This is a summary of an interview of Patrick Soon-Shiong, concerning cancer, various COVID treatments, and politics. This interview is 10 months old, but it’s new to me (via Dr Mercola).
Patrick Soon-Shiong was a doctor, then a biochemical researcher. He sold two of his ideas to Big Pharma for billions of dollars, and has plowed that money back into his own research company, aimed at curing cancer and viral disease with the same tools. He bought the LA Times and sought to diversify opinion there from a tribal loyalty to the Democratic Party.
Crash course in the immune system
(I read about this years ago in William Clark’s accessible book, but I seem to need refreshing each time I think about this subject.)
The immune system is sophisticated and smart, with many coordinating pieces. There are four components that Soon-Shiong talks about: MHC-1 molecules, antibodies, T cells, and neutrophils.
MHC-1 stands for Major Histocompatibility Complex. These are proteins, varying broadly from person, whose function is to live on the surface of cells and present markers, fragments of proteins that are found within, so that the immune system’s CD8 T cells can inspect the cell surface and attack cells that have hung out markers that look like an invader.
Viruses and cancer cells have figured this out, and they have a counter strategy against the MHC-1 communication system — they simply suppress MHC-1. That way their tell-tale flags are less likely to be found on the surface of the affected cell.
The body, not to be outdone, has a counter-counter strategy. Natural Killer (NK) cells and neutrophils look for cells with surfaces deficient in MHC-1, and attack them without waiting for an enemy flag to appear.
Antibodies are molecular tags. One part of the antibody molecule sticks to a protein that the body has identified as foreign. Sometimes the offending protein is part of a free-floating virus or bacterium; otherwise that protein can be a tag displayed on the surface of an infected or cancerous cell. The other wing of the antibody attracts CD8 T cells which destroy the protein and the cell to which it is attached.
New antibodies are generated all the time, randomly by naïve B cells. When a particular antibody is found to be useful, the corresponding naïve B cell replicates rapidly and creates more of that antibody. This leads to memory B cells.
The goal of every vaccine is to create antibodies to some virus or bacterium, along with memory B cells, so the body will be prepared to attack it when it arrives. Remember this — it is a key element of Soon-Shiong’s critique.
T cells are a variety of white blood cell. CD4 T cells, aka “helper T cells” direct the production of antibodies by B cells. CD8 T cells, aka “killer T cells” seek out infected cells and instruct them to eliminate themselves via cell suicide=apoptosis. So they don’t engulf and destroy the infected cell the way NK cells or neutrophils do. They just send the signal to the cell, ordering it to commit suicide. There are memory T cells, which stay resident and ready to respond anew after an infection clears. Remember this.
Neutrophils are the most common type of white blood cell, comprising up to 70%. They are part of the “innate” immune system because they are not specifically tuned to any particular pathogen or antigen. Instead,they attack cells where MHC-1 is suppressed. This is the “counter-counter strategy” described above; but in fact it turns out to be the one that’s most readily available and the quickest.
Neutrophils are brilliant. They not only look for deficiencies in MHC-1, but also look for a variety of protein fragments that are common to bacteria and viruses. They also attack cells that have been coated with complement. And when their job is done, they can turn into peace-makers, triggering the body’s immune system to back off. If we were to write a computer program to describe the decisions they make, the decision tree would take hundreds of lines of code, and the information gathering would take thousands of lines. That a single cell can be capable of so much intelligence opens a little window into how much biology we have yet to understand.
⇒ I’m not an expert. Please comment if I’ve got any part of this story wrong.
Soon-Shiong’s message
T cells provide better immunity than antibodies (B cells).
Modern vaccines are optimized to create antibodies, and their effectiveness is measured using antibodies as a surrogate. But antibodies can’t finish the job, and the virus stays around. We should be developing T cell therapies that completely clear the virus and provide long-term immunity. And, in fact, that’s the research program of Soon-Shiong’s company.
