“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)
- 1 Greetings from the Advanced Cancer Research Institute’s Founder-Director
- 2 Core Mission
- 3 Getting an Informed Second & Third Opinion
- 4 What does the ACR Institute do that is different from other Cancer Research Institutes ?
- 5 Why do we provide Education on the Biology of Cancer and Biogerontology ?
- 6 Blessings, Healthy Long Life and Success to All
- 7 ACR Institute’s documentary, on holistic and innovative oncology
- 8 References
Greetings from the Advanced Cancer Research Institute’s Founder-Director
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.
Image: March 2019: Founder and Director Pr Joubert (Pierre)
Getting an Informed Second & Third Opinion
Even if there may be some Progress on the Conventional Cancer Front (Source), there’s still a little over 40 percent (almost one in two) of Americans who will get at least one cancer diagnosis in his or her Life. (Source) (1)
Vigilance is thus all the more critical because once a cancer diagnosis hits, most cancer patients go into panic mode via the sympathetic nervous system, a significant percentage of whom experience a concomitant weakening of their vitality energy and immune systems, including, but not limited to death from cardio-vascular events and suicide. (Source)
Even if this disease is both controlable and reversible with Holistic “savoir-faire” (basic intelligence), most people are persuaded by their conventional oncologist to believe that holistic medicine is pseudo-scientific and a sham while conventional oncology is the only answer. One of the Government’s NIH (National Institute of Health) websites even claims that naturopathic detoxification is pseudo-science, when in fact, hundreds of peer-reviewed and published well-designed studies prove that exogenous detoxification is very useful for all types of pathologies, including cancer.
More often than not, conventional oncology’s “answer” to cancer means losing one’s hair, killing off one’s immune system and stomach lining and many other deleterious consequences at hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs per patient each year. Even most of the “breakthrough” immunotherapy arsenal can lead to serious auto-immune attacks and other side effects.
Just thinking about how other patients suffered and died with conventional treatment makes newly diagnosed patients afraid and traumatically stressed. As a consequence, their critical thinking is impaired. So when the oncologist says there’s no time to lose, the conventional treatment begins quickly after the diagnosis. (2)
In this perspective, the evidence shows that up to 90 percent of new cancer patients do as their doctor suggests, by immediately starting their protocol, without paying attention to the flaws of the conventional or alternative cancer systems, let alone in getting a second and third professional opinion. (Source)
This mind-set more often than not ends up with lots of un-necessary suffering and exorbitant expenses.
In this perspective, the prestigious Journal Lancet published some statistics that showed that close to 10 percent of cancer patients died from chemotherapy within the first 30 days. In some hospitals, the figure was as high as 50 percent.
Many of these victims are elderly. It’s no surprise that many quickly die after the diagnosis and the start of the treatment plan because they usually are never part of chemotherapy or radiotherapy clinical trials which tend to select the stronger elements of Society. As a result, when potent radiation regimes or chemo-drugs are given to frail elderly patients, complications and premature death often ensue. (4)
Hence, the importance of taking one’s time to diligently examine all of the credible options and eventually find more gentle, holistic and personalized medical approaches that are supported by good evidence and with which the patient can resonate.
One fact that all cancer patients should not forget is the following: Cancer cells, like all other eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells, have been around for millions of years, as such, they have evolutionarily fine-tuned their survival mechanisms. When they are attacked by violent means that are not part of the body’s natural defense mechanisms, they send out “SOS” signals for help from the microbiota, from fibroblasts cells and even from the immune system, all of which come to rescue these endangered cells. For cancer cells to durably either redifferentiate back into normal cells or go into apoptosis (programmed suicide), more gentle and holistic approaches are necessary.
What does the ACR Institute do that is different from other Cancer Research Institutes ?
We have a three-pronged approach. First by empowering and educating the public 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. Many of the mechanisms of action (drivers) of accelerated aging and cancer are similar.
Second, by public advocacy that promotes institutional change and the rule of Fundamental Law, including “informed consent” law. Third, with holistic and rejuvenating retreats.
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 tend to prefer greed over the Patients’ general welfare and good Science. (5)
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 the coachee or consultee not accelerate the aging process as often happens with conventional oncology, but the ACR Institute’s client-members will activate longevity pathways that will give them many extra years of Life. Even if we resolve the cancer challenge, that only gives the patient an extra 3.5 years of Lifespan. The ACR Institute’s approach is therefore more holistic and biogerontological, in that we go upstream to the deep causes of most diseases and accelerated aging.
Most people who make it to the supercentenarian level (110 years) in good shape do not die from most of today’s chronic and debilitating diseases. The four major issues that afflict supercentenarians’ 120 years “warranty” center around the misfolding of proteins, the integrity of the 100 K miles long endothelium, mitochondrial biosynthesis and the thymus-immune axis.
The ACR Institute’s experts therefore prefer to first address the longevity pathways, whatever the disease, as the “milieu” and its signaling are key. The first four pathways mentioned above are central to any longevity program. But to achieve 120 cancer-free years in good shape, they are not sufficient. 14 other longevity pathways exist, most of which we cover in the Institute’s workshops and in the Institute’s book, which is still in gestation.
Furthermore, with inspiring and key knowledge, the patient will be better equipped to avoid the pitfalls of many Alternative and Conventional oncologists, thanks to which the patient will be able to embrace a safe, effective and cost-friendly treatment plan in which he or she can enthusiastically believe in. The patient will thus be more motivated to be proactively compliant with some of the Protocols the ACR Institute shares.(6)
Blessings, Healthy Long Life and Success to All
We welcome your feedback and suggestions and hope that you will find ACR Institute useful to help with informed decision-making and living a long, healthy and meaningful lifespan.
