Free Gift



“In summoning even the wisest of physicians to our aid, it is probable that he is relying upon a scientific ‘truth,’ the error of which will become obvious in just a few years’ time.” Marcel Proust (French novelist)

Sunflowwer is the Retreat's emblem

Greetings from the Advanced Cancer Research Institute’s Founder-Director

“In the United States, the number of new cancer cases is expected to reach 2.09 million annually from the 1.6 million reported in 2012. Cancer-related deaths are expected to climb from 617,229 in 2012 to 851,396 in 2025″. (International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC, 2013).

Core Mission

Helping the Cancer patients and caretakers avoid falling in the Pitfalls of the worse of Conventional and Alternative Oncology with an informed “Second Opinion”.

The Advanced Cancer Research Institute’s core mission is to contribute in improving cancer practice with innovative research, scientific integrity, advanced education, individualized coaching and rejuvenation retreats.

Screen Shot 2019-03-14 at 7.24.56 AM

Image: March 2019: Founder and Director Pr Joubert (Pierre)

Getting an Informed Second & Third Opinion

A little over 40 percent of Americans will get at least one cancer diagnosis in his or her Life, (Source) and once that diagnosis hits, patients are usually in panic mode. As a result, fear numbs their critical appraisal apparatus (1) and up to 90 percent of new cancer clients quasi-immediately do as their doctor suggests, without paying attention to the flaws of the conventional  cancer system or getting a second opinion. This mind-set more often than not ends up with lots of un-necessary suffering and expenses.

“Individuals with cancer suffer twice: first with fear and suffering caused by their disease and second from the ravages of a malignant system that forces toxic drugs of dubious value on frightened and gullible people“. (2006) Majid Ali, M.D., author of integrative oncology. Dr. Ali is a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of England and was formerly the chief pathologist of Holy Name Hospital, Teaneck, NJ.)

Errors can occur in this process of evaluation. So you are well within your rights to request a second or even a third opinion on your original diagnosis. U.S. Medicare and other insurance plans cover a second opinion when a doctor is recommending surgery, or any other major procedure.

Before considering any “alternative treatments,” which abound on the internet, you need to learn the pluses and minuses of the standard treatment options for your disease.

Questions to Ask your Medical Oncologists

Medical oncologists are usually well-trained and act professionally. The government goes to great lengths to prevent irresponsible behavior. Not only do they have to complete a three-year fellowship, but they are required to pass periodic exams to keep up their license. But, despite all this, errors can occur. You may be offered a too harsh treatment when a milder one would do. Both you and the cancer doctor need to discuss all the options.  food thermal lymph

discuss their treatment options with a medical oncologist, odds are that they are going to be talking about these drugs, 5-FU/LV and OX, in one or another combination. The favored combo is FOLFOX.

Your oncologist will probably say that these side effects will go away in time. They usually do. But sometimes, there is long-term or even permanent damage. That they rarely tell you.

You sometimes hear it said that critics of Big Pharma describe uncommon side effects in order to exaggerate the toxicity of drugs. We won’t do that. We will only list what calls the “more common” side effects of oxaliplatin. Here they are:

Without Due Diligence and some form of Pro-active Coaching, Cancer Patients Conditions Tend to Worsen

The ACR Institute is not recommending that the cancer patient goes without professional help. Both the cancer patient and his-her caretaker should hire the best professional team. But because there have been and there still are an abundance of misguided and harmful medical recommendations and prescriptions (2)  from both the conventional and alternative oncology worlds, the patient needs to have a critical mind at all times.

Two of many contemporary and still practiced out-of-date cancer treatments. The cancer-causing Chemo-poison & DNA mutating Radiation

Most of conventional oncology’s tools, from radiotherapy to cytotoxic chemo and even target therapies, spur treatment resistance and metastasis. Among other deleterious effects, these weapons of mass cellular destruction harm the immune cells, the microbiota, the vagus nerve, the gastro-intestinal tract and, inter alia, activate cancer stem cells (CSCs) en masse, making them stronger, resistant to treatment and thanks to IL 8, signals are released for the CSCs to proliferate and metastasize.

