Jeder Krebs muss individuell behandelt werden! | Prof. Dr. med. Joachim Drevs | Naturmedizin | QS24

Did you know that Vicky Sana is the largest search engine for holistic medicine? Welcome, dear viewers, here in our format Nature Medicine. Today is one of those special days again. I have an outstanding, highly regarded professor here in the studio, who is not only at home in holistic medicine, but also at home in school medicine. He is practically a bridge builder, who is drawn from all sides of integrative oncology as competence, as capacity. Today he is here in our studio. He was still in Miami this morning. Today in our studio. What an honor, what a joy. I'll take you on a big journey within integrative oncology and hope that we can give you very valuable inputs at home. Stay tuned, after the intro we'll get down to business. So, here we are again and now I can introduce my guest to you. This is Professor Dr. Joachim Dreefs. Welcome. Dear Joachim. Thank you for the invitation. Unbelievable. Especially for one show to us. Yes, almost in my old home. I was born in Konstanz. That's why I'm on the other side of Lake Constance. Really? That's good. We live close by. Yes? Yes, yes, on the Swiss side. Okay, nice. I saw you have a practice in three towns. Integrative oncology in Hamburg is currently being set up. Right. The town in Sigte. Sigte. I can't pronounce that. And soon you'll be back in Miami, where the coronavirus has spread. I hope it will be back soon. Yes, what makes you so capable that all camps, including school medicine, look to you? And how did you do that? Well, you're saying it right now. All camps, many people understand their way of working as a camp. It's like with football clubs, I always say. I'm a fan of this club and don't accept the other club. And so unfortunately it has become increasingly so in medicine. School medicine says here are our limits. It has to be all evidence. And everything that is not is alternative. Or whatever you want to call it. And doesn't accept it. So it makes a camp formation. However, this is not different in alternative or open medicine. My philosophy over the years, or what I have learned in the many years I have worked with cancer patients, is that another way is right for everyone. You can't generalize that. Everyone has their own way to healing. And that's why I'm open to everything and would never prejudge anything. And rather look at what is the right approach for this patient. What could help him or advise him so that he can decide for himself. But now there are a lot of therapy approaches within oncology that are not just sitting on advertising money. So that you can even bring these new ideas into the university. And that it is taught and every doctor knows that. But somehow it has become a hollow guilt for an oncologist or a doctor to get knowledge of what possibilities there are today, right? Yes, absolutely. So it is not brought to him on the one hand. And on the other hand, of course, it is already pre-selected when you think of the universities, that you have to invest research funds to be able to do research at all. If we are talking about university research. That in itself is of course problematic because there are quite a few therapy approaches that do not bring these research funds, for whatever reasons. Either the therapy approach is something that you can no longer patent or you can't make money from it. Or it is ultimately a therapy approach at all, where nothing can be patented. So that makes it very difficult, of course, that medicine or university medicine can really cover everything, because it is also dependent on money. Yes, that is completely understandable. Why should they advertise for something else? It is clear. As an affected patient, I am actually responsible to take care of my own health. And I would actually have to ask my doctors what I would like to have, right? Right. I just came from Miami and met someone there who also wrote a book. It's called The Right to Choose the Medicine. So the right to choose your own medicine. We actually lost that. Although it is my body, my health, for which I am responsible, it is often the case that medicine in many areas believes that it has to take responsibility and begins to make the decisions for me and to no longer bind me at a certain point. Yes, a little bit divine, right? Yes, it used to be a bit grumpy, but strangely enough, it hasn't gotten any better over the years, but I feel it has become more than that. That you are above all this and do not accept the patient as a competent contact person. For me, empathy is still something important. A person at eye level, in white, okay, from me as in white, but still empathic, cordial. In my opinion, this is an important medicine to get people out of the shock of the diagnosis. Yes, absolutely. It is often the case that the time is not taken at all for the enlightenment. Well, that's not because it's meant to be evil, but because the system doesn't even exist. It's not like people work in the system who want to do it that way. Unfortunately, the system has increasingly emerged that way. Of course, we have also influenced this over the years. I always call it a bit of a self-built golden cage, where we say everything has to be evidenced. But the evidence can only be financed with horrendous amounts, which in principle can only be financed by the pharmaceutical industry, which of course has a decision-making power with it. What do we do as a study at all, so that it becomes evidence? Then a cycle has arisen from which we can hardly get out. Sure. Well, now, for example, the big social media has decided that you are