Your Personalized Strategy In Cancer Care

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

Thank you so much. Thank you for that intro. I can’t wait to have fun chatting.

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

Tell us a little bit. Why did you choose not to pursue oncology in the first place? You had a lot of choices.

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

I remember sitting. I think it was a freshman-year anatomy class lecture. Something occurred to me that cancer was the culmination of all of the physiological processes in the body, all the anatomy of the body, the cellularity down to just the most minute structure. This was the mid-nineties. This was 1994 when I was sitting in class, and I remember thinking about cancer. Cancer has touched my personal life as well. Back then, I was 24 years old when I started thinking about this. As I made my way through naturopathic medical school, I realized that I had a love for the complexities and elegance of the human body and physiology and that cancer provided a great mystery and would probably continue to provide a career-long mystery, entertainment, edutainment, and interest for me. I was just naturally drawn to it. I think to be in the world of oncology, you have to be a little bit tough. It can be brutal. You have to understand where success has come from, too, because sometimes getting somebody to see their daughter’s wedding, to the graduation, to that family vacation, or to improve their quality of life is still a success. It is not just marked by: how much did the tumor regress, or did the person get all the way better? That took a lot of framework and work on my end to be able to realize what you consider job satisfaction. I have been in it for 26 years as a practicing physician to be able to understand the principles and practice of oncology, which I think is where the integrative model starts.

Being able to discuss with patients their expectations and what to expect and reminding ourselves that every patient that comes into my office that sits on the other side of the table from me doesn’t necessarily want or need to live, I’ll have that discussion and say, “Do you want to live?” I teach this to students and residents as well: that it is appropriate to ask that question. Sometimes it is very satisfying and calming for the patient. I remember one very particular person not that long ago who was like, “No, this is what I want.” This person knew what they wanted. They were happy with their lives. They achieved what they wanted: their kids were grown and on their own, and they just did not want to suffer. They were okay with the amount of life that they had lived. I think that there is a continuum of oncology, and it just culminates everything that we as physicians can do and have learned. As experienced physicians, as we continue with our ongoing collection of knowledge and experience in oncology, it is that sweet spot. That is why I do it.

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

Well, it is amazing. What an amazing answer! One of the amazing things you said about some people is the idea in their lives that it is enough for them. There is, and they’re like, It’s the right time. They are ready to close the journey harmoniously. One thing that we often see in oncology in general is when somebody has a response but it doesn’t affect overall survival rates, but disease-free survival with side effects. You see it in alternative therapies—some of the more certain kinds of chemotherapy—without going into the details, where the only thing people are looking for is did the tumor shrinks. It may not affect the person’s quality of life or the length of their life. Realizing that the impermanence and mortality of all of us are profound principles for the patient and the doctor makes us feel right and makes us more relaxed to talk about it. Thank you for sharing. Starting at this point gives it a different context. You studied in the late nineties, and then things were not organized in integrative oncology. I remember I was doing integrative oncology and an acupuncture license, but by the license, medical doctors from Israel were like full people in the whole Bay Area like that. 8 million people said we were doing it. Tell us about the early years of your career, when things were not as popular.

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

Well, what’s interesting is that not only were they not as popular, but they weren’t as regulated, and they weren’t as trite. I do sit on our Naturopathic Licensing Board. I sat on it for quite a while and then a couple of terms. I am very interested in the ethicalness of the approach to the person with cancer, just medicine in general, and abiding by our licensure. I’ve watched the transition and the complexities as naturopathic medicine has risen and integrative medicine has expanded. There are sorts of barriers and tightness that have been put in the naturopathic realm. We’re not M.D.s; we are ending these naturopathic doctors. As we have brought things to light, I think there has been somewhat of a turf war. I think that’s what I’ve experienced in my 26 years of practice. Early on, we were doing immunotherapy—real immunotherapy. We had a lab where we were able to experiment outside of the body, or ex vivo to see if you would manipulate somebody’s immune system, prepare it, and then put that back in the body. We still say that the immune system, regardless of how cliche this may seem to some people, is still the first and last defense against cancer.

