"Biopsy Spreads Cancer, 5G and the HPV Vaccine Cause Cancer?" Oncologist on Fake News That Could Cost Lives

ONCOLOGIST WITHOUT BORDERS: Simply put, and to answer briefly, no. But this needs to be addressed. A great many myths and theories have arisen on this topic. These, mind you, even stem from some scientific studies. I even published a video about biopsy on my YouTube channel. There, I discuss a landmark study cited by everyone who attacks biopsy .

Indeed, in laboratory conditions, it has been observed in mice that after a biopsy, inflammation develops around the tumor after a few weeks. This is actually the body's response to the damage that has occurred – the puncture with a large needle, the removal of a tissue fragment. Inflammation develops around the tumor, and the compounds the body then produces can theoretically cause cells to divide faster and form small blood vessels, promoting tumor growth.

But the same study I'm discussing also analyzed whether this has any impact—for example, in breast cancer patients—on survival, the risk of cancer spread, or on the patient's condition worsening. The answer is no. Statistical analyses failed to confirm that performing a biopsy negatively impacts patient survival.

What has been observed is that if surgery is delayed for more than two months after a biopsy, this phenomenon may have some impact on the local development of the tumor. However, it's important to remember that a tumor left for two months—regardless of whether it was previously punctured or not—will continue to grow. Therefore, it's absolutely impossible to conclude from this that a biopsy "spreads" the tumor or worsens the patient's prognosis.

I'll also add—and I can later add specific figures—that every tumor location was examined for this purpose: liver tumors, prostate tumors, head and neck tumors, and, of course, breast tumors. They checked whether performing a biopsy could worsen treatment outcomes. It didn't.

It turned out that the phenomenon I mentioned—the theoretical phenomenon of so-called track seeding, or the leaving of cancer cells in the path of the biopsy needle—occurs at a fraction of a percent. Statistically, this could affect one in a thousand people. Moreover, we already know that even if it does occur, it doesn't affect the patient's prognosis or the course of the disease in any way. This is the data we have.

ONCOLOGIST WITHOUT BORDERS: To put it succinctly, there's no justification for this. We know that cancers arise and divide due to the accumulation of genetic mutations, not the action of pathological fungi.

Both the presence of a parasite and fungi in the body—I understand that someone who says such things is referring to fungal diseases—are indeed infections. This, too, is accompanied by inflammatory infiltration. This is not surprising, as is the case with the body's reaction to multiplying cancer cells, because our body tries to eliminate them. This is its way of fighting them.

ONCOLOGIST WITHOUT BORDERS: The short answer is no. But it needs to be expanded upon. It's a long-known truth, a century or more in the making, that cancer cells primarily use glucose in their metabolism. This is the so-called Warburg effect—a well-known fact.

Theoretically, if we took away their access to glucose, cancer cells should die because they don't metabolize and function the same way as healthy cells. This, of course, didn't work, because our bodies have their own mechanisms for maintaining glucose levels. It can't be reduced to zero—if glucose levels were zero, the body would die. It would lose consciousness sooner, because the brain also primarily feeds on glucose.

Therefore, completely cutting off the supply of glucose—both to our healthy cells and to cancer cells—is impossible. Reducing the supply of simple sugars and adopting a healthy diet—in short, this in itself is health-promoting for everyone. Such intervention is important in primary prevention when we simply want to eat healthily.

But addressing the myth about whether fasting can "eradicate" cancer—unfortunately, we're more likely to starve the patient than the cancer itself. The tumor is clever enough to find other metabolic pathways to survive, leaving our bodies starved, exhausted, and deprived of energy reserves.

ONCOLOGIST WITHOUT BORDERS: This technology, and this theory in general, is by no means well-documented. It's a catchphrase you can often find somewhere, but we don't have solid evidence that it's absolutely and completely safe. But neither do the people making such accusations.

I say we have no evidence for this, because either something new will emerge in time, or – according to what we currently know – these technologies are completely neutral to humans. So for now, it remains a public fake news story.

ONCOLOGIST WITHOUT BORDERS: Every chemotherapy regimen is studied in some way – we know how much it prolongs life in patients with advanced, incurable disease. For each chemotherapy regimen, we can provide a statistical estimate, in months or years, of how much it has extended life in patients who have undergone such treatment.

The appropriate regimen used for the appropriate type of cancer prolongs life in patients with metastases, and in those who are treated radically – it prevents relapses, i.e., it actually cures them, ensuring that the disease does not return.

Yes, when someone writes such things, they sometimes mean extreme cases of fatal complications, because those do happen. Chemotherapy isn't about administering sugar water or vitamin infusions – these are serious medications that have known, well-studied effects on our bodies, but unfortunately, they can cause serious complications that we can't always reverse. And I won't lie – it does happen, albeit sporadically, that someone dies from chemotherapy complications.