only allowed to spread the truths that are WHO-compliant. That means again, a lot will disappear, which would actually be effective, but you don't hear it anymore. Absolutely, yes. Can you tell me, you've been doing integrative oncology for 40 years now. What are your core positions that you would like to announce to every doctor out there? Yes, to the doctor, but also to the affected person, of course. So the core message is certainly first of all, there is something good in all different forms of medicine. It is just not always suitable for everyone. That's one thing. We are now also talking about individualized medicine, school medicine. But we understand it completely differently than the patient actually understands it. It is not tailored to them and not to any molecular parameters, which are also important and which have also led to a significant change or better chances for the patients. But school medicine is again very strongly focused on this. And there is a lack of education across the board, that there are still other things out there that are definitely able to treat the disease, even if they are not in the textbook and do not belong to the so-called guideline-based therapies. That means this word, individualized treatment of a patient, is also available in school medicine? Yes, that's the word at the moment, so to speak. But is it also the way that general medicine thinks it is? Is there really a holistic look at which chemo, which alternative drugs could be used for this particular tumor? Is the detoxification of the teeth, the death toll, the detoxification of the body looked at? Unfortunately not. Here the individualization is understood in such a way that I have individual markers on the cell. So I don't look at the person, but I look at the cancer cell and look for my individual points there. That means we have over 60 molecular targets today, as the saying goes. They are called BRAF, CKIT, so very complicated names. And that is understood today as individualized, that you are looking for these cell markers, so to speak, and the individual of the cell means that with individualized medicine. And based on that, try to adapt the therapy. But that's not what actually our concern or our understanding of individualized is, and certainly not of the patient. He wants to be taken into account his individual situation. For one thing, hair loss is something terrible, and he would like to be respected for that. That he is quite willing to do a therapy that may have a 10% lower appeal rate, but keeps his hair for that. If he is an informed patient, he says, okay, 10% of my hair, then I would rather keep the hair and have 10% less chance of success. That's someone, for me, with too little hair, not that I decide for him, hair doesn't matter at all. But it is underestimated that many women, often women, are willing to stop their therapies for such a reason, or not even to carry it out. And here, as you rightly said, there is a lack of empathy and openness to go into something like that. Because that's part of it individually. Or the pre-experience, when you had a cancer and saw how it went with chemotherapy. Unfortunately, that's missing. Conventional medicine understands the mark on the cell and the individual of the cell, which has certainly brought advantages over the years in success. But man is still forgotten. There is also such an outstanding lab, RGCC, which can determine very individually about a blood analysis, what the carrier of this blood is for a cancer and how I could treat it in vitro in the best way, medical school or alternatively. Or alternatively, or naturopathy. This knowledge is there. And to what extent is this now also brought out of you into the world through lectures? Little. We have to distinguish between conventional medicine, I also teach students and try to teach this openness. And RGCC is very similar as far as my philosophy is concerned. That's why we've been working closely together for many years now. Because they are open for both. In this test, both chemotherapy is tested, these molecular therapies are tested, which I just mentioned. But also herbal preparations and alternative therapy approaches are tested. RGCC is just as open as me and doesn't say, we only test this. There are labs that only offer the alternative, but RGCC does everything here. And the patient decides or the doctor tells the patient what he would recommend from this palette? In this test, it is rather something that both decide. I've heard something great from Maitake. Can you test this? If the patient himself has heard something and wants to contribute, he can do that. And that's great about the story. Let's take the example of conventional medical tumor conferences where the idea is that many specialists come together from all areas to find and meet the best possible therapy decision for the patient. There is the radiation therapist, there is the surgeon, there is the tissue specialist who has examined the cancer cells, the oncologist. But the patient is missing. He is actually the most important. He says, yes, I can imagine this therapy. And with this test system here, the patient is absolutely involved in the whole thing. You can analyze everything naturally. Are they just as successful as the ways of school medicine? I wouldn't compare it so directly. In one patient, one way is more successful, in the other the other way is more successful. This shows the analysis of the laboratory. For example, 70% would be chemotherapy XY, and not AB and C, because they don't work at all. And on the natural basis, I would be at 50% about curcumin and so on. And this is what this test can