What you’ve said so elegantly about potential toxicity without regard for the true quality of life and whether the tumor has shrunk or not is considered a partial response. It is all algorithmic mathematical systems, and you lose the creativity that we are born with and the humanitarian aspect of how you want to live. How do you want to live? When we get into that realm of toxics and everybody is just getting into trial data and everything, and we are, so much more than that. My early days were rewarding because of my ability to use creativity in a way that we can’t use right now. What I mean by that is cell culture—being able to use a person’s immune system outside of their body, manipulate it, and put it back in. It was a  beautiful therapy. In this country, we can’t do that anymore.

My early days were marked by a lot of hands-on therapy. A lot of the brain produces true immunotherapies and the ability to utilize what we need intravenously. It was a different sort of complexity because we had so much coming at us. So much in the media channels, so many hipsters one way or another, and so much information. And it is almost like we have to create a safe place for our patients, which is what we do as skilled physicians. People who’ve been in it for a long time can understand the disease mechanisms and talk about how to figure out each person’s sort of angle and metabolic milieu to determine what’s right because there is a ton of information out there. Back in the day, there was a whole lot less information out there, which you and I chatted about before. In fact, what was it that you were saying about what happened in the nineties with some of the treatments?

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

Yes, we had very few tools. We got vitamin C, we got vitamin D, Modified Citrus Pectin came on board like in 95 with Soy Isoflavones, and so a lot of hands-on stuff. Somehow we got it, and I think almost as good as the result that we get now is a lot of fancy stuff because we refined the tools. I think for you, what’s interesting is that when you say oncometabolic, many people can see oncometabolic, but when the listener says oncometabolic, he knows oncometabolic. You should see the eyes of his colleagues when he talks. Everyone loses him after 20 seconds. One of the reasons you can do it then is because we started at a time when there were very few tools, and we had to be creative to close the gap in the unknown. The unknown is a creativity gap. It is kind of scary to see how protocol-based medicine is developed. I would love to hear your opinion. I have to say that, not only as a medical doctor, I gave a lecture at the OncANP, and it was creative and inspiring. I sit next to a young naturopathic physician, and I am sharing something, and they turn around. They said, “How many randomized clinical trials do you have?” They said, “Okay, wow.” They lost their beauty. They lost the movement. Yes. We use science to support our creative observations. That is the beauty of your work. You are very creative, I know, but you are science-based, and you use the information from science, but you also have substantial debate from science. Maybe you can talk a little bit about how you navigate and get along with it. Such a deep tendency to have a protocol-based medicine.

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

Thank you. I say many times very loudly and proudly to patients or other professionals that without my creativity, I am annihilated. I am. I should say here that my background, my undergraduate degree, is existential philosophy, where I argued for stuff that we did not know and came to a conclusion. But to get to that conclusion, you had to develop an argument. My father used to joke after my graduation that he’s like looking into one of the ads. I don’t see any philosophers wanted. It was just an ongoing joke. But I look back, and I would do it all over again to get a degree in that type of philosophy, in that type of thinking, to come to where I am now. Because every day I sit with patients.

What we value as a doctor-patient relationship is my ability to help them see and discover for them what their body is doing because they’re not a randomized controlled trial and they are an end of one every time, every patient or every patient, every time, meaning not just my new patients, but when they come back, it is like, okay, what do we have now? What does your bloodwork show us? What is your milieu? What is metabolism? We’re only as good as the testing we can do, the stuff that we can figure out, and the things that we can discuss, but we can get far nowadays and are hoping to discover that. Protocol-based medicine is creative in the way that we make it. It is creative to an extent, but when you lose the end of one aspect, which I think in general medicine has gone far beyond, you start to dilute the effectiveness for each patient. It is more of a “let’s hope it works.” I hope that this and every doctor knows in oncology that when this connects with this and it is better and it works and the tumors go away, it is just like it is an amazing thing. But it is rare to some extent. That is part of the problem in the world of protocol-based medicine, especially as a naturopathic oncologist trying to fit into that world, and I do want to talk about why I think integrative is the chosen path for me. But to fit into that world, we have to sidestep a little bit. We have to maybe step back a little bit and not use everything that we would want to use because we have to make room for everything else that’s on the table. Meeting the patient where they are. Some patients don’t want conventional therapy. There are patients on the other end of the spectrum, of course, who don’t want to have any involvement with a naturopathic physician, anybody with a diet, or anything else that is not truly conventional. In between that and everywhere in between, that is everybody else. Getting back to that creativity, I remember very clearly, probably within the first ten years of my career, being called upon to lecture because I used to be called upon all the time and I was co-lecturing. To speak, with a very well-known and up-and-coming addition in multiple myeloma researchers, fantastic doctor, wonderful human, very nice. He was doing his part, and I was taking the naturopathic approach. This is probably from 2004 to maybe 19 or 20 years ago.

