91: This Is Why We’re Losing the War on Cancer with Dr. Nathan Goodyear

Foreign.

Hello and welcome. I'm Dr. Jen Simmons, a breast cancer surgeon turned integrative oncologist on a groundbreaking mission to transform the conversation around breast health. If you're seeking to redefine the way that you think about breast health, you're in the right place. Breast health isn't just an aspect of well being. It is health, integral and indispensable. Here on the Keeping Abreast podcast, we delve deep into the innovative ways to diagnose, treat, screen for, and prevent breast cancer. But it's more than that. It's about having the crucial conversations that empower, enlighten, and drive us all to a healthier place. As someone who has navigated the front lines of breast cancer treatment and now champions an integrative approach, I bring a unique perspective to these discussions with blending rigorous science with holistic health principles. Health is a journey, not a destination, and I am truly honored to accompany you on this path. Each episode aims to provide you with actionable insights and cutting edge strategies to take charge of your breast health and.

Your overall well being.

So whether you're here to learn about the latest in medical advancements or seeking tips on lifestyle changes that foster real health, they the Keeping Abreast podcast is your go to resource. Let's embark on this journey together, because when we talk health, every conversation matters. And now, stay tuned for this week's episode.

So I have the great rare privilege of having the brilliant Dr. Nathan Goodyear with me today. Dr. Goodyear has his own personal story which will move you beyond belief. And then he turned his pain and experience to great purpose, and he is literally changing how we treat cancer. And he is going to redefine the future of treating cancer. So, Dr. Goodyear, welcome. I'm so happy to have you.

Always a pleasure to talk to you.

So for those of you who don't know his personal story, Dr. Goodyear, would you be so kind as to share it? Because you're like me in that you had a very traditional medical background, very traditional training. You're a surgeon, you're a surgical oncologist, and you then had your own experience as a patient, which changed your perspective.

Well, I was a pelvic floor surgeon, so in that we would do oncological surgery at the time sometimes, but it was my primary training there. But, you know, it's really interesting when we come out of the conventional world, which I love conventional medicine, and conventional medicine has so much to offer, what I tell people is like, look, you walk outside, you break a hip. Thank goodness we have the innovation, to be able to repair that in a very timely manner and get people healing and back to living again. But when I got out into the world, I noticed that a lot of the strategies, if you will, the protocols, they help some people, but a lot of people, they didn't help. And so what I noticed is that we, we needed innovation. And the entire system was not really set up to innovate. It was really to say, okay, here's the system, Stay within the system. And as long as you do that, you know, you'll help some patients, you won't help some. And as a doctor, you know, everything will be fine. And so as I constantly butted up against that, I was wanting to figure out, how do I help patients? Because that's our job. It's to serve patients. And, and so, and what you look throughout the history of medicine is innovation is a part of it. We, we learn new and we discover new and we change. And, and so as I, I continue to push through that, that's how I got into integrative medicine is I found that integrative was that. That bridge that the, that can move between conventional and then a more natural, holistic. And as I, as I've said many times before, that word integrative means to restore and renew. And so for me, it was about restoring and renewing my purpose as a physician to really go to what it means to be a physician, which is to provide hope, healing, service, truth, trust, et cetera. So, and then as I migrated through that, of course, hormones always come up in that process. I mean, most people in the integrative movement, they break their teeth, if you will, on hormones. And as a pelvic floor surgeon, obviously that, that fit true in there. And I got into men's health because I was helping women. And they said, well, can you help my. My husband? And so I got into that. But then, as things often go, as you continue to migrate, so much of the patients that were coming into the pract either had a history of cancer or were concerned about their risk of cancer. And so so much of my practice was dealing with that. And then, you know, and then there was that, that fateful moment where, you know, I sat in front of a. Sat on the other side of the doctor's desk and had the conversation about a tumor and the concern there. And so, and that changed everything, because when doctors change their position at that table, I think it really changes perspective. And for me, that change of perspective changed my life, changed my career. And at that point, I knew my Calling was actually nothing but cancer. But the timeline had already been moving that way. And so from that standpoint, it was to move out to Arizona where I could have the expanded freedom to practice as a integrative homeopath, medical doctor and a medical doctor, to work, to innovate. But that timeline continues now where I've joined forces with a guy I went to medical school with, Jason Williams. And it's because we want desperately to innovate. As we were talking before off camera, it's less war and more healing. You know, people say, you know, less war, more peace. You know, make love, not war. Right. But here we're talking about the process of healing and, and not going to war on the body, which has been the dominant paradigm of the last hundred plus years.

Yeah, it's really interesting because we've kind of come up since the Nixon era and the war on cancer, Right. And we use all of these violent references to cancer. Right. And people see it as the enemy and that they, they have to engage in some kind of fight and battle and that kind of thing. And that's what all the languaging is around. But the truth is that most people are in this position because they've been fighting too long because there's been so much fighting and so much discourse within their body and within their system. And when we see the cancer as the enemy, we only propagate that same narrative. Right. And instead, I think what people don't realize is that cancer is a part of you and it's the part of you that says this isn't working. Right. And so what we need to do is shift the environment so that those cells which feel unsafe and have transformed into survival mode, we need to then send up that safety flag to them and say it's okay. And you're seeing some of this transformation.

Yeah.

With the work that you're doing.

Yeah. We got to break the cycle of war. I mean, because as you correctly presented, you know, Nixon declared war on cancer. And I find it funny that, you know, now granted that was the president, it was the state of the union, it wasn't Congress. But you know, the concept of going to war on a disease is really interesting because this disease in many ways is born out of the problem that government created. I mean, government has created this toxic environment, whether it be outside in our food, etc, and you know, and, and so they've propagated the problem and as, as they always say, never turn to those who cause the problem for the solution to the problem. So, and this is where doctors like you and I and others have to stand up and say, no, no, we need to do better. But, you know, and. And when you look at chemotherapy, it was born out of war, too. So this whole concept, it goes way, way, way back. But when you look at the process of what the body does, the body desperately wants to heal. And with cancer, it's no different. But what happens with cancer is these cells are taking advantage of everything around it. Cancer doesn't create anything anew. It just disrupts everything that's there, including the healing process. And so what we need to do is take charge of that again. And that's what we're doing, is we're working to take charge of that. And honestly, it's not just to break the paradigm of the treatment strategy. It's to break the paradigm of what is possible. Because what we have today is, no, no, you can't do that. That's impossible. No, no, I believe anything's possible. So let's go do it and see if we can. And so. And when you look at the animal studies that are out there, David Sinclair and others, actually some coming out of Korea now, where they're actually able to revert cancer cells to normal. And so now you're talking about something completely, completely different. It's not like we're talking about, you know, a better surgical technique. It's not like we're talking about better chemotherapy. Because I've, you know, I've overseen clinics and run clinics that we did low dose, you know, chemo, and people go, well, less chemo is better. No, no, it's. It's still the problem. It's still a problem. Less radiation. Okay, yes, we can need radiation when we have brain mets and bone mets, and that can be beneficial in that aspect. But we need to change our focus, our perspective, which means we need to heal. Because if we treat a cancer and we eradicate a tumor, but yet what we do is set the stage for it to spread, that's not a winning strategy. We need a winning strategy short term and long term. What I call time is spatial, and I think that's the literature shows it's the immune system. And so if we could tap into that, then we can tap into that potential and that possibility.

