If Chemo Works So Well, Why Is There a Recycle Industry

(0:00) Hi, this is Dr. Daniels, and you're listening to Healing with Dr. Daniels. This is the Sunday, February 23rd edition, and today's title is "If Chemotherapy Works So Well, Why Is There a Recycle Market for the Medications?"

(0:16) Today, I'm going to examine proposals for remarketing chemotherapy pills when the patient dies, which means it didn't work, or they're not working, meaning the patient lived, but the medication isn't effective. Are these schemes benevolent or malevolent? In other words, are they good or bad for the patient? That's what we're going to talk about today.

(0:43) And as always, yeah, thing happens. But first, we're going to take our turpentine. We didn't do this last week, so we're going to do it this week.

(0:54) White sugar— a lot of you are writing me saying, "Can I use date sugar? Can I use coconut sugar?" You can, but it's not going to work as well. You can do whatever you want because it's your body.

(1:08) All right, we got some sugar here. Yay, sugar! Now, there is a Chinese saying that every material on earth has healing power, yes, even white sugar.

(1:30) So there you have it. This is a little pipette that I use to suck up the turpentine. I kind of like taking half a teaspoon, and I've figured out that this pipette, filled up to the neck, gives me exactly half a teaspoon.

(1:47) So this is the pipette. As you can see, it's filled up a little beyond the neck into the bulb. I'm going to squeeze that down, and boom, that's my two and a half cc's, also known as a half a teaspoon.

(2:02) All right, white sugar, yay! Turpentine squirted on top. We used to have a little game we played as kids, and it was part of the jump rope game. And it's "no hesitation, no consternation," in other words, don't hesitate, don't think about it, just do it.

(2:23) No consternation, just some water. Once you get it down, it is great—feel good, and everything is fine.

(2:39) All right, next, because there is a chronic trace mineral deficiency throughout the world, and you don't want to be part of it—I don't either—I take shilajit. Sh-i-l-a-j-i-t, shilajit, also known as mumio (that's in Russian), and it's from the Russian mountains.

(3:04) All right, here's a stick. Take that, just dig it in there, and pow! So you can see that tar, that goo tar, yeah, that's about a good amount there.

(3:29) Yeah, as you can see, if we put this in our water and we stir, nothing appears to happen. We're gonna let this sit while we do the show, and it will dissolve, and we'll drink it, or I will drink it.

(3:41) And so this provides over 80 trace minerals. Your body makes enzymes, and the enzymes, as they say, get stuff done all around your body. However, all of the enzymes require cofactors, which are trace minerals and sometimes vitamins.

(3:58) And so if you don't have a trace mineral, your body will be making these enzymes, but they'll kind of, like, not quite work, and you'll feel like you're just missing it—you know, just not quite enough energy, you're just not quite sharp enough, you just reach, it's not fast enough.

(4:27) And so you take trace minerals, your enzymes start working, and things start clicking, and you feel like, wow, that's amazing, it's very, very nice. And the price is right—a year's worth is about $25, whereas your regular mineral supplements or fulvic minerals (these are fulvic minerals as well) sold in the United States don't have as broad a mineral spectrum.

(4:51) So there's about 11 or 12 trace minerals that are missing, which might be one of the ones that you need, and they're generally $30 or more per month, right? So it's 10 to 20 times more expensive.

(5:00) All right, that is the shilajit situation. Now, onto the coronavirus update.

(5:13) It's in the same virus family as the common cold. I mean, really, how obvious can you be? The ongoing death rate is 2.5 percent; however, the medical industrial complex itself, which we reviewed last week, has said that this is an excessive overestimate by an order of magnitude, which means the real death rate is two per thousand.

(5:39) Just for your information, the baseline death rate in the United States is 10 per thousand. So you line up a thousand healthy people, just randomly pick them off the street, and 10 of them will be dead by the end of this year. So any condition that results in the death of fewer than 10 per thousand—can't really get excited about it because, basically, the person is, randomly speaking, healthy. So a diagnosis of coronavirus is a diagnosis of health.

(6:08) Now, one major development—I won't say major, but unusual development—is the United States government has permitted American citizens living in China who test positive for the virus to come to the United States. Why would you do that? Because, let's get this, there's no treatment, it's like the common cold—there's no treatment.

(6:43) So there's no medical intervention that would be beneficial. There's no reason for them to come to the United States. You could say, "Hey, you guys sit tight, we'll get you five-star hotel accommodations while you're in isolation, and just chill," right? Like the common cold, you just kind of chill and lay low and try not to cough on people, right?

(7:04) So why would they have them come to the United States? Answer: And watch what happens, they plan to launch an epidemic of coronavirus in the United States. And you can't launch an epidemic without a plausible source. So now we have 10 people positive, we put them, boom, on U.S. soil, they came from China, and so now we can say that they have started or will be the start of the upcoming epidemic. So we will watch for that.