The inevitable question came up about research for the double-blind placebo-controlled study: Where’s my research or whatever it was in that realm? I had to answer that in a wide public setting, and the way that I handled that is the way that I continue to answer today I respect research. We have to do research. I’ve participated in research trials. I write papers, I published, of course, but not as much as you have. You want to prove a scientific point. But we created science as a way to try to help understand the entity, the energetics, the vibrations, the light, and the biochemistry of what we are. If we had it the other way around, science would be a lot easier to prove, but it is not the other way around. We’re trying to fit something that we created and are creating constructs for as we continue to be more genetically diverse. You have to have creativity for each person. If we did not need that type of creativity, that would mean that the treatments just work all the time for those people, and we just wouldn’t need them. I would just be in the world of quality of life for lots of people through chemotherapy. But it is not like that. The people listening today are either touched by cancer in their way or from a friend, or somehow in their personal lives or understand that a lot of the time it is not like that. That is why we can’t just rely on a research paper. My patients simply don’t have time to wait for that.

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

It will be remarkable, and we have a very similar approach. But you put it in a way much better than I could. It is important. You are driven by this insight, and you are using research as a tool to understand it. It is vital for the treatment of cancer. When you look at a holistic approach, people can either take an alternative approach or an integrated approach. It doesn’t mean that integrative; sometimes we mean alternative because there are no good conventional treatments. But the highway we start with is the highway of integration. You are starting of respect for anything, and everything that can be useful for the right person at the right time. I know that you, like me, have chosen an integrative approach as a model and have proven its effectiveness. Maybe you can share some more insight into why you did it and what your observations are after so many years.

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

Thank you. You have been a great mentor to many of us, and even indirectly to many of us, just by looking at the work in the way that you’ve been able to blend science with creativity and spirituality and treatments that could be scientifically proven, but in some ways, why would we do that? Why would we sort of ruin some of these beautiful treatments? There is a science to meditation. I know there is a science to acupuncture. Take galectin-3 or Modified Citrus Pectin, which you have championed and given to the world. Without science, we wouldn’t know structure-function relationships. Without science, we wouldn’t be able to test when it is being utilized appropriately or if it does need to be utilized appropriately. But it doesn’t mean that every single person has to undergo a scientific study. We can blend it using science to help guide. Any doctor would argue that they use science to help guide, but it is one; that starts to be the overarching aspect, and we lose the end of one humanitarian aspect. That is when it becomes a real problem, in my opinion. I chose integrative because I truly did and still do believe that that’s the way that you can help or that I can help the most people in the most ways because it is not all alternatives.

The treatments that I give maybe they’re not that good at killing cancer cells. On the conventional side, maybe they’re sometimes pretty good at killing cancer cells, and they have a lot of power, but they lose that. All the gaps that we fill in, they just don’t have a mechanism for them. There is an affordability issue. There are accessibility issues, especially when I first began. There weren’t that many of me’s and you’s out there in the late nineties or early 2000s. Here we are in the 2020s, and there is lots of accessibility. We have the Internet and social media and a lot of accessibility and product accessibility, which of course brings its own set of problems, which you and I know.