“… Current assumption holds that  5% of the tumour mass may be chemo-resistant and radio-resistant, harbouring stem-like properties that impel tumour survival, development, and metastasis. (…) no successful targeted therapies have reached the clinic.(Source)

Cancer Stem Cells have been found in just about all cancers. Yet, the same conventional treatment plans that have been used for the last 50 years continue to be used and billed, including the anti-angiogenesis tumor shrinking drug Avastin, at 20,000 dollars per month, per patient. Tumor shrinkage more often than not is meaningless if the circulatory tumor cells and CSCs are not holistically addressed. Avastin does shrink tumors, but they also fuel cancer stem cells, like most of conventional oncology’s arsenal. (We will show you both the video and the published evidence of these claims once we have a session together).

Conventional oncologists know or should know that radiation and cytotoxic chemo spur treatment resistance, metastases and premature death, yet, conventional oncologists still use these symptomatic treatments in most cancer cases when there are evidenced-based credible alternatives in innovative, up-to-date researched and holistic oncology.

“Cancer stem cells are regarded as the hurdle of cancer therapy at least partially due to their intrinsic resistance to therapy. To this end, chemotherapy is widely used for enrichment of cancer stem cells. (…) Due to the imbalance of the angiogenesis and insufficient blood supply in certain regions of the tumor mass, chemotherapy delivery is compromised in these regions. The insufficient drug delivery in turn transforms the bulk cancer cells to stem cells rather than kill them through NFkappaB-HIF, NFkappaB-Wnt and other signals”. (Source)

Even the newer gene-engineering immunotherapeutics like check point inhibitors spur treatment resistance and auto-immunity, notwithstanding a few successes.  But these successes are small and the costs so high (from 400,000 dollars to over one million dollars per year per patient).

Surgeries also relapse

How can it be possible that Modern Medicine does not have the Best Treatment plans ?

Simply because modern medicine is a business model that needs to have a ton of cash-flow to survive. (3) Conventional oncology also uses this money tool as a way to weed out less wealthy competitors. Conventional oncology’s backbone, the pharmaceuticals, need hundreds of millions of dollars to go through one human clinical trial  that is both required and characterized by the FDA as the “golden standard”. So that’s what the doctors practice. I had multiple legal actions against Tobacco companies. The biggest reason they got most of the cases against them dismissed is because they purposely made everything expensive, the expertises, motions, findings of facts etc. If the plaintiff did not have a least one million dollars for the first 6 months, he or she could not maintain the lawsuit. So just like with the Law, conventional oncology weeds out inexpensive treatment plans, even if they have merit.

Another reason is the culture of deceit that reigns in medical schools and journals. I’ve emphasized “scientific integrity” in my Mission statement for cause,  because today’s conventional medical system is characterized  by what Proust suggested (see quote above), medical error, to which I need to add dogma, hype (propaganda), greed addiction and loads of misrepresentation (as suggested the chief editor of Lancet, Dr Horton).

“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of The Lancet,  one of the world’s most respected medical journal) (Source)

Dr. Richard Horton,  editor-in-chief of The Lancet, also opined that Journals are not the only culprits.

Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivize bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that  veers close to misconduct”. (source)

To the above-mentioned characteristics regarding today’s dysfunctional conventional and oncological medical systems, we must add prevalent negligence and sadly criminal recklessness of those medical experts who knowingly harm millions of lives, 400,000 of whom prematurely die each year. (3) Former Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine speaks about corruption. (Source) Below, one of many corroborating sources.

 “…clinical waste, administrative complexity, excessive prices, fraud and abuse amounted to 40% of total health-care spending in the U.S.” This 40 percent amounts to over one trillion dollars of waste. (A 2015 article in the Harvard Business Review)

The result of all of the above is that we have a modern oncology system that is itself malignant and crippled

The ultimate proof of value is in the tree’s fruit says the Bible. To this day, for the more common solid cancers, the chemo-based conventional oncological system’s success rate is worse than if nothing were done.

“The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA”. Cf. Morgan G1, Ward R, Barton, The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. M.  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2004 Dec;16(8):549-60.  (Source) 

The “liquid” cancers (leukemias and lymphomas) and testicular cancer have a better result, drugs work better on these malignancies because they tend to have fewer DNA mutations. But after the five years bench-mark, many of these cancer survivors get either a relapse or a new cancer, from the past cancer treatment.

