In this episode, Dr. Conners was able to interview a long-time hero of his, Dr. Ralph Moss. Dr. Moss offered inspiration decades ago to those few who stood up for truth and alternative medicine when it was on the fringes of what was considered acceptable – much worse than even now! In this discussion, they go through Dr. Moss’ career from medical researcher/writer to his time at the Office of Alternative Medicine, to publishing (continually updating over the years) his famed Moss Report (since 1977!)

What a great honor it was for Dr. Conners to be able to sit down and chat with Dr. Ralph Moss, we hope you enjoy this illuminating discussion on unbiased cancer research with a veteran in the alternative cancer world.

About Dr. Ralph Moss – Moss Reports

Dr. Ralph Moss is well known in the alternative, holistic health community as one of the original medical writers in the space. Ralph W. Moss, PhD, has written and edited 12 books and 4 film documentaries on questions relating to cancer research and treatment.

Dr. Moss is most known for publishing the Moss Report, a collection of detailed reports on the most common cancer diagnoses and provides informational and personalized consultations for cancer patients and their families. The Moss Report has over 500 pages of up-to-date expert analysis on cancer treatment options including:

✓ Alternative Treatments
✓ Conventional Treatments
✓ Immunotherapy
✓ Naturopathy
✓ Doctors and Clinics
✓ Clinical Trials
✓ Diet and Lifestyle
✓ Supplements

Dr. Moss was a founding member of the advisory council for the Office of Alternative Medicine, now known as the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) – they got rid of that pesky “A” word!

He is also the author of The Ultimate Guide to Cancer: DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Research, a 50-page report that is available free, in which he reveals four of the main tools that doctors use to decide on the best cancer treatments. “You will be able to penetrate into the inner sanctum of medicine and reveal its secrets. Learn why some cancer treatments that look good in clinical trials may not work for “real world” patients like yourself. Many truths about cancer until now have remained hidden behind a facade of complicated medical jargon. Now, those truths are being revealed and the jargon decoded in this easy-to-understand guide.”

Stay tuned for Episode 23 (you can see all episodes on the Conners Clinic Live page!)

Listen to or Watch the Full Podcast Episode

Unbiased Cancer Research with Dr. Ralph Moss - Moss Reports | Conners Clinic Live

Transcript

Dr. Conners
Hello, everybody, it’s Dr. Kevin Conners again for Conners Clinic live, and today we have a very special guest who is a long time hero of mine. So I told him before this interview that I was a little star struck because when I first graduated as a chiropractor back in 1986, I read a lot about this guest here, Dr. Ralph Moss, and he literally was my hero. He was one of the only people that was, maybe not opposing medical care per say, like not a naturopath or not a chiropractor. So therefore, they’re against the medical profession, quote unquote. But he was a Ph.D. researcher, scientist, scientific writer. Your list of accolades goes on and on and on. So we’re going to just jump in.

You gave me the inspiration to continue what I feel like was God’s leading of me to help people from an alternative perspective with cancer, you gave me the courage to stand up when it can be daunting sometimes. So how did you get into looking at other forms of cancer treatment other than standards of care?

Dr. Ralph Moss
I had no intention of doing that, and I actually learned about a job opening at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in the Public Affairs Department, and I was a writer. I wanted to be a writer. I wanted to be able to write for a living. It was a passion of mine from childhood. For pretty early on, and I loved writing, publishing, seeing what I wrote in print and so forth, so I applied for the job. It was completely far fetched in a way, because I had just gotten my PhD from Stanford in classics. But in the course of the seven years that it took me to get the Ph.D., I realized that I didn’t want to teach Latin and Greek for the rest of my life. I had done it. I taught at the University of California and I was then teaching at Hunter College in New York. But two things. One is that I wanted to do something more meaningful, that’s not the right word, but more socially conscious with my career. And I was interested in science, but I was interested in it, not in doing it, but in observing it, thinking about it, writing about  it, writing about the scientists. All that appealed to me. And I got the job, and my spiel basically was, well, I don’t know anything about science. So therefore I’m just like the people you’re trying to reach. And there was some little truth to that. It was actually the same thing that Gerald Peale was sort of the founder of the science writing profession in America. He used that same spiel to get a job with Time magazine I think it was. Good humanities student. And can look at science from as an outsider from the outsider’s perspective. So it’s a powerful combination if you have the ability to understand what scientists are doing, but you retain your beginner’s mind or your layperson’s mind, you’re not in the game, but you’re closely observing the game. And even though I have now gone on and co-written and co-authored some, I don’t know, thirty or thirty-five scientific articles, but I’m not a scientist. I’m just sort of the person observing and judging and criticizing what other people are doing. So that’s a unique position to have, I think, in the cancer field.