But I remember in 2003, so 20 years ago, when I decided to become integrative, we had sort of parted ways at the clinic that I had been with, Neil Reardon, and the immunotherapies we had been producing, looking at where my journey was going to go. I had been so interested in bringing that designation, ND for Naturopathic Doctor, to where it had never been before. That was a big goal of mine. Being able to join tumor boards at the hospital and being able to write a letter and interface with medical oncologists or radiation oncologists, being able to gain referrals, and truly speak the language of the principles and practice of oncology, not just naturopathic or conventional, was very important to me. It is part of the reason that during my naturopathic medical training, I did about 400 extra hours of clinical work in hospitals and M.D. conventional D.O. oncology settings. I was like, I am an M.D. They’re not just going to do what I am doing in my small clinic. I need to learn the wholeness of medicine. I was the first naturopathic physician to ever go do a rotation in the county hospital emergency room out here in Maricopa County, Arizona. It was fantastic. I saw things that you just don’t see in a naturopathic medical clinic. I felt it was incumbent upon me to know if I was going out into the world and treating patients. Especially in the world of oncology, I need to see deep medical, emergent, acute, and serious stuff. It set me up to understand and be calm when I am treating patients, to be calm in the face of an emergency or an urgency in our clinic, and to be able to interface with the greater world of medicine. I see that my philosophy is that no matter what your degree, if you are a physician, you started as a physician, then you may be allopathic or naturopathic, and then you may be a naturopathic oncologist or an oncologist.

You specialize, then you have to subspecialize, and then you can have some subspecialties. But I feel if we are all physicians treating people, we will all learn the same pathology, embryology, biochemistry, physiology, and pulmonology. For me, that’s why Integrative felt most comfortable because I could see the widest range of people, including children. We see a lot of pediatrics in our practice, and it gave me that balance for people, and it eliminates dogmatism and belief. What I mean by that is the term, “Oh, my doctor doesn’t believe in naturopathic medicine, or my doctor, my oncologist, doesn’t believe in what you are doing.” I am like, “If somebody becomes dogmatic, that becomes less different and opinionated. Belief is not objective. I always say, “Well, there is an objective way to go about this too.” Belief shouldn’t be in my type of medicine. That is why I became involved.

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

This is inspiring to hear. I understand that the only thing I know from having natural patients is that you have great relationships with hospitals and oncologists, and I can understand where that comes from. You leave the integrative model. Maybe share a little bit of the journey of a cancer patient when they come and see you at your medical center.

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

Thank you. We’re in Scottsdale, Arizona. One of these windows is about a cancer center with about six oncology practices, including radiation oncology. It is on the grounds of the hospital. This is called HonorHealth. Sharing the parking lot is a big research pavilion. Scottsdale is a big hotbed for oncology. A lot is going on out here. When a patient comes to see me and they come into my office, they’ve already gone through a lot of paperwork. They’ve gone through an interview process just to make sure that we are the right fit for them, and that they are the right fit for us. We just want to make sure that this is the right thing because cancer can be stressful for friends, family, and, of course, the patient’s big diagnosis. Early on in my career, I got interested in, and this is a little side note, but I think it is important enough to mention that Neil Love was the host of the breast cancer update. I clearly remember about 2004, when they went and interviewed women with breast cancer and their initial responses to when they first heard their diagnosis. I thought it was so important to hear what happens when somebody gets their diagnosis, and how that temporarily or maybe permanently changes their physiology, their electrical conductivity, and their spiritual plans like that. That is a jolt. I listened many times to the interviews that they did, and I thought that helped catapult me into being able to do the first thing that I do with the patient, which is to meet with them. I am sitting at my desk here. We have a collaborative model; we have a collaborative desk. It is a standing desk, too, which raises and lowers if a patient would like to stand or sit. We are all at the same level. It is a big conference table, and they have the same type of chairs that I do. We spread out papers, and we have beverages if they need you, so we can have a meeting about what we need to discuss. I have a screen where I demonstrate everything to people. They see what I see. They see what I write, which I think is important. It is a team effort. When they come in, I hear their story, and I spend as long as I need to on their story because, for me, timelines are crucially important. I just have them begin.