Absolutely. So I want to back up a little bit because you started to say that cancer is the immune system. So I want to know what you mean by that. Can you explain to people what is happening when cancer is developing and what. What's that mechanism?

Yeah. So, you know, a lot of this is really being worked out. You know, why does cancer develop? You know, the somatic gene, the somatic mutation theory, which is the one hit hypothesis, which comes from Paul Urich, I think the magic bullet theory back from the early 20th century, which is one hit causes a disease, one treatment to treat a disease. And that's actually where the concept of chemotherapy came from. It had nothing to do with cancer, had everything to do with syphilis. But so here we are now understanding a cell or group of cells that basically are adapting to an inhospitable environment. Like what you were alluding to. A lot of that is of our own doing. But honestly, now we're starting to understand some of this is epigenetics as well. So it's, it's what our parents were exposed to, but not genetic mutations, but actually the expression of them that are passed down. So what happens to these cells? Initially they want to survive, and this is my theory. Initially they want to survive, and that's good. But what happens is they start to manipulate everything around them to maintain that survival. And so what happens is, as I said, cancer doesn't develop anything anew. People will go, well, my cancer has a crash mutation. My cancer is a P53 mutation. These are mutations genetically of the tumor, not of the individual that gives that cell a survival advantage.

Where this is an attempt to survive.

Absolutely. But then what happens is our body's defense. The immune system comes in and says, okay, no, no, no, you're not normal, I need to target you. And this is where it becomes very stealthy. I believe cancer, it, it will recruit the immune system because the immune system wants to be there in the tumor microenvironment, but it turns the immune system on. The immune system. I mean, it will recruit these particular immune cells, myelo derived suppressing cells and T cells that are regulatory more in nature, and it will increase this signaling and it will suppress the immune system. So, and I've noticed this when I talk to doctors, and you probably have as well, is doctors will say, well, that's, that's stimulating the immune, that's stimulating inflammation. That's good or that's not good. It's like, no, no inflammation can be good or it can be bad. Stimulating the immune system can be good or can be bad. You can stimulate the immune system, but what it does is it elicits a energetic T cell response, meaning it suppresses the T cells and thus you have an immunosuppressive environment. And cancer just goes along its day and it just evades the immune system. So it, it's about understanding how that immune environment and that signaling is either promoting a pro tumor environment or an anti tumor environment. If we understand the immune system is the key to protecting the body against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and understanding that the tumor, the cancer, will manipulate it to survive for itself, then we have to change that environment within the tumor, microenvironment within tumor to do that. So it's our best friend, it's our best ally. But at the same time, cancer can see it as its best friend and its best ally.

But there's also the issue that so many people are walking around with a compromised immune system already.

Oh yeah.

I mean, and that may be part and parcel to how the cancer is even able to develop in the first place, because we should be able to recognize these processes in their infancy. But because of life and lifestyle and all of these things, so many people are compromised from the start.

You know, I, and I, I think I said this somewhere at the Annie Appleseed conference, I can't remember, but there was a, I did a social media reel and I was talking about mothers that give birth to their babies via C section, not via vaginal birth. And that the gut microbiome of the children born via C section was different than those born by vaginal birth, which obviously that makes sense. But then those that did not breastfeed their children for a variety of reasons, then that gut microbiome became even more different. And what, what research tells us is that translates to increased metabolic dysfunction, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and then there's many cancer types that are associated with that. So what you're getting at is something that is even bigger, which we're talking about our environment here outside, but inside in the gut microbiome. In many ways, I think the microbiome of the gut plays a key role in, in setting the immune system right. And it's not just something that occurs in the gut, but something that occurs everywhere. But it's not just, you know, well, were you born C section or vaginal? Were you breastfed or not? It's, well, what have you been feeding your gut microbiome? You know, if you're eating a lot of high fat, high bad fats in your diet, a lot of processed food, you're going to alter your gut microbiome and that interacts with your immune system and that's going to affect your immune system. So you're correct. When you look at the western diet, the typical American diet, the individual that's obese, you know, what 67%, I think, are overweight or obese that are, via the current CDC estimates. And they're all immunocompromised. All of them? All of them. And I think this is why cancer is just shooting through the roof, is because we are all in a state of immunodisfunction. But I think it goes back to a lifestyle that has perpetuated it. It's just the ticking time bomb. It's just, when does that bomb go off? And that's what we're seeing. And this is why we're seeing the changing demographics in cancer. We're seeing younger and younger, particularly when you look at colorectal cancer and even in your arena, breast cancer, we're seeing younger women, women under the ages of 50. There's an increasing incidence of these patients with breast cancer. So cancer is changing, it is evolving, we have to change with it. But at the. At the center of it, at the foundation of it, it's the immune system. And you're exactly right. Because of our lifestyle, we are immunocompromised. We've not even talked about stress, we've not even talked about sleep disruption, we've not even talked about relationships. But all these apply.

And I think about some other things. Like, you know, I came up during the time when you went to the dentist and if you had a cavity, they put in a metal filling. And there are so many people out there with. With metal amalgams in their mouth thinking like, oh, I just have one. It's just so small, it's not a problem. But we know that those metal amalgams are at least 51% mercury, and that mercury is off gassing every single time you drink a hot beverage or eat a hot meal. And mercury is very immunocompromising, as are many heavy metals that we come into contact with. The gadolinium that is given along with your screening mri, that you think you're doing yourself a favor. That is a heavy metal that is affecting our organs. So there are a lot of things in our environment that are suppressing our immune system. You brought up the microbiome because, in fact, 70, 80% of our immune system is housed in the gut and is in direct contact with our microbiome, and they have a communication system between them that are reflective of one another. So the health of your microbiome pretty much determines the health of your immune system and vice versa.

Yeah, yeah, it really. And now we're understanding it's not just the gut microbiome. There's Actually tumor microbiomes. So there's a microbiome within the tumor. And now it's mind blowing. You know, it's like, whoa. And then there's actually research that suggests these microbiomes communicate. But I think when you look at the mouth, you know, it's understanding that, well, that's the beginning of the gut. The mouth is the beginning of the gut, and people forget that. And you talk about the medals. Absolutely right. I mean, I played football. I had a, you know, the only injury I ever had playing college football was goofing around, you know, after a game and ended up getting two root canals. Well, those two root canals turned into two implants and then from that standpoint, developed an abscess. And guess what? That was in the same meridian line as my tumor. So, you know, can't. Doesn't prove cause and effect, but it sure is an interesting association that other research shows that pattern over and over and over again. But it's not just a metal that's there, which you're exactly right. I mean, mercury is a recognized carcinogen, a toxin. We know this. But what about the bacteria that resides in those root canals? You know, that is also a problem. And so if you look at it in terms of a dysbiosis within the gut, we can actually have a similar impact there. I believe the metals also create a dysbiosis in the oral mucosa because that is a microbiome. And so it's a multitude of things that are coming together with time again, ticking time that elicits a eventual problem. And I think that's one of the reasons why we're seeing this, this changing demographics. Where you see a patient diagnosed with stage four breast cancer at 26, you see a 28 year old diagnosed with stage four colorectal cancer. It's like what we're seeing here is not a disease of the aged. People go, oh yeah, cancer is a disease of the aged. That's what we were taught, 60, 70, 80 year old. Now what we're seeing is it's a disease of those with aged cells. So it's not that their quantity of age, they're in their second or third decade, they're not quote, unquote old, but their cells are. And that's creating the dysfunction, particularly within the immune system. But it's, it's all of these areas that are contributing to it, that are accelerating it and I think leading to this change in demographics. But you're exactly right. It begins, it really begins in the gut. Whether that's the mouth where things go in or where things go out from the, you know, colon and rectum.