(7:32) However, the thing to understand is the medical industrial complex admits that it is as deadly as the common cold. So every precaution you take for the common cold, you should take for coronavirus. Personally, I take none, I don't worry about that, yeah.

(7:54) Now, there are articles on coronavirus that say doctors (they say doctors, but really, it's the medical industrial complex) are hauling out drugs it couldn't sell for other purposes and using them in the coronavirus scenario. So we will watch for that and, of course, give another update next week.

(8:20) Which brings us to today's topic: If chemotherapy works so well, why is there a recycle market? I mean, a lot of pills are being recycled. So what causes a chemo pill to be recycled?

(8:47) Well, let's go to Medscape. This is January 9, 2019—oh, that's about a year ago, okay. Things could only have gotten more so in that time. So, should doctors be allowed to recycle chemotherapy pills?

(9:02) And it's like, well, they're already doing it on the sly. And the thing to understand about the medical industrial complex and various practices is when something is being done in large numbers, and they see that a profit could be made doing it, then you say, "Okay, doctor, we're going to have you do it under supervision and turn this into a money-making venture and charge for it."

(9:39) So what would happen is, I had many patients with really awesome insurance, so they would use the natural thing, it would work, they would go to the pharmacy, get the prescription filled anyway, and bring the pills back to me. Then I would just recycle the pills and give them away. I didn't even charge for them, just give them away to whoever might need them.

(10:21) The medical industrial complex does not like anything being given away for free. It's so bad that doctors are actually penalized for it. So I practiced in New York State when I did practice, and I would sit down and look at accepting Medicaid insurance. It made no sense—they paid you $15 a visit, and it cost you $20 in administrative paperwork to receive the $15. So I said, "Well, I'll just treat them for free." Just treat them for free—one day a week, boom, office open, free care, show me your Medicaid card, and I'll treat you for free.

(11:01) That's actually against the law, I found out, to treat a Medicaid patient for free. The medical industrial complex is all about circulating the money, and anyone who stands up and says, "Oh, I'll do something for free," they say, "Sit down, get out of here, security, security, get that person out."

(11:17) So there are a lot of barriers to doing

anything for free, and it has been observed that doctors are taking chemotherapy pills that a patient has not used. So the way it works is, you say to the patient, "You've got cancer, take this chemotherapy drug, it's your only hope," and that's pretty much the way it is proposed. But like any pill, you recommend so many pills over such a period of time.

(12:03) Let's say you recommend to the patient 20 chemotherapy pills, and the patient only uses 10, and they die. Well, now you've got 10 chemotherapy pills, but the family has no use for them, and so the family will even actually bring them back to the doctor, saying, "You know, he's dead, not using these." Then the doctor will actually hand them to another patient whose cancer might qualify for that same pill. This is just a handoff—you know, relatives or a patient bring in the chemotherapy pills, the doctor hands them off to another patient, no charge. This is a cancer specialist, right? He's already charging enough money for everything else.

(13:03) Let's see what the medical industrial complex has to say about it. The amazing thing about this is, as we talk about this, realize that these medicines are considered to be beneficial, okay? Beneficial, yeah, so you've got to get that—keep that in mind as we talk here.

(13:39) Medscape says it is a "medically sound" (and they put that in parentheses, medically sound, like maybe, maybe not) idea to empower, that means officially allow, physicians to safely recycle highly expensive oral chemotherapies—that means a chemotherapy that you take in pill form—and thereby increase access and minimize waste, write a group of cancer doctors in a commentary published online on December 19th in the journal "The Oncologist."

(14:08) In other words, physicians should be able to take discarded oral cancer drugs from one patient and pass them to another without a pharmacy intermediary, say the authors. Of course, these are all doctors. The doctors are saying, "We can take a pill, hand it from one person to another."

(14:26) This brings up the whole question: why even have a pharmacist at all? Why not give the doctor the option to dispense any drug or whatever in his office? The answer is to separate those profit streams. If you have a doctor with too many profit streams, it's not going to be good—he'll have too much power. So they separate it. In the old days, though, the doctor did compound often and dispense medications. These doctors are not aware of the administrative organizational structure and why it's there.

(15:08) This will require considerable relaxation or amendment of the rules and regulations that govern typical pharmacies and physician dispensing, they acknowledge. Of course, all these regulations are put in place to create the opportunity for pharmacists and to take away from the doctor a particular profit stream, dispensing, and make him totally dependent upon the profit stream of diagnosing and treating.

(15:47) The goal is to give the doctor only one profit stream in his office and create economic instability in the doctor and dependency on the system.

(15:53) Currently, this proposal causes legal tangles, the authors admit, but some physicians ignore the issue and recycle illegally or in a grey zone, however you want to think about that.

(16:11) Now, riddle me this: why is it okay for the doctor to dispense samples he receives from the drug company to the patient, but he can't dispense other drugs to the patient? Interesting, isn't it? Because if he dispenses drug samples given to him by the drug companies, the drug companies control the degree and the volume of his dispensing practices. But if he's allowed to creatively dispense what he wants to, then, you know, that is not controlled.