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
P.S. In addition to building this Institute, blogs and other activities, we are still focusing on the Institute’s textbook on innovative oncology, a book that will accompany the documentary we made a few years ago on holistic oncology. See below.
“Medicine is the art of amusing the patient while Nature cures him” Voltaire
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 “Post Diagnosis Options” e-book Gift (via the subscription link) if you Feel you want to be part of a Healthier World and the ACR Insitute’s Community.
To understand Pr Joubert’s motivation to help solve the Cancer challenge, see here, wherein he shows a video about common cancer science-based treatments that killed both his parents.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement 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”. (source)
For more on ACR Institute’s Full Mission, click here
ACR Institute’s documentary, on holistic and innovative oncology
This documentary, whose video interviews began in 2010, is supported with over 60 testimonies of cancer patients who reversed their cancers holistically as well as with pioneering cancer experts like Drs. Seigfried, Yu, Simoncini, Gonzalez, Gerson, Berkson, Beljanski, Gordon, Cousens and many other professors of medicine, doctors and holistic health experts like David Wolfe who testified to both the un-necessary damages of conventional oncology and the successes of holistic oncology. One of the goals of the ACR Institute’s Documentary-film is to show that the metabolic cancer reversal process necessitates going upstream to the sources of the malignancy. (*)
HOM documentary movie. While this documentary was near-finished in 2013-14, circumstances compelled us to suspend its broadcast. Because thereafter other film-makers got on the same-band wagon and also diffused an “alternative solution to cancer” message, the ACR Institute has been focusing more on basic science and compelling evidence of cancer success rather than on collecting multiple claims and testimonies from interested parties that this or that alternative method works best. Once the ACR Institute’s book on these questions will be terminated, we may put the up-to-date finishing touches on this documentary film and make it available to the public with its concomitant book.
This Website and Page are still under Construction, so please forgive this Blog’s technical imperfections
“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, who had enough “vital energy” (a term the conservative drug-driven conventional physicans hate) to unify Europe’s centrifugal and divisive forces. At least for a little while.
(1). In the 2012-14 period, the Lifetime Risk of Developing Cancer was estimated to be approximately 38.5 percent of men and women, who will be diagnosed with cancer of any site at some point during their lifetime, based on 2012-2014 data. (Source) However, since that date, the figures I’ve seen show a trend that is worse.
(2). Usually patients are scared of angering their doctor and when the GP recommends prompt if not immediate treatement. The patient is also 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-alon. Both chemotherapeutics and radiotherapy either precede it or accompany conventional immunotherapy. Yet, as the ACR Institute has shown, these options tend to be treatment resistance and spur micro-metastasis (which are rich in cancer stem cells). This means that the cancer tends to eventually come back, even after a few years of remission. 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.
(3). These statistics are consistent with other reports that also show medical negligence, dogma and error. A 2016 report from Johns Hopkins University showed that every year more than 250,000 people in the U.S. die from medical errors. (Source). Other reports claim that number is as high as 440,000.(Source)...”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) Some journals say it’s the first leading cause of premature death, at close to one million iatrogenic and nosocomal patient deaths. Alternative medicine, in particular alternative oncology is also not without its casualties, especially in the form of negligence and loss of chance. But because these forms of medicine are not as well tracted as mainstream medicine, data is lacking. But some evidence of harm can still exists. (Source A) and (Source B)
(4). Less than 5% of elder cancer patients enter clinical trials. Those who are accepted must pass stringent “inclusion” and “exclusion criteria”. The end result is that patients who get into clinical trials are more likely to tolerate the side or toxic effects of these clinical drugs, or respond to a treatment than those who are excluded. This is one of a few reasons why cancer patients need to be prudent with what their oncologist will recommend with regard to most randomized clinical trial based drugs. In this regard, 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 alpha and omega (ie, the be-all and end-all) for the pharma-based medical system and the FDA, a standard that is often protected in Courts of Law. (Source). The Cancer Patient needs to be aware of this and dozens of other relevant issues when he or she negotiates the best individalized protocol for his or her cancer challenge.
(5). In reality, it’s difficult for today’s experts to find significant discoveries that would meaningfully address cancer and chronic diseases because much of cancer research is based on a piecemeal approach, on hype, on dogma, on cultural bias, on the quest for research grants and on what can reap the most profits. One professor of medicine I 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 many other cases like this one, including from Sloan Kettering regarding its laetrile-Sugiura cover-up. (Source) 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. The field of U.S. cancer care is too often 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). Lead scientists are often paid huge corporate commission fees to skew clinical trial results etcetera, (with some ad nauseum) while many oncologist receive substantial benefits and cash from pushing chemo drugs on unsuspecting cancer patients. In this regard, it is quite difficult to negotiate with most conventional oncologists a holistic cancer protocol that would genetrate much less cash-flow. Many alternative oncologists also prefer alternative protocols that generate big cash-flow, much of which is not reimbursed by insurance programs. The cancer patient and his or her caretaker should be aware of these issues before embarking on a cancer treatment plan.
(6). Informed patients tend to be more compliant. For example, if a patient does not understand via mechanisms of action 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.
(*). An analogy would be the Battle of Yorktown. If the French generals allowed General Washington (who died from the medical practice of his culture) to prevail, the “enemy” would have won. It’s because De Grasse and colleagues went upstream to Chesapeake Bay to cut off Cornwallis’ “blood” supply and support route that full Victory was possible. In a smilar way, in medicine, when a health practitioner side-steps the upstream root causes of a problem, adverse events tend to ensue, even with the right diagnosis and standard of care treatment. 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 many of these patients new cancers and-or mutilations and bodily injuries they have to carry with them for Life.
“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.)