In this monologue Dr. Dino Prato, NMD, founder of Invita Medical Centers, argues that the American Cancer Society’s headline that five‑year cancer survival is now 70% is misleading because the figure is driven almost entirely by early‑stage cancers that are surgically removed. He highlights that metastatic cancers—colon, lung, breast, pancreatic—have five‑year survival rates ranging from 5% to 30%, and that the ACS’s messaging obscures these poor outcomes. Prato alleges a conflict of interest, noting a $15 million funding from Pfizer and the ACS’s for‑profit arm BrightEdge, suggesting the organization serves Big Pharma’s narrative. He then pivots to a solution: precision oncology. He describes early‑stage detection via multi‑cancer early detection (MCED) blood tests, followed by imaging and minimally invasive ablation. For late‑stage disease he outlines a “multi‑omics deep mapping” workflow—DNA next‑generation sequencing, RNA transcriptomics, immune profiling, spatial biology—examining over 1,000 markers to design individualized, on‑label, off‑label, and integrative treatment regimens. He cites internal data (2024 paper) showing a 35‑fold improvement in response rate and a 43‑fold improvement in quality‑of‑life for late‑stage patients versus standard of care, and stresses adaptive monitoring using circulating tumor cells, methylation scores, and other biomarkers to track response in real time. Prato critiques the reliance on conventional chemotherapy, referencing a 2024 JAMA analysis that found no survival benefit from more systemic chemo. He promotes a low‑dose, immune‑centric approach, incorporating nutraceuticals, oxygen therapy, and off‑label agents such as ivermectin and methylene blue, all tailored to each patient’s molecular profile. The talk concludes with a call to subscribe and spread the message, positioning precision oncology as a patient‑empowering alternative to the “one‑size‑fits‑all” paradigm promoted by traditional oncology and the ACS.
Chapters
If someone you love has metastatic cancer, it could be lung, breast, colon, and it's spreading, their chances of being alive 5 years from now is pretty low. Unfortunately, with the current treatments, we're not even talking about quality of life, it's just being alive. If you have metastatic colon cancer, it's like 12% to 15%. Metastatic pancreatic, 5%. So here's why I'm bringing this up. The American Cancer Society wants you to celebrate that cancer survival is now 70% for the first time ever. We're winning the battle on cancer, right? And yet there's so many people we know that die. Here's what they don't say in the headlines: that the 70% is almost entirely early-stage cancers. And thank God for that. If we catch it early, we can get rid of it. Cancers caught before they spread, cancers removed surgically, cancers that never become stage 3 and 4 where they're metastasizing and spreading. If it's already in your bones, in your liver, in your brain, that 70% headline is a total lie. It's not about you. And here's the part that should make you stop and think. The American Cancer Society as an organization, they just received $15 million in funds from Pfizer, a little pharmaceutical company. And they also run BrightEdge, their own for-profit investment arm that funds cancer ventures and research. And their public filing shows assets in around $700 million. So when you see a 70% survival headline plastered everywhere, you need to ask yourself, is that about celebrating medical progress or managing patients' disease and their perception? Because late-stage numbers, the ones that matter the most, the ones where we need the technology, they need to tell us a different story. And today I'm to show you why that 70% headline is statistically false when it comes to late-stage disease and only true for early-stage disease. And we're going to talk about how to push the prevention and survival numbers. And even we're going to talk about how to improve aggressive cancers with late-stage and to increase their length and quality of life so patients can thrive. And this is the key to precision oncology. We want to change the game for late-stage cancer patients with data, not dogma, using the detailed information to help them overcome the disease. Cancer doesn't just have to be a statistical number because it's not a one-size-fits-all. Every patient is different, their targets are different, there's heterogeneity. Two tumors of the same type and stage have totally different treatments when you test the detailed markers. So I want to go through this today in this episode, open your eyes and give better solutions. I'm Dr. Dino Prato, founder of Invita Medical Centers. For the last 25 years, my team and I have helped thousands of patients who failed some of the top cancer hospitals around the country, and we did it with precision testing, immune-centric care, and technology from all over the world to help people live. I remember in the early years reaching out to the American Cancer Society that basically provided a wig. That's all they did. And later to find out they're basically backed by pharmaceutical companies, that really rubs me the wrong way because they're pushing data and statistics for Big Pharma. So before we go any further, I just want you to understand that 90% of patients that we see are on the wrong medications when they arrive, which tells us that we need to improve these things, and then we're going to see outcomes improve as we've seen in our data. Now let's just take a look at this breakdown. I want to show you what this lie is really all about. Yes, the American Cancer Society reported that 5-year relative survival for cancers combined 70% for people diagnosed between 2015 and 2021. So that's what made it in the media. And on the surface, that sounds incredible. But here's the statistical lie, because that's what they do. Pharmaceutical companies do it too. They can change their data. Early-stage cancers dominate that average. When cancer is caught localized and early, meaning it hasn't spread, yes, the survival rates are going