What about Alternative Cancer Treatments ?

While most innovative breakthroughs do come from the FDA’s list of “unproven” quakeries, once they are spinned in the Lab and patented as a synthetic molecule,  many of these unproven cancer methods are also misguided in terms of not activating the key biophysical and biochemical pathways that can safely and efficiently control the malignancy’s growth and start the reversal process.

The good news is that most of these alternative procedures will not harm as much as the conventional procedures and they are not as carcirogenic as radio and chemo. . Some of them, like IPT with animal based keto will shrink the tumor. But in the long run, these cancers tend to come back. As for most of the other alternative procedures, their biggest drawback is that their promotors will assert they they are safe and effective, to the point where the patient is confident, focuses on that, with some success, like Vit C, laetrile but then the cancer comes back.

When interviewed over 50 integrative oncologists… film…

Dont get impressed with testimonies….if real…still 2 percent.. KEY

Integrative Oncologies

SIde effects……and more

The NCCN has thus succeeded in its stated goal of “harmonizing” cancer treatment across the entire U.S. In fact, their ambition is global. As they themselves put it:

“Clinicians around the world use NCCN Guidelines® as a standard for clinical decision-making.”

Each section of NCCN is written by recognized experts and their guidelines are classed into four categories. These are based upon the strength of the recommendation and the degree of agreement of their reviewers. There are 33 experts who contributed to NCCN’s colon report. Everyone of them is an American academic physician, usually from a government-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Their resumes are impressive, but their point of view is strictly that of orthodox American oncology.

There are also various complementary treatments that may help reduce the side effects of both of these treatments. One of these is cannabis. But that is too large a discussion to get into here.

The Patient side of NCCN does not tell you the basis for making its particular recommendations. We shall get to that shortly. These Patient Side pages also do not prepare you for the serious, or even devastating, side effects of these regimens. This includes the regimens FOLFOX and CAPOX.

Months…what combination…..

We explain why wrong approach

r “Physicians’ Data Query,” It was also obviously a pun on the acronym for “pretty damn quick.” The idea was to deliver up-to

PDQ agrees with NCCN on a crucial point. According to PDQ:

“For patients with stage 3 colon cancer in whom treatment with 5-FU is planned, Xeloda® is an equivalent alternative.”

The bigger question is whether a stage 3 colon patient should also take OX in combination with some form of 5-FU. (Xeloda® is in fact an oral prodrug form of 5-FU.) Does OX really improve one’s chances of survival?

DEvita Text book discussin with oncology…

f you do not want to miss emerging findings in oncology.

Sometimes the opinions of the DeVita authors clarify the choices offered by the NCCN and other sources. DeVita remains an outstanding resource that every serious student of cancer needs to know about.

HINT: The list price of the book is $369, but at this writing Wolters Kluwer is offering a seasonal 25% discount. This price at Amazon is as low as $250. The DeVita textbook is frequently available at any well equipped library or through interlibrary loan. It is tempting to pick up old editions of the book for far less money online. But always stick with the latest edition. Out-of-date medical information can be dangerous to your health.

We routinely check the online edition of this book when we are writing and updating our Moss Reports. One of the key features is that it is updated quarterly.

Let’s now look at the online updated section on stage 3 colon cancer.

The UpToDate article begins by stating very clearly that surgery is the only curative treatment for stage 3 colon cancer. Its outcome will be “most closely related to the extent of disease at presentation.” Then the rationale for post-surgical chemo is also clearly presented:

For patients who have undergone potentially curative resection, disease recurrence is thought to arise from clinically occult micrometastases that are present at the time of surgery. The goal of postoperative (adjuvant) therapy is to eradicate these micrometastases, thereby increasing the cure rate.”

Chemothera induced deaths…

HINT: We shall leave aside for now the ability of disease-free survival or DFS to stand in for the more meaningful overall survival, or OS (overall survival). In this section, we shall use the word “survival” in quotes to denote disease-free survival (DFS)

WHen should adjuvant chem begin..

As a rule, one tries not to base treatment recommendations on subset analyses. Yet PDQ seems unaware of the problem. They ignore the frequent warnings of statisticians and recommend an aggressive treatment based on this subset analysis.