Are there other things that we haven't talked about that you think are contributing to these aged cells in our youth?

Wow. Yeah. And, you know, there's this concept called epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of pathology. And there's debate about it, about whether it's real or not. But I don't know how you can explain the changing demographics of cancer without it. And that is when you look at what's called genomics. So that's your DNA, you know, that's the Watson and Crick double helix that doesn't change. And so one single nucleotide change there would take thousands of years to happen. But you can change genetic expression like that, which is epigenetics above genetics. So when you have DNA that gets encoded into messenger RNA and other rna, but then also into protein. And so that process is an expression of the genetic code. Animal research has for many years now shown that one dose of chemotherapy can change genetic expression in the mice for generations, six to seven generations. We know that from the Holocaust, From World War II, the stress response of the offspring not exposed to the stress, but the offspring three generations down the line from those that were in the Holocaust, their stress response is changed not because their genetic code was changed, but because the expression was changed. And so I think that that is a concept that is also a part of this. And that's the only way I think it can be explained that this is occurring so quickly. But then the stress and people go, well, I'm not really stressed. It's like, well, what about metabolically stressed? Meaning you don't sleep, you know, you're overweight, you're undernourished. All of these are metabolic stressors. So I think there's a multitude of things that go into it. And, you know, we've not even touched on the, you know, messenger RNA vaccines. But, you know, I think that these are playing a role as well. And whether you call it turbo cancer or whether you call it zippy cancer, whatever, you know, adjective you want to give to it, it's. It clearly is impacting the effect of immune modulation and particularly immune suppression. And that chronic immune suppression, T cell energy is allowing things like cancer when it's, you know, in a inhospitable environment, which most of us in the Western world have in our bodies, it sets the stage for that cancer to break through. So I think it's a multitude of things that are coming together, and we have to look at causation of cancer very differently. We must throw the genetic, you know, somatic mutation theory aside. In fact, there was an article recently published on that. But. And start understanding that really cancer is a product and we are a product of our environment and our environment is the issue. And so that's going to the environment outside and inside is the. Is the means to change it. Now the question is, how quickly will that change apply what we want to see, and what do we do in the interim? But then we also need to change how we're approaching cancer. Because the cut, burn, and, you know, destroy war strategy has done nothing but laid waste to the human body. Yes, it's had some victories. Look at childhood leukemias. It's had some victories there. But obviously that predisposes them to late stage cancers later in life. So again, we want short term solutions to provide long term benefit. And so we got to keep doing better. And so if we can change things where we heal now and that healing is maintained for the rest of the life, that is something I'm for. But that only happens in innovation and that's what we need in medicine right now.

I couldn't agree more. And we're on a committee together to try to change the way that we approach cancer. But we are very much the minority. And you know that. You know that. And we're trying to have these conversations to people who barely hear us because you're saying that we need to change the way that we approach cancer. And I want to get into that. We certainly need to change the way that we treat cancer. And yet at cancer centers all across the world, it's not just the United States at all. Across the world, they're still doing the same thing.

Yeah, it's. You can go get a second and third opinion and all you're getting is different window dressing. Because the system is set up to support the system. And, and we can, you know, it. You get patients, get help from the system, quote, unquote. But the system, I think it's, it's evolving to just supporting the system. And it's losing track of what its actual original purpose was, which is to help patients. But you see that in government, too. Government's like, well, we need to support the system. It's like, no, no, the government's there to support the citizens. And so there's a parallel tract of issues there. And understand the government's involved, why medicine's disrupted and dysfunctional right now, but it's because doctors haven't stood up and so we're on this committee trying to change medicine. And you're exactly right, and it's honored to be on that with you and other doctors there. But I'm always amazed at how small the number is. But even there, even there, where people want to change the system, some don't think it's possible. But it's like I don't care whether it's possible or not. So that, that impossible versus possible argument exists there as it does in what's possible with cancer. And it's like our job is not to say that's possible or impossible. It's to say it's possible. And let's. Let's do it and see what happens. And so if you look throughout history, if history was judged by those that said it was impossible, so I didn't do it again. We wouldn't be anywhere. Look at our founding fathers in the U.S. they said we're going to lose everything. It's impossible, but it's possible. There's a small window. Let's do it. Let's do it and let's see what happens. Let's put it on the table. Let's give it all. Let's do it. Our job as doctors is to serve patients. That doesn't equate to possible or impossible. It equates to it's possible, let's do it. Impossible's off the table. And so it's only impossible when we say it is impossible. If we say it's possible, that doesn't mean we achieve it, but maybe we achieve 75% of that.

Yeah, everything is impossible until someone does it.

That's right. And so we just, we just have. But, but that's a way of thinking though. And, and I think we struggle in a lot today where there's too much critical thinking. So I mean, too much group thinking and not enough critical thinking. As I've talked about prior and now with AI, we're worried we may actually get into too much. Actually no thinking at all. Because actually there was a Microsoft study that actually showed that there was a massive reduction in cognitive function tasks in those individuals that were over utilizing general AI. And so we need critical thinkers. And I think that's. Those are the few, I think, that change the world. And what we're trying to do is we're the few change the thinking of those that want to change medicine. But we don't want to just change medicine. We want to restore it to its purpose and one that doesn't destroy the body. And that even is with diagnostic Imaging. Right. You touched that with MRIs. And of course, you're involved with the QT ultrasound, which is a tremendous breakthrough. And, you know, women with DCIS and breast cancer, it's like, well, let's do a mastectomy. It's like, for. What are you doing? And, you know, so we got to change everything of how we approach prevention, diagnosis, treatment, whatever the stage. And. And it comes down to the few. And thankfully, there are few of us that can find each other together, and we're friends and work together to change the system from within, and that's what we're after. And I'm just kind of going off, but medicine has lost its purpose, and we got to get it back to what its purpose is.

I completely agree with you. And, you know, just talking about. One of the biggest places that I'm criticized is that I don't recommend mammograms for anyone for screening purposes ever. Because to me, when you're screening, you're talking about the normal, healthy population, right? Someone who. You have no reason to believe that they have breast cancer. Why should you expose that normal, healthy woman to radiation? And yet I'm highly, highly criticized for this because people are under the false assumption that mammograms save lives because they've had a great ad campaign about it. But we have known for 50 years that mammograms don't save lives. And in fact, we are causing or creating more disease by screening with mammogram, and it's somewhere to the tune of 20 to 30%. So if we diagnosed 300,000 women with invasive breast cancer in 2024, we're talking about 60 to 90,000 women were treated for breast cancer unnecessarily last year. 60 to 90,000 women. I mean, these are astounding numbers. And probably the biggest place that I'm criticized is, well, you know, you can't. You can't pick up calcifications with mammogram, and that is the earliest sign of cancer. That's not true. Mammogram is not the only modality that picks up calcifications. QT also picks up calcifications. They are not seen on ultrasound. I agree, but calcifications are also not the earliest sign of breast cancer. They are more often associated with dcis, ductal carcinoma in situ, which I do not consider breast cancer. What say you, Dr. Goodyear?