to be really high, sometimes as high as 99%, which is great. And in colon cancer, 91%. And lung cancer, 65%. The survival rates go way up because it was removed. It doesn't spread. It didn't metastasize. So yes, if you catch it early, you're going to win. And that's why I love early detection plans, which I'm going to show you in this episode, that you can follow and get those rates way up there. You catch it early, it's not a big deal. But what happens when the cancer spreads? Here are the numbers they bury in their footnotes because it's the American Cancer Society in the pocket of Big Pharma. Metastatic survival rates: colorectal cancer, it's like 12%. Lung cancer, 10%. Breast cancer can be 30%. Pancreatic, around 5%. These aren't great numbers. These are just the government reports, and we can improve on those I'm going to show you in this episode how to improve on those numbers with precision targeting. So let me say this again. If you have a metastatic cancer, these numbers aren't for you, and I don't want you to follow the numbers because you are not a one-size-fits-all. And in fact, once we unleash the blueprint of your cancer, those numbers are going to change dramatically. These are the average numbers of the populations who are doing all the one-size-fits-all double-blind placebo clinical trial, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines all over the world. And then you get these headlines. Yeah, 70% improvement in survival, but for early-stage, early-caught cancers. That's the difference. So let's get all of that out of the way and let's talk about how to really win. That's what I want to focus on. So in fact, if all cancers combined, distant stage survival rose only 17%, at the most 30%, over the recent decades. That's for late-stage cancers, and that's mainly smart drugs that buy us time. These aren't people thriving. These are people that live beyond 5 years. We want to change those protocols so we can get the details to help people thrive and live longer. I should tell you that most people's protocols are just not the right fit for them. If we test patients, 90% of them are on the wrong chemotherapy, and when we do deeper testing, we find that their targets haven't even been treated correctly. The immune system isn't even being used to fight the cancer correctly because the standard protocols are often designed by population health, one size fits all. And when you're metastatic, or let's say your cancer spread beyond its original site, you don't have these averages because everybody's metastatic speed, because of inflammation, weak immunity, is all different. And you need your immune system in this strategy to win. You need a strong immune system to overcome these numbers. So now let's add a little backdrop. Nobody wants to talk about this, but before I go further, yes, The American Cancer Society got $15 million from Pfizer. So I just want to get this before we get into the medical treatment side of this. And they're funded by pharmaceutical companies, and they own BrightEdge, which is a for-profit innovation arm that lets them invest in pharma and other products. So that's who American Cancer Society really is. So these numbers, they're skewed in my opinion, and they're not being honest. If they said an early stage disease, that'd be great, but really they threw those late stage disease and tried to hide it because that's really where we need technology. Otherwise it was removed with surgery for the most part. I'm not saying the statistics are fabricated, but they're not putting the right information up I'm saying that they spin it just like politicians or anyone else spins the information for Big Pharma, who they get profits from. And so we're not really seeing an organization that, in my opinion, is helping people. In my opinion, they are skewing the data heavily. Who benefits from this narrative? Who do you think? Big Pharma. Easing the patient population. Don't look anywhere else, just stay in the cattle call of the one-size-fits-all, and we'll take care of you with a new blockbuster drug. And that's not what we want to do. So let's talk about how to fix the problem, because, you know, you've heard me talk about this before. How do we push survival numbers for everybody? And here's the thing, I'm going to break this into to be two sections. One is going to be early detection and the other one is going to be treatment. So you can look at both of those. Now on the treatment side, numbers are significantly better. In our 2024 paper, we showed that people had a 35 times better response rate in late-stage cancer than standard of care and a 43 times better quality of life. And that's only getting better with the technology. In early detection, we want to catch the cancer before it spreads. Everybody does, but nobody's doing the testing. See, what happens is you go to the doctor and you get these CBC chemistries. They don't tell you anything. What you need is an early detection test. It's called a multi-cancer early detection test. And there's several of them out there. They test for 200 types of cancer, some of them. And you can look at the cancer and see if you have a signal. That doesn't mean you have cancer. People get a mistake by this and think that these tests tell you if you have cancer or not. They give you a signal. If the signal is there, then the next step is we run imaging. And if the imaging is there, then the next step is we look at a biopsy. And if it's very small, at the same time with the biopsy, we just remove it, cryoablate it, ablate it all together, cut the blood supply, and just kill it. You don't even need surgery. It's done because it's small. Now, if we see data that tells us the cancer spread, for example, we We have elevated circulating tumor cells with— from a blood test. We have high methylation score. We see in the imaging and a PET scan that it's gone to other areas. This data now moves us into deep testing. So now we're not just following the NCCN guidelines where we're getting tumor markers, uh, biopsy and imaging— that's