(16:53) Physicians are already doing this on the sly, she told Medscape Medical News. Now, physicians are doing something on the sly—just saying, on the sly, they're probably not charging for it because they already more than made their money on the first patient.

(17:15) Like the authors, another specialist they interviewed is an advocate for not wasting prescription drugs because recycling makes compelling economic and environmental sense. We're going to come back to this environmental issue because that is critical. She maintains a national presence, which is not affiliated with her employer, about drug recycling on Twitter. However, she has doubts about the feasibility of the proposal.

(17:44) I'm not sure why the authors would promote doctor-based recycling initiatives when they face the same barriers as drug repository pharmacies. Physician-based recycling is also less efficient, giving access only to patients of those physicians, she said.

(17:53) You're missing the whole point here. If the doctor prescribed that particular chemotherapy pill, he's probably prescribing that same pill for like 10 or 15 other patients, so it's actually the most efficient way. Because if you have this doctor take the pill, give it to a central recycling center that recycles pills for any and all afflictions, then that recycling center is going to have a lower probability of redistributing his pill to another individual.

(18:04) And then also, a lot of times in chemotherapy, as with other cases, the doctor has a little bit of flexibility—it could be drug A or drug B they could use on a particular patient. They could say, "Hey, you know what? I happen to have a lot of drug A on hand from another patient, which you can have for free. Why don't we just start with that particular chemotherapy agent?"

(18:47) So actually, the cancer specialist, who is specializing in a narrow set of cancers (they don't do every cancer), is more likely to have a higher volume of patients needing that drug than another doctor would or even the dispensing place would.

(19:13) But again, if you read this and you're just a layperson, you don't know. You're like, "Oh yeah, the doctor should take the pill, send it 20 miles away, and then they, I don't know, they might hand it to another patient."

(19:31) So that's what they're proposing. Some American places have programs to facilitate cancer drug recycling, but the clincher here is, "We have not seen those programs benefit our patients," writes the cancer doctors. Again, for the very reason I told you—take this pill, throw it 20 miles down the road, and the probability of the patient who's shown up at the office who needs that pill actually finding that particular pill is much diminished.

(20:04) The academic group is in search of a system that allows safe and efficient recycling and is medically acceptable. Medically acceptable—what does that mean? Medically acceptable means acceptable to the medical industrial complex. So it's safe and it's efficient—isn't that all you need? It's safe and it's effective, right? But no, no, no, now it needs to be medically acceptable, which is acceptable to the profit structure of the medical industrial complex.

(20:33) Any entity pursuing this would need a thoughtfully designed program with an infrastructure—that means like, you know, plumbing, electricity, internet, a roof, walls, door, okay? Employees—that's infrastructure—that allows tracking of oral anti-neoplastics. Again, this is another trick they use, which is to give something a huge name. It just says oral, excuse me, chemotherapy drugs—why don't we keep using the term we started off with in the article? Oh no, no, no, no, we have to throw in another big word to make you think, "Am I confused? Have I got this right? Oh, this is complicated. Thank God they're in charge." But anyway, I digress.

(21:17) Allows tracking of oral anti-cancer drugs from point of prescription dispensing to the first person, return of unused prescriptions once treatment is no longer indicated. So, of course, it's no longer indicated when the patient dies because they can't swallow any more pills, and it's no longer indicated when it's been established that, well, it's not working.

(21:41) And again, you just have to imagine in your mind the volume of chemotherapy pills that must fit this category in order to make this business model even feasible—that's very important.

(21:51) Agreed. The pharmacy of the Good Shepherd Pharmacy, a non-profit in Nashville, Tennessee—now, you need to know about non-profits, the only people in non-profits that don't make a profit are the owners. The employees are very well paid. But the bigger challenge, you can comment on, is creating a system that is self-sustainable. Okay, so now we're talking self-sustainable, which means we're talking about the profit here—the money.

(22:18) Any system dependent upon volunteer labor or external funding will be temporary and limited in scope, Baker said. Baker is on the avant-garde of American drug recycling, specifically cancer drug recycling, as previously reported by Medscape News.

(22:39) So that means he's one of the first early adopters. He's one of the founders of a remedy chain, a business attacking money devoted to facilitating the redistribution of leftover oral chemotherapies. In short, the organization takes from patients with money, who are—let's just not say money, let's say insurance—because a lot of these people with cancer who have chemotherapy or are taking chemotherapy drugs, they're not necessarily rich, they have insurance. And so here, they're playing on the reader's emotional "Robin Hood" button. In medical school, they really press that button, "Yeah, take from the rich and give to the poor, take from the rich and give to the poor, take, take, take, take," and give to the poor. Like, "Whoa, whoa, relax, relax, why don't we have to rob anybody? Let's find a peaceful way to solve these situations."