Dr. Conners
And it does make it more appealing to the reader, whether or not maybe, you’re filtering out the mumbo jumbo, the language of the scientist in the layman’s terms where they can feel that it’s better communicated to them, they can understand.

Dr. Ralph Moss
Right. And all science writers do that. I think the difference between me and most science writers is, I have the freedom to criticize. Not that I’m always criticizing, but I have the freedom if I see something that seems wrong or not logical or that omits critical pieces of information, I can say that, and nobody can stop me from saying that because other than a short stint that I put in for three years as a senior medical editor at a publishing company, medical legal publishing company, I’ve basically been freelance since nineteen eighty, actually since the end of seventy seven. And that’s given me the freedom to be able to say what I want. And then of course having a wonderful family, my wife, we’ve been together, we started dating just this week in nineteen fifty nine, we went out on my 16th birthday. And my children, my son and my daughter and their spouses and my grandchildren now. So, I’ve had this amazing support group. My wife made it possible for me, financially,  to be able to be a freelance writer because, as I’m sure you’re aware, and as your listeners are aware, it’s a very up and down type of profession. It’s not a not a stable income by any means. Especially if you’re dependent on selling articles to magazines and newspapers. Mostly though, I’ve published my own things. I mean, I went up until the when was it maybe in ninety two, it was the first time we ever published our own book, Cancer Therapy, which was a guide to one hundred and two different nonconventional cancer treatments. That that actually did very well, it was just the right moment in the history of publishing to be able to put out your own book and then have it be picked up by Barnes and Noble and then Amazon and so forth. So that was very doable. And now we have our Moss reports, which are diagnosis specific reports on about 40 different cancer diagnoses, which covers about ninety five percent of all the cancer cases in the United States and other countries. And we sell these on our website. MossReports.com. That and I also do phone consultations for cancer patients pretty much every day. I do try to do one. And sometimes, the demand is so much, I have to do two a day, which is pretty time consuming. But this is how we pay the bills, basically. We  help the individual cancer patient in this very difficult moment in their life, which is trying to decide on what’s the best treatment. Should they take the conventional treatment? If they do, what could they do alongside it in order to make the outcome better or the side effects  less severe? Or should they be thinking about alternatives? And if they’re thinking about alternatives, what’s real and what’s phony, who’s real and who’s phony? And, I’ve had forty-six years now to think about this and to examine this and the luxury of the leisure to go all around the world, to look anywhere in the world that I wanted to. And for instance, I made a first site visit to a clinic in nineteen seventy-six. It was a clinic in Tijuana, Mexico, that was using Laetrile and some other controversial treatments. And then, starting in the 90s, I started going to Germany pretty much every year and I made eighteen trips to Germany to study the medical system there and the use of complementary medicine and also going then expanding out from there to other European destinations and then finally to China. I went to China twice and many other places to try to see what other people were doing and what was the validation for what they were doing. And was this a place that an American or an English speaking person would possibly want to go to for treatment? It’s been a fascinating journey. And some of that, you can capture some of the feeling of that, it wasn’t the trip that I took, it was a trip that my grandson Jacob took about a year or so ago, we sort of sent him to different clinics in Europe and then in the United States to talk to the doctors there about  immunotherapy. And he produced a film called Immunotherapy: The Battle Within.

