Jay Kulsh On The 5 Things Everyone Needs To Know About Cancer

An Interview With Savio P. Clemente

The problem with cancer research is not a lack of money, but too much emphasis on money. Methodologies or medicines which are not patentable are pushed aside, no matter how promising. The top cancer hospital, MD Anderson Cancer Center wants to “make cancer history” according to its ads, but the institution refuses to explore and establish a non-patentable effective cancer treatment about which it has known since 1994. It had called the treatment “very interesting… deserving of further investigation”. For this low-cost treatment, the resources required would be miniscule.

Cancer is a horrible and terrifying disease. There is so much great information out there, but sometimes it is very difficult to filter out the noise. What causes cancer? Can it be prevented? How do you detect it? What are the odds of survival today? What are the different forms of cancer? What are the best treatments? And what is the best way to support someone impacted by cancer?

In this interview series called, “5 Things Everyone Needs To Know About Cancer” we are talking to experts about cancer such as oncologists, researchers, and medical directors to address these questions. As a part of this interview series, I had the pleasure of interviewing Jay Kulsh.

During his graduate studies in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles, Jay Kulsh became interested in the potential role of the enzyme ribonucleotide reductase (RnR) in causing cancer. (The enzyme controls the bottleneck step in cell growth.) As an independent scientist, he has published two scientific papers about a non-toxic cancer treatment which effectively blocks RnR and arrests cancer. This cancer treatment is called GEIPE (Gentle Electrotherapy to Inhibit a Pivotal Enzyme) and is promoted by a non-profit organization which maintains a website: www.cancer-treatment.net. His latest article “Biochemistry — not oncogenes — may demystify and defeat cancer” is posted as a preprint on a Swiss portal.

Thank you so much for joining us in this interview series! Before we dive into the main focus of our interview, our readers would love to “get to know you” a bit better. Can you tell us a bit about your childhood backstory?

I was born in a village in north India, the son of a high-school teacher. (The name “Jay Kulsh” is a short Americanized version of my full name.) I was good at studying and got a master’s degree in chemistry from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. Subsequently, in 1974, I came to the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to do graduate studies in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.

What or who inspired you to pursue your career? We’d love to hear the story.

My curiosity about Nature, in all its manifestations, is my inspiration.

I never had a career in the field of cancer. I am an outsider, who is needed sometimes for outside-the-box thinking. With each passing year — as cancer remains inscrutable and effective treatment elusive — I am growing more confident that gene-centric cancer researchers are barking up the wrong trees — something that Scientific American magazine wondered as early as 1994.

I have looked at the problem of cancer from the point of view of biochemistry where enzymes (specialized proteins) are preeminent since they carry out almost all the transformations in a cell. The obvious candidate for a role in cancer is the enzyme ribonucleotide reductase (RnR), which controls the rate-limiting step in DNA synthesis as well as in cancer growth. Its active-site or “heart” contains a free-radical (unpaired electron) stabilized by two iron atoms. This active site, which seems vulnerable to all varieties of carcinogens, has been the focus of my research as an independent scientist.

Whether or not cancer is initiated at the active site of RnR, all cancer researchers agree that if you block RnR, you can stop cancer. (If cancer does originate at RnR, as recent research has confirmed in some instances, then by inhibiting the activity of this enzyme, we would be nipping cancer in the bud.) It occurred to me that the unpaired-electron of the active site can be quenched by free-floating electrons, easily available in mild electric current. Thus gentle electrotherapy should disable the enzyme and arrest cancer growth. This is borne out by various animal and a few human studies. This novel therapy is a non-toxic and effective way to control cancer. Unfortunately, this treatment is non-patentable and very inexpensive, hence I have been struggling for 28+ years to get it standardized and established.

This is not easy work. What is your primary motivation and drive behind the work that you do?

This has been doubly difficult for me since I have had to make a living in other fields while studying cancer literature and contacting various cancer institutions, scientists, patients and journalists on the side. My motivation is the thrill of uncovering a great mystery of medical science — and also to come up with an efficient, universal cancer treatment.

What are some of the most interesting or exciting projects you are working on now? How do you think that might help people?

Our current GEIPE device can treat skin cancers like a home-remedy. We are trying to modify the protocol so the device can be used to treat prostate cancers. Initial results are very encouraging.

We are also preparing for the opportunity to treat deep-seated tumors, which of course would require a hospital setting. For such tumors, one needle electrode (with only the tip exposed and inserted in the tumor, the rest insulated) would be deployed. The placement of such electrodes may need to be guided by imaging techniques. The other treatment option for interior tumors would be to use implants, where both electrodes are needle electrodes. Once standardized, such treatments should bring about a sea change for people suffering from cancer.