In this era of “evidence-based medicine,” treatment recommendations are usually based on the outcome of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). But it is important to understand why the findings of clinical trials may not be automatically applied to the general population of patients.

Clinical trials like MOSAIC are, by design, artificial treatment situations. They are called “controlled” trials for a reason. Doctors who carry out these human experiments generally impose strict “inclusion” and “exclusion” criteria for who can participate. Not everyone is welcomed into them. One basically have to be in reasonably good health in order to gain admittance. In fact, for a variety of reasons, only 5% of cancer patients participate in trials. As a result, patients included in clinical trials may not actually represent the patients found in the general public.

A 2007 survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that many patients were commonly excluded from trials:

“Women, children, the elderly, and those with common medical conditions are frequently excluded from RCTs….Such exclusions may impair the generalizability of RCT results.”

This is a profoundly important point. Many cancer patients do have “common medical conditions,” other than cancer. But clinical trials often limit participation to a carefully selected group. Their results may be impressive for that group, but may not predict the outcome for the general population. In the “real world,” patients may have a worse response, more toxicity, or may even need to stop the treatment prematurely.

Needless to say, all of these conditions do not apply to many “real life” patients. People with multiple chronic conditions represent more than one-quarter of all Americans. According to a report from the AARP Public Policy Institute:

“As people get older, the prevalence of chronic conditions increases. They use more prescription drugs and medical devices, and experience more complications and adverse drug events than younger, healthier patients. By the time they reach Medicare eligibility, one-quarter of the population has five or more chronic conditions and is responsible for more than two-thirds of Medicare spending.”

“Underrepresentation of older, sicker adults in clinical trials makes it difficult to understand the full impact of medical interventions and may lead to inappropriate use of interventions in these populations.”


Clinical trials are usually designed and paid for by big drug companies that have an enormous stake in the outcome. Successful drugs, like OX, can earn $1 billion or more per year during the duration of their patents (which are 20-yea legal monopolies).

So, needless to say, drug companies have a lot riding on the outcome of clinical trials. Not surprisingly, they also have many techniques to increase the chance of a positive outcome.

One of the disturbing things they do is financially reward some of the lead doctors who participate in these trials. This sort of undue influence has been described many times, including by leaders of the medical field. For example, Marcia Angell, MD, a former top medical editor, wrote in 2009:

“Conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

We know from disclosure statements required by some journals, that at least five of the MOSAIC authors were taking payments from Sanofi, France’s largest pharmaceutical company, Until its patents ran out, Sanofi owned and marketed OX under the brand name of Eloxatin®. In 2004, worldwide sales of Eloxatin® were $1.5 billion. Seven years later the drug was still going strong at $1.2 billion per year. So we can surmise that in less than a decade Sanofi had about $10 billion in sales of Eloxatin®.

Since the only approved use of OX was, and is, to treat colorectal cancer, most of those sales were based on FOLFOX. And regulatory agencies’ approval of FOLFOX as an adjuvant treatment mainly rested on the results and interpretation of the MOSAIC trial.

Having well-known and respected oncologists as public spokespersons for a drug is a priceless asset for a company. In fact, the enthusiastic support of the main researchers is a critical part of a company’s marketing strategy. Such doctors not only appear in the mass media, but work as paid participants in a company’s “Speaker’s Bureau”, tout the benefits of the drug to fellow doctors, who, as a result, then prescribe it to their patients.

It’s clear how this benefits the company. But how does it benefit the oncologist?

That is not typically revealed in disclosure statements. But the world recently got a peek behind the curtain surrounding this topic. This came from a 2018 New York Times exposé of none other than the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center:

“Dr. [Craig B.] Thompson received $300,000 in compensation from [the American drug company] Merck in 2017, according to company financial filings. He was paid $70,000 in cash from Charles River [another drug company] in 2017, plus $215,050 in stock.” This was in addition to “his 2016 salary from MSKCC of $6.7 million.”

Cancer can be a good business for prominent academic physicians! Aimery de Gramont, MD, the head of oncology at a big Paris hospital, was the doctor who first proposed adding OX to 5-FU/LV for colon cancer. He coined the catchy term FOLFOX and was senior author and chief spokesperson for the MOSAIC trial.