(23:32) But again, they take from patients with money, who are deceased or not getting results from therapy, and give to the less fortunate. No, that's not what's going on here. They're taking from people who have insurance and giving to other people who have insurance because they're gonna be charging money—that's the punchline here.

(24:08) Remedy Chain, which is a business, is proposing a national network of mail-order pharmacies, one per state, to centralize the donation and dispensing process in each state, he said.

(24:15) So again, they're making a business, and one per state—again, imagine Texas, right? You get a chemotherapy pill in Texas, Abilene, a chemotherapy doctor prescribes it, the patient dies, family, kind-hearted people that they are, return it to that doctor's office. Rather than him just hand it out to the next patient (because he's going to prescribe the chemotherapy to another patient probably within the week), no, he ships it in to Austin, where it sits. And the next time he writes a prescription, that patient has got to contact Austin, see if the pills are still there, or even worse, see if they've been properly processed and cataloged and checked in. And then he's got to pay those people in Austin and wait for shipment—it might be overnight, but pay for that too. And so you can see this is getting pretty bureaucratic.

(25:17) In each state—there are 50 states, okay? Just wanted to establish that number. Currently, the organization is functional, with operations in two states: Tennessee and Iowa. Right, so how do they expand immediately, blink, to the other 48 states? It's a non-profit—answer, government funding.

(25:30) Baker explained that one centralized pharmacy in each state allows for operations at a fraction of the expense of multiple local physician-run pharmacies. The latter is the model that the essay is proposed—excuse me, the status quo—where a doctor just takes the medicines from one patient and hands them to the other patient at no cost. Like, "Oh, no, no, no, no, can't do that."

(26:04) So a centralized pharmacy is also more efficient at redistributing donated drugs before they expire, he added.

(26:16) We're going to talk today about the expiration date and what happens if you don't donate a drug. Each pharmacy can work directly with state departments of health and medical pharmacy boards as a single point of contact to ensure compliance and that all parties are protected from liability (that means lawsuits), which is utter nonsense because the pharmacy basically gets insurance for lawsuits, and all the other parties already have insurance for lawsuits. So this is not an advantage at all.

(26:40) I think a more national-level approach could expand the scope of the project.

(27:02) Now, the problem with the national situation, of course, is the inherent inefficiency—unless, of course, we're going to let Amazon handle this. Well, there's an idea.

(27:09) SafeNet Prescription Recycling with the oncologist's help—this is another business. So in Iowa, an affiliate with them covers the entire state for various types of drugs. It's been running a chemo-specific recycling program in Des Moines, partnering with 12 cancer centers. And the organization has brought in more than 1 million donated oral chemotherapy drugs and has dispensed a nearly equal amount, so they're moving stuff.

(28:05) The medications include cancer drugs provided to uninsured and underinsured patients with incomes less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level, which means they're not poor. The SAs want to attack the problem of cancer drug recycling from all angles and even get manufacturers involved. For example, they want to see more oral chemotherapies packaged in blister packs, right? Then they don't have to repackage.

(28:35) So they're going to increase the expense that the pharmacy company has. One way to make a profit is to shift the expense to somebody else. Such an approach could not only minimize waste of dispensing but also improve safety and effectiveness of redistribution of such packaged individual pills, they argue.

(28:56) Recycling oral chemotherapy is a win-win, say the essay authors. We submit that no one loses from such an arrangement because the medication would otherwise be thrown away, and receiving patients would not have purchased the medicines anyway, they write.

(29:11) Now, this creates a whole other problem. How do you know someone's income is 200 percent of the poverty level? You have to have a whole bureaucratic agency authorizing income, or the government has to establish such an agency to have people submit and qualify for income, you know, whatever their income level is.

(29:52) But two points were mentioned here. One is just throwing the stuff away, right? Why don't you just throw it away? So I have to give you a little background on this whole "throw it away" thing.

(30:08) I used to work in Hayward, Wisconsin. If you don't know where it is, it's understandable—it is absolutely freaking the middle of nowhere. The issue in Hayward, Wisconsin, being in the middle of nowhere, was what do we do with expired medications?

(30:18) There's, you know, what do you do with them? What is a safe way to dispose of these medications? But first, let's talk about expired medications. This is Medscape, again, February 22, 2019. This is Reuters: "Expired Drugs May Remain Effective, Safe to Use in a Pinch." We don't know what a pinch is, but let's see what they say.

(31:02) Now, remember, expiration dates are created by the FDA as part of their effort to make drugs safe and effective because even medicines that are years past their expiration date and haven't always been kept in strict climate control conditions retain their original potency, a small study suggests. So the FDA's effort to protect you by creating expiration dates is basically an exercise in futility, mysticism, and is not really a protection at all because the medicines remain effective past the expiration date—it's meaningless.

(31:32) That's good news for people working in remote areas of the world—Hayward, Wisconsin—where sometimes an expired medication is the only one available, and the alternative is having no way to treat a serious illness, study authors point out in a paper in the Journal of Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, online February.