No, it's not breast cancer. And, you know, you talk about screening versus early detection, and even in the literature, there's Mass confusion. They'll talk about early detection and talk about it as if it's screening. Screening. And screening is a word. It means going ahead of, meaning it has to exist before. So that screening says you don't have cancer. So we're trying to find those that are at risk for cancer. Early detection, though, good. That's not, that's not prevention. That's not prevention. So what you're talking about is we need prevention and we need better, less toxic early screening. Now, I jokingly aside, say that, you know, for some reason that has become accepted amongst women to, to, to allow your doctor, though I don't have breasts. I can only imagine putting your breast on a cold table saying, okay, we're going to squeeze it and then we're going to shoot radiation into that breast. And I would.

20 to 50 pounds of pressure.

Yeah, I would imagine if they had said, we're not doing this to breast and women first, but let's do it to men in testicular cancer, this would have never taken off ground. It would have not gone nowhere.

A lead balloon. It would have been a lead balloon.

They would have said, yeah, this is going nowhere because they said, we're going to squeeze your testicles and we're going to shoot radiation to it. They're going to, I'm done, I'm out. No way. And so I think it's gotten accepted. Just like women says, well, you know, I'm 35, I'm done having kids, take my uterus out. It's like, well, you know, shouldn't we just keep the organs there if everything's working fine? So there's then been this kind of manipulation, I would say, of the, the general populace as well. Big influence on women. And, and it's become accepted narrative. But dcis, I do not believe that is invasive cancer. And when you look at these patients out there, they're undergoing mastectomies. I've even seen patients that have had recurrence. It was initially diagnosed with dcis and they had bilateral mastectomies. There was no pathology, no pathology on breast cancer, on mastectomy specimens. Then they had implants, et cetera. And then decades later, they have stage four breast cancer. Odd, for sure. But they didn't have DCIS on any of the pathology, whether that be biopsy or the mastectomy specimens. And I see women all the time getting just DCIS biopsies, core biopsies, fine needle biopsies. And yet they're getting complete bilateral simple mastectomies. And that's foreign to me. So one of the things that we're actually working on at the Williams cancer is we want to actually do a simultaneous biopsy but then treat with cryoablation in those that are highly suspicious of just simply dcis. Because then when the pathology comes back, treatments, you're done, you're done. And guess what? You preserve the breast more so you preserve the quality of life of the individual, you preserve their, their body. And so for me and for us, we're like, this makes complete sense. And we've actually done this a few cases and it's been quite successful. But let's say the pathology comes back and it's actually positive for invasive. Well, you've already got your first treatment. There's no time interval where there's, you know, is the cancer spreading? Is there a risk of local recurrence? Because we biopsied it and we didn't treat it. Oh, we already started treatment. So now we just get you set for the next stage of treatment. And so it really provides, I think, a great minimalistic approach to patients with a non invasive type of quote unquote, breast problem that is dcis. But I think it provides a better strategy even for treatment if invasive carcinoma was diagnosed.

I completely agree with you and I want you to explain cryotherapy a little bit so people understand. But I am always astonished by the number of women who get a diagnosis of DCIS and opt for bilateral total mastectomy. And I don't think that there is anything that you can do to properly prepare a woman for mastectomy because those scars, they run so deep and people do not understand the long term impact that this is going to have on them. And I truly believe, when I hear stories like that woman who had a bilateral mastectomy for dcis, had implants placed because of the way that this is presented, because of the way that this is talked about, and in fact, because of the way that this is treated, because it's treated just like it's breast cancer. These women believe that they have breast cancer.

No, they don't.

And that weighs on you. And I think that that is part of why we see these recurrences years and years and years later in what should have been, you know, nothing. But these women walk around for decades thinking that they had breast cancer and they underwent a mastectomy for it.

It's applicable, it's a mentality. And I think it's something that we in medicine also need to change, is it's a burden, it becomes an Identity. And you see this when. When people get diagnosed with a disease, they. They. They identify with it. It becomes a part of who they are. And that's. That's just not. It's not acceptable. And when you look at that word disease, you know, whatever the name of the disease it's given to it, it literally could translate from the two parts, dis and Ies, meaning the lack of wellness. That's what it literally can mean. So if. If a woman's diagnosed with breast cancer, if a man's diagnosed with prostate cancer, it literally just means, well, you're not well, and the result is what is manifested in the breast or in the prostate. And so I think if we change our perspective there, it allows us to change our thinking, which I think change changes the possible. But, yeah, I don't know where that acceptable treatment strategy for women has come from, but I saw it in the hysterectomy. I saw it in the vaginal mesh, you know, problem back in the early 2000s. But it must change. It must change. And, you know, I think that it comes down to the few of us actually standing up to say something and then working together to do something, but it's about helping the patients. And I think that's. I think that's just what we got to do. And that's. And that's what we are doing, thankfully, people like you and myself and Naysha and Mark Rosenberg and others.

Yeah. And I think it is an amazing opportunity to be able to, you know, when we have these suspicious lesions, to be able to biopsy, but then do cryotherapy at the same time. And cryotherapy is essentially halting that process in its tracks and allowing your immune system to come online to recognize it, to clear it up. And. And I really believe that it is going to be the treatment of the future. And there is mountains of data to prove that this is an effective treatment for breast cancer. And at the same time, when we're talking about these tiny lesions, you don't have the deformity of surgery. You don't have that wait time. And I think that that all translates into a far better experience for the patient. And, you know, when you do a mastectomy or even. Even a lumpectomy, those scars. Those women see these scars every single day, and every single day, they are reminded. And when you talk about that, they identify with their disease. That's why there's, like, a constant reminder of that disease on them. They're branded.

Yeah, no, no, you're right. It's you know, there have been instances where I think where surgeons, you know, actually did their signature.

Oh, don't tell me. That's horrifying.

But that's kind of what's the system here. It's not the doctors doing their, their signature, but it's, it's the system that is leaving their mark on, on the patient.

Are you ready for a breast cancer screening revolution? Well, I'm thrilled to introduce to you a breast cancer screening tool that I have only recently learned about, but I have universally adopted. This is the ARIA test. This groundbreaking at home breast cancer screening test is one that I believe will complete completely change the game. So imagine a screening test that's as simple as shedding a tear, because that's aria. It's a non invasive, convenient and perfect for all bodies and all breasts. Dense breasts, implants, no problem. ARIA makes it clear for everyone, even.

Women as young as 30.

Aria is backed by over a decade of clinical trials, thousands of samples, and it's developed alongside top breast health experts. Here's how it works. You collect a tear sample at home and then ARIA then analyzes it for protein biomarkers that can signal early breast cancer. And the best part, you get a consultation with a breast health specialist to review your results. Now, ARIA isn't replacing breast imaging. I am using it alongside qt. It's complementing it and giving you a fuller picture of your breast health. Knowledge is power and ARIA is putting that power back in your hands. It's time to take control of your breast health and ARIA is another way of doing it. Go to Aria Care a u r I a care and use my code, Dr. Jen 20 in Capitals d r j e n n 20 to get 20% off.

Back to our show.

Foreign.