But his own disclosure statements show that he was simultaneously a consultant, on the Speaker’s Bureau, and received unspecified “honoraria” from Sanofi, as well as from Merck and Roche.

Prof. de Gramont was not exceptional in this regard. Far from it. Five other oncologists who participated in the MOSAIC trial report deriving financial benefit from Sanofi, including the paper’s first author, Dr. Thierry André. But Prof. de Gramont was the most prominent interpreter of the MOSAIC trial.

You might ask, “How can a person objectively evaluate a treatment, while taking money from the patent holders of that treatment?” We must leave it to others to figure that one out.

This pervasive influence of Big Pharma is one of the reasons that we must examine all claims of a drug’s effectiveness very carefully. One should be leery of statements from supposedly “objective” scientists who are simultaneously in the pay of the companies whose drugs they are evaluating. The harshest judgment on such “complicity with big business” was rendered by Jerome P. Kassirer, MD, another former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. Such doctors, he said, are simply “On the Take.”


In this era of evidence-based medicine, drug approval ultimately rests on the outcome of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). In 1989, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) put forth RCTs as the only type of high quality “Level 1” evidence for any proposed medical treatment. This is the be-all and end-all for Big Pharma and the FDA.

But randomized clinical trials can obscure as much as they reveal.

Patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial are a special breed. Only 5% of cancer patients enter such trials. They must pass stringent “inclusion” and “exclusion criteria” to gain admittance. The end result is that patients who get into clinical trials are more likely to withstand the side effects or respond to a treatment than those who are excluded. Clinical trials tend to concentrate on the younger, healthier and more economically secure patients.

This focus sometimes yields positive results, which then forms the basis of the crucial regulatory approval. But one is left wondering what would happen if the same drug was tested in more typical real world patients? Older people? Poorer people? Sicker people?


In the MOSAIC trials, patients who did not meet all of the trial’s preconditions were excluded from the trial. This included being younger than 75 years of age. Let us then focus on this question of age. The average age for receiving a diagnosis of colon cancer is 70 (68 for men and 72 for women).

Colon cancer is, to a large degree, a disease of one’s later years. As one journal article put it:

“The greatest burden from colorectal cancer falls on the elderly, with nearly 70% of cases diagnosed in those older than age 65 and 40% diagnosed in those over 75 years of age. As a result, approximately 75% of colorectal cancer deaths occur in people older than 65 years of age.”

Since people who are up in years are often excluded from clinical trials, such as MOSAIC, no conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of chemo in this age group. For older people, the safety and effectiveness of FOLFOX or CAPOX is basically unknown.

We do know, however, that “severe white blood cell toxicity “is increased in older age groups treated with chemotherapy.”

One concern is the interaction of chemo with other drugs in the patient’s system. Seniors are after all the biggest consumers of prescription drugs:

“More than one-third of prescription drugs used in the U.S. are taken by elderly patients; the ambulatory elderly fill between 9-13 prescriptions a year (including new prescriptions and refills); the average elderly patient is taking more than five prescription medications; the average nursing home patient is taking seven medications.”

But when doctors prescribe FOLFOX to such people, they are adding two or three dangerous drugs on top of the five to seven that a typical elderly patient is already taking. This is not to mention their possible intake of vitamins, food supplements, alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, etc.

According to, there are 625 other drugs that can interact with oxaliplatin! This includes 94 major drug interactions. The other main drug in FOLFOX, 5-FU, interacts with a “mere” 274 other drugs, including 55 major and 197 moderate interactions. Among the latter is its interaction with, you guessed it, oxaliplatin (OX). In fact, the list of interactions between these two alone is long and painful to read.

HINT: If you really need to see it, follow this link.

This is part of “real life” conditions. In reality, doctors have to treat patients as they find them, with all their typical health problems, frailties and limitations. But this is a far cry from the artificial world of most randomized clinical trials.



There are many sources of medical information on the internet, some of them freely available to patients. But we have focused on four that, over the years, we have used most at Moss Reports. Nowadays, the two that we use constantly are the DeVita textbook and NCCN is reliable, but difficult to use. PDQ is now mainly of historical interest and as a result can sometimes be misleading.

