Free Courses
Free Videos                                      Free Articles

Science, Health, and Healing Encyclopedia













Ali Oxygen Library
Ali Recipes

Ali SHH-Pedia







Anxiety Course







  Autoimmune Disorders

  Autonomic System

 Bladder, Urinary






 BREAST Health.diseases

Breathing for Healing


BONES, Joints, and Muscles




Children's Readings








Climate Chaos

Collagen Disorders


Current Topics









Energy Healing











Gall BladderStones




GUT Evolution



      Small Intestine
      Rectum and Anus


Healing Stories







Immune System







Kitchen Matters


Lap Dog Journalists



Lou Gehrig ALS



Lyme Disease, Acute

Lyme Disease, Chronic

Lymphatic System





Mental Health







Multiple Sclerosis








Basic Course Advanced Course
Oxygen and Aging
Oxygen Therapeutics
Oxygen -Environment
Oxygen and 9/11
Oxygen Models of Diseases
Oxygen and Origin of Life



Pancreas Pancreatitis

Parkinson's Disease

Philosophy of Healing

Poems Drone Democracy
Selected Poems

Polycystic Ovarian Synd

Poetry of Dr.Ali






Respiratory System




Sinusitis & Polyps



Sodium Salt



Small Intestine



  Stories of Soul's Sweat









Toxic Womb State

Pre-birth PTSD




Urinary System



Video Seminars on Natural Healing

Viral Infections

Recent Videos

Store DVD/Books


Weight Loss

Yeast Syndromes





Dysox Model of Integrative Oncology

Majid Ali, M.D.


I have been a student of medicine for 50 years. My patients have taught me three important lessons:

*  First, I should not promise any results;

*  Second, I should promise total honesty; and

*  Third, I should promise my best efforts.

While writing The Crab, Oxygen, and Cancer tetrology, I have strived hard to heed the above three lessons. For my best efforts, I have drawn upon my work in surgery, pathology, environmental medicine, nutritional medicine, and auto-regulation. A physician cannot do his clinical work without reflecting on the larger issues of the nature of anger, human suffering, and healing. The reader will also find on the pages of this tetrology my reflections on those subjects as well. In this long preface, I try to furnish a synopsis of the subjects of crucial importance covered in this tetrology.

In patient advocacy, a physician's first commitment must be to the truth, the second to hope. Sadly, I do not find that to be true in oncology literature nor in the writings of the so-called holistic doctors with cancer cures.

The truth for me has been with my patients who overcame their cancers, who live with cancer, and who died with cancer—angry and frightened initially, often in despair later, nearly always with awe-inspiring courage close to the end.

An untold number of individuals have severely and needlessly suffered—and continue to suffer—because their oncologists have been completely closed to the possibility of nutrient, herbal, and detox therapies to save their patients from toxicity of their chemotherapy drugs. An untold number of individuals have also severely and needlessly suffered—and continue to suffer—because their "holistic" practitioners and/or lay-advisors did not have the capacity or diligence to learn the biology of cancer. They simply do not know the devastating punishment they inflict on their 'clients' with their ignorance.

The New Oncologist

For some decades, I have recognized the need for a "new oncologist"—a physician with the following six qualifications:

Documented capacity for rigorous learning of anatomy, pathology, molecular biology, and genetics of cancer;

Demonstrated ability for deep understanding of human nutrition, herbology, and environmental toxicity;

Clinical experience with long-term clinical outcomes of surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and integrated nondrug treatments of diverse forms of cancer;

Patience for listening to the patient with humility and with authentic respect for the patient's belief in the healing phenomena;

Courage to think and act differently, when required to do so, to serve the specific needs of an individual person with cancer; and

Discipline and diligence to keep accurate and detailed clinical records of their patients, which allow careful long-term clinical outcome studies.

Three Predictions

In this book, I make three sad predictions. In twenty-five years:

First, one of every two Americans will develop cancer before the age of 70 years;

Second, one of every five American females will develop breast cancer before the age of 70 years; and

Third, one of every three American males will develop prostate cancer before the age of 70 years.