like 24 markers— and then maybe some DNA tests with a few biomarkers. Now we're running in-depth testing. Now we're looking at DNA next-generation sequencing, which tells us what mutations are there in the tumor. We're looking at RNA transcriptomics— where are the escape routes for the cancer so we can shut those down. And then we run immune profiling and immune spatial biology. So we can see the neighborhood of cells that are blocking your immune system from killing the cancer in the first place. See, this is called multi-omics deep mapping. And once we have this, which is what most patients never get, we now can go on-label, off-label, integrative care, all the combinations to go direct to the tumor with invisible surgery and knock it out. Or we can go directly to the body and build the body's ability to fight the cancer by stimulating the immune system. It's an immune-centric protocol to shut the cancer down. And this gives us an advantage because nobody is a one-size-fits-all. In fact, this method is N of 1. It's custom-built for each patient through deep testing, looking at over 1,000+ markers, and then looking at the best ways to deliver the care to give the patient the best outcome. Now, we've just done two things in this short amount of time. I've showed you how to handle both early detection and how to handle late-stage cancers. You see, there's so much noise out there that prevents us from getting the truth. There's so much propaganda making us try to feel good about what's going on right now in cancer, and we shouldn't. We should not be feeling good. It's the late-stage cancer sitting at 10% and 20% that we to turn around. And when I look at that data, if you look in 2024, JAMA published there was no statistically significant survival benefits at cancer practices that used more systemic chemotherapy. So the more chemo they used in late-stage disease, the patients didn't live longer. I'll tell you what they had— worse quality of life. That's why you need targeting. When you do deep mapping and you get the blueprint of your cancer, you can use microdoses. We don't need 100%. We can go to 10, 15% of the targeted doses. We can get right to the tumor. And this helps you save your immune system, help your body to heal. You need the vitamin, the nutrients, the minerals, the oxygen therapies that help the body heal, change the game on the cancer. Also use off-label drugs that might be good targets. You've heard of the ivermectins, the fenbendazole, menbendazole, methylene blue, and many. But you base it on your targets, combine those with the right on-label targets, off-label targets, nutritional support that the body needs, and that's how we get those numbers to really change, because we've opened up the toolbox and we've customized it for each patient. You know, my problem is whether you're doing conventional or integrative medicine, nobody's doing this level of testing the way they should, and no one's doing this level planning. It's very rare. But when you do have this level of planning, you now have the precision oncology fix that makes a big world of difference for the patient. It changes the game. If you look at standard oncology, maybe you're looking at 24 data points, maybe a DNA test to put you on a smart drug. And if you fail protocol A, then you go into the next regimen. If you fail that, the next regimen, and then you get into a clinical trial. In precision oncology, we avoid all of that by using data. The data guides— it literally tells us this isn't going to work and this is going to work better. And it's the combinations, it's the strategy of using the best combinations to to stimulate the body's immune system, shut the pathways down, and allow people to live longer. Stop guessing and start getting the right treatment design. And so we build it, and then it has to be delivered, and then it has to be monitored with adaptive monitoring. So even if we're using cancer cell vaccines that we custom build for each patient and go direct to tumor, we want to monitor— is it working? We don't want to wait for a new tumor to appear in imaging. We can look at blood work, circulating tumor cells, methylation scores. They're already telling us the patients are responding and we're in the right direction. And people have energy, they can go hiking, they can move around, they feel good. That's the goal of proper care. We call adaptive monitoring. So we're using precision monitoring to make sure people hold and stay in remission and change their quality of life. That's the strategy we need for oncology. So here's the bottom line: the 70% survival headline, it's not the full story. The American Cancer Society, I think for many years they've been playing their game, being funded by Big Pharma, basically in my clinical opinion a propaganda arm for pharma. Late-stage cancers need better targeting, more than just DNA. They need RNA transcriptomics, immune spatial biology, and immune profiling. And those combinations help us to change the game on cancer. So yeah, with early detection, you should ask to be tested in your late 20s, early 30s, all along the way, because those simple tests like I just showed you, those signals, you will catch it early. And if you do, it's a very simple way to treat it. For those that already have metastatic cancer, they need a much more multi-layered testing and treatment program, so precision oncology can help. I hope you found this episode helpful. Now, I know that 90% of you haven't subscribed, so I'm going to encourage you to subscribe because people are stuck with chemo and radiation and the same old stuff that isn't working go great as we'd like it to. And I want to introduce them to precision oncology so people have options. Doctors open up their thinking, patients can talk to their physicians, and by you subscribing and sharing this information, we can change the way the world thinks about cancer. We should be living longer with a better quality of life. I hope you found this episode helpful, and may the Lord bless you on your journey to healing. Mm-hmm.