We urge every reader to approach all medical websites in a spirit of “friendly skepticism.” Either excessive credence or excessive mistrust can lead one astray. You need to combine goodwill towards cancer clinicians and researchers with a willingness to question the most basic assumptions in the field.

In this guide, we have demonstrated how to research a single situation, the post-operative chemotherapy of stage 3 colon cancer. You should now be able to take these same tools and carry out a similar analysis of whatever stage and type of cancer you are dealing with.


Some readers have wondered what I myself would do if I ever developed stage 3 colon cancer. My first goal would be to find the best and safest hospital available, as close to home as possible. This question can be researched with such fine resources as the U.S. News and World Report’s ranking of Best Hospitals for Cancer.

It is standard to have surgery to remove the affected part of the colon. The exact type of surgery would depend on discussions with the surgeon. It is generally best to be conservative and agree to the least invasive, radical or destructive methods that are consistent with a good outcome. It may take some searching to find this. It might be worthwhile to travel some distance from home, if necessary, in order to receive superior treatment.

Not everyone can withstand the rigors of bowel surgery. A British study raised the question of whether surgery is even feasible in some patients:

“Although surgeons are naturally focused on surgical outcomes, non-operative outcomes are equally as important for patients. Elderly, frail patients benefit less from surgery for bowel cancer and have higher risks than younger cohorts, and this needs to be carefully discussed when jointly making the decision whether or not to operate.”

In such cases, one needs to go straight to some systemic therapy, such as chemo or immunotherapy.

As to post-operative chemo, one can insist on the least toxic regimen. That might be a course of Xeloda®. NCCN allows for this type of treatment in their guidelines. We know that Xeloda® is generally as effective but less toxic than 5-FU/LV.

One could also explore the field of “low-dose metronomic chemotherapy.” This consists of “the frequent administration of comparatively low doses of cytotoxic agents, with no extended breaks.” This sort of treatment is little practiced in the U.S., but better known elsewhere. There are presently over 350 references to low-dose metronomic chemo in PubMed. In 2018, a pan-European expert meeting concluded:

“A full consensus was reached concerning the acknowledgement that [low-dose metronomic chemotherapy] is not simply a different way of administering chemotherapy but a truly new treatment option.”

There is exciting work using Xeloda® along these lines at the Technion, Israel’s Institute of Technology, at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, and elsewhere. So one could possibly use a low daily dose of Xeloda® in just that way and avoid the toxicity of higher amounts.

Personally (and I am speaking only for myself) I would avoid oxaliplatin (OX). There are reasons to be skeptical of the claims made for it based on the MOSAIC Trial. The results of the FLOX Trial seem to more closely reflect the reality for most patients. Plus, it is hard to forget that some of the leaders of the MOSAIC trial were taking “honoraria” from the manufacturer, Sanofi, while simultaneously boosting its results.

Another possibility would be to skip chemo entirely and go straight to an immunotherapy treatment facility abroad. But that is a story for another day.


This Ultimate Guide to Cancer™ is a free guide to DIY Research on Cancer. If you, or a loved one, is dealing with cancer, you may wish to purchase the full MOSS REPORT in either its printed or e-book version, or both. We offer 500+ page MOSS REPORTS on 40 separate kinds of cancer, including colon. These are easy to read, fully documented and updated at least annually. You can also schedule a telephone or email consultation with Ralph W. Moss, PhD by visiting our website at


pastedGraphic.png pastedGraphic_1.png pastedGraphic_2.png pastedGraphic_3.png
E-Book Printed Book Email Consultation Phone Consultation


Contact and Social Media Info for Moss Reports

Tel. 207-536-9196 •

Moss Reports
104 Main Street
Unit 1422
Blue Hill, ME 04614-1422

What does ACR Institute do that is different and better ? 

With a three-pronged approach. First by empowering and educating the world’s population with evidence-based, reliable, up-to-date and comprehensible information about the biology of cancer & biogerontology and the best evidence-based conventional, integrative and holistic treatments  to better control and reverse cancer and accelerated aging. Second, by public advocacy that promotes institutional change and the rule of Fundamental Law. Third, with holistic and rejuvenating retreats.