When someone has experienced something like this, seen something like this, or did not understand what the purpose of treating a given patient was, then such opinions appear on the Internet.

ONCOLOGIST WITHOUT BORDERS: This is similar to other myths – the people who claim this have no evidence to back up their claims. They want us to prove that these vaccinations don't cause cancer. The accusation comes from specific groups.

They often cite a video available on the CDA, featuring women claiming that the HPV vaccination had a negative impact on their lives and health. This is a well-known, likely Danish, video that was later clarified multiple times, showing how certain manipulations were carried out. Media techniques were used to portray certain situations in a specific way. Some of the people featured in the video later retracted their statements after the video's release.

What we know today is that HPV vaccination protects and reduces the risk of not only cervical cancer, but also all HPV-related cancers, such as throat cancer and rectal cancer.

And it's not just about HPV vaccinations – we also have the example of hepatitis B. I think everyone has been vaccinated against hepatitis B, and the vaccine has been included in the vaccination schedule. This actually reduces the risk of developing liver cancer due to cirrhosis, which is a consequence of infection with this virus.

It is always a chain of events that we interrupt at the very beginning – with vaccination against HPV or against viral hepatitis.

ONCOLOGIST WITHOUT BORDERS: This is similar to another slogan – that oncologists have to use chemotherapy because they're paid by corporations. It's a common theory. My answer is simple: no, it's not true.

As much as I'd love to take corporate-funded vacations, unfortunately, I pay for my own vacation. We work just like cardiologists, gynecologists, or family doctors. I'm paid by the hour. Whether I'm prescribing chemotherapy, performing echocardiograms (if I were a cardiologist), or examining patients with the flu (if I were a family doctor) doesn't matter. Everyone receives the same hourly rate, consistent with their workload.

There are no additional payments for prescribing chemotherapy. No one is paying me—nor, as far as I know, my colleagues.

ONCOLOGIST WITHOUT BORDERS: That phrase "dissolve"—I'd like to see how. When someone asks me that question, I imagine the tumor would need to be soaked in baking soda or "injected" with baking soda. If the tumor is in the intestines, theoretically, there's a way to get there. But in the case of the liver—how do you dissolve liver cancer with baking soda? Of course, I don't know.

This likely refers to the theory surrounding baking soda in the context of the so-called alkaline diet. According to this theory, maintaining an alkaline pH in our bodies would have anti-cancer properties. The problem is that those who repeat these claims are ignorant of human physiology. Our blood maintains a pH between 7.35 and 7.45—slightly alkaline, but these are very rigid, defined limits. Any deviation below the norm is a serious, life-threatening condition.

Throughout evolution, our bodies have evolved mechanisms to prevent pH fluctuations. There are buffers, regulatory mechanisms—kidneys, lungs, and respiratory mechanisms—that ensure the pH returns to the proper range. Even if we were to add a substance to the body that raises pH, the body would still reduce it to normal. It's impossible to maintain blood pH at 8—then the body dies.

As for turmeric, I understand the theory behind it being antioxidants and anti-inflammatory products. Indeed, in the laboratory—using cancer cells or animal models—turmeric has been shown to reduce the concentration of pro-inflammatory substances produced by the body during inflammation. This is how we say it has anti-inflammatory properties.

However, no one has yet cured cancer with turmeric, nor has large clinical trials proven that oral curcumin alone will eliminate cancer. The mechanism of action of antioxidants extends beyond turmeric—it also encompasses so-called superfoods, foods that provide large amounts of beneficial substances.

If we're talking about natural, healthy food, that's perfectly fine. But we won't "dissolve" the tumor this way. We can at best mitigate any side effects of the therapy, but we won't eliminate the tumor.

ONCOLOGIST WITHOUT BORDERS: Can cancer surgery "awaken" dormant cancer cells? Not if it's performed properly by an experienced surgeon who knows how to remove cancerous tumors—removing them entirely, with a margin of healthy tissue. Only such surgery provides real assurance that nothing will recur in the future. And if something remains, then other cancer treatment methods are used—radiation therapy or chemotherapy.

It's not as if cells "wake up" under the influence of a surgeon's scalpel. This is a notion that has no scientific basis.

ONCOLOGIST WITHOUT BORDERS: There's evidence that rules out this theory, as it's been studied. Does root canal treatment actually increase the risk of cancer ? I'm also not sure exactly what kind of cancer you're referring to—oral cancer? If so, then no.

This has also been studied – I'll find it and add it to this article, to the text. But I can say this clearly: there is absolutely no cancer risk associated with root canal treatment.