Hello, my beautiful listeners. I'm taking a quick break here to share something truly transformative with you today. If you're ready to take control of your breast health journey, then you need to get your hands on a copy of my book, the Smart Woman's Guide to Breast Cancer. I wrote this book to make a massive impact in the world of breast cancer, empowering women everywhere to make informed choices and educated decisions. You have so much more power and control over your health than you might think. And this book, this is a roadmap to harnessing that power. Inside, you'll uncover the truth about conventional treatments. They're often overestimated benefits and underestimated, under explained and under disclosed long term side effects. But more importantly, you'll discover the true drivers of health and how the choices you make at home. Every day can lead you to the best health, the breast health of your life. Even after a breast cancer diagnosis. Whether you're looking to prevent a diagnosis, avoid recurrence, or simply live your healthiest life, this book is for you. Join me on this journey to empowerment and health. Grab your copy of the Smart Woman's Guide to Breast Cancer today, and let's revolutionize the way that we approach breast health together.

This whole concept of ablating a tumor, the concept there is to not go to war on the body. It's really interesting when you look at surgery, surgical resection of a tumor, and ablation of a tumor. So let's just look at cryo, because there's many different types of ablation. People may go, well, what are you talking about, ablation? We're talking about going into a tumor with an ablative probe and destroying it, parts of it or all of it. And what's important there is, is that actually what research tells us there is you actually have to create some necrosis, not just apoptosis, because the apoptosis can actually create what's called a tolerogenic effect and create an immunosuppressive effect. But if you just look at surgery of a resection of a tumor and cryoablation, which is rapid freezing and thawing, the surgical aspect creates no systemic immune effects. Done. The cryoablation on its own creates some positive systemic immune effects. Activation of dendritic cells, cytotoxic T lymphocytes natural killer cells. But the power is actually when you couple that with immunotherapy, because now what you're doing is you're activating and harnessing the immune system so that you destroy parts of the cancer or all of the cancer, and then you harness the power of the immune system to become trained against it. And what the immune system does is it creates this time and spatial effect that it acutely attacks the tumor because you destroyed it. And so it influxes into that tumor, infiltrates and starts to destroy it. But then it starts to alert the immune system to say, hey, you go out to the rest of the body, activate the cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and you do this to other tumors if you find them. And that concept is called the abiscopal effect. Now, this is still being worked out in research, in the literature. But what's the best ablative technique? What's the best immunotherapy or combination of immunotherapies? And so cryoablation is a well Recognized technique. Of course, we prefer the pulse electric field therapy. Now that creates a better immunological response then the cryo. You know, some of the newer techniques, you know, histotripsy, there's radio frequency ablation, but that's not a great one, microwave. And the reason is the ones that are good are creating less heat. Those that are not creating a good immunological response are creating too much heat. And so that's why cryo and pulse electric field therapy, I believe are two of the better strategies. And histotripsy I think is coming on board. But what they're doing with histotripsy is they're just ablating a whole tumor. And though you can create an immunologic response there, it's going to be small, it's going to be minimal, it's going to be variable. And so we have this problem in medicine today, Jen, where we think of everything sequential. We go, well, let's do this and then let's do this and then let's do this and then let's do this. As if cancer goes, oh shoot, they got a new ablative technique, histotripsy. And I didn't see that one coming, so goodness gracious, they got me. No, it adapts immediately. And so we have to come at this in a very stacking method where we're bringing therapies together. And so it's like, you know, one in one, one and not one at a time, but one and go, meaning altogether. And so by bringing immunotherapy together with ablation, you're really creating the magic cocktail, if you will, to create a acute immune effect and a long term immune effect. And then it taps into what I said is the best strategy to cancer is never get it. But beyond that, if cancer occurs, the best strategy is the immune system. And so we're tapping into that strategy short term and long term. So the exciting future here is I think we're going to need less and less surgery. And you're a breast surgeon. I was a surgeon. Um, we're going to need less and less chemotherapy. That's a win for everybody. And we're going to need less and less radiation. Now the problem we have is that is going to create some revenue drops in some places. And so, and nobody likes to talk about this, but that's going to be some of the challenges. This innovation is going to set forth a new playing field. And who's going to benefit the patients? The patients are going to benefit. They're going to keep more of their body Parts, they're going to maintain a higher quality of life, and I think they're going to live longer and healthier lives.

Yeah, I completely agree with you. And I think the reason why there is so much resistance in the world of mammogram, in the world of surgery, in the world of chemotherapy, is because when we talk about innovating how we diagnose, how we treat, how we screen, we. We are going to cost them dollars. Right. Because they're not going to have as many screenings, they're not going to have as many diagnoses, they're not going to have as many surgeries, they're not going to do as much chemotherapy, and they don't want that. Right. That's a business. It's a huge business.

See, people don't like to talk about that, that medicine is a business. It's the dark side. And if you look at it from a purely business perspective, you can see why the current system is set up. It's like, well, it creates perpetual patience.

Yes.

And so from a business, intentionally. That's right. And then when you look where government steps in and what does government do? Government mandates it. Okay. Whether that be federal or local. So now what you have is you have a system that is mandated from government, both federal and local, and they pick the winners and losers. And then what happens is patients simply become the commodity of exchange. And nobody likes to talk about that, but that is the reality of the situation. So we're not just affronting a system of medicine to innovate, we're actually affronting a system to control. And it really comes down to true freedom to allow the patient to make a choice. And the doctor should be allowed to help the patient make that choice as guided in the evidence. Which is why we need more research in the integrative cancer space. This is why the NCI needs updating. This is why the entire health and human services needs reorganization, which it. It is undergoing. But what you're seeing is the opposition to it, because that opposition is supporting the system that has been. And what we need is to bring forth the future to today. And that's what we're fighting to do. But don't expect those that have made billions and billions and billions to just lay down and go, okay, I guess those profit days are done. Now it's. There's going to be some fights, and we're just beginning this. We're just beginning this battle, if you will, of change. But it's one that I think you and I were made for. A time such as this.

I agree. And it's worth fighting for.

Well, the patients are worth it. And that's what it's about. And that's what it's about.

Absolutely. So we talked about ablation and immunotherapy. I want to hear about the other innovative approaches that you are, that you are doing. Because another area of great controversy is in the area of off label drugs. Because right now in the cancer treatment community, they are pretty much motivated, incentivized, to use the latest greatest drug, which is also happens to be the most expensive drug, has nothing to do with whether or not it works better. It often doesn't work better. And we have completely changed the criteria under which we test these drugs. We've given them surrogate endpoints. It's not about survival anymore. It hasn't been about survival in many, many years. We give these surrogate endpoints points like, oh, is there response to treatment? Yes, okay, approved. Right. And it doesn't mean that anyone lives any longer and it doesn't mean that anyone lives any better. And in fact, these drugs tend to be more and more toxic and people are living the same amount of time, but worse. Right. And so, and people who are saying, hey, we have things out there on the market that are inexpensive, that work, that lead to better outcomes and the people that use them are, are highly judged, called quacks. You know, try attempt to be marginalized. I mean, this is what's happening, you know, this is what's happening.

You know, I, I have to say this because, and I think we have to understand everything. Here's a battle of the narrative. And you know, I, I love marketing, I love messaging because I think if we communicate, that's the means to supporting this movement. And that's what, that's what this really is. It's a movement that really empowers patients and it empowers doctors. But when you look at that concept of quack, right. That, that is a word. And that's why I don't like alternative medicine, because that's a, that's a means to marginalize.

Yeah.

Oh, it's alternative. I don't have to engage with that because that's quote unquote alternative. And it's like, well, who said that standard medicine of today is the traditional medicine. It's not Ayurvedic medicine and traditional Chinese medicine is traditional. This is conventional. So it's wording and it's a playing of words. But the quackery. I always, I, I, you know, if, if you're not called a quack today. I don't think you're challenging the status quo. But I. I tried to get my team one time.