Neutrophil flipping
Neutrophils begin in an N1 state where they attack and destroy invaders. But when they detect that their job is done, they flip to an N2 state, in which they secrete signals that dial down the immune response. He claims that the mRNA vaccines have left the SARS-CoV-2 virus as a long-term resident in the body without acute symptoms. This leads to chronic inflammation, which drives the neutrophils into an N2 state, where they are suppressing our immune systems. This, in turn, leads to vulnerability to other infections, and also to cancer, since the immune system is our primary line of defense against cancer.
The purpose of this flip is that after the invader is eliminated, there is a need to heal the damage. The body goes from a destructive to a constructive, pro-growth mode. But the chemistry of the pro-growth mode can accelerate the growth of cancer.
Soon-Shiong doesn’t describe this in enough detail for me to understand it. I think he is saying that the reason chronic inflammation increases cancer risk is that chronic inflammation flips N1 to N2, and N2 downregulates the immune response. This makes sense until you realize that the primary function of N2 is to avoid chronic inflammation.
Cancer tumors secrete chemical signals that flip N1 to N2, thereby protecting themselves. Tucker asks why this should be. The tumor wasn’t evolved to survive, and it doesn’t have a will of its own. Why is it playing tricks that we would expect to find only in an evolved pathogen? Soon-Shiong doesn’t have a good answer for this question. (Neither do I.)
Vaccine development was politicized during the COVID response
He tells the story of having a superior product ready both to treat and to prevent COVID, already available in the spring of 2020. His product was blocked from Project Warpspeed, and he was told by CDC to discontinue the work.
COVID “vaccines” contributed to a cancer epidemic
…by turning off key elements of the immune system, as described above under “flipping”. [Note from JJM, not Soon-Shiong: The COVID spike protein is a bioweapon, engineered to cause multiple harms to the immune system, to fertility, to the nervous system, to the circulatory system, and to the heart itself. The vaccines amplify all these problems in a significant proportion of people who take it, as the mRNA becomes a gift that never stops giving, going everywhere in the body and continuing to churn out the toxic spike protein months or years after vaccination.]
Soon-Shiong’s cancer strategy
The trouble with chemo and radiation is that they kill any fast-dividing cell. That includes tumors, but it also includes our immune systems. This is the reason that people undergoing chemotherapy see tumors shrink, only to return with a vengeance after the chemo ends. The treatment has left the body immune deficient, and vulnerable to return of the cancer or to new cancers.
The approach being researched at his company (ImmunityBio) is (1) small doses of chemo that cause the cancer cells to display their proteins on cell surfaces (2) this is followed by immune therapies that help T cells to find and destroy cancer. Soon-Shiong is a big fan of T cells, and the therapies developed by his company are based on enhancing the body’s production of targeted T cells.
There is also a mainstream therapy, not associated with ImmunityBio, called CAR-T, in which the patient’s own T cells are removed from his blood, grown and amplified in a Petri dish, then re-injected into the patient. CAR-T shows promise but so far it only works well for a few types of cancer.
Other points
Soon-Shiong was 68 when the manufactured COVID virus was released, and he travels extensively, but he’s one of the few people in the world who never had a symptomatic case of COVID. He credits his own T-cell therapy, which he was testing on himself early in the pandemic.
It was a huge mistake to base vaccines on the spike protein, because the vaccines had to deliver the toxic spike protein to patients’ bodies. This was made much worse by the mRNA technology, which generates spike protein in uncontrolled quantities (instead of delivering a fixed dose, as traditional vaccines do).
Soon-Shiong doesn’t tell us that the spike protein is toxic. The reason he gives is that the spike protein is a bad vaccine target because it is subject to rapid mutation. I think he has this backwards. The reason that the spike protein has mutated so rapidly is that it is evolving in an environment where so many people have vaccine-induced immunity that is limited to the spike protein in its original version.