I base the above three predictions on four considerations: (1) my study of the degree to which foods in the U.S. have been perverted; (2) my assessment of the degree to which the human habitat in the United States has been soaked with cancer-causing industrial pollutants (synthetic carcinogens) and cancer-causing chemicals with hormone-like effects ("xenohormones"); and (3) my close examination of the rising incidence of various types of cancer in the world in general, and in the U.S. in particular; and (4) my extrapolation of cancer incidence rates from the past trends.

Cancer Furies

The three primary metabolic characteristics of cancer cells, by which they flourish and destroy normal cells, are:

Too much acidity (acidosis);

Too much activity of oxygen radicals (oxidosis); and

Not enough functional oxygen (dysoxygenosis, dysox for short).

I designate the above three cellular metabolic derangements as the three "micro-furies" of cancer. The three conditions that set the stage for the development of cancer are:

Toxic foods;

Toxic environment; and

Toxic thoughts.

I call the above three conditions the three cancer "macro-furies." In the various chapters of The Crab, Oxygen, and Cancer tetrology (this and the companion volumes), I describe those two sets of cancer furies and explain the biologic devastation caused by them with the following five primary purposes:

1. To present my view of the rising incidences of most, if not all, types of cancer, with a sharp focus on the twin pandemics of breast cancer and prostate cancer;

2. To examine the larger context of the relentless destruction of human habitat and chemicalization of human cellular systems;

3. To provide information about preventive measures that may be taken by individuals at risk for breast and prostate cancer (those with a larger number of risk factors, strong family history, pre-cancerous lesions, and others);

4. To offer guidelines for selecting the optimal choice of mainstream oncology treatments for individuals who are considering those treatment options; and

5. To furnish information about nutrient, herbal, detox, and oxygen therapies that may be integrated with conventional treatment regimens for superior results.

Oncology, Nutrition, and Environment

How often do oncologists assess the nutritional status of their patients and effectively address the problems they discover? How often do they determine the total body burden of environmental toxins of their patients and then take measures to reduce that burden?

How often do they test for mercury, lead, and other toxic metals, and prescribe chelation therapy to remove those toxic metals? Do they ever do that? How often do they test for build-up of toxic acids in the body and implement bowel and liver detoxification programs to remove those acids? How often do they look for toxicity caused by mycotoxins (toxins produced by molds) and address that problem?

How often do they uncover hidden mold allergy and adverse food responses, and then treat those problems? How often do they diligently explore issues of anger and fear, and then address those issues? The simple answer to all those questions: Seldom, if ever. Why is that so?

Why do oncologists not recognize and effectively address any of the above metabolic and immune threats to their patients with cancer? It is because their leaders tell them that there is no evidence that any of those concerns are relevant in cancer treatment. There is no evidence known to them because they are too lazy to learn about human nutrition, environment, and problems of anger and fear. Some of them do read about those subjects, however, they know who controls their medical licenses and who pays them. They dutifully do what is required of them: suppress all nondrug therapies.

Eco-Monsters, Onco-Monsters, and Oncologists

Eco-monsters are a cult of craven men who crave complete control over everyone and everything in their way. They are driven by pathologic impulses. They destroy the human habitat in mindless pursuit of their maniacal compulsions of greed and power. These gods of greed relentlessly pollute air, poison water, and pervert the food supply for all peoples of the world.

The onco-monsters are useful idiots kept by eco-monsters. They are charged with further enrichment of eco-monsters by any and all means possible. Eco-monsters appoint onco-monsters to the boards of directors of powerful institutions to serve them. Those institutions include insurance and drug companies, governmental commissions, hospital executive boards, and editorial boards of prestigious medical journals. The game of onco-monsters is to please their eco-monster masters with more and more money, while pretending to be intellectual leaders committed to protecting the interest of common citizens. They serve the objectives of their masters by deceitful merchandising of chemotherapy drugs, controlling cancer hospitals, and complete—usually ruthless— suppression of all nondrug therapies for cancer. Onco-monsters have no interest in victims of cancer, let alone any passion for discovering therapies that save lives. They lust for celebrity status. Their evil game is to present themselves as the righteous professionals who zealously protect the gullible consumers from doctors who, they believe, are quacks with dangerous nutritional, herbal, and detox therapies.