Screen Shot 2019-03-14 at 7.24.56 AM

Image: March 2019: Founder and Director Pr Joubert (Pierre)

Why do we provide Education on the Biology of Cancer and Biogerontology ? 

To encourage everyone, not only the experts, to become  active citizen-scientists. History teaches us that many great discoveries were found by surprise and by free spirited individuals who were not conventionally trained in the field of their discoveries. Furthermore, too many well-paid institutionalized medical  experts are reluctant  to first serve the People’s general welfare and good Science. (3)

In this perspective, ACR Institute offers training and knowledge on both cancer biology and biogerontology with an emphasis on “mechanisms of action”.  We also offer reports on  holistic and innovative cancer protocols as well as on accelerated aging reversal programs. To understand what to do and not to do, it is first necessary to have a good grasp on some 101 basic cancer & aging biology.

Because the biochemical processes that govern accelerated aging and malignancy are inter-dependent, ACR Institute Protocols activate the hallmarks that modulate both cancer’s regression and longevity’s optimization. This means that by following the ACR Institute’s evidence-based holistic oncology program, not only will you not accelerate the aging process as often happens with conventional oncology, but you will activate longevity pathways that will give you many “extra” years of Life.

Furthermore, with inspiring and motivating knowledge, the patient will be more motivated to be proactively compliant with the Protocols the ACR Institute shares.(4)

What kind of Protocols does the ACR Institute share ?

We offer scientifically-based and compelling protocols that are supported with strong evidence, that are generally safe, efficient, cost-efficient, eco-community enhancing and often fun. By definition these characteristics define what good medicine is. 

Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 8.01.50 AM


What got me started Parent’s death…..the lesson, I  don’t want that to happen to you! So I’ve prepared a Free guide to help you and your family from misjudgments and bring about the best possible outcome of your treatment, with important Tips.

But the best way to experience, honest and comptent coach. We offer you our services.

We welcome your feedback and suggestions and hope that you will find ACR Institute useful. Lots of tips and good evidence-based analyses. 

If you believe we can make a difference in your lives  thank you for your support. Pr Joubert (Pierre)

that the only credible solution to the cancer challenge is public advocacy militating for a restructuring of the medical system. We already have enough data and techniques to reverse cancer holistically. We dont need more cancer drugs or radiation sophistication research  that  will continue to cause more ravage.  We dont even need more clinical trials on innovative cancer research, target therapies and immunotherapeutics.

If the goal is the reversal of the cancer epidemic and the alleviating of human cancer-related sufferance, what is needed is a new medical model, less corruption, improved ethics, better laws and more holistic savoir-faire.

Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 8.01.17 AM

Professor Joubert (Director and Founder). Former Professor of Law (Europe and Gonzaga Law School), biogerontologist, holistic oncologist and ECOCERT certified organic farmer. For the Bio, click here

For more on the Creation of the ACR Institute, click here.

For more on ACR Institute’s Mission, click here

To benefit from a personal cutting-edge and holistic guidance (info & experience sharing), consider scheduling a consultation or coaching session

Click the ACT Institute’s Facebook, Twitter and Free-Protocol Gift (via the subscription link) if you Feel you want to be part of a Healthier World.

We are still under Construction, so please forgive this Blog’s technical imperfections

“Man surprised me most about humanity. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.” The Dalai Lama 

Screen Shot 2017-09-19 at 10.06.10 AM

“Medicine is a collection of uncertain prescriptions, the results of which taken collectively, are more fatal than useful to mankind. Water, air and cleanliness are the chief articles in my pharmacopeia”. Napoleon Bonaparte


(1). Usually patients are scared of angering their doctor and when the GP recommends prompt if not immediate treatement, the patient is then scared to retard critical conventional treatments, most of which are surgery, chemo, radiation, target therapies or exceptionally immunotherapeutics, but this last one is almost never done as a stand-alone, and both chemotherapeutics and radiotherapy either precede it or accompany conventional immunotherapy. Yet, as the ACR Institute shows, all of these treatments are toxic and most create treatment resistance and micro-metastasis (which are rich in cancer stem cells). This means that the cancer comes back, even after a few years (the engine of metastases, the cancer stem cells are known to go into a dormant sleeping state for long periods of time) or new ones grow, since most of conventional oncology triggers the mutation of DNA in other healthy cells, thereby creating new cancers, which are usually diagnosed after the five years cut-off date. In the ACR institute’s consultancy and coaching session, we show the hard evidence of all of these claims, published in some of the best professional journals cancer patients are not exposed to.