Dr. Conners
And let’s give you a plug for that film, because that’s on your website, available for people to watch. An excellent production.

Dr. Ralph Moss
Yeah. Thank you.

Dr. Conners
Just a fantastic film. So I really want to tell people to get on there and watch.

Dr. Ralph Moss
And it’s a homemade movie, basically. I mean, Jacob hadn’t made a movie before. He had he had some experience with, sort of collateral fields to that, but it wasn’t really filmmaking, so this was his introduction, he and his girlfriend/fiancée. I’m not sure which one is the right term at the moment. But anyway, they went to Europe for more support and then they interviewed all these people. But for me, although  totally was involved in what all these people were saying, but the real hero of the film was somebody who died about 80 years ago, and that’s William B Coley. And William B Coley is one of my heroes and one of my inspirations in life, because he was really the person who invented, who first dared to use the immune system to cure cancer. And that was an extremely controversial statement. I mean, if you said that to any oncologist 20 years ago, I mean, you would have branded yourself as a complete quack by doing that today. It’s a commonplace. You see it all over the place. William B Coley, the grandfather or the father of cancer immunotherapy and his progeny, if you will, intellectual progeny, Jim Allison was awarded the Nobel Prize in twenty eighteen. And of course, he wanted for his own accomplishments. But on another level, and I think I brought this out in the film, this was really a prize that went not just to him, but to his mentor, Lloyd Old and to Lloyd Old and mentor Helen Coley, and  Helen Coley’s mentor, her father, William B Coley. So there is a line of descent, amazingly, a line of descent within the field of cancer immunotherapy straight from William B Coley and what happened in the 1890s to Jim Allison and the modern day immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy that he invented. And I tried to bring this out and he wouldn’t come out with it. I interviewed him for an hour, and it was very good interview. And we have that interview on YouTube. But he never came out and said, “yes, you’re right, I am the intellectual heir to William B Coley.” It was all like, yeah, but he didn’t say this and he didn’t say that and so forth. But to me, it was obvious. And I wanted to tell that story. And that’s the way I see it. I mean, I studied history. Look, I mean, that’s what classics is. Deeply immersed in things that happened twenty five hundred years ago. And so to me, it was the historical connection with William B Coley was a very, very strong point. And I can’t still to this day wrap my head around a situation where a person, let’s say an oncologist, knows and acknowledges that this man, William B Coley, cured advanced cancers, 100, 110 to 120 years ago, using a very simple treatment, a mixture of two bacteria that had been killed, heat killed, and then was injected into the patient. And they kept that up for a number of months. And the net result was that hundreds of people were cured of advanced cancers by him doing this.

Dr. Conners
And I’m going to interrupt you for a second for listeners that may not have heard this story. He called that Coley’s toxins. And the purpose was to basically inject attenuated bacteria that would stimulate an immune response, and his whole idea, and correct me if I’m wrong, was if he could just stimulate a hyper immune response to something the immune system no longer would have to kill, it would then turn its focus on other things in the body that maybe need to be killed, like cancer. And he was right and it worked, and I’ll let you continue.

Dr. Ralph Moss
But I mean, it was attenuated, but it was also killed bacteria. H started out using live bacteria and some people got very sick, some nurses and so forth. That was not tenable to use an infectious agent. But the body sees a killed bacteria like a massive infection. It’s sort of like a false alarm that that brings out the entire, you know, it’s still the antigen of the bacteria is the same thing. So the body sees it as a menace and goes after it. And so it’s in a way sort of like a vaccination. The interesting thing is that Coley, and I have a double, double, triple check this, but Jim Allison told me that Coley never actually explicitly made the connection to the immune system, which is interesting. Coley just knew from a very, very special case. We have a picture of the man that who was that case, and we even know what his name was.