Oncologists, with uncommon exceptions, are well-trained, diligent, and compassionate professionals. They have three problems: First, they are trained for prescribing toxic chemotherapy, and not for therapies that protect their patients from the toxicity of their drugs. Second, they dare not defy onco-monsters who control their income and future. Third, they fail to see through the transparent pseudoscience and the phony righteousness of onco-monsters, especially of those who run their professional associations and publish their professional journals.

Nixon's War On Cancer

In 1971, President Nixon declared his "war on cancer" in the grand traditions of the United States presidents declaring their wars on things. Nixon defined his goal as "wiping out cancer" in just five years. Hundreds of millions of public funds were allocated and the National Cancer Institute was established to fund, coordinate, and closely monitor cancer research. Onco-monsters made certain that not one dollar was allocated for research in cancer treatments by nutritionist-physicians who were struggling in real life to define the roles of nutritional therapies for controlling cancer. Nor, were any funds allocated to seriously study how corporate polluters are contributing to epidemics of cancer, whenever they raise their sinister heads. As for the results achieved by onco-monsters, consider the following:

War on Cancer—Circa 1986

We are losing the war on cancer...The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure.

The New England Journal of Medicine 1986;314:1226

War on Cancer—Circa 1997

In 1986, we concluded that some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure.’ Now, with 12 more years of data and experience, we see little reason to change that conclusion.

The New England Journal of Medicine 1997;336:1569

In November 1991, Science, the preeminent journal of science in the U.S., devoted a whole issue to cancer. Below, I reproduce some text from the editorial of that issue:

The reader of this summary of the state of the art cannot help but be impressed by the enormous contributions made by basic research in general and molecular biology in particular. Many of the dramatically improved techniques in prevention and therapy derive from the general knowledge in such areas as nutrition, genetics, radiation effects, cell biology, and protein structures. ..There are no problems more complex than cancer and few that are as important. The dramatic decreases in mortality and incidence for some types of cancer are a wonderful testimony to the success.

The above quote surprised me. I wondered if the Science editor who penned the above words in 1991 had bothered to read the 1997 report published in The New England Journal of Medicine and cited above. It is sad how Science cannot resist the temptation to distort cancer outcome statistics. Now consider what The Economist said on the subject thirteen years after the report in Science:

War on Cancer—Circa 2004

Going by the numbers, humanity seems to be losing the war on cancer. According to the most recent data from the World Health Organization, 10m [million] people around the planet were diagnosed with disease in 2000, and 6m [million] died from it. And those numbers are growing. In America, for example, projections suggest that 40% of those alive today will be diagnosed with some form of cancer at some point in their lives. By 2010, that number will have climbed to 50%.

The Economist October 16, 2004

The year 2010 is just three years away. However, that does not dampen the voracious appetites of eco-monster polluters and onco-monsters who push drugs with toxic effects. Nor does any of that soften their hearts for the people poisoned by them who develop cancer and live with unmitigated suffering. They are unrelenting in their opposition to all natural therapies that may reduce suffering, extend some lives, and vastly improve the quality of the lives of individuals who live with cancer.

I point out here that the statistics published by The New England Journal of Medicine concerned national data, not from statistics drawn from individual cancer centers, hospital chains, or cluster of states. Why has there been no significant improvement in the long-term results of cancer treatment in the U.S.? I believe that is so because the crucial Darwinian and Aristotolian precepts have been consistently ignored in the field of oncology.

The Darwin Principle and Integrated Cancer Trials

In Darwin, Dysox, and Disease (2006), the eleventh volume of The Principles and Practice of Integrative Medicine, I defined a principle of science which I designate as the Darwin Principle—a principle of drawing simple conclusions from an extended and integrated study of a large body of observations. The Darwin Principle accepts the validity of each scientific observation concerning any part of the whole but holds that none of them singly be accepted as the definitive evidence of any conclusion about the condition of the whole. The core tenet of the Darwin Principle is: No part can be understood except through an understanding of its relationships with the whole. I consider the Darwin Principle of crucial importance for both understanding the molecular biology of cancer and designing scientifically sound treatment plans.