For the benefit of our readers, can you briefly let us know why you are an authority about the topic of Cancer?

You may have seen the future.😉 Today, few consider me an authority on cancer. However, with proper collaboration, when it can be shown that GEIPE cancer treatment is able to heal most cancers — at the biochemical level, cancer is a single disease — things should go fast in that direction.

When people point to my limited credentials, I ask what has been accomplished since 1971 — when President Nixon declared war on cancer and the spigot of enormous funds opened — by all the cancer “dream teams” with their stellar credentials? The cancer field badly needs a fresh set of eyes, which I may provide. Judge me not by the length of my CV, but by the scientific thoroughness of my ideas and their potential impact on demystifying and defeating cancer.

In their response letters, the top two cancer institutions in the U.S. — the National Cancer Institute and the M D Anderson Cancer Center, Houston — have called my treatment ideas “very interesting” and deserving of further investigation. But they have shown no inclination to study this non-patentable cancer treatment despite very low resource-requirements. The top cancer hospital in India — Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai — twice (in 1998 and 2010) showed interest in collaborating with me to establish this therapy. But both times, they quietly and suddenly changed their mind — almost certainly because this treatment would have drastically reduced the income of the hospital.

The aforementioned communications with major cancer institutions can be viewed from the home page of the website www.cancer-treatment.net. They affirm that my ideas have substantial merit. I have also published two scientific papers on the subject, while the third one is posted as a preprint. Alas, GEIPE treatment is nonpatentable and low-cost — and thus languishes.

Ok, thank you for all of that. Let’s now shift to the main focus of our interview. Let’s start with some basic definitions so that we are all on the same page. What is exactly cancer?

It is a unique disease — different from almost all other diseases. While microbes — bacteria, viruses, etc. — are at the root of most of our diseases, cancer is primarily caused by toxic chemicals known as carcinogens. (Thus, it should not come as a surprise that someone with a background in chemistry has some insight into cancer.)

Cancer is uncontrolled cell growth. The cancer-causing agents must somehow break down the mechanisms that optimally regulate cell multiplication. This results in unneeded, ill-formed, outlaw cells. Initially, the few outlaw or malignant cells are eliminated by the immune system, but over time, which may be as long as a few decades, the number of malignant cells grows and overwhelms the immune system — and cancer takes hold.

Mutated genes are almost always present at cancer sites. But this correlation may not be causative. (We always find traffic congestion whenever there is a major sporting event, but it would be wrong to conclude that congestion is causing sporting events to occur.) To get to the root of cancer, we need to look at the mechanism(s) that regulate cell replication. Such mechanisms are only found at the biochemical level. Genes, mutated or unmutated, do not partake in such mechanisms — except circuitously in one case where a gene (RB) indirectly controls the production of a protein which is involved in the cell multiplication mechanism, as I will explain.

What causes cancer?

“Genetic mutations cause cancer” is the consensus. But it is wrong — except in one case, to be explained shortly!

Remember that the vast majority of cancers are caused by chemicals called carcinogens. How can these relatively tiny molecules selectively attack those genes — less than 10% of the total genome — which are involved in cell division and repair. To them, one strand of DNA is no different than any other. And, even if we attribute some mysterious power to those carcinogenic molecules to locate the target genes, how does mutation or impairment of the genes result in uncontrolled cell growth? Normally damage to an entity results in its not functioning at all or functioning at a reduced level. So how can there be excessive activity? What is its mechanism? In summary, genetic theory fails to explain how carcinogens selectively cause harmful mutations, nor does it provide an immediate cause of unrestrained cell growth.

Cancer is likely initiated at the free-radical containing active site of the RnR enzyme.

Here, let me relate a story involving Dr. James Watson (of Watson-Crick DNA double-helix fame). Dr. Watson spent four decades (1968–2007) exploring the genetic aspects of cancer as director of the prestigious New York scientific institution Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. In 1993, I wanted to discuss my ideas about cancer initiation with him. Eventually, he did give me time but in that ten-minute meeting, I could not convince him that biochemistry may have a role in cancer causation. He kept describing various mutated genes. I came away disappointed.

However, after 23 years, I was shocked, and delighted, to read this statement of his in the New York Times on May 12, 2016:

locating the genes that cause cancer has been “remarkably unhelpful”… If he were going into cancer research today, he would study biochemistry rather than molecular biology.

He was 88 years old and retired, so there was no point in contacting him now.

Someone might say that I was ahead of my time. More importantly, most cancer researchers are behind time and mistakenly remain fixated on genes.

A bit of history: The genetic theory of cancer got a big boost in 1971 when the RB gene was identified whose malfunction was directly associated with retinoblastoma (infant eye cancer). Soon intensive hunting commenced to find causative genes for other cancers but no such gene has been found in more than 50 years — even after The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) program.