For all of us who have had COVID, we should get a spike antibody test, combined with inflammation tests for CRP and IL6, to see if the COVID virus is dormant in our bodies. Peter McCullough suggests a protocol for clearing the virus. [technical doc]
I note that ImmuneBio’s website links to an editorial that denounces RFK’s decision to back off CDC’s previous recommendation that everyone should be getting COVID boosters. The editorial accepts uncritically the claims that COVID shots are “safe and effective”. You will not be surprised that I am on the other side of this issue. I think mRNA vaccines have done much more damage to health than the virus itself, that they should be pulled from the market yesterday, and the manufacturers and FDA should be sued for fraud.
Link to interview (same as provided above)
Discover more from Josh Mitteldorf
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Cancer tumors secrete chemical signals that flip N1 to N2, thereby protecting themselves. Tucker asks why this should be. The tumor wasn’t evolved to survive, and it doesn’t have a will of its own. Why is it playing tricks that we would expect to find only in an evolved pathogen? Soon-Shiong doesn’t have a good answer for this question. (Neither do I.)”
Consider the following: How does any cell produce the chemical signals to turn off (actually vastly reduce the production – there are no true on/off switches in biology)? (And maybe it’s backwards, N2 is the normal state and N1 is produced by a cell under attack, and when the cells is destroyed, the level of the N1 stimulant is then reduced. Shrug. I don’t claim to know which.)
Either way, cells involved in the the triggering process have the potential of flipping on the N1/N2 process. This leads to the following question – just how many cells become cancerous? We only see the ones that evade the immune system. How many others became cancerous, but don’t flip down the N1 state to N2? After all, they would then be destroyed before they become noticeable. Only the one that are cancerous and are turning down the N1 state would then become what we think of cancer. This would not be a case of being an evolved pathogen, but merely a case of two mutations occurring at the same time. Remember the number of cells subject to cancer, is enormous, when you consider the number of cells in a human body, the number of divisions done by those cells, and the absolute rate of cancer in humans
Furthermore, this leaves off the problem of metastases. Do cells release from their matrices and wander to other locations? Or do they release oncogenes via exosomes that float around in the bloodstream until they are either degraded or attach to a cell and release their genetic payload? Could that only cause a metastases with cells that have the N2 off switch going at that point in time? (This could be tested experimentally by exposing normal cells to cell-free filtrate from immortalized cancer cell used in drug testing.) Otherwise, the N1 system would kill the cancer-converted cells.
Just some thought ex-officio from my bellybutton.
“I think mRNA vaccines have done much more damage to health than the virus itself, that they should be pulled from the market yesterday, and the manufacturers and FDA should be sued for fraud.”
This is a bold, contrarian statement that lacks the backing of the broader scientific and statistical community, which views the benefit-to-risk ratio of the vaccines as overwhelmingly positive. (In fact that is understating it). Also, Tucker Carlson? come on.
I’ve written about this elsewhere, and many others have as well. Start with the observation that reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System shot up by a factor of 50 as soon as the mRNA shots were released. https://openvaers.com/
I’ve never had a symptomatic Covid infection. I have been chronically ill for years and one of the tests that was done before Covid was a panel that measured T cell response to a variety of antigens and mitogens. My results were off the chart, massive T cell hyperactivity, but they were only interested in low function.
George – I like your idea. I think it’s testable. Are effects of N2 local or system-wide? How often do tumors switch on N2? How many tumors form and are quickly eliminated for each one that becomes malignant?
Taking off from the idea that neutrophils are capable of advanced signal processing in a single cell:
Our neural net models of human brains are based on the idea that the brain is intelligent but each cell is dumb. The standard assumption is that neurons add up the electrical signals coming in and fire when the sum exceeds a threshold.
I’ll bet you a nickel that individual brain cells behave in a way far more sophisticated, integrating multiple endocrine signals with hundreds of dendritic signals and creating an output that reflects many logical steps.
Josh, I’m much better at asking questions than answering them. I will have to do another “deep dive” into neutrophils. This will take some time, as I have to fit in my schedule (and it probably take some time to study). Once I get an understanding of how N1/N2 are described, I’ll get on the “case”.