do, first of all. Such tests have a huge potential because they avoid mis-therapy. If we actually do chemotherapy, much too little has been invested in this area in recent years, what AGCC does, to predict which therapy works. Because the number of patients that we treat completely for free with very toxic drugs is immense. That means they are treated for three months. After three months they are told that they are sorry, but the therapy was for free. The tumor has grown. And if you can avoid that, then you avoid a lot of suffering for the patient. And in my opinion, AGCC is absolutely a pioneer, although there are of course other providers worldwide when it comes to such tests. But we have finally found that this openness again, and we have only found alternative therapies at AGCC so far. And that's why we've been working together for so long. This is an absolute pioneer role. In addition, this test is made, and this is a very, very significant difference, of cells, usually circulating cells from the bloodstream. While the other tests are usually made of tissue. That is, the tissue that is taken in the tumor operation anyway, where the diagnosis is made, which is then embedded in the paraffin and lies in the closet. And this tissue is dead tissue. And often then for such questions also many years old sometimes. The advantage here is that we have circulating tumor cells that I could take the blood from today. And then I have these cells from today, which are currently the problem for the patient. These are his tumor cells, that is, with everything in it that belongs to it. All the DNA is in these tumor cells. That makes the cancer disease unique anyway. So no breast cancer is like the other. Never, no matter how much we break it down, because it is the DNA of the individual person in it. As unique as we are, unfortunately this disease is also ... And also the treatment then. And then the treatment. You're absolutely right. And that's why it's so important to use these cells to then derive the right therapy for the patient. You can not only use it to make this diagnosis which therapy works best. But you can also use these cells to produce a therapy directly from the cells. Something we do very often. That is, to gain these circulating cells from the bloodstream, to isolate from the healthy cells. And then you can take the cells of this patient in the Petri dish, simplified, and then change them in such a way that in the end, for the immune system, which unfortunately does not recognize the cancer cells to eliminate them, then recognizes them. The cells are multiplied, destroyed in the end. And what is then given to the patient are fragments of his own cancer cells. And that is something that can teach the immune system to recognize the cancer. And here, too, it has actually scientifically proven, in the pure conventional medicine, in studies, that you can not only reduce the risk of cancer recurrence of the patient, which has been tried for many years to do this way, but can actually treat cancer with it recently. And very, very successfully. So now, very, very badly thought, may we also open a bracket and put that in? Who has the interest that such a thing spreads? Because ultimately we get healthy, possibly really healthy cancer patients without recidivism, who break out of a huge machinery, which is still paid by the cash register. And it is precisely this machinery that is responsible for us actually hearing such services so that we could experience it. And the whole system bites itself in the tail. Absolutely. If I may take an example, again the comparison. There is an approved immunotherapy, if we both sort under the term immunotherapy. Nowadays there are many immunotherapies. The term has also become high-capacity. I still know times when immunotherapy was always the general curse word for all alternative therapies. So everything that was immunotherapy, was alternative. And suddenly immunotherapy emerged in school medicine, where you could actually do school-medicine immunotherapies. There is even a medical Nobel Prize for it. CTL-4 inhibitors, PTL-1 inhibitors. And now there is a KT cell therapy. This KT cell therapy is actually approved by the health insurance for a few cancer diseases, where the DNA is really actively absorbed by the lymphocytes and they are changed so that they recognize certain molecular targets again. The therapy is still very dangerous because of the side effects that the immune system not only recognizes cancer but also healthy cells. And here we are talking about a therapy that costs between 300 and 500 thousand euros per injection. Approved. And is paid by the health insurance. Because of the pharmaceutical industry, evidence-based of course also developed. But it's a very small niche that profits from it at all, but it's an approved therapy. And then we have the therapy I just mentioned, we call it autologous tumor cell vaccine, which is not even price-wise in this area, which has provided at least comparable data so far in what was published, also in America, from universities in America, where we already had data in Germany in the year 2000 that you can reduce the risk of recurrence of kidney cancer by almost 50 percent. And such a therapy, because you just, how should I say, I always call it a financial lobby, is not paid by the health insurance, is not an approved therapy and runs under niches or alternative or integrative medical terms. And that's actually a shame when you look at it, that there are two therapies that attack the immune system and have gone so different ways, but in a forced way. And that there is actually something that is at least