In 1831, Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882), started his journey aboard the British Navy ship H.M.S. Beagle around South America. Over a period of five years, he accumulated an enormous number of biologic and geologic samples, studied them intensively, reflected on the interconnectedness of all of them, and formed his simple — yet comprehensive— biological theory of natural selection. In 1850, he published On the Origin of Species which, in my view, is the most significant work in biologic sciences. For individuals interested in the control of cancer, Darwin's core message is this: No aspect of cancer can be understood except through an understanding of its relationships with the whole. Translation: No treatment plans for cancer which do not address nutritional, environmental, and anger-related issues can be considered scientific.

The clinical application of the Darwin Principle calls for clinical trials which are radically different from the model of chemotherapy drug trials in vogue today. The clinical trials based on the Darwin Principle must be designed to address the macro furies (toxic thoughts, toxic environment, and toxic foods), as well as the three micro furies (oxidosis, acidosis, and dysoxgenosis) of disease. Such investigations can be conducted only as open, integrated trials in which teams of experienced clinicians enter a sizeable number of individuals with well-defined clinicopathologic entities into trials and then are free to address all macro and micro issues on basis of the needs of individual patients. The trial outcome is determined by evaluation of the results by patients as well as clinicians employing objective and subjective criteria. The integrity of an outcome is assured by ensuring that: (1) a sufficiently large number of clinicians participate in the trial who categorically have no financial interest in the outcome; (2) all cancer trials include all patients treated at the center at which those trials are conducted; and (3) all cancer trials are carried out for sufficiently extended periods of study so that the conclusions drawn from the data truly represent long-term results of the trial. In Darwin, Dysox, and Disease (2006), I present a compendium of my philosophic discussion of the Darwin Principle and the results of several long-term clinical outcome studies designed and conducted following the Darwin Principle.

The matter of patients deciding the efficacy of treatment is likely to raise some eyebrows. We have raised generations of doctors who think no clinical trials must be considered valid in which the patients have had anything to say in determining the outcome of the trial. However, who can gauge the quality of sleep or energy — may I ask—better than the patient himself? Or the freedom from toxic thoughts? Or the qualities of mood, memory, and mentation? Or digestive and menstrual health? Or sexual drive? Or absence or presence of dry skin and muscle suppleness? For decades, I have been baffled by hearing otherwise intelligent doctors mindlessly insist that the patient's voice must be vigorously excluded from clinical trials.

The Aristotle Principle and Nutritional Therapies for Cancer

In my clinical work, I tried to walk in Darwin's footsteps. However, I recognize that there were others before Darwin, some of whom Darwin credited for his work. Foremost among them was Aristotle. He is the first among empirical scientists. I include here brief comments about the Greek empirical scientist, biologist, embryologist, and philosopher whose work has evident relevance to my clinical work with individuals with cancer.

Aristotle (384-322 BC) was the great empirical scientist of the Greek civilization. He was a biologist who lucidly documented the embryology of chicken. He rejected Plato's mystical speculation and established the inductive method. In 335 B.C., he founded the Lyceum (library). His most notable scientific achievement, in the present context, was his classification of animals in an ascending scale, reaching all the way to humans. Darwin acknowledged his debt to Aristotle in his work with evolution. Based on his works available today, it is often stated that Aristotle never implied evolution in his classification of animals. That does not seem right to me. How could a man of his towering intellect and astute empiricism have missed that relationship?

Aristotle's extant works essentially come from the lecture notes taken by his students and edited in the 1st century B.C., and include Organum, De Anima, Discourse on Conduct, Politics, and Ethics. Concerning observable phenomena, Aristotle proposed four principles of explanation of causality of physical phenomena:

The principle of the material (substance of the thing) cause;

The principle of the formal (design) cause;

The principle of the efficient (the maker) cause; and

The principle of the final (purpose) cause.

In the context of cancer, what did Aristotle mean by material (the substance of the thing) except nutrition? What did he mean by the formal (design) except metabolism? What did he mean by the efficient (maker) except the toxic environment? In the context of cancer treatment, what did he mean by the final (purpose) except the desired outcome in cancer treatment? How often do the leaders in the field of oncology ask themselves any of those Aristotolian questions? Do they even remember any of the precepts of Aristotolian empirical science? That brings me to what may be called the "Aristotle Principle."