I actually wear my quack badge with honor.

I wanted to do a golden quack award where I had a, you know, a duck and. And, you know, just completely diffuse it and. And I was called a quack by the guy that does the quackery thing because I was simply looking at a study and it was like, wow, so how dare you? You're a quack if you look at a study and break it down. But anyways, so we have to look at repurposed medications in the same light. Most people will look at repurposed medications and they go, I didn't know about this until Covid. And it's like, well, the concept of repurposed medications, it is new, really. Some of its origin goes back to 2004, but really kind of took off with the. Especially in the oncology world in 2015, 2014, with a project there looking at repurposed medications in cancer. But during the pandemic, you know, what you saw is the controversy that surrounded ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and others. And it was funny. It was really not funny. It was sad, but stunning and numbing to me because I had been using ivermectin in the treatment of cancer since late 2017. And so then all of a sudden, I'm being told that ivermectin is a horse dewormer and I'm not supposed to use it. And I'm going, well, this is odd because it was approved for human use by the FDA in 1987. So it has an indication its research is showing its repurposed benefit in cancer. We're even starting to understand how it's targeting the hallmarks of cancer and even targeting the hallmarks of aging. And now I'm being told by a Saturday night talk show host that it's a horse deer wormer. They even put it on the CDC website for a time and then took that down in terms of. It was on their Facebook page. So this concept, it was means to manipulate. Yeah, they wanted to change things.

Thou dost protest too much.

That's right. That's right. And you know, from. From that. That famous quote from, you know, 1984, you know, they wanted. They want to change the way you think, because then you then you perceive reality different, differently. And that was the final command. Yes, it did. It did.

It worked. I mean, the majority of Americans were.

Duped yeah, they are. And now they're starting to come out of that dupeness. If you will repurpose medications, what's great about them is these medications have been around for decades, decades. And so the safety profile of these are so, so, so safe and so well established. That's right. So the toxicokinetics, we know they're safe, but then what we start to see is, wow, look at this. This medication though approved for a parasitic infection. Look at what it's doing over here. Now that doesn't mean it's the panzania. That doesn't mean it is the savior, quote, unquote for the treatment of cancer. But when you look at ivermectin, you go, hey, research is telling us preclinical, we have to understand the positive and the negative. So the limitations of the research, but ivermectin has been shown to turn cold tumors hot. That means a tumor that's cold is not immune responsive. And a hot tumor is one that's immune responsive. So ivermectin can turn cold tumors hot. It can take an immune responsive tumor, non immune responsive tumor, and make it one that will respond to the immune system again, the power of the immune system. So now you start to go, I can take ivermectin and add it with immunotherapy, I can take ivermectin and augment chemotherapy, I can take ivermectin and augment radiation and guess what? Not increase toxic side effects. And so it becomes now a question of why not? And it becomes an answer that nobody likes. It comes down to profits. As you were alluding to these old repurposed medications, they're off of the patent, you know, they're not carrying those large margins of profitability. And so they're cheap. And this applies to mebendazole, hydroxychloroquine, you know, but there's a plethora. It's estimated there's at least 300 repurposed medications out there that could have anti cancer benefits via preclinical research. So we're not just talking about one or two. Those just happen to be some of the most prominent in the public consciousness right now. And I do see one trend and I'd love to get your take on this. I'm a little concerned about it because there's the, there's this push to move a lot of these repurposed medications to over the counter. And you know, I've heard doctors say that, well, ivermectin or mebendazole you know, they're safe, they're not going to hurt anybody. Well, I've seen that not be the case. I've seen ivermectin cause seizures. I've seen mebendazole cause liver failure. I think our obligation is to empower doctors to safely apply these for patients. Because if we just let patients treat themselves, it'd be like me saying, well, I fly this fighter jet on my computer game. So I'm fixing to get on this airplane. So I'm going to tell the pilot, you know, get back in the back seat of this plane, I'm going to fly this. He's going to say, get off my plane, you're out. What we need to do is, I think, empower doctors to engage patients and appropriately apply these therapies in the right combination. Ivermectin alone has, according to some case studies that are out there, anecdotal, put people in remission. What we need to do is publish these and debate them, discourse them, meaning understand the science of why did it help this individual? And it didn't help over here because I've seen ivermectin alone help people. I've seen lebendazole alone help people. But then I've seen it not. So what is that? And this is where we have to have the rigors of science in the integrative space. We can't fall trapped to the same problems that conventional medicine has fallen trapped to and do that now. And that therein steps the concept of finbendazole. You know, it's. And I've got this whole course that's going to be coming online where I talk about repurposed medications, but fenbendazole, the research around fenbendazole is nil to none. I mean, it's so limited. But yet we have mebendazole, which has a ton of cancer repurposed medication references out there. And so it's like, well, why are people turning to fenbendazole, not mebendazole, which is available via prescription from compounding pharmacies. And I think it's because doctors don't trust the system and patients don't trust the doctors. And so what we have now is nobody trusts the system. And so everybody's just turning to, you know, the Internet and social media to get what they want. And it's like, well, this may actually hurt what, what repurposed medications can do. Because fenbendazole, though it is in the same class as Mebendazole is a benzodazole. There's actually been several preclinical studies that have shown mebendazole is far superior than fenbendazole. Far superior. And I think this is where doctors, we need to do better and say, hey, what does the research suggest? Well, we don't have research on fenbendazole. We do on mebendazole. Right now let's recommend mebendazole and let's try to figure out where and how fenbendazole can be helpful. But what I've seen is patients coming in taking mebendazole, fenbendazole, ivermectin, they're just taking voluminous amounts of all of this and they come in and their, their liver function tests are through the roof.

Yeah.

And then, then they go to the er, you know, and they're in hepatitis and you know, hepatic failure though, that can recover, you know, and they go, we'll see this integrative, the doctors there go, this integrative medicine is, you know, it's, it has no science behind it. Well, what we're doing is we have all of these tools that are available to us and we're just basically not applying them correctly. And so we need to. And this is why one of the things we've talked about is there needs to be a center around repurposed medication at the NCI or within Health and Human Services, because it doesn't just apply to cancer, it's going to apply to other diseases as well. And apply these in an evidence based scientific manner to help patients, empower doctors to help patients. Because it's not gonna be ivermectin alone, mebendazole alone, metformin alone, or take your pick, in most cases, it's gonna be a combination of those with other therapies that's gonna work best.

Right. The synergy that you were talking about before. Right. Instead of thinking about it sequentially or I'm just gonna use this, I'm just gonna use this, I'm just gonna use this. But, but your point is very well taken in that first of all, I don't think this should be managed by the patients. I don't think that these should become over the counter. And for the reason that you stated in that we have this whole mentality in our society that if some is good, more is better and people will take more and will take too much and will go into liver failure. Right. And then that just sets the stage for see, those integrative people don't know what they're talking about.

Yeah, but again, that's what medicine, what conventional medicine has done. I see a lot of that in integrative. And you know, it's really interesting because as I said, those who create the problem are not those to provide the solutions to the problem that they created. And politicians in many ways have clouded.

The whole Covid debacle. Would, would argue with that.

Well, that's true. Well, we doctors didn't stand up for it. But, but, but politics was a part.

Of that.