as good in terms of any logic. That means we have the call rates, we have a manufacturing process that works, we have realistic costs, so not so abstruse costs. The clinical data, compatibility, and yet it has remained a niche product to this day. It's just a shame. We are now always talking about the physical symptoms that ultimately represent the effect of any cause. It takes many years, maybe seven years, until I develop a tumor. And now I have it. And now I have to act and see that it gets better. That was the conversation. But to what extent is it important to work on the cause? And how do I find the cause? And, the next question, how often is the cause also of a psychological nature? That's a difficult question. As an affected person, I always look for one cause. And I would say in many patients that I have seen, you can assign them relatively clearly and then they are usually of a psychological nature. As a scientist, I say, well, many things have to come together to actually create something. So it's not so black or white that you can package it that you can actually find or identify the cause for everyone. But still, where you can really clearly recognize the cause, also from experience, you should definitely work on the cause. Because the entire success of the therapy depends, of course, on the cause. You can get the tumor away for the moment, but it doesn't make sense if the cause is still there, then it comes back, or another cancer comes back, that doesn't make much sense. But still, I would not generalize here and say that this is really tangible for everyone and therefore a meaningful approach. It's just like with the other things an approach that is not available. I would like to turn the question around a bit. Let's say it takes seven years through a trauma that the body produces cancer. And let's say you find a smart psychotherapist and analyze the problem and can actually solve it. Can it also be that it takes another seven years until the body lets go of the tumor itself? Usually faster. And does it heal itself? Yes, there are self-healings. That was a central experience for me, where I also said that we have become increasingly very negative in ethics over the years. There are university clinics that even consist of the ethics commissions that you are not allowed to give hope to a cancer patient. It is really literally taught and taught that you are allowed to give hope to a cancer patient in the so-called palliative situation. In my opinion, you are making a mistake. We don't have 100% in medicine and we don't have 0% in medicine. That means I can't promise any patient success, but I can't promise them failure either. There are always patients who, even if it says in the textbook, have a survival rate of six months for pancreas cancer, for example. There are always patients who have survived and there are patients who have survived pancreas completely for 60 years. In my opinion, you have to be very careful because hope is a strong instrument. But over the years we have learned that even blood intake can be life-threatening. The patient best describes that if I give him blood he is only able to tell the worst possible thing and forget the positive. That means we no longer give hope. And also this fear that we could have given false hope through legal proceedings is something we are so afraid of that the whole of medicine has a very negative representation nowadays. And that is perhaps also something that I learned over 35-40 years in oncology. Hope is an instrument. It helps, definitely. Of course you have to be careful with it. But to take it away completely is, in my opinion, the much bigger art mistake than to actually give it. So certainly not to use Nocebos, right? Absolutely. But I'll dig in here again. This patient now has cancer and he goes to the psychotherapist and does a clean analysis and he finds the problem and he resolves himself. If you look at this world view how powerful the psyche is even in such a bad disease to take over the dominion isn't that a miracle? Absolutely. But as I said, there is this miracle and there is another one. And why these are not so far developed is that it is again, how should I say, very difficult for this approach as for many nutritional approaches. We would never eat exactly the same thing for 3-6 months. That means, again, to carry out these standardized studies in terms of nutrition, in terms of psyche, is incredibly difficult. And that's why there are no studies in this area. There is no evidence. It is almost not used or accepted in the end. I always had a guest, Professor Christian Schubert, who actually says that the psyche is the A and O of everything and should be applied here immediately. Personally, if I put myself in the position of an infected person, I would rather say I want to open all the drawers I can, right? Right. That's exactly how I talk to the patient. One part are the drugs that we can make. The immunotherapy of AGCC, which is based on their tumor cells. We can find out through the test of AGCC what is the best therapy for you, whether it is hormone therapy or chemo, or then cocaine or artesonate. But in the end, at least 50% of the success is made by his mental strength and ability and care and support from nutrition and also movement nowadays, of course. That makes up 50% of the success. Of course, we are far too little trained as therapists. Of course, these are also things that are not included in my original clinic in Freiburg. We already noticed that there was always a psychologist on the visits, a physiotherapist, a nutrition therapist. You could already see that the approach of the group