And this man had four operations for head and neck cancer and had recurred. And then he spontaneously developed a skin disease called erysipelas. And the cancer erysipelas went away eventually and the cancer went away, never recurred or didn’t occur at the time that Coley looked for him. And Coley went all over Manhattan and finally found this guy who was a German immigrant. And Mr. Stein, his name was, and brought him back to his mentor at New York Hospital and the man was free of cancer, so that was where he got the idea that they knew that erysipelas was caused by strep bacteria. And then he started to give, under the Egis of Memorial Hospital there what’s now Memorial Sloan Kettering to give that as a treatment. But all he knew was erysipelas, which is a horrible skin disease, really, we don’t see much of it because it’s cured with antibiotics now, but it’s a horrible thing. And if you’ve got that horrible thing and you survived and you had cancer, there’s a good chance your cancer was going to go away. I’m not suggesting that your listeners try to pick up a case of erysipelas, it’s pretty nasty. And anyway, it can be cured with antibiotics. But the principle was there. He didn’t really understand it. Honestly, he was a surgeon. It was a practical man who is an extremely busy man. He had a number of other outstanding careers in different kinds of surgery. But he was able to do this thing. He was able to cure people, but it remained for his daughter, who was not educated as a scientist, to turn our attention to, after he died, to what it was that made him so unique, and what it was about the treatment, what made the treatments successful. And that was a tremendous achievement. And basically, it took he thirty-five to forty years of research into his cases, as she assembled all of his cases that she could find, all the cases of people who had been treated with the Coley’s toxins and all the people who had spontaneously developed, what would you say, fevers and infections, cancer patients and what happened to them.

And these were put into monographs, the most boring format that you could imagine. She did never sensationalize. She did everything by the book because she was the daughter of a famous Memorial Hospital surgeon, and she desperately wanted to have acceptance by the medical establishment. But she got a little bit of that, but she didn’t anticipate that her intellectual heirs, Jim Allison, was going to win the Nobel Prize. That would have been very, very, very satisfying to her. I knew her quite well.

Dr. Conners
That’s great. Well, she just put her case studies together.

Dr. Ralph Moss
Absolutely.

Dr. Conners
And that is research, unfortunately, that has been much ignored by the medical profession.

Dr. Ralph Moss
And always and it’s all just honored in the breach or whatever they say. It’s just given lip service and nobody takes it seriously. And the books are actually, I have a set, but the books are in danger of actually disappearing off the face of the earth. There’s only a few copies left. I know a couple of people who have copies, but this is why I wanted to make the film, because I could not in good conscience just go on knowing that there was a cure for various people with cancer that existed and not shout that from the rooftops. It’s just unconscionable. But, so I hope everybody will come to our website, which is MossReports.com. And right up at the front, we’ve put the link to the film. It’s free. And then also my latest book, Cancer Incorporated, is also available in the electronic version, it’s free. And then you could also buy a print version for not very much money. So I would say we’re trying to get the message out here and of course we have to make a living, too, but we don’t want to let the practical considerations get in the way of this tremendous social duty that we have to let the world know what has actually happened. These are the, what we used to call alternative medicine and so forth.

Dr. Conners
Well, that’s why I respected you for all these years. You’ve lived from your heart and felt like there was a greater responsibility than the dollar, and you see I write a lot about publication bias in my book and how it’s difficult to even trust studies on drugs today because they might put it out for a study of the 12 universities and they only published the two that came back positive. When you say you’ve been an independent author, I don’t know how many there are out there that exist anymore. People are bought and sold like commodities. Yes, granted, everybody has to pay their bills. But then misinformation takes place, and it’s very difficult for people to really get at the truth, to dig, to get at the truth. We see that today even more than ever.