For some people, it begins when they were children, when they became chronically ill, and they haven’t even been well since they’ve been kids. Or it might begin with a bug bite, an incident, or something else, but whatever it begins for them, they need to let that out because this may be the first place where they feel safe and comfortable talking to somebody interested in where it began for them. Then it depends on why they come to me. They may have already been through surgery or tried various conventional options or even other nonconventional options, and now they’re coming to me, or they might be at the very beginning of their journey, and they’re like, I just found out my diagnosis, and I just want to start with naturopathic medicine. Timelines are important. I write down the data I like to help dissect their pathology. Docere, the Latin term for doctors who teach, is one of the highest precepts in naturopathy. Medicine is something that I am devoted to. A lot of people have no idea.

They just have breast cancer and pancreatic cancer. But nowadays, there are so many intricacies that we have with genomics, next-generation sequencing, and all the sort of advanced testing that we can do on the pathological specimens that we get a ton of information. That stuff’s important. It may be even more important in the nonconventional setting because, as we have so many pivot points, we have so many things that we can do this and this and amalgamate the protocol, or in conventional medicine, it might just be a standard chemotherapy regimen because they have to use NCC and guidelines to get from one place to the next, where we don’t necessarily have those. There are positives and negatives about that, and that’s arguable, but not for here. Dissecting the pathology, digging deep, and understanding what it is. What do we know at the level of the cell? And then stage the anatomy. Where is it? What does that mean? What can we decipher from the ankle metabolic milieu and the behavior of the cancer? Is it typical or atypical? If it is not metastatic, is it impending? Is it important for me, for a woman with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer who has no known metastatic spread, to make sure that their bones are strong and do a bone assessment and not just a bone density or a bone scan, but also consistent and repeated serial lab testing because we know that the bone is generally the first place that breast cancer is going to travel to? It is important to discuss how we go about the treatment planning process, so when I write a protocol, I write it in front of them, and it always has four components: action steps, issues, testing, and treatment. Treatment: What are we going to do when we write down the plan of action? Sometimes it is multi-step testing; what are we going to test, and what have we tested? We keep track of everybody’s serial testing. I write it down completely because it becomes my one reference page and because it is kind of laborious to roll through a note of misery. When you are seeing another person’s patient, you want to get to the nitty-gritty. What the heck happened? What are we going to do, and what are the important parts? We always write down the testing and all the results.

You have to follow those issues. What are the things that are top of mind, and what are we dealing with? It is also good for patients to see that. I recognized that something that may not seem big in the context of an oncology case might be problematic for them. A hurt knee is kind of a big deal. I might write that down, and that might mean that they can then exercise and feel as robust as they want to, and that may change the way that they feel about themselves and sort of degrade their immune function and their vitality. Treating the knee might become a route to preventing recurrence or making the chemotherapy work better, the radiation work better, and then action steps. That way, I, our staff, our clinic, the patient, and any other doctor that’s looking at it are on the same page in terms of what we plan on doing, and those are the things that we need to do before our next visit. Then the action steps always include our follow-up visit, and then, when they’re done talking to me, they will spend quite a bit of time at our front desk making sure that the lab requisitions are written from head to toe. A lot of times, they’ll spend an hour with me as a new patient. They might spend 30 to 60 minutes with my front desk, making sure everything gets taken care of. That is a general visit to our clinic for every new patient.