(32:07) The expiration date on a drug packet is the last date a drug company will guarantee the drug's content and stability when stored in the original packaging. This date is not necessarily the point at which the drug becomes ineffective or dangerous. So stop right here. Here's the real clincher: a drug which is not expired and is at proper potency can still be dangerous. Somewhere between 107,000 and 227,000 Americans every year die from properly prescribed, non-expired medicines. So to say the expiration date on medicines is protecting anyone is of questionable value or questionable accuracy.

(33:08) So some parts of the world, doctors face the difficulty of getting medicine more than once a year. When I was in medical practice, I used to donate expired medicines to doctors overseas. I would get all the expired medicines together, which were the expired samples that drug companies gave me, put them in a bag, and boom, they went to countries that had shortages.

(33:37) The study team tested the stability of five expired drugs that had been returned. They tested five drug types, all one to four years past expiration, and compared these to fresh samples.

(34:29) So the drugs included atropine, nifedipine, flucloxacillin (an antibiotic), bendroflumethiazide (a diuretic), and naproxen (a non-steroidal). Researchers found that all of the tested drugs were stable and would theoretically have still been effective up to five years after expiration, even in Western facilities.

(35:03) The true longevity of medications is a relevant question. Expiration dates and stability data would be useful to discuss in terms of national stockpiles of antidotes for bioterrorism.

(35:16) This is a doctor's name—has studied the shelf life of various drugs and found it is not as stable when exposed to heat. For everyday use, consumers should continue to adhere to recommended expiration dates even though evidence shows they're meaningless.

(35:30) So we have these chemotherapy drugs, and the idea that you need to have a recycle program that is monitored so that people don't receive expired drugs is, as you can see, well, bogus—yeah, bogus.

(35:51) So the other issue is what about disposing of drugs that are not used or not needed? So we had this problem again because we're so remote in Hayward, Wisconsin. I'm going to tell you what they recommend here and what they don't recommend and what we actually did in Hayward, Wisconsin—it was quite something.

(36:28) Fewer than half of the 900 pharmacies in California provided correct information about the disposal of unused prescription antibiotics and opioids, and only 11 percent reported take-back programs at their location.

(36:42) So in our situation in Hayward, Wisconsin, we were so remote that we definitely had a take-back program, and the pharmacy, because it was on the Indian reservation, was located right next to the doctor's office. And because there was an umbrella organization, the tribe that controlled the pharmacy and the doctor, it was allowed to have both under the same roof, even though it's an economic conflict of interest, right? If the pharmacy is low on one drug, the administration can tell the doctor, "Hey, stop prescribing that drug, prescribe the other drug that we're going to make a profit on."

(37:34) Pouring unused liquid medications down the drain or tossing unused pills in the trash can have serious consequences—serious means people can die. That's what serious means—death or permanent damage to a human being. Anything less than that is not considered serious by the medical industrial complex.

(38:08) So just letting you know what the word "serious" means—serious consequences contributing to antibiotic resistance, pollution (that means Mother Nature is not able to detoxify the drug, it's that dangerous and poisonous), poisoning of children who might mistake pills for candy, and intentional misuse. Now, pollution is a euphemism—it includes contaminating streams and destroying drinking water and killing wildlife, let's be clear. And poisoning of kids who might mistake pills for candy and, of course, intentional misuse.

(38:44) Pharmacies seem an obvious resource for informing patients about proper disposal of prescription drugs, but evidence on the accuracy of information provided is limited. So this is how dangerous these drugs are—really—and they're okay to take and put in your body? Scratch your head, right?

(39:09) So the right answer—how do you dispose of these drugs? The right answer is one of three things: one, the pharmacy takes back the drug, which is what we did in Hayward. The parent mixes antibiotics with an unpalatable substance, such as kitty litter, and throws it into the trash in a sealed container. Or flushing opioids—what? You can flush narcotics down the drain?

(39:46) Responses were interpreted as correct, incorrect, or incomplete. Now, what we did, what our pharmacist did—he had a 50-gallon drum, and he had to open every single one of those blister packs—talk about inefficiency, right? So he couldn't just open a bottle and pour the pills in, although in some cases he did, but he had to open every single blister pack, dump the pill into this 50-gallon vat, pour in a liquid to dissolve all of these poisons, stir it up, and then he added a congealing binding agent—you could say kitty litter—and then sealed it and disposed of it as, wait for it, wait for it—drum roll—toxic waste.

(40:38) Toxic waste, wow. And I sat there and stared at that, and I'm like, "Uh, I've been prescribing that stuff? It's that dangerous? I mean, you can't just flush it down the toilet?" He's like, "Oh no, oh no, oh no, too dangerous." I'm like, "Holy cow." And that really made me wonder about what the heck they were training me to prescribe in medical school—this dangerous?

(41:04) Which brings us back to the chemotherapy pills, which are more hazardous than what my pharmacist was disposing of because I was just a regular family practice doctor. I was only prescribing blood pressure medicines, diabetic medicines, arthritis medicines, you know, antibiotics here and there. So it was shocking—this is how dangerous they are.