Dr. Ralph Moss
Well, you know, I started out I published with very good publishing companies. Grove Press was my first publisher. I was very proud to be associated with them. And then I published with HarperCollins, with Dial, I had a contract, I got to publish with them. But with Bantam, with many other, Doubleday. So, I did all those things, but at a certain point I realized that I just didn’t fit in. And it wasn’t that the editors were particularly prejudiced for or against, it’s just that it’s not commercial, what I do. If you want to do something commercially successful, you have to hype something basically. I mean, the days of being able to get really vigorous sales with a critique of the establishment started to go down in the nineteen eighties and by about nineteen ninety, it was pretty much dead. You couldn’t, you could not really get any traction with that. Both the public taste changed and there was more consolidation in publishing and the editors seemed to be more conservative. So, 1980 when I published Cancer Industry, that was sort of the high point. And you had other people who were critics, quite a few of the cancer establishment. You had some pretty high-level people like Sam Epstein, who wrote The Politics of Cancer. And Mandelson was another one. John Baylor, who had been editor in chief of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Yeah, I mean, I could if I thought about it, I could name half a dozen other people, many other people who were doing similar things. And there’s some other very talented science writers who got into it and then just fell by the wayside for one reason, usually for some personal reason. And it had stopped being commercially viable, so it kind of left the field to me. And I just am obsessed. So it’s not fair competition because I was I was up from 3:00 to 5:00 this morning revising my last report. I mean, I’m obsessed. Any moment that I get that I can work on my writing, and my now voluminous body of work that I’ve done about the cancer topic, I’ll do. And I can look at myself and say, “that guy’s crazy, but at least I have enough distance. But it’s a good crazy.”

Dr. Conners
That’s why I love you so much.

Dr. Ralph Moss
Thank you.

Dr. Conners
I’ve published all of my stuff self-published because I want to give it away so a publisher is not going to let you do that quite so easy. Well, I just thank you for this interview, I thank you for telling me, telling our listeners a little bit about you. As I told my staff I was interviewing you, I was literally, like I said, star struck. And I want more people to continue to know what you do in this age of cancel culture. We got to get the word out, the truth out so people can hear these things from an unbiased point of view like yours. It’s great just giving people opinion and some facts and some data that they can chew on and help them be able to make the best choice possible for their health care. Because to be that’s what it’s all about.

Dr. Ralph Moss
That’s all it is about.

Dr. Conners
People being able to make their own choice and not be forced to do something they don’t want to do.

Dr. Ralph Moss
And I at, one time in the 90s, I had the dream of being able to sort of help direct government policy to make this happen. It was not possible. We formed the Office of Alternative Medicine with two-million-dollar allotment from the Congress, thanks to Senator Harkin. And it’s now the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health that got rid of “alternative,” that A word, the alternative word. But there was a split within the 18-person panel that I was on. I was on the alternative medicine program advisory council. And the split was over direction, of course, whether to take the most controversial things that the public was most interested in and evaluate those things fairly honestly without prejudice and let the chips fall where they may. That was my position. Our position, I was not alone in this. We had about, oh, out of the 18, we probably had six or seven of the 18 who were solidly behind that proposal, and that wasn’t mostly because of me. It’s mostly because Berkeley Bedel, who was a six-term congressman from Iowa who was highly supportive of that position.

And then you had the other people who, whatever the reason, believe that what should happen is the money, there wasn’t much money at that point, but whatever money there was, should go to the most prestigious university you could find to do studies that were peripheral to the controversial treatments and just sort of nibble around the edges and let the field get established. And in time, those other controversial things could be studied. Well, we both were right in the sense that, yes, it grew to I think it’s one hundred and forty-four million dollars is, which is a nice chunk of change for studying alternative complementary medicine. But the studies of the controversial treatments never happened.

In other words, what was agitating the public at that time? Burzynski’s treatment in Texas, the antineoplaston laetrile, or so-called vitamin B17, the Bertan method in the Bahamas of intravenous vitamin C, all these things that were enormously interesting to the public were completely off-limits in terms of the academic medical establishment. And what they wanted to do is what came to pass. In other words, they set up an alternative complementary or integrative section at Memorial Sloan Kettering, my old alma mater, and at Harvard, and all the others pretty much across the country. The more established and more prestigious, the more likely they were to set up a compromise. And in those places, basically, this enormous field that one hundred and two different treatments that I talked about in cancer therapy shrank down, kept shrinking, shrinking, shrinking until basically, it became acupuncture and massage, that was it. That was the totality. I mean, they’re nice things, acupuncture and massage, nothing wrong there.

