins is extremely low in comparison to the for antitur activity. For instance, vitamin B-17, the normal doses 500 milligrams a day that we need in order not to develop scurvy. But to treat cancer, you need between 100, between 50. and 100 grams. That's a massive difference in dosage.

And so you're absolutely right. The dosages that we need to treat disease are extremely high and not easily administered sometimes orally. So we need to create them in a drug form so that we can give to the patient's IV or in liposomal. forms are nanoparticles. We've proven that nanoparticles, for instance, of curcumin or B-17 are so well absorbed in the body that it's almost as good as if you would give them IV.

So you can get very high concentrations in plasma and the blood for them to be effective. But you're absolutely right. The effective dose for nutrients or natural therapies to be very, is very, high in comparison to the dosages used for nutritional purposes. And when we talk about nutritional purposes, or even maybe as a cancer preventative, as many people take B-17, what type of dosage we're looking at there in terms of a preventative? The dosage is not massive. For instance, the dosage calculated that the hunts of people take is about 500 milligrams a day.

and that's what you, and you can obtain 500 milligrams from about a pound of apricot kernels. So, yes, the amounts that you use for prevention are much lower than the ones that you use for treatment. When we look at the synthetic drugs that are out there, of course, there's also a lot of synthetic data as well. And that's one of the things that showed up that you have here and your information that you sent me in terms of glyphosate, ghostwritten scientific papers and things like that. That's not the first time we've seen that coming from pharmaceutical companies. I mean, you talk about the financial disincentive to show that something that's natural and not patented works. And yet there's a tremendous financial incentive for these people to pretend that something works that doesn't work, isn't it? Correct. For instance, there's a number of the new targeted therapies that are extremely expensive, like $10,000 every three weeks, that were approved because it prolonged the life of a stage four cancer patient by three months.

It was approved. And they can have, you know, a serious toxicity. toxic side effects. That's such a short period of time. I mean, how can you even reliably say that, you know, you were going to die three months ago and you survived for three months? I mean, if somebody's talking about years, yeah, you could make that statement. But if it's just a couple of months,

I don't know how anybody could even make that statement credibly. And they have been approved. Mm, wow. So there's a tremendous amount of corruption. I'm sure that there's many, many, many people involved that are truly with a purpose in their hearts to help patients. But the money incentive is just so massive that it just makes you think twice about how virtues, you know, many, many of these researchers are.

Yeah, that's right. Well, when you look at the profit motives of Big Pharma, but of course, glyphosate speaks to the profit motives a big pharma, a big ag, right, as well? Because again, they're looking at how much product they can sell, not whether or not it is safe, effective, and healthy. And we have glyphosate that is now permeating our food supply. Even if you're not out there as an agricultural worker getting direct exposure, you're getting indirect exposure from that. Talk a little bit about that. Well, you know, there's a very interesting observation a study that was done in Greece.

Greece has a very high population density, and so they have very little places for cemeteries. So when you die, you can only be in your grave for five years. Then they take your remnants out and somebody else can use the grave.

But because many Americans retire in Greece, at five years, they pull them up and they're fresh as a lettuce. They don't decay. Americans don't decay because they consume so many chemicals and preservatives in their foods. And so, you know, it's a terrible trade

of something that keeps you in your grave forever that kills you younger. And it's all due to all of the chemicals used in food production. And so that's one of the things that I think Bobby Kennedy is trying to fight and reduce the amount of preservatives. conservatives used in foods in comparison to Europe, it's tremendous. So it's very well known that many of those chemicals are very deleterious to our health and that we shouldn't be using.

So you're saying we'll get back to consuming the food the way God put it on this earth. Yes. So you're saying that the Greek... Shell life is the big thing to make money if... Right. That's right. So you're saying the Greek people are getting a lot of chemicals and their bodies are there for? No, no. They're not.

They're not getting it. They're completely disintegrated, okay? Oh, okay. Dust to dust. I got it the other way around. The Americans that went to retire there and died there and are buried there. I guess. When they open their grapes, they're fresh as a letter.

Nothing happens to them. Wow. Yeah. They didn't have that Mediterranean diet that they keep pushing on all of us. I mean, especially since I have some heart issues. They say, get on that Mediterranean. diet, but yeah, it's truly amazing. So the Americans are well preserved, right? Yes, in their graves. That's amazing. Well, tell us a little bit about Hope, the hospital. And I think when I talked to

Rick Hill, he said it was helping other people escape, I think was the acronym that he used. I think that's a great way to look at it. Tell us a little bit about it. So the Oasis of Hope is an integrative oncological center that is also holistic. My father began this work because as an oncologist, he noticed that the main reason that we were failing in helping cancer patients was that we were not addressing their emotional and spiritual needs. We were only addressing the physical needs.

And so he began by, you know, helping, patients emotionally and spiritually and noticed that, you know, noticed that the results were much better. And then a few years later, this was in the late 50s, a patient that did, that participated in a clinical trial with B-17 in Canada, came back to San Diego. And she needed to continue with the B-17 and nobody wanted to give it to her because it was not FDA approved. And so, an oncologist that knew my father, because my father was a pathologist as well, and he did pathological work for the Mercy Hospital in San Diego, said, well, I know of a Mexican oncologist, and he might be willing to give it to you. And so my father looked at it and was not approved

in Mexico either, but the patient stayed for breast cancer with metastasis to the liver, to the brain, to the bones. And she had really no hope, and my dad said, I will give it to you. And lo and behold, she started getting better and better and better. Wow. And so this lady started calling everybody on the study. And that's how people learned about my father. And that's how the alternative part of the equation came to be. And so my father was virtually the father of B-17 in America.