You know. And so now what's happening is they're turning to states, they're pushing the politicians, the politicians don't know the science. The politicians are making these changes by law to take repurposed medications over the counter. And that a lot of people can see that as good. And there may be some good that comes of that. But the problem is that you're going to see is you're going to see patients take too much. We don't have long term studies on what ivermectin does long term. We don't repetitive taking of that medication for years and years and years. We don't have that long term data. And people go, oh, but it's so safe. I've never seen it hurt anybody. I've heard doctors say that. And I'm like, then you've not treated anybody. I've seen it hurt people. Now. Rare, yes, but I've seen that. So you can't make those de facto broad based statements. But if you want to look at where we are by not looking at long term data, just look at the pandemic, people go, there's no long term data on that messenger RNA vaccine. True. We don't have the same long term data on ivermectin in a daily therapeutic dose for cancer. Right. We don't. Is it safe? Most likely. But at what dose? We don't know.

We don't know.

We don't know. We just have to be honest about the data. And this is where the doctor comes in that I think is so important to engage side by side with the patient, not in this authoritative role, but side by side. And to say, look, ivermectin can really help us here, here, here and here. But here's the limitations that we don't know. So let's employ it, let's use it in this dose. Because here's what the literature shows, but we don't know. So we're gonna have to monitor very, very carefully. As we move along to see what this long term impact will be. But now what we're gonna do, politics steps in and says, oh, we know best. We're going to make the scientific decision, though there lacks a science evident. And we're going to make the decision to put in the power of, out of the power of the doctors and put it solely in the power of the patients. And guess what's going to happen? Those patients are not going to tell their doctors what they're also taking on the side. So they're going to go to their doctor and the oncologist maybe will prescribe these targeted meds or immunotherapeutics or whatever systemically that can hit the liver. And then they're taking all these things on the side they don't tell their doctor about and they end up in hepatic failure because of the combination of it. And so I think the politicians are creating a problem that is going to do a disservice to the power that is in repurposed medications. And so, but doctors are pushing this. And it's a concern I have, it's a big concern I have. It's not to take power away from the patients, it's to properly apply that power in the repurposed medication safely. And I think we're setting the stage for that to not be the case.

I agree with you. And it comes down to this should not be that paternalistic relationship. It shouldn't be. The doctor says this should be a partnership without question. And only when we establish that relationship will there be honesty. Because right now patients don't feel comfortable telling their medical oncologist what they're taking because their medical oncologists by and large don't know the difference between I don't know and no.

This is why.

So when they don't know, they say.

No, this is why we have to empower patients. Yes, I believe it begins with empowering patients, but we have to equally empower doctors. Because if patients are empowered and they have knowledge and they have self advocacy, which we need, but the doctors are not empowered with the equal knowledge about it. Now what we have is a strained relationship. And the relationship is already strained. And so what we're doing is we're forcing that chasm between doctors and patients even wider. And my concern is that it's going to, what I say is the patient is a star quarterback. So if we look at it from the perspective of football, they're the star quarterback. The doctor, he's the coach, she's the coach, they are putting that player in the best position to succeed. That's exactly what we do. That's why it's a side by side, it's a relationship. The success is in the patient. But we, as a quote unquote, coach, though we're not coaches, we're doctors, we're putting them in the best position to succeed. And so by taking something that's quote unquote, behind the counter, over the counter, I don't believe allows them to be put in the best position to succeed. Now, I may be proven wrong. And that's what science does, right? Science over time really helps to clarify truth versus false. But I, my concern is doing deep dives on these repurposed medications and have using, having been having used repurposed medications for a long time in cancer and ivermectin again since 2017, it can have some issues, it can have some powerful additive synergistic effects, but it can have some negative effects for sure.

I love football analogies. I'm the mother of football player. I don't know if you knew that.

No, I did not. What position?

Middle linebacker.

Oh, wow. Now, see, there's the two smartest players on the team. Everybody goes to quarterback. No, no, no, no. On the offense, the smartest player on the team, it's actually the center because they got to know the offense, they got to know everything about it. On the defense, the play caller, the smartest person is typically the middle linebacker. So that means he's a smart kid.

He is a smart kid and he runs that defense.

There you go. There you go.

Okay, so we talked about ivermectin, we talked about membendazole, fenbendazole, Even though there's no research, you mentioned metformin. Can you talk about that a little bit? Because most people, when I suggest metformin, the response is, well, I don't have diabetes.

Right. And honestly, I think that's probably the response of a lot of oncologists. I don't. And you know, and there's a, you know, they talk about sin of omission, sin of commission. But here ignorance can be of omission or commission as well. And that's just not acceptable from a physician perspective. We cannot be ignorant of our own doing or what others do. To us, that curiosity mind must be something that medicine instills in it. That's why what we're doing with that task group, it must go back to the university and the medical education. We have to instill that in, in these Upcoming doctors of which my daughter.

That is something unfortunately, that I think has been truly lost.

Oh, it has.

And it was.

Then you can control them.

Yeah, then you can control them. And in fact, you know, we think of doctors as critical thinkers, and they may have been at one point, but once you get into the system, once you get into medical school, once you get into residency, you are not rewarded for critical thinking. Because if you're trying to think outside of the box, any, at any place in that journey, in that part of the journey, what happens, you're shunned, you're ostracized, you don't feel fit in, and you're a quack. They really re. You're a quack. Right. Like, they really, really try to make sure that you don't talk outside of the narrative, that you don't think outside of the paradigm. You are not rewarded for critical thinking once you get into the system.

This is why so much of innovation in medicine is occurring outside the US Is because the fostering of new ideas and new concepts, which by the way, is a cognitive function task. Okay, so if we're having a, basically a pressuring down of less new ideas, less new concepts, that's actually reducing cognitive function tasking. And so outside the US that's where a lot of this new ideas and new concepts, because they are more open to that. What we need to do in the US is we need to bring that, we need to repatriotize that, we need to bring that back into the states. And that's where I think RFK and Health and Human Services can help to do within NCI and other areas. Help the states to be the petri dishes for new innovation, new ideas, new concepts, and allow states to fuel competition because guess what that's going to do. It's going to put the connection of medicine back closer to the patient. That is always better when the patient and doctor are closely connected. Right now it's. The patient is far from the doctor because everything else has gotten in bed with it. In fact, what's happened is they push the doctor and the patient out of the bed and, and everybody else is in it. Health insurance, government, you know, you're so right.

You're so right. I was, I was responding to someone on Instagram yesterday because she said, well, QT imaging isn't available everywhere, so you shouldn't be talking about it. And my response was, okay, well if, oh, and it's not affordable to everyone, so you shouldn't be talking about it. And I said, well, by that Mode of reasoning, should we also all be eating fast food every day because it is inexpensive and readily available? Right. Like, people don't think, okay, yes, new innovation, definitely. When it comes into the market, it's not readily available everywhere and it is going to cost money. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue it, because we should always be about doing things better, safer, you know, without pain, without. Without harm, I think. And yet people are so tied to. Well, the mammogram is the way that we always did it, so we shouldn't do it any differently.