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

Though I think it takes a lot of experience to recognize the jewelry that you shared at first, when is the doctor, who is in a pathology, looking at the pathology? Then there is a unique way of knowing the pathways of different genes, and then we have herbs, supplements, and vitamin treatments to manipulate these, so yes, you can do the chemotherapy, which is a protocol, but we can move it in the direction that we need. The other thing that you share is profound, and I want the health providers at this summit to be aware of their work. The cancer will metastasize in a weak spot. We know it. It has proven strong. Again, resist the metastatic process through biochemistry when the organ is weak. A patient with chronic hepatitis will get liver metastases sooner than expected. By recording the weaknesses, they may be physical injuries, emotional ones, or toxins. We’re taking a profound preventative step by allowing the body to focus and use the drugs to fight the cancer. This is an important principle, and these are the simple, brilliant ones. They are complex, but when you put them together, they are obvious. How can you not do it this way? That is what makes the difference between a good doctor and an exceptional doctor. Between a food result and an exceptional result. It is not something that you learn. It is divided between this creative process and feeling it in your mind and your body. I love it. I watch you. “Oh, wow. I got lucky.” Well, it is not so. I got lucky. There is now a cellular mechanism within me that can process that data and take it to where it needs to be.

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

The body is incredibly intelligent, and it is beyond what our peculiar science is. No. That is what I was saying. We did that to try and understand this complexity, and we are still so far away.

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

Nobody always wants to survive. We have to remember for some time that cancer is the best solution for the body to survive. There is no better solution.

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

That is the survival paradigm.

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

What you are doing is opening the gates. Tell us, seeing so many therapies around, and I know that you’ve done a lot of pioneering work with the circulating tumor cells, and then you are brave enough to be critical of a test, even if you used it a lot, and on the scientific side of some companies, you have these unique heads that you wear. What are the big tools that you use? Well, these are a must for cancer that you want to share with the audience and that you utilize in your unique way.

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

Do you mean therapeutic tools or testing tools?

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

You can do both?

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

Maybe the most valuable testing tool is testing itself. It doesn’t matter necessarily what type of testing it is; it might be a false diagnosis, but getting information back is just doing what I can to make the joke that typically in the world of conventional oncology, you take the most complex of diseases, in my opinion, which is oncology, and you get the simplest of lab tests. The CBC metabolic profiler—we know it, and it is insane.

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

Yes.

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

It is. Insane. For every test that we run, people like me don’t know what that is or why you would run that test. It’s like they’re available to everybody, and there is so much data out there about these lab tests. In any kind of test, finding out something about the patient is important. Our testing is done, and we have developed a methodology of using just commercial-based labs so people can use their insurance benefits to get the testing done. It is the interpretation that determines the special sauce. It only comes when you have experience, have seen 100,000–200,000 lab patterns, and can pick them out. I know what’s going on; it’s not going to show up on a scan. We need to pivot right now because I think something is showing through and cancer’s about to erupt, or maybe it is going to go to the bone. We need you to have been exercising. You need to get back to exercising. We need to change.

Testing and familiarity with your testing, even if it is something that you’ve developed or that we have developed, is not as important as the way we interpret it. It is easy to run a bunch of anybody who can just write for the lab tests, but it is the way you interpret it. Any physician who understands the way that they interpret the person in front of them, that’s important. Testing tools can be rather fun. Some people get into it and understand it. You can take a deep dive. I am always on the cusp of what’s the best next solution, or how can we find out the most and dig the deepest at the smallest amount? We’re right there. We are right there at the best. That is important. The things that we offer are exciting for me. It is like an athletic event. It’s almost like you can be a jock.

When it comes to this, it is like a workout or something. When you get down to it and discuss it with patients, it is like a workout for the brain, if you will, in terms of therapeutic approaches. That is a tough one. You say, “Oh, IV vitamin C throughout the decades; this has stood the test of time; does it still live at the top of the list? If so, does that mean that everybody has access to vitamin B and vitamin C?” In Scottsdale, you can go to any mall or most street corners. You can get an IV. It has been bastardized here. That doesn’t mean that it is the right dose, the right time, or the right approach. I have some very clear-cut cases of how that has caused or led to the demise of the patient. When I talk about it, there is a real problem out there. I do think that it might not be cliche anymore, or maybe it is cliche, but vitamin C still has a big role. Like you said, that’s what you had in the nineties, and you still have it. Biology hasn’t changed that much. Maybe our understanding is, and maybe we know more about it, that it is not like we are using vitamin C to kill cancer cells, and it may be like, “Oh my God, Rubin’s boring because he’s sitting up here talking about IV vitamin C; everybody’s talked about that.” I am not talking about what is most beneficial, whether it is the metabolic approach or anything that we do with any lab testing, or whether the general approach is the metabolic approach. I am not saying to all these others what the most valuable things are that we have. At the end of the day, it is how the person treats the human body because we have plenty of patients who are not so well treated but who we have refined from a lifestyle-style perspective. That may mean you are going to have a plant-based diet, you’ve got prostate cancer, and you are an A-positive blood type. I need to switch you today to either a plant-based or 95% plant-forward diet, maybe with the fish added back as long as you need protein. Or maybe it is the person with a highly metabolic tumor or glioblastoma brain cancer, their blood type-O, maybe they’re a B or AB, and we can convert them to either a true low-carb diet or a true ketogenic diet.