I'm talking about the continent of America because it was already been used in in Europe as well, not as much as in Canada. So that's how we started. And since then, we have then developed many options for our patients, both in the emotional realm

and in the alternative realm. So we're always looking out for scientifically proven natural elements to help our patients. So curcumin, vitamin C, vitamin B-17. There are many studies that show that hyperthermia, for instance, is very effective in killing tumor cells. for instance, ozone therapy is very helpful in the treatment of cancer patients. And so we have many elements to help our cancer patients from the conventional and from the alternative realm.

And as I mentioned to you, in the few studies that we've been able to make prospective clinical trials, they're very expensive. We're a small institution. But we've been able to do about four different clinical trials with the most common tumors, and our results are so much better than with just conventional. And that's why many people from all around the world come to the oasis of hope. Unfortunately, most of them come when they hit the wall, when they've been sent home to die, where the conventional therapies didn't work, and then they started looking for alternatives.

But in the patients that come here first, the results are much, much better. Well, you know, your story is very similar to what we heard from Joe Griffin in terms of people, you know, kind of somebody kind of happens on this one way or the other. They know of somebody who has helped with this. And then they try it. And it's kind of word of mouth that kind of evolves this thing, the same way it did with your father. And that kind of thing, I think to me, I'm. I put a lot of credibility on that because I've seen so much manipulation of clinical studies. I know that a clinical study would be a great goal standard, but I've seen so much dishonesty in it.

To me, it matters a great deal to hear this word of mouth that people have. You know, I tried this and this work for me. Maybe you want to try it, that type of thing. And to me, I think that kind of recommendation carries a lot of weight to me. definitely and you know what you have faith in usually works better for you and it's amazing we've been criticized for selling false hope and so my question is always is what what's true hope you're dead there's either hope or no hope and in the power of the mind is tremendous and we poo-poo that in in the scientific world right but yet we do double-blind studies why do we do double-blind studies

because the belief of the patient makes a difference. That's right. That's right. That's good point. And so the first blind is that the patients do not know who's taking the placebo and who's taking the drug. Do you know what the double blind is? The administrators don't know who's getting it.

Yeah, the doctors, yeah. Because the doctors can also sway the results, right? I can tell you, listen, this is the best thing since popcorn because I have stock in the pharmaceutical industry, right? So that's why we do double blinds, meaning that the power of the mind is tremendous. Well, why don't we exploit it? And that's giving hope to the patients, right?

That's a great point. Their emotions and letting them know that there's possibilities. And so whenever you can help somebody emotionally, it makes that tremendous. there are a hundred studies at least that show that positive patients have better outcomes than negative patients. Oh, yeah. And so if you work with a patient in the emotional realm and the spiritual, because your

emotional reactions, your emotional reactions are based on your spiritual fortitude. So when you provide spiritual resources, the patient will have more functional emotional responses. And, you know, it's a big part of our therapy here. And I believe that that's one of the reasons why our results are so much better. I agree with that. And that makes so much sense, as you point out, why do you even have double-blind or a blind study, you know, where you have shielded who's getting the placebo and who's getting the actual drug is because it makes a tremendous difference. Even that placebo effect is measurable and known from a scientific standpoint. That's why they do the studies that way. And yet they'll come around and say, no, no, you can't talk to people

about anything other than the physical. You can't talk about the metaphysical or the spiritual or anything like that. That's a great point to take away from that. Now, you've written a couple of books as well, hope of living cancer-free and the coming cancer cure. Tell us a little bit about that. Are those available on Amazon? Yes, in Amazon, you can get on our website and also many of them you can download for free. The latest one is the art and science of undermining cancer. And so I explain all of the possibilities that patients have there for cancer treatment, all the conventional in many of the alternatives,

the ones that have, you know, sufficient scientific support. I do not recommend any of the ones that have no scientific support. And so, yes, you can have them available at oasisofhope.com. That's great. And that's where people can find out at your clinic as well or your hospital. Yes. Well, thank you so much. It really is fascinating.

And it is something that we have never needed more than at this time with the explosion of cancer that we're seeing, with the threats of additional things in our health, in our food, I should say. And I guess that's one of the really big disappointments that a lot of people, people have had. I was skeptical from the very beginning. I'm always skeptical of politicians who are making promises. But this has been a big disappointment when you have somebody who has spent his entire life talking about the damaging effects of glyphosate and now he's just done a complete 180. The good point about it is that Children's Health Defense organization that he

created, they're still holding to the course that they had set some time ago. They have not changed. So even though there's been a change on RFK Jr's side, there hasn't been a change from the children's health defense that I've seen. They are staying with the course. But thank you so much. And again, Oasisofhope.com is where you can go to find out about Dr. Francisco Contreras, MD, as well as his books and the treatments that you can get there. Thank you so much for joining us, sir.

Thank you very much. God bless. Thank you. And I'll just remind everybody that, again, if you go to rnc store.com, you can get books and information there as well as the Jericho griffins, the world without cancer. And you can save 10% off of apricot seeds as well as the pill forms of migdalene. You can get all that stuff at rnc store.com and use the code night to save 10%.

The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man is simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow.com.

Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidnightshow.com.