(41:38) So you have a chemotherapy pill—the person can swallow it and die, or you can throw it out in the environment and kill a bunch of animals and other human beings via contamination of the water supply and soil. So obviously, it makes the most sense to limit these chemotherapeutic pills to people who have cancer and are expected to die pretty soon anyway, right? So the expiration date—irrelevant. Now the disposal—that's relevant.

(42:00) It is actually more humane—again, it's balancing. We always say in medical school, "Choose between the lesser of two evils." And I always scratch my head and say, "Wait a minute, you mean we have to do evil? Can we choose between the better of two goods? I mean, do we have any good choices out there?"

(42:20) But here we have two evils—one evil, give it to the guy with cancer and he dies sooner; or throw it in the environment and kill someone or some animal that doesn't have cancer. So those are our two choices for disposing of cancer-related pills.

(42:47) These pills are proven to be ineffective—proven, right? The person taking them dropped dead—it didn't cure him. Another person taking them is still alive, but the assessment has been made that the pill is not working. So what we have then is a product of known, or shall we say established, low value—no value. And the question is, how do we create a business out of recycling this product? The answer, of course, is you create a national recycling pharmacy just for these pills because they're so pricey.

(43:49) And what's going to happen is obviously the new person receiving the pill is—we're going to add insult to injury—the pill is the injury, the insult is even charging the person money for it. At least let the cancer guy take the pill, it didn't work for this person, give it to this person, see that it's not working for this person, they drop dead or it doesn't work, and then get the pill back and send it to the next person. At least all of this happens, boom, boom, boom, for free.

(44:12) But what really happens, which is a poisonous and terrible thing, is the mind of the cancer specialist becomes altered. He sees this pill is not working because he's already recycled it through three people, and that is something that is devastating and cannot be allowed to happen. You cannot allow the cancer specialist to totally lose confidence in the pills he's prescribing and in himself as a human being.

(44:49) So for that reason, this recycling process must be put outside the view of the doctor. So essentially, you put blinders on the doctor so he can't see left or right, or that his therapy is simply not working.

(45:01) This is one thing that accelerated my awareness. As a solo practice doctor, I took my own night calls, and I was on call 24/7. So I could see very quickly what was working, what was not, and what was harmful.

(45:19) Imagine I'm in an HMO or clinic setting where every doctor has an eight-hour shift, and that doctor never sees the after-hours consequences of his prescribing practices. He only sees a mash-up of what's going on with other doctors' prescribing practices. He doesn't have a perspective of what did this patient look like when he came into the office. Answer: upbeat, happy, enthusiastic. And what did he look like after he took the pill? Answer: painful, distressed, worried, breaking out in a sweat.

(45:32) When you don't allow the doctor to see the consequences of his actions by fragmenting each act so he has no linear continuity of seeing what's really going on with the patient, that allows the doctor to continue to be harmful and do dangerous things.

(45:49) And so this whole proposed program to recycle these chemo drugs—not just any drugs, oh no, no, no, the ones that are proven to be ineffective— the person died while taking them instead of getting better, or the person is still alive, and it's established that the drug, however they measure it, was not effective.

(46:04) So this is the kind of thing that is dressed up in a disguise of benevolence—"Oh, we're helping these people get needed drugs at a lower cost." How can you say they're needed when there's a track record of ineffectiveness, right? It was established, established, um, they're not needed, they're prescribed.

(46:34) And it also creates a perpetual system where they will continue to be prescribed because the doctor doing the prescribing misses the continuity of "I gave this chemo to patient A, patient A died, gave it to patient B, patient B died, had pills left over, gave it to patient C, patient C died, pills left over," and it's like, maybe I should stop using that drug.

(47:02) And that's what happened to me, and so drug by drug by drug, I stopped using the drugs. And by the fifth or sixth year of my medical practice, I wasn't prescribing any drugs—like, drug? Oh, that's dangerous, I'm not trying to kill you, how about some garlic capsules? Let's just do garlic capsules and drink some water. If that doesn't work, here's a prescription, you can get it filled. What percent filled the prescription? Zero. Garlic was that effective.

(47:41) And so for chemotherapy, this is what we're seeing. So this is basically a flat-out admission of ineffectiveness of such a magnitude that there's actually a secondary market—that means the volume of chemotherapy pills that didn't work or don't work is so huge that there's actually enough to make a profit to create a business reselling them to the unsuspecting. It's amazing, absolutely amazing.

(48:23) And then, of course, you have to keep the doctor unsuspecting by not having him involved in the redistribution or repurposing process. Because if he sees that, he'll be like, "Oh my God, none of it's working, I better stop doing this." You don't want the doctor to see that.

(48:34) So yes, it's very important, very important to have this type of recycling program.

(48:42) So what's a patient to do? Well, the best thing is to stop being a patient. But I think the thing to understand is that chemotherapy is basically a faith-based practice. And so the chemo works best or in proportion to your faith and your belief.