Now as to cancer, qua cancer. There are two ways to determine how metastases form – in vitro and in vivo.
To do in vitro, you need a source of cells that are normal, and an equivalent source of cultured cancer cell of the same type. Take the fluid from the cancer culture, and filter it to restrict the size of the particles in it to sub cell sizes. And infuse the normal culture with this fluid. Does the normal culture form cancer cells? (Yes, you have to have controls, I’m keeping this simple.) If so, then something like exosomes is carrying the oncogenes. If not, then it has to be moving cells.
To do this in vivo, I recommend mice. Take a mouse that is known to be susceptible to a particular common human cancer culture, and start the cancer in it. After the mouse has clearly developed the cancer, sacrifice the mouse, take the tumor and macerate it finely, and then filter with saline to get the same sub cell fluid and inject into another mouse. Does it cause cancer in the next mouse? Do that serially if it does so, for several mice (Kochs’s postulates). If so, it’s something like exosomes. If it doesn’t, then it’s most likely actual cell movement. (Rife claims to have done this in the 1930’s and serially transferred the cancer through many mice. You can believe it or not, the only way to verify this is to do the work all over again, as described.)
Now this is “getting into the weeds” because I haven’t done the research yet, but a possibility for testing the N1/N2 and cancer would be the following. You would need a normal cell culture with neutrophils from the same animal, with the neutrophils in the N2 state. (Don’t ask me how, this is “blue skying”). Add the matching cancer exosomes from a tissue equivalent cancer, and see what happens. Do the exosomes cause cancer cells? A few? A lot? All of them? Do the cancer cells (if present) express something that turns off the N1 process? Lots of questions – no answers.
Remember this, Josh – I am NOT an MD, a PhD, or a working scientist. I have no connections past or present with the Pharma industry. I’m just a person who likes to learn and put together different pieces of research, like a marathoner who just loves to run, race or no race. . .
People from outside the field asking naive questions is how science makes progress.
Patrick is a smart guy, and some of the science is correct (NK cells kill cancer, Covid lingers post infection) but given his past history within the industry, we should take his assertions with a grain of salt. (Google Patrick Soon-Shiong feuds controversies – look especially at his lawsuits with his own brother). I do believe that NIH ignored him, and not surprised. He burned so many bridges over the course of career, I’m sure there are hundreds of people who would do anything to stop him.
I agree — take in his ideas, but evaluate independently which parts to believe.
Good evening,
given the importance of the implications of the suggested protocol, I understand that the comments on this should be read in
https://www.cureus.com/articles/207654-clinical-approach-to-post-acute-sequelae-after-covid-19-infection-and-vaccination#!/
Regards, A.
Josh, why do you think it is that most mainstream physiologists and medical groups recommend that the elderly and some other groups get the COVID boosters?
Six years ago I reviewed Gerald Posner’s book, telling the story of the Sackler family’s plan to bring Pharma companies into the funding of medical research, including universities, journals, doctors, medical associations like AMA and AAP, the newspapers that report on medical findings, and the FDA which licenses drugs. The plan was executed gradually over decades. As the plan worked, profits increased, and all the pharma companies plowed that money back into influencing what we naively think of as the science of medicine.
https://scienceblog.com/experimentalfrontiers/2021/04/27/trust-me-im-a-medical-researcher/
This trend took an enormous leap in 2020 with the COVID pandemic. Legitimate, legacy drugs were discredited with fraudulent studies.
https://scienceblog.com/joshmitteldorf/2020/06/18/suppression-of-chloroquine-is-scandalous/
Medical studies for the mRNA shots were completely fraudulent on many levels, and the shots were approved by FDA for the first time with no long-term safety data at all. And this was not just a new vaccine — it was a whole new technology meant to replace vaccines. We’ve had tetanus shots that require a booster every 10 years. Who ever heard of a vaccine that needs a booster after 3 months?