Yeah, that's what I tell people. There is like, so, so if the standard of care, because that's what they call. What's the standard of care? And it's like, well, where did that term even come from? I actually had somebody tell me standard of care is what everybody else is doing. This was a person of authority. And I was like, okay, that's nuts. Because if your standard of care, what everybody's doing when you have a headache is to hit your head upside the. Hit your head upside the wall to cure the headache, that's standard of care. I was like, that makes no sense. But. And so what happens is the standard of care becomes a means to control. It's not a means of the evidence. But. But anyway, so I can get off on this because I think it's part. I think it's endemic and vital to why what's wrong with medicine is wrong with medicine. But I think this is where RFK and what we are doing can have such a huge impact for the patients is because we can, we can bring the incentive back to the States to innovate, but provide the monetary, I think, support to keep those costs lower as that process happens. And so this is where I think government can be helpful, though less government's always, in my opinion, beneficial. You know, this is where they can help to fuel the, the opportunity for that new innovation. But, but back to metformin, you know, as a, As a. It's a type 2 diabetes medication, but it's probably the most studied repurposed medication in cancer. And it's tremendous in its antipurpose activity. Yes, it does inhibit gluconeogenesis, liver and production of glucose, so it does reduce that. It does reduce insulin, but its broad activities well beyond that. It actually inhibits Pro growth pathways, MTOR, PI3K. It targets cancer stem cells. It's actually immunomodulatory. So the impact here of metformin is honestly, if you just look at it from a glucose and insulin level, you go, that's it. No, no, that is just a piece of the many aspects of the anti cancer activity that it has. Now let's just focus on that because I think the way that we really help people to come to our side is we use the evidence to expand. You'll get that opening in the door and then expand their mind. So to tell them that, you know, metformin has activity against cancer stem cells and it, you know, modulates the immune system. That could be a bridge too far for some doctors or some patients. But what if we show em, hey, there was a recent study came out that in patients with triple negative breast cancer, insulin is a driver for increased brain mets. Well, if we're able to come in with a repurposed medication like metformin and reduce insulin levels because we're reducing glucose and we reduce brain met's risk in triple negative breast cancers, is that not worth it? Absolutely, it's worth it. So now what we have, and most doctors would agree with that and they would go, well, are there side effect profile issues we need to be concerned about with metformin? Of course, liver or kidney, but you can monitor those. You can monitor those. Do we have a good idea of how to dose it in cancer? We do. We do. So it's the top gun, I would say, in terms of the volume of evidence in repurposed medications. But people look at it as, it's just for diabetes. I don't have diabetes. No, no. So let's use a piece of evidence to open that door. Well, if we reduce insulin, that's a win. That is a win. And then say, but wow, look at all the other things it does. Now we're building a relationship and this is where empowering doctors is so important. Because when you and I leave this earth, Jen, if we've not empowered other doctors, and this is where I love Naysha, love her to death, I'll never forget she said, nathan, you can impact more patients by impacting more doctors. And I was like, it's true. Oh my gosh, she's right. Because if we empower, our own obligation.

Now is no longer about patient care. You know that.

Oh yeah.

Our obligation has, we've left that now. Our obligation is to train and teach the providers.

Now I think we need to stay connected with patients. And you and I do for sure because. Because that keeps that, that relevance there. And, and honestly, I love taking care of patients, but it at a stage and I'm not going to ask you your age, but I'm at a stage in my career where it's like I know why I was put on this earth in medicine. And it, you and Naysha, it's the same. It, it's to change medicine. Not to change it, but to restore it, to renew it, meaning taking it back to its original purpose. And we do that. But repurposed medications are a means to do that. What's wrong with taking a safe therapeutic or one that has minimal side effects if monitored appropriately? And it improves just alone. Just alone. It improves conventional therapy. So we don't say this replaces it again, we need the crack in the door. But it improves the therapy. Again, a win. Now let's expand it more, let's expand it more. But we need research there. And this is where, you know, the center for repurposed medication, center for microbiome research, all of this, it needs to happen. We need to change the way we think and we need to change the way our government allows us to think. And that's what we're working to do. Because patients are going to benefit from that. Yeah, we have to always be patient advocates first. And I think when we're patient advocates, in most cases, we're going to do the right thing. The reason why a lot of what happened during the pandemic happened during the pandemic is because I think doctors weren't patient advocates. There were some that did and they did it from the get go. And hats off to them, history will remember them for people for being.

Although they got in a lot of trouble at the time.

Yes, they did. But they did the right thing. They did the right thing.

Yes, for sure. Well, I think that I could talk to you forever, but this is a good place to say to be continued. So I know you love to take care of patients, tell people how they can get in touch with you.

There's actually a lot of, a lot of ways people can get in touch with me. I love to teach too. By the way, the word physician in Hebrew it's rapha, which can be translated healer. And then doctor in Latin. Dossier means teacher. So we are teachers that heal. And so there's a lot of what I do. On the websites that you'll find that are about teaching, there's you can find me@pre-scribe.com, that's a website. You can find me at doc, that's.goodyear.com you can find me at off-scriptrx.com, that's a repurposed medication. So each one is serving a different purpose. So that, you know, if one, you know, I don't want to be just known as repurposed medication. That's why offscriptrx is just that. It's to talk about the evidence there. But pre-scribe.com is where I just talk about all kinds of stuff. All kinds of stuff. Stuff that's maybe medicine, stuff that's not medicine. And then Doc Goodyear, that's where people can actually consult with me, though I do keep those limited because of the other things that we're doing. As, again, Doc goodyear.com But then I work with Jason Williams at the Williams Cancer Institute. That's where we're innovating aggressively. And we're always innovating in the space of cancer, but we're also innovating in the space of now, recognizing that really cancer is a process of aging. It's just the most. It's the most egregious manifestation of aging at the micro level. Not macro, but micro level, the cellular level. And we believe that where we're going is we're changing. We're going to be changing medicine. We're going to be changing how patients live with cancer and how patients heal from cancer. Because I believe that that's possible, not impossible possible. That's where you can find me. Of course, the favorite place on social media is Dr. Goodyear Instagram. But you can find me on most social media sites.

Yeah. And you should absolutely, right now, follow Dr. Goodyear on Instagram because he has amazing, amazing, amazing information all the time. You are just such a wealth of knowledge and innovation, and I am so grateful to be able to call you friend and colleague. You have enriched my life immensely. And I know that you will absolutely lead this charge in changing how we diagnose and how we treat breast cancer so that future generations will continue to benefit from your brilliance. So thank you so much.

I look. I look and think the same of you. Okay? But it's. It's. It's together. It's together with us, and it's together with patients. That's how we change. And I think the way we're approaching, it's the right way. We just need to build more people. The patients are already there. We just need to, you know, empower them and build more doctors to do that. And we're doing that. We just got to keep at it.

Yeah, absolutely. So if you liked this episode, please make sure that you share it and leave us a comment. Make sure that you're following us every week because every week I am here bringing you a new episode. If you are on a breast cancer journey and you want to be able to make informed decisions, please make sure that you get a copy of my book, the Smart Woman's Guide to Breast Cancer and know that I will be back next week, same time, same place. It's Dr. Jen. Bye for now.

Thank you for joining me on this episode of the Keeping a breast podcast with Dr. Chen. I hope you found the discussion informative and empowering. Remember, breast health is health, so by staying informed and taking proactive steps, you have the power to optimize your well being. My team and I encourage you to apply the knowledge gained from today's episode to make contact positive changes in your life and share what you've learned with others. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to our podcast and leave us a review. Your feedback and support mean the world to us and help us to reach more people who can benefit from these conversations. Stay connected with me on social media where I share additional resources, advice, updates and announcements related to breast health. You can find me on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. Dr. Jennsimmons and remember, MyGen has two N's so until next time, remember to stay proactive, informed and confident in your breast health journey. The key to your health is you.