(49:12) And so I say you can have the same faith and the same belief in anything—you can have it in God, you can have it in water, you can have it in whatever it is you want to believe in. And I say find a less expensive, less dangerous thing to believe in. You're going to get about the same effects.

(49:37) So that's what I would say—hey, eat a cucumber, have a tomato, drink some water, have some vitality capsules, poop a little more, dump the waste. But the thing to understand is that within the industry, they are having conversations and creating more profit streams out of the fact that the medicines are not effective. That is it, that's what's going on.

(50:07) So I say opt-out. My personal way of opting out is I refuse any and all cancer screening. If I have it, I don't even know about it. And if someone did notice cancer somehow, I'm not sure how it'd be diagnosed since I don't go for testing, I would say, "You know what? I'm gonna pray on that. I'm gonna pray on that."

(50:28) And even better, I live in a country where I'm not a citizen, and therefore there is no authority, no jurisdiction in compelling me to accept therapy of any kind. There's no authority, jurisdiction, or even inclination.

(50:56) So that's what I do. What should another person do? Whatever you think is the correct thing to do. But definitely check on Medscape, and they'll talk about drug disposal, recycling chemotherapy drugs. And let me be clear, they're not recycling any effective drugs. No, no, no, no. In order to be recycled, the drug has got to be proven ineffective in the person for whom it was prescribed. That person has to die while taking it, which means it didn't work, or they have to still be alive, but due to measures of the progress of their cancer, it is deemed that that drug is not effective.

(51:15) And so what's being recycled is not drugs that work. If indeed there are any, they're not being recycled. The ones that are being recycled are the ones that have proven ineffective, established ineffective. Yes.

(51:47) So that brings us to questions. Yes, questions. If people have questions, they can email them to j-d-a-a-a-n-i-e-l-s. That is the email for questions. That email is checked once a week, and then questions are added to the list here. So in other words, I don't read the questions every day.

(52:33) Okay, real quick. Yay, okay. This is from Alex.

(53:03) Okay, question: I would like to know if a turpentine cleanse would be an effective solution for someone who struggles with light sensitivity. I think it means when light hits his eyes, it's sensitive to it, and poor digestion due to increased gut permeability. I'm going to take his word for the increased gut permeability.

(53:24) I need help outside the system and advice on where it's best to get it from. LV turpentine, I think he's referring to, or if castor oil will work. Those are two different things, right? So turpentine repels parasites and gets them to want to leave, and castor oil helps them to leave once they're in the gut. So they actually work together.

(53:50) I was put on a proton pump inhibitor for three months two years back after six months of acid reflux and still battling to get over it. I'm sure he's guessing the proton pump inhibitor.

(54:19) And here is the definite formula for staying sick: so-called medical experts have made wrong decisions every time for my health. Okay, so that's wrong. You do not allow medical experts or anyone to make decisions for your health—that's you. So you made the wrong decision every time, and you had your gallbladder removed, so that was your decision. So you've got to move from external blah blah blah to accepting personal ownership because if you don't take personal ownership, then you can't heal, you can't solve the problem. All you're going to be doing is going from expert to expert and accusing them of making wrong decisions. So you've got to make the decision.

(55:06) I'm 25 years old, but I feel old as heck. It's hard to cope with nerve pain and keep a job. My parents want me to see a psychiatrist, but he's been to Ayurvedic doctors and nutrition doctors, and these are nerve drugs—oh my God—to stunt all sensation. So you're taking nerve drugs to stunt all sensation, and it's ruining him mentally.

(55:53) So again, you've got to take ownership here. You're 25—as far as your parents go, their job is done, so you've got to take ownership here. Throw everything out the window.

(56:04) So if you've been taking proton pump inhibitors, what has happened is your body's defense system against parasites has totally been wiped out. Any parasite that comes in your mouth (which is a normal thing, by the way—parasites come in your mouth) has had free reign to go throughout your whole body and literally eat you alive. And that's what you're experiencing with this pain.

(56:18) So while turpentine would help, you also have another problem here. You say gut permeability—I'm going to take your word for that. Gut permeability means that your intestinal lining has deteriorated to the point where there are, let's just say, holes in it. So you have a serious, profound collagen or connective tissue problem.

(57:03) So I'd recommend having some pig's feet—that'll clear up, at least fix your gut. Some pig's feet will do two things: first of all, pig's feet are filthy, filthy, so that means they're an incredible trove of all the good bacteria you might ever need. And at the same time, they're filled with connective tissue, which would repair your gut. So pig's feet would be good, or you could eat cow intestines, which is tripe—T-R-I-P-E, tripe. You can just make a little soup out of that with some tomatoes or any kind of flavoring that you like, like parsley, thyme, salt, whatever.