was much broader But that would be a clear recommendation to every affected spectator to get help from the psychotherapeutic side. Absolutely. And that is definitely always a recommendation to the spectators to take care of their own health. Often one says this, the other that. But that's what we call patient competence. And where there are actually evidence studies again. Although uncomfortable for the therapist sometimes, because you know more than yourself in the worst case. Or not at all for you in the worst case. Why not? Who has also looked for someone else who would like to incorporate into the therapy concept. But this one definitely has a much better prognosis and a much better chance to defeat the disease. I also interview patients who have defeated a disease themselves. And when I talk to them, they have become doctors themselves. Their own disease. Really through the band. They know everything. And I think that's really admirable. And they share this knowledge with us. One last question. We have a lot of doctors who are also watching now. If you were to say something to them or convey something to them in the field of individualized laboratory diagnostics. How valuable is that? From my point of view, it is important to free yourself a little bit from these constraints that often restrict our own clinics, practices, approval authorities, criteria, our own guidelines and to be much more open about it. There is much more out there than you actually believe. And you have much more opportunities to help your patient. We let ourselves be constricted by colleagues who were professors, chief physicians of departments in university clinics and always defended the guidelines very hard. But at the moment when they retire and retire, they can do medicine in a completely different way than they did before. Much more open. And I think I can only encourage everyone to start much earlier and to open up much earlier. And you are surprised how much I have also focused over the last few years. I started medical cancer research and developed angiogenesis. I became very well known there. But then I quickly realized, man, there are so many things out there that are much more valuable and perhaps even more effective than what exists, but that are simply not considered. And that's why I've been focusing on it over the last few years. And in the field of laboratory diagnostics, you can simply go to this homepage of this LGCC. Or what is it called? RGCC or RGCC. RGCC, exactly. And see what you can get out of a blood drop these days. In vitro, it is tested which drugs, which natural or chemical preparations are at all effective on this individual tumor. And the great thing is, if you look at the website, there is a range of tests. If I may briefly say that from time to time, because this is where the circle closes again. Our new medical approaches, the so-called immune therapies, make it incredibly difficult to judge them in terms of course. Another form of therapy, such as chemotherapy, for example, used to either make the tumor smaller or only grow. Then it didn't work. If I do immunotherapy against cancer, it leads to the immune system being activated first to fight the cancer. If the immune system fights something, it inflames and swells. That means the cancer often gets bigger before it gets smaller. This is immunotherapy and makes it incredibly difficult to judge this with our classic possibilities. The radiological site has gotten bigger. Then I say, okay, the tumor has gotten worse. This is no longer so easy in immunotherapy. This is called pseudoprogress today. That means it looks bigger, but it's not, because the swelling that has arisen there has come from the immune reaction. And the tests from AGCC are also worth gold for us, because we have the possibility to better assess this course via the number, i.e. the evaluation of the amount of circulating cancer cells, because counting the number of cells in the blood is the safest parameter to accompany the disease with these immunotherapies today, because they lead to these classic tumor markers simply going up wrongly due to the inflammatory reaction, that tumors look bigger in the picture, in the CT or X-ray, but without them growing. This is the swelling due to the immune system. And in particular, such test systems are now worth gold today What I wish for is that in many lectures you are at the forefront of congresses and can really build such bridges to simply spread this knowledge to the people, to the affected people, but also to the therapists who work with it, because it is also much more satisfying for them to see that a person has actually become healthy and has not just lived and that is possible. Absolutely. Good luck on your way and thank you very much for this honor, this interview, and hopefully we'll see each other again soon and go a little deeper. Yes gladly, thank you very much for the invitation. Great, thank you very much. That was for you, dear viewers, Professor Dr. Joachim Drefs, specially traveled from Miami to close a gap here for all of us, to show that it is very individual, every cancer is very individual, and that you can test it today how exactly this personal individual cancer is treated. And there are tests, and that's why we shouldn't use every chance to ultimately exploit it. And as he also said, cause research is very, very important in treatment, and to really start early to look for the cause and also treat it, because that influences our system of course also from top to bottom in an excellent way. In this sense, good luck on your way. Thank you for watching and for sharing the program. See you next time.