And Memorial did some good studies in terms of acupuncture, very valuable, I would say. And they have some very fine people, I’m not in any way denigrating the people. They’re nice people. And some of them have done good, good work. But you couldn’t touch anything that anybody in the establishment of any importance had ever said anything negative about. You see, that’s what it really came down to, that if so and so, who was the head of the American Medical Association said that Hoxsey herbs were crap, pardon the expression, you couldn’t go and even say, “you know what, we should study those Hoxsey herbs because Morris Fishbein or somebody of his equivalent status had already told you that those were worthless. Why would you want to study that? And I saw this in action.  I’m not going to name names I could, but I won’t. But one of the top officials of the Office of Alternative Medicine, which they located in the office of the director of the NIH to keep an eye on it. And he was called to a meeting with the man who was then the director of the NIH. And he went in and he’s a great guy, I’m still in touch with him, not the head of the NIH, but the official at the Office of Alternative Medicine, now the NCCIH. And in the course of the interview, the director of the NIH said, “well, what do you want to do? What are you working on personally? What’s your interest and what would you like to study?” And the guy without thinking, speaking from the heart, as you said, said, “I actually want to do scientific studies of homeopathy.” And the reaction was so, so strong and so severe, like,” why the hell would you want to study homeopathy? It’s worthless. It can’t work. It’s too diluted, blah, blah, blah.” The usual party line about homeopathy. And this official came back, we were having and this is in the midst of a meeting that we were having, we had we had four to six meetings a year. I went down to Washington 30, 40 times in part of this process and he said, “I think I just did myself out of a job.” He had a contract like a one year or two-year contract.

He said, “I think I just did myself out of a job.” I said, “what do you mean?” He said he told this story and he said, “I just had that strong feeling that I’m never going to be rehired here.” He’s never worked for the government again. The day that his contract was up was the last day that he ever worked for the government. And he’s gone on and had a glorious career in the NGOs and in other things. And he has his own medical practice. But that was literally the kiss of death. And they can do that. They could do that. And, you know, you’re going to nibble around the edges of this incredibly enormous field of medicine, but you’ll never get to be a player in terms of the setting policy or being able to move the direction. The only way you can influence this behemoth, is to mobilize public opinion. That’s the only power that you have, this is my experience. And that’s unfair, to put it mildly. Not just unfair to us as activists or as would be reformers. It’s unfair to the patients because, look, you’re asking cancer patients to be the activists who are going to make change and fight for freedom of choice and all these things, they’re going through the hardest time in their entire lives and the caretakers are going through, sometimes it’s even harder on the caretakers or caregivers, whatever you want to call them.

So, it’s a very difficult situation because this juggernaut rolls on and we are just sort of the bystanders and we’re yelling out and saying, “look, this is wrong. This is not going the right way. You’re not doing this right.” And especially, you could use these natural treatments in conjunction with the, if you want to, in conjunction with the conventional treatments. And there’s an abundance of evidence that there’s a better outcome if you do that and you’re ignored. And the patients, and I believe me, a good 40, 50 percent of the patients, are asking the doctors, can I use supplements, or can I do this or other complementary treatments along with these highly toxic, destructive treatments? And they’re almost always shut down or at least, I never hear about people even being treated respectfully. It gets to the point where, I totally understand this, that you don’t even want to bring up the topic. I don’t bring it up with my own doctors because you oh, you know, you’re going to be shut down. And it’s humiliating to be in that situation where you’re treated like an idiot. If you if you say. “But, Doctor, what about if I were to do some intravenous vitamin C, for instance?” And we have clinical trial data about the effectiveness of vitamin C in one kind of cancer, a very difficult cancer, you will be treated like an idiot. I mean, I hear this from my, I do phone consultations for cancer patients. I hear it all the time. All the time. I never hear, maybe this is election bias going on here, but the people come to me. I hear horror story after horror story about how people are treated by the oncologist.