It is noteworthy that the RB gene is not a culprit; retinoblastoma occurs not in its presence but in its functional absence. (Such genes are called “tumor suppressor genes” and their mutations are hereditary.) Recent research has shown that RB indirectly controls production of the protein-subunit of RnR where this enzyme’s active site resides, and thus when RB malfunctions, there is excess of RnR activity, causing cancer. The human papilloma viruses (HPVs) that cause cervical cancers do so by inactivating the RB gene — not mutating it — which again causes excess RnR activity, leading to cancer.

The structures of carcinogenic chemicals and/or their metabolic products are uniquely suited to access and disturb the active site of RnR. Thus, there is a high probability that all cancers are initiated at the active site of the RnR enzyme. Myriad mutated genes are a consequence of cancer, not its cause. The mutated RB gene of retinoblastoma — a birth defect — is the sole exception, for the reasons given above.

What is the difference between the different forms of cancer?

At the biochemical level, there is no difference. Cancer is a single disease, not hundreds of diseases.

However, depending on the organ where cancer is initiated, its harmful effects vary. For example, in the testes, which are sort of outside the body, cancer can be treated with toxic chemicals more intensely resulting in a high rate of recovery. Likewise, skin cancers are usually not life-threatening. On the other hand, pancreatic cancer is among the most dangerous since it is so close to many vital organs, and is hard to detect.

I know that the next few questions are huge topics, but we’d love to hear your thoughts regardless. How can cancer be prevented?

The reduced use of tobacco products has certainly been a big step in cancer prevention. Better control of pollution in our air and water will greatly help. Since obese people suffer substantially higher rates of cancers — in mid-body organs — curbing obesity will prevent cancer as well as other diseases. However, total prevention is unrealistic in the industrial age in which we live. Chemicals are used in so many industries and which are carcinogenic in what concentrations, is not easy to ascertain.

How can one detect the main forms of cancer?

I will pass on this since I have little expertise on the subject.

Cancer used to almost be a death sentence, but it seems that it has changed today. What are the odds of surviving cancer today?

Things have only slightly improved — mostly due to prevention and early detection of cancer. The campaign against the use of tobacco has definitely been a major factor in reducing incidences of lung cancer. Early detection of breast cancer, with mammograms, and of prostate cancer with PSA readings have improved the survival rate statistics of those patients.

But standard cancer treatments are still surgery, radiation and chemotherapy which are called “slash, burn and poison” by oncologists themselves. Often patients fear the toxicity of these treatments as much as the disease itself. Immunotherapies of various kinds have not made much impact globally because of their cost and limited applications.

The odds of surviving cancer remain low. A recent study found that much of the growth in U.S. cancer drug spending often confers marginal or unclear survival gains.

Can you share some of the new cutting-edge treatments for cancer that have recently emerged? What new cancer treatment innovations are you most excited to see come to fruition in the near future?

Immunotherapies are the most talked-about cutting-edge cancer treatments but they can only be used for about 10% of patients. These treatments also have serious side-effects and are very expensive — from a few hundred thousand to a million dollars per patient. Thus it is hard to get excited about them.

However, it is heartening to see the recent successful cancer therapeutic innovations like the NovoTTF system of Novocure for brain tumors, and the so-called “nano-knife” procedure for prostate cancer. Both are based on electricity and, unbeknownst to their proprietors, validate the principle of GEIPE treatment. Treatment of leukemia using the Kanzius machine was similar in nature but has been taken off the market.

A day may come when gentle electrotherapy is available for most cancers in a simple setup. At present, GEIPE devices can provide effective treatment for only near-surface cancers.

Healing usually takes place between doctor visits. What have you found to be most beneficial to assist a patient to heal?

Healing can only take place if cancer treatment is on the mark, which is usually not the case. In a minority of cases, where treatment is moderately effective, patients with a positive frame of mind tend to heal faster.

From your experience, what are a few of the best ways to support a loved one, friend, or colleague who is impacted by cancer?

We should provide emotional support. On their behalf, we can do research to find the best treatment options. However, the ultimate decision to choose a certain treatment route should be left to the patient and his/her immediate family.

What are a few of the biggest misconceptions and myths out there about fighting cancer that you would like to dispel?

By far, the biggest misconception is that cancer is caused by genetic mutations.

The mutated genes acquired during one’s lifetime (non-inherited or somatic) are called “oncogenes” and are said to be responsible for 90% of all cancers. In tumors, these “oncogenes” are found to be varied and complex at all levels, making any functional and causal interpretation very difficult. The cancer genome atlas (TCGA) was established in 2006 with the aim of untangling the genetic intricacies of cancer. However, the enormous amount of data did not yield a causative gene for any cancer. Instead, observed genetic mutations remain diverse and random, as if after a battle each soldier is wounded in his own way — suggesting that these mutated genes are the consequence, and not the cause.