In order for such widespread fraud to be possible, it required decades of infiltration of all these institutions, and then cooperation among them. COVID was a mass deception from the origins in a laboratory to suppression of the millions of associated mRNA “vaccine” deaths.
I signed up for Peter Attia’s newsletter, thinking I would learn something about longevity. But he interprets it differently and prepares readers for life in old age and supplies them with unpleasant topics such as cancer, dementia and muscle loss.
.
Meanwhile, if you were to take drugs against the poisoning of old age, you would postpone all these unpleasant things to the distant future. Diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s will appear in you only after 3 times longer.
.
Currently, life can be extended fivefold. This means that in 10 years you will age by 2 years. Does anyone have more information about this?
.
Yesterday, Bryan Johnson sent me an email, where he wrote about how cosmic radiation, i.e. protons, sharply accelerate aging. But he did not elaborate on how to protect yourself. He probably does not know or is hiding it. In any case, it is not protons that fall on the surface of the earth, but bremsstrahlung radiation consisting of neutrons and muons.
For 40 years since I was born, I lived on the ground floor of a house with 20 cm thick ceilings and I must admit that I enjoyed a significant youth compared to my calendar age.
I’ve never agreed with Peter Attia’s views on aging. Now he’s in the news for appearing in the Epstein files.
Thank you Josh for your thoughtful analysis. Do you have any thoughts on mRNA as it applies to gene therapy? In particular to reprograming cells using the OSK factors?
OSk is different from mRNA. OSK therapy isn’t ready for prime time until we can figure out how to suppress cancers. The problem is that every cell responds differently, and by the time you’ve made most of the cells younger, you’ve driven some of the cells into an embryonic state.
Another source of information which I enjoy reading are articles from “A Midwestern Doctor” who explores “The forgotten side of medicine”. He explores medicines that were effective in the past but squashed by big pharma when a more profitable but less effective or harmful patentable product was developed. This is not so much about extending life as living a healthy life with the years we have.
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/
He usually has interesting things to say, and he comes from my perspective on subjects apart from aging. But his writing style is a barrier.
Josh, this guy has some red flags.
1. He’s of non-european ancestry which means he has a lower likelihood to be impartial and higher likelihood of misconduct. China for now has something like 4 times incidence rate of scientific misconduct in scientific papers.
2. He’s a lifelong democrat with Hillary donations in 2016. Democrats in the US and especially in California are extremely corrupt and Hillary is blatantly corrupt. I know he now claims being independent, which is a major reason how he ended up on Tucker’s show, republicans love such stories, but he didn’t turn into one until the democrat corruption affected him personally. He was turning a blind eye for years.
3. Couldn’t find any sensible trail of what he says or hints in any research work. It’s good you bring up McCullough, as he’s a good example of backing up anything he does or says with a huge trail of research work. But this guy is extremely vague.
4. You bring a very good point about opposing RFK Jr CDC withdrawing the recommendation to inject mRNA for healthy adults against COVID-19, who is as honest as one can hope for a politician to be. However, I wasn’t able to find the reference to this classic big pharma ass kissing statnews article on his web site. I think you should include the direct link on their web site for transparency purposes.
5. On that Tucker show one of the rare tangible claims made is he didn’t even notice COVID-19. Again, it’s just what he says. Was it like that in reality and due to what factors we don’t know. As for the claim itself, I also didn’t notice it besides the temporary loss of smell, while not being on any T-cell cocktail, just healthy lifestyle and common sense supplements such as iodine, vit D, vit C, magnesium, etc.
It also worth looking into how he made his fortune. There’s a lot of fraud going on in this country swindling poor boomers from their money with various snake oil promising the cure them from all sorts of old age and obesity induced diseases such as Alzheimer and so on.
I try to evaluate what he says independent of what country he came from and what party he’s been affiliated with.