The oncologists can be lovely people, but I tell them that’s as long as you don’t trust them because they are they are nice people as long as you’re doing what they believe to be right. OK, or even if they don’t believe to be right, as long as you do what they tell you to do and most of them, they are the most blindered people I know, the oncologists, they have blinders on. I mean, all professions do, I think to a certain degree. They are self-reinforcing, without a doubt, okay? And there’s also jealousy. They don’t want others to poach on what they consider their field. They want to have the monopoly as a group. But basically, they don’t want to hear anything coming that’s not sanctioned. And what does it mean to be sanctioned? Well, there’s a whole elaborate structure that’s been created that involves hundreds or thousands of people. This is not a little cabal. This is a huge profession, gigantic profession. Their meetings have twenty-five thousand people in the day, in the pre covid days, we come to Chicago for the ASCO meeting. I mean, it’s unbelievable event, okay? But, you know, basically it’s like the poet Philip Larkin said that the whitest prairies of electric fences. So, at the end of that wide fence where everything goes and we’re intellectuals, we can examine any question, the BS that you hear. But there’s always an electric fence at the end that defines what’s acceptable discourse. Where they call that the Overton Window is another name for it. And so there’s a limit. And in my opinion, that electric fence has been shrinking and shrinking and shrinking over the years. They’re very ossified, the oncology profession, in their beliefs and what they are and how they approach cancer. It’s very limited. They’re mental framework that they operate from the Overton Window, some people call that, it’s a very small, very narrow thing. It’s everything from all the choices from A to B, basically. And so you don’t have a choice. You can’t break into that narrow professional circle that ASCO American Society for Clinical Oncology and these other groups represent you. It’s just a mindset. And it reminds me a little bit of the church in the late Middle Ages when the Inquisition didn’t start in the days when the church was ascendant. The inquisition came in when the church was already feeling the pressure of modern, science.

Dr. Conners
And they had to buckle down.

Dr. Ralph Moss
Absolutely.

Dr. Conners
They threatened Galileo with a stretcher.

Dr. Ralph Moss
Worse than death.  Absolutely. So, I feel like that’s sort of the age we’re in. We’re in the age where we’re breaking out intellectually from the bounds, the binds, of the conventional way of thinking about cancer. So much has come out that just threatens to destroy the conventional strictures on one’s thinking about the cancer problem. But at the other hand, the controls have never been greater than they are now. So, it’s an immovable force versus, an immovable object versus an irresistible force that the force is there, it’s going to push through. But there’s tremendous amount of resistance to it as well. And I’d love to live long enough to see this field of complementary or integrative oncology triumph. I’ve seen wonderful things happen, but there’s still tremendous resistance to it. It isn’t going to happen so quickly.

Dr. Conners
And it’s the practice of medicine as a whole, not just oncology, I think it’s more so during this time than anything. But it does take and the reason why you’re my hero, is it takes that those courageous you to stand up and scream, “the emperor is not wearing any clothes” when you’re going to get the criticism of your peers and general population and the media now. And you’re going to get smeared on social media, everywhere else and canceled on everything and it takes a courageous person to stand up against that. And so, I applaud you, and I want to really encourage our listeners. We’re going to have it up on the screen when we get this video done, your website to purchase your books, to support your work. It’s very important. Well, I’d love to have you on again sometime. I know you’re a very busy person. I appreciate this.

Dr. Ralph Moss
Well, thank you so much. We’ll talk again.

Dr. Conners
Thank you. I appreciate all your work.

Dr. Ralph Moss
Thanks.

Dr. Conners
And we’ll be back in touch.