(57:20) Okay, so those are two foods that would definitely put you on a very good track in terms of your digestive system and your mysterious symptom. As for turpentine, you should go to vitalitycapsules.com and download the free report. Go to vitalitycapsules.com and download the Candida Cleaner Report—download that report and read it. I would say read it a good three times, yeah. And you're so malnourished and destroyed here that I would take all the supplements that are recommended in the report—it's not a lot of money, it's only going to be like less than a hundred bucks a month. But I would say do take them all because your system needs the support, and there's a diet in there—follow that diet, but add the pig's feet and the cow stomach on the side, yeah.

(58:30) Robert asks, "How bad is the use of a microwave on reheating foods?" It's really bad, like really bad. So when you use a microwave to reheat the foods, it basically destroys the nutrition because the vibration of the molecules that creates the heat also breaks—mechanically breaks chemical bonds in the nutrition, the vitamins. So they get in your body, and they're useless.

(58:53) And this is also the danger of restaurant eating, as a lot of restaurant food is simply frozen portion-sized stuff that's reheated in the microwave. All that Ramsay stuff you see where they plate the food in the range—very, very, very, very few restaurants do that, and even restaurants that do that only do it for some of their meals, not all of them.

(59:28) So the broader the selection on the menu, the more likely that that's what's going on in the back room—that there's the microwave in the back heating everything up, and you're just getting zapped stuff on the plate that has no nutritional value. You might as well just eat some cardboard—that is how bad it is. This is why I tell people, "I don't care how expensive your restaurant is, how much you love it, what they tell you—don't do it. Eat at home."

(59:59) And even restaurants that don't have that kind of situation going on—a lot of them will chop the vegetables like the carrots or the celery the day before and soak them in cold water in the fridge overnight. And what's happened to the nutritional value? You guessed it—eating more cardboard.

(1:00:27) That is how bad it is. Robert, good question, thank you.

(1:00:45) So, Carmelia is 35 years old, and she's suffering from stomach issues. She was diagnosed with gastritis—that means she's got stomach pain and mild inflammation in the entire stomach. So if this was diagnosed, it means she probably had endoscopies—they used an endoscope that was used on someone else, not cleaned, and put it in her intestines, introducing more parasites—just what poor Carmelia needed.

(1:01:01) Oh well, I don't know the proper way to eradicate this thing, and it's taking control of all that I do. I'm hoping there's a way you can help me, please.

(1:01:21) So what you want to eradicate is not the H. pylori, but you want to eradicate the gastritis. You want to return to a level of comfort and health, and you want to enjoy your life. So don't be distracted by finding a bacteria. H. pylori is a tap water contaminant, so stop it—no more tap water for you. You want to drink, I would recommend distilled water, and you've suffered enough, so go buy your own distiller, shoot your wad, use your credit card, borrow the money, whatever, but get your distiller—distill your water.

(1:02:02) So now you're on distilled water, so you have no more H. pylori entering your body. It makes no sense to try and eradicate H. pylori when you're drinking more H. pylori every day, so purify your water—no more H. pylori. And that purified water, you drink with it, you cook with it, everything you drink, everything you cook, if water is required, you use distilled water, so you're not introducing H. pylori at any point.

(1:02:19) All right, so now you have to put the fire out—what are you going to do with you? So the medical industrial complex is coming to your aid here—they've done a lot of research. If you drink two liters of water a day, every single day, that will eradicate H. pylori. It also gets rid of ulcers and cures gastritis over time. But there's something you can do to speed it up even faster, yes, faster, faster, faster—and that would be fennel seed. F-E-N-N-E-L, fennel seed. Fennel seed is a wonderful digestive aid—it gets rid of stomach pain amazingly, gets rid of stomach pain, gas, it's awesome.

(1:03:12) What you do—you take a teaspoon of it, put it in your mouth, chew, then swallow it. You can wash it down with a little water if you want. Now you can take a teaspoon like that and chew every two minutes if you want to—it's perfectly safe. The limit in terms of safety is one kilogram—that's 2.2 pounds a day. But I find most will do fine with one or two cups a day when they first start. What happens is the fennel seed actually solves your problem, cures it, and reverses it so that your need for the fennel seed literally—it'll start off with maybe a cup or two a day, go down to one cup, and even down to one teaspoon a day, and one teaspoon twice a week, and then none.

(1:04:06) So that's what I would do. Where do you get it? My friend, Amazon. Go to Amazon, and you want to buy organic fennel seed. Get the one-pound bag—shoot your wad, it's only like $15 or $16. If you have Prime, hey, shipping's free. But that's what you do.

(1:04:12) So Carmelia, excellent question, I'm sorry that you're suffering, but relief is on the way pretty soon, and it'll work out great, not a problem.

(1:04:29) That brings us to the end. We reached our hour. As you can see, it is not always possible to answer every question, in fact, even most questions. So appointments are available at vitalitycapsules.com, just click the appointment tab, and otherwise, we'll just keep the bank of questions, and every week I answer what I have time for.

(1:04:52) All right, that's it. This is Healing with Dr. Daniels, and as always, think happens.