All of the guys that come on and doubt — Josh has been right about this, given all that we know (multitude of lies about safe/effective, the origin of the virus with NIH/EcoHealth, the fact that mRNA is a gene therapy, not a vaccine, etc) almost certainly got the jab themselves and like Scott Adams (RIP) regret it. But unlike Scott, they don’t come clean, repent, and say they are sorry for the lies and denial of what we already know: they lied, and they still do, and many people died from many parts of the lie (EUA, treatments, etc).
Not Covid related but I think I have stumbled upon a way to replicate Katcher’s results with the EVs. It happened by chance trying to treat something else then getting a huge unexpected effect in just one week so far. I then found where so.e researchers basically did a Katcher test with young EVs getting big results and they had determined the big effect was from mRNA cargo of the young mice increasing pcg-1a a lot and correcting mitochondria function to a much younger state. The lifespan was increased 22% on average to controls. That I stjmbled onto how to possibly get the same type effect (it seems real big so far) was sheer luck testing something else out and then seeing this research right after that.
M Best, Can you provide a little more info? What model were you working with? Mice? Rats? Something else?
I am not a researcher and certainly dont have the credentials of most of the people that post here. I am just big on anti-aging and followed Katcher’s research work/studies on this blog before. What happened was freak luck if this turns out to be what I think it is. I have some vertex balding that I have been trying to get corrected for years now and I happened to come across a bunch of news articles where Taiwan researchers were claiming they had found out what was causing hair to grow when the skin was injured (besides extra bloodflow I guess) and that they discovered it could be triggered without wounding also (in mice anyway) by just applying the stuff topically with a carrier to reach the follicles. That the stuff was waking up the stem cells and throwing hair back into anagen growth. The head researcher also said he though this might have implications with many other organs with how this process actually went down. So I devised my own plan how to deliver the stuff on top of my scalp so it would be 100% assured to reach the receptors involved and because of how I did it I appear very strongly to be getting a systemic effect and I have only been doing this for just over a week so far, I have tried about everything in the past and nothing has had a feeling like this so far, Its like my metabolism is resetting itself and a slight fog has been lifted from me mentally, How I got to the research where the guys used EVs and said the big effect was coming from mRNA cargo in the EVs from young blood. I only searched that a couple of days ago because the guy said it was hitting on pgc-1a to basically charge the mitochondria to kick the stem cells in gear. I never read too much about pgc-1a before but having done so it has a big effect on mitochondria and those EV test guys claim the cargo of the EVs are increasing pgc-1a to make the mice like a younger mouse.
For those interested in pcg-1a, here is a link to a 2023 review article.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10215733/
For neuronic effects, see this Nature link from 2024
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41420-024-01953-0
Thanks. Here is the link to the PDF on their research òn this with the miRNAs of young mice injected into old ones (basically real close to what.Katcher did).The mitoçhondria difference is crazy compared to the oĺd control mice.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-024-00612-4
Cancer Virus
According to ICD data, cancer is caused by cancer viruses. There are two types of cancer viruses. The smaller virus (denoted VM) measures 0.16 nm, while the larger virus (denoted VB) measures 0.19 nm. The smaller VM virus accounts for 5% of all viruses and is more aggressive. The VM virus is inhibited by YAKS-55. YAKS-55 is malic acid, in which the hydrogen atom has a magnetic field strength of 55,555,555 A/m. The larger VB virus accounts for 95% of all viruses and is inhibited by YAKS-0.11. YAKS-0.11 is malic acid, in which the hydrogen atom has a magnetic field strength of 111,111 A/m. In malic acid, magnetic field strength is increased by informational activation (words) of those who can enter the informational field. Viruses can also be suppressed by informational activated water or simply by words.
M Best, could you provide information on what you are experimenting with? Stuff is not very descriptive, and there is no link to the relevant research.
George Snoga, I just want to verify this keeps up the next few weeks. Its going real good so far. If it does I will post exactly what I am doing and what I think is taking place causing it to happen.
More importantly, if it has problems, post that as well. In this research, knowledge of bad effects is as least as important as good effects.