Dr. James Watson is not the only one who (belatedly) agrees with me and no longer thinks that cancer has a genetic basis. HH Heng of Wayne State U., TN Seyfried of Boston U., Sonnenschein and Soto of Taft U. are also vehement opponents of the gene-centric viewpoint. In JAMA, JP Ioannidis of Stanford U. and MJ Joyner of Mayo Clinic called it a “largely failed” approach. Even Robert Weinberg of MIT, who was one of the biggest proponents of the genetic theory of cancer, now has serious doubts whether genetic data of cancer will lead to any insight into the disease.

If researchers are mistaken about the root cause of the disease, it is hard for them to devise proper plans to fight it. This sentence may summarize the cancer research of the last half-century.

Only a new paradigm can change the status quo.

Thank you so much for all of that. Here is the main question of our interview. Based on your experiences and knowledge, what are your “5 Things Everyone Needs To Know About Cancer? Please share a story or example for each.

1. For brain tumors, non-invasive therapy by Optune device of Novocure should be considered first.
2. Don’t excessively fret over inherited BRCA gene mutations. Vigilance is needed but opting for extreme steps like prophylactic double mastectomy, without any sign of cancer, as was chosen by the actress Angelina Jolie, is not necessary.
3. If you have a high PSA number and are over 65, do not rush for biopsy or treatments. Many prostate cancers are slow growing and “watchful waiting” may be a good option. Get an MRI done and check PSA monthly. If the PSA value starts rising fast, consider the so-called “nano-knife” treatment (available in a few places in the USA and in the UK) which uses electricity, before other options.
4. For near-surface cancers, GEIPE cancer treatment should be considered as a first option. It is non-toxic and costs only a few hundred dollars in the USA.
5. The problem with cancer research is not a lack of money, but too much emphasis on money. Methodologies or medicines which are not patentable are pushed aside, no matter how promising. The top cancer hospital, MD Anderson Cancer Center wants to “make cancer history” according to its ads, but the institution refuses to explore and establish a non-patentable effective cancer treatment about which it has known since 1994. It had called the treatment “very interesting… deserving of further investigation”. For this low-cost treatment, the resources required would be miniscule.

You are a person of great influence. If you could start a movement that would bring the most amount of good to the most amount of people, what would that be? You never know what your idea can trigger. :-)

My desired movement entails making the public-at-large aware of this non-toxic, low-cost, effective and scientific cancer treatment, so that cancer hospitals are pressured to start offering it. It should be noted that this treatment is unsuitable for conventional clinical trials since at the conclusion of successful studies there would be no patentable procedure to recoup the cost of the trials. Luckily, clinical trials are not essential to establish this therapy. Patients for whom standard cancer treatments have failed or who are averse to those toxic treatments, can be offered GEIPE treatment. There is no shortage of such cancer patients. They will be very receptive to the treatment due to its potential efficacy and lack of toxicity. In other words, there is no downside for them.

The outcome of such initial trials — which are likely to be beneficial to at least a subset of patients — would guide us in optimizing the protocol and expanding the scope of further trials.

Eventually, this gentle efficacious cancer treatment in a simple set-up should become available to most cancer patients. That certainly will do a lot of good for a lot of people.

How can our readers further follow your work online?

Please visit www.cancer-treatment.net and spread the word. Anyone can contact me from there. Reading ‘Astonishing Backstory of this Cancer Treatment’ there is highly recommended.

Thank you so much for these insights! This was very inspirational and we wish you continued success in your great work.

About The Interviewer: Savio P. Clemente coaches cancer survivors to overcome the confusion and gain the clarity needed to get busy living in mind, body, and spirit. He inspires health and wellness seekers to find meaning in the “why” and to cultivate resilience in their mindset. Savio is a Board Certified wellness coach (NBC-HWC, ACC), stage 3 cancer survivor, podcaster, writer, and founder of The Human Resolve LLC.

Savio pens a weekly newsletter at thehumanresolve.com where he delves into secrets from living smarter to feeding your “three brains” — head 🧠, heart 💓, and gut 🤰 — in hopes of connecting the dots to those sticky parts in our nature that matter.

He has been featured on Fox News, and has collaborated with Authority Magazine, Thrive Global, Food Network, WW, and Bloomberg. His mission is to offer clients, listeners, and viewers alike tangible takeaways in living a truly healthy, wealthy, and wise lifestyle.

Savio lives in the suburbs of Westchester County, New York and continues to follow his boundless curiosity. He hopes to one day live out a childhood fantasy and explore outer space.