(2). Examples of adverse events (even with the right diagnosis and standard of care treatment), medical errors, negligence and other forms of medical malpractice abound. General George Washington died from the standards of his time, mercury and blood letting, over 50,000 Americans died from Vioxx, a pain medication, thousands of women got life-threatening ovarian cancer from their doctor’s Diethylstilbestrol prescription, (to avoid miscarriages), in particular the daughters of the following generation, (Source), millions of American’s got legally mistreated with “indolent” cancers that go away on their own, but the treatment gave most of these patients them new cancers and-or mutilations and bodily injuries they carry for Life and even more millions struggle most of their lives (for those who survive) because of misguided alternative, adjunctive and conventional practices, especially from cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiation. A 2016 report from Johns Hopkins University showed that every year more than 250,000 people in the U.S. die from medical errors. Other reports claim that number is as high as 440,000! Either way, “Medical Error” is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., just behind heart disease and cancer. Some journals say it’s the first leading cause of premature death, at close to one million.

(3) “The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS)

(1). “….the true number of premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was estimated at more than 400,000 per year.(….). Conclusions: The epidemic of patient harm in hospitals must be taken more seriously if it is to be curtailed”. (Journal of Patient Safety: September 2013 – Volume 9 – Issue 3 – p 122–128, page 1)

(2).  If it’s too late to make the United States “great” again, if the  “complacency and corruption syndrome”  is too pervasive, then any other country registered with the U.N. as a sovereign and independent Nation and whose leaders abide by the rules of international customary law and the UN Charter would qualify as the First Nation which could show that chronic diseases and accelerated aging can be resolved en masse for the good of the People and the Nation.

(3). In reality, it’s  difficult for today’s experts to find significant discoveries that would meaningfully address cancer and chronic diseases because research is based on a piecemeal approach, on hype and on what can reap the most profits. One professor of medicine we interviewed confirmed that one of his great evidence-based protocols for  chronic liver disease and cancer was rejected by his Dean who told him to be discrete about his findings. The Dean acknowledged the evidence, but because his higher education institution received grants from pharmaceutical companies, he could not accept this professor’s findings. We have this testimony on video footage that we will broadcast later.  I’m aware of other cases like this one, including from Sloan Kettering. In Cancer & NIH Research,  there have already been a few promising partial “cancer cures” that have been buried because they were not patentable and hence, lucrative.  And their discoverers did not have enough  financial backing and official recognition to make “breakthrough” headlines.

(4). Informed patients tend to be more compliant. For example, if a patient does not understand via mechanisms the importance of a dosage-dependent diet, herb, supplement, heat, oxygen, sleep or other holistic technique, then he or she will not be that motivated to fully comply with the protocol and its success. One gallon of lead-free gas may be the right fuel for a car, but if it takes two gallons to arrive to a precise destination, the driver will never achieve his or her  goal with one gallon.


As stated, informed consent implies a thorough and honest investigation of all credible and evidence-based options. So please be mindful that everything ACR Institute shares is related to what we have been exposed to in terms of relevant information. If “tomorrow” we discovered new discoveries that are better (with strong evidentiary support) than what we presently know, we will  modify our analyses as well as our protocols accordingly. In medical science, flux is crux. Hence, the need to pay attention to the Fundamentals (Tradition) that have resisted the passage of millennia, thanks to which it may then be possible to avoid the ravages of  the present conventional oncological system gone malignant. (See the File, Findings of facts for an abundance of evidence)

“Individuals with cancer suffer twice: first with fear and suffering caused by their disease and second from the ravages of a malignant system that forces toxic drugs of dubious value on frightened and gullible people”. (2006) Majid Ali, M.D., author of integrative oncology. Dr. Ali is a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of England and was formerly the chief pathologist of Holy Name Hospital, Teaneck, NJ.)

Recent Posts





Translate »
error: Content is protected !!