Those are on separate ends of the spectrum. That has a profound impact. That could be boring because it is not that fancy. It is very big and seemingly fancy to figure out all the lab testing, get all the genomics, get all the organic acids, get all this data, do an NGS investigation, analyze the tumor, analyze the blood, do a liquid biopsy, and compare the two. Make checkboxes for using this supplement for that. We do that all the time. In blending that with making sure that the person’s balance is important. We have to realize that energy approaches, whether it be chance, meditation, microcurrent therapy, oxygen therapy, or something that isn’t something you swallow, eat, or do, something that infuses that you are applying to the body with reverence for the notion that we are beings of sound and light and vibration and interpersonal affection and vibration and the need for human contact and making sure that we are looking out into a 3D world and not just on a 2D world, which so much of us are doing right now. With feedback, that’s where I think it gets fancy nowadays. It’s coming back to them and then blending it with all the scientific stuff. Does that make sense?

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

Being around a little bit and being in my sixties, you are giving a gift to all of us. Because the 3D understanding was over there. How? We have some technology to help us. But 3D understanding is a creative process. It is not a linear process. We do have more tools for people to understand more of what you are talking about. We talked about it before the interview about the fact that before COVID, we saw everybody I would take pulse-healing hands on everybody. Now it is Zoom. But suddenly you look at the lab, so it takes the pulse. I know that. I just see the person. I see life; I don’t look for a disease. I look for a story. Now, you look at the labs, and suddenly you have this story, and it can be within the normal range. But what about other relationships? I look at the frailty of their families, and they can tell what’s going on for the person. It is emotional. It’s just that this is a translation. You made a profound statement. Cancer is a metabolic disease. Metabolism is the center of cancer. It is beyond just ketogenic. It is a metabolic disease. The metabolism of cancer is different from the metabolism of the body. This is our chance to make a difference and manipulate this relationship. I know you do it most fully, and you can see why I made the statement that if I had cancer, I would pick up the phone and call you. I want to thank you for this profound interview. Thank you. I am coming from your heart and your brilliant mind. Please share with everybody how they can find you and how they can get to you.

Enjoy the one-of-a-kind care that you offer. We have had some patients that we have been treating for decades. I am sure you and I haven’t heard from them for three years. Oh, they must have died. It is like the seventh bone metastasis. Then, sure enough, Dan, Isaac I need your help. I am always traveling and suddenly I don’t know how you do it. It was sometimes resolved with a conventional drug. This is art. The art is not to be successful and show it to him. It’s if you can treat a patient on a long-term basis for ten years. For 20 years? They come back because they have back pain, which is something completely different. I recognize this unique skill in you, and I want to thank you for sharing it. I want to encourage the audience to listen to your interview more than once. With this, please tell people how they can get to you.

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

Well, thank you. This has been wonderful. It’s an honor to be able to be interviewed by you and chat with you. I just love it. We have a phone number In Scottsdale, Arizona, at 4809901111. We also have a website, and the URL is listenandcare.com. If you go to our website, you can see all of our social media and everything like that. But call us, just like you said. We still pick up the phone and look forward to hearing from anybody and everybody. Thank you.

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

Thank you so much for joining the summit. 

Dan Rubin, ND, FABNO

Thank you.

Isaac Eliaz, MD, MS, LAc

Thank you.