The Aristotle Principle is the principle of empiricism in clinical medicine that requires all relevant nutritional, metabolic, and environmental issues must be vigorously addressed with empirically-validated measures in every patient. In cancer treatment, the Aristotlian Principle means the following:

No cancer treatment plan can be considered scientifically valid if it does not address all relevant nutritional issues;

No cancer treatment plan can be considered scientifically valid if it does not address all relevant metabolic issues; and

No cancer treatment plan can be considered scientifically valid if it does not address all relevant environmental issues.

Eco-monsters and onco-monsters relentlessly violate the Aristotelian and Darwinian precepts with devastating consequences. Millions of people with cancer all over the world have—and continue to—suffer immeasurably because onco-monsters do not allow oncologists the use of simple, safe, and effective natural therapies for controlling cancer. The mantra of onco-monsters is that there is no science behind those therapies. In the chapter entitled "Onco-Monsters," I address that issue and show how pathetically ignorant men and women are who hide behind that mantra.

Medicine Once Was A Calling

Medicine once was a calling. Then it became a profession, then a business, then the big business. No group of people suffered from the transition of medicine from a calling to big business more than the one with cancer.

When medicine was a calling, it attracted women and men with a passion for healing. The practitioners became passionate advocates for their patients. Then some practitioners of medicine wanted prestige. They saw a possibility for that in getting organized, and began calling medicine a profession. In pursuit of seeking control over patients and peers, the organized medicine established standards of practice. In a shameful act of professional misconduct, the leaders in the field of oncology chose to ignore the crucial issues of toxic foods, toxic environment, and toxic thoughts. There are few, if any, oncologists today who vigorously prescribe nutrient therapies, diligently work to remove toxins (toxic acids, metals, and pollutants), and effectively address issues of toxic thoughts.

Next, medicine became an industry. The cancer industry turned out to be the most callous. It gained complete control over oncologists, and relentlessly persecuted practitioners who attempted to address the issues of toxic thoughts, toxic environments, and toxic foods. In the process, the cancer industry enriched itself enormously by an aggressive use of chemo drugs of dubious value merchandised by onco-monsters. Not unexpectedly, those riches did not escape the notice of real men of money in the country. They hired more onco-monsters and took over the oncology industry and converted it into the mega-business of oncology, which owned chemo drugs, insurance companies, medical journals, hospital boards, cancer centers, and doctors who worked in them.

The rising incidences of various types of cancer, most notably the twin pandemics of breast and prostate cancer, have much to teach us about how seriously our environment is disrupting our hormonal functions, and how those environmental exposures are setting the stage for yet higher incidences of various types of cancer. Regrettably, those critical issues are seldom, if ever, addressed in oncology. All the pronouncements of leaders in the field about cancer begin and end with their choice of chemotherapy drugs. Lessons learned through the loss of millions of lives all over the globe continue to be ignored.

The Great Hoax: The "Target" Drugs That Are Not Target Drugs

These are heady times for low-level scientists in the drug industry. They are pregnant with hope of designing "target" drugs that silence individual genes or block single enzymes. They plan to cure cancer with those target drugs. I welcome such drugs for whatever benefit they can give my patients. However, I have no illusions about the promise of the target drugs. First, I know for certain that the so-called target drugs are really not specific for their targets. Second, I do not think there will ever be cures of most types of cancer with the target drugs, since those cancers are not caused by mutations in a few genes or a few enzymes. What we need are integrated treatment protocols that not only employ the old chemotherapy agents and the so-called target drugs (for whatever benefits they yield) but effectively address the essential metabolic derangements encountered in cancer —acidosis (too much acidity), oxidosis (excess free radicals), and dysox (lack of functional oxygen). I discuss those subjects at length in the various chapters of this volume. Here, I include brief comments about the so-called "miracle designer drugs," which are not miracle drugs by any stretch of imagination, regardless of the spin created by onco-monsters.

The success of Glivec [Gleevec in the United States] in the treatment of chronic myleogenous leukemia (CML) has provided proof of principle that cancer can be treated by identifying molecular defects and designing drugs to correct them. Promising results in trials with other molecularly targeted drugs, such asIressa and Tarceva have given further encouragement for such approaches. (Italics added)

Nature Reviews

Cancer. 2002;2:645

The Reality

Tarceva [for lung cancer] resulted in an overall response and disease stabilization rate of 48% as monotherapy for patients who had failed previous chemotherapy...Iressa showed a relatively modest 11.8% tumor suppressor rate at the most effective dosing regimen... For example, in certain subsets of patients with CML, 52% did not respond to Glivec, and 78% relapsed within one year.

Nature Reviews

Cancer. 2002;2:645

What Is Tumor Suppressor Rate?

It is a euphemism for temporary shrinkage of the tumor before the cancer returns with a crushing roar. That is the sad and recurring story known to all people whose family members or friends were treated with chemotherapy. That is sad truth behind the false hopes built with the promise of tumor suppression with "new target drugs" that come around every few years.

Oxygen Thinking and Integrative Cancer Treatment

In oncology, the crucial Darwinian and Aristotolian precepts of holism and integration are consistently violated in the clinical practice of oncology. Why is that so? It is because onco-monsters do not allow oncologists to use nutritional, herbal, detox, and oxygen therapies to protect their patients from the toxicities of their drugs. Why is that so? Because eco-monsters do not see any profits in health preservation, disease prevention, and reversal of disease. This is a harsh indictment of my profession. In this volume, I present my arguments for that harsh treatment. Consider the following quote from the September 2002 issue of Nature ReviewsCancer (page 637): a seminal work and shows that the local microenvironment is the driving force in stimulating or suppressing the invasive and malignant behaviors of cancer cells.

Nature Reviews

Cancer. 2002;2:637

The above is an encouraging note sounded by Nature Reviews. Clearly, the journal is promoting an ecologic — read, holistic — approach to understanding and treating cancer. Let us hope that clinicians treating cancer will read it and begin to think ecologically. Since oxygen determines the microenvironmental condition within and around cancerous tumors more than any other single element, let us also hope that soon there will be "oxygen thinking" among physicians caring for individuals with cancer. However, the article quoted above was published four years ago. I still have not seen any willingness to consider and address crucial nutritional, environmental, detox, and oxygen-related issues, which are of crucial clinical importance.

We physicians need to return to our calling. We need to learn something about Aristotle's empirical science. We need to acquire some Darwinian sense of selective pressure on cellular populations, and the relationships between the parts and the whole. We need to be clear about who eco-monsters are: They are cults of craven men who wantonly and relentlessly destroy human habitat, poison our environment, and unleash pandemics of cancer. We need to know who onco-monsters are: They are people charged by eco-monsters to do their bidding, regardless of the consequences of their actions. They pretend to be great scientists, academics, teachers, editors of journals, and custodians of public health. They are the self-righteous in a cruel cartoon, doing their masters' bidding. They have no passion for the sick, nor an authentic interest in service to those with cancer. They want leadership but have no concept of service. We physicians need to be aware. Our patients pay an exorbitant price when we fail to do so. Nowhere is that toll harsher and more punishing than when our patients with cancer suffer from the false benevolence of eco-monsters and the pseudoscience of onco-monsters.



Who Is Dr. Ali?

Dr. Ali's Full CV

Peer Reviews of Dr. Ali' Work


Dr. Ali's Philosophy



VIDEO Courses

Philosophy of Integrative medicine 

Dr. Ali's Recent Videos

Click here to order Prof. Ali's Video Courses, digital aand print books, DVD seminars, and lectures on CD sets.


Now Available as
Instant Download

Integrative Protocols -
Vol 12 Principles and Practices
of Integrative Medicine

Dr. Ali's
IV and IM formulations

E-Book 12

Integrative Protocols -
Vol 11 Principles and Practices
of Integrative Medicine
E-Book 11

Dr. Ali discusses Dysoxygenosis and varying chronic diseases.


Book Diabetes

Instant Download