Cancer Cure Scam: Cytotron Therapy Ad Continues To Run In Newspapers

The treatment know as Cytotron therapy has no scientific basis and is not noted in any approved text book on cancer therapy or prescribed by any oncologists. But for the past few months this “therapy” has been advertised as a cure for cancer. In its latest avatar, the ad carried the name of a doctor. After we had threatened to complain to the State Medical Council and get his name struck from the medical register for advertising unproved remedies, it disappeared.

hopeforhealingpicBut the ads continue to run today. Since the matter is an offense under the Drugs and Magic remedies (Objectionable Advertisements Act), we have brought this to the attention of the assistant drugs controller for Dakshina Kannada for necessary action under the act.

It is criminal to raise false hope in patients by promising cures for which there is no evidence. The entire ad is misleading. We could as welthe-hindu-may5l make up one as follows:

Ms. Meena Kumari (name changed), 53 years old, complained of dysentery and was diagnosed with cancer etc. etc. She went in for a quack treatment at ABCD clinic for XYZ therapy and passed away within 3 months. Which goes to prove that XYZ therapy is fake and can be fatal within a short time. It is not known whether the cancer was the cause of her mortality or the quack therapy that promised a very rapid cure.

I request oncologists and physicians to take up this issue with their respective bodies and announce to the public the facts about whether this therapy is approved for public use. In general treatments for diseases are not advertised in India, except by quacks, which should make us suspicious of the antecedents of the treatment and the administrators of the same.

About the author

Narendra Nayak


  • The steps taken by Pr.Narendra nayak is very great. We need to work against all these quaks who mislead public toward them and make people suffer more. But the sadest part is the govt itself legally approves some “therapy” without any evidence supporting it. Recently, I happen to see ad from Govt of Karnataka recommending “AMRTHA BALLI” (it is a type of leaves) for H1N1 as supportive remedy for improving stamina and prevention of major illhealth even though NO SCIENCE has proved its validity, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. And no clinical trails have been done so far.
    Well done Pr.Nayak. Keep it up!!

  • This is one of the best paper which outlines the complexity and diversity in molecular mechanism of cancer.
    “Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways”

    Its was published in nature and opened the pandoras box and also posed many questions. If someone needs an simplified version of what they did. They can read the opinion in nature on this paper.

    “Cancer complexity slows quest for cure”
    “Genomic analysis reveals multiple mutations in tumours.”

    Any discussion on cancer treatment would be incomplete and futile without considering the aspects mentioned in the paper.

  • Cytotron, I know first hand that this treatment really works, a friend with brain cancer has just had the treatment and already has no need for any morphine.

    Unless you are prepared to go out and see first hand for yourself, you should should not condemn a new technology approach to treating cancer if it does not come under the drug companies banner sespecially when this is proving successful.

    • If it is so why the cytotron guys are withhelding the names and access to the individuals who have undergone the treatment. The Chinese guys who come with controversial therapies provide access to the patients. Like in China and Taiwan now they have stem cell theraphy.
      Here in USA we the scientists do only in test tubes, nude mice… which are hardly anyway near to actual human conditions. And also we under a previous conservative regime had to report to priests and take their permissions before venturing into stem cell research. Now the Chinese are way ahead, but they dont hide the name and details of the patients as done by cytotron guys.

      The cytotron guys seems like selectively taking rules to suite their benefit.

      I would like to suggest the Chinese pattern of research for India

      • Also the Cytotron Guy says his so called theraphy activates p53.
        But you know p53 cannot be a drug target.
        Because it does everything in cell. Guarding the genome, apoptosis,senesence, cell cycle, cell growth, nutrient status…
        Many basic scientist say p53.
        But as a MD / Phd I don’t think p53 will play a role in drug target. It can be used just to study pathways in lab period.
        Any drug or theraphy interacting with p53 will kill healthy cells also

    • I agree with Martin, a friend of mine with lung cancer did 2 PET scans in a month. One before cytotron and one after 28 days of cytotron treatment. His SUV values went down considerably. uring this period he did no other treatment. This is evidence that it works. So the author should not make such general statements about treatments for a life threatening disease without doing any homework. The ad clearly does not promise a cure so your accusation is baseless. It says FIGHT cancer which is so true. Cancer is always fought and not cured. So don’t condemn blatantly because it seems like the scientific/medical world seems to have a vested interest in running down other alternative treatments. You just do your job well and let people decide what works for them !

  • I have no first-hand experience regarding cytotron and cancer. However, as a person who underwent a 3 week arthritis treatment in Kosovo 3 years ago, I can say, with some certainty, that the condition of my Grade III-IV osteo-arthritic knees, neck and hands is much improved following this treatment. So much so, that I am hoping to go to India in 6 months to have the rest of my spine and many other parts of my body treated, as the new full body machine was not available 3 years ago. I have evidence of my improvement in the form of my chiropractor’s face, as he was amazed to see major changes in my ability to do traction, lack of previous pain which prevented me from doing the neck traction at all, and increased flexibility while in traction at his treatment practice. This upon my return to the USA from the clinic in Kosovo.

  • I also went to Kosovo to be treated for my severely arthritic knee 2.5 years ago. I went after Valerie….In my mind I did not believe in this treatment, but I wanted to try it. During the 3 weeks of treatment I only noticed once some kind of electro-static feeling on my leg. I did not improve as far as I could tell while there. I left the clinic believing it did not work for me and went home. About 10 days after I was home I noticed my knee was feeling good this one particular day. I just chalked it up to a “feel good” period for my knee. All arthritic people have good days and bad days. Except this trend continued. I was having bad days and good days as before except with each good period I was having it was better than the one before. My lows were also not as low as before. So in other words my peaks were getting higher and higher and my lows were not as low as the previous lows. Up and down, up and down but on an upward incline. They said this would continue for a year. And that was exactly what happened. I improved by about 30% I would say. It was the first time in my life that I saw something positive happen in my knee that was significant. This treatment improved my knee more than the all the drugs, injections and previous 8 knee surgeries COMBINED! Am I cured? Definitely not but I did improve. And I did not beleive in this treatment to begin with so it is not in my mind… Thank you

  • My daughter, aged 29, was diagnosed with severe arthritis in both hips by her orthopedic consultant in Orlando, Florida after all investigations such as X Rays and MRI. He recommended her to undergo hip replacement as soon as possible so she would be relieved of the pain she was in. As the Cytotron therapy was not available in the US she traveled to Karachi in May 2009. After three weeks of this therapy and two weeks of physiotherapy at the center there the pain was considerably less and there was a marked improvement in her movements. For the next six months she continued to do the excercises that the physiotherapist had shown her plus she used a German-made trampoline made with bungee chords (instead of steel springs. Since December 2009 she is completely without pain and, where she could barely walk, she can run and do everthing else that a normal person does. I, for one, am thankful to the people who made this possible by inventing this machine.

    If there are people who have had this therapy and did not improve, I am sure they did not continue with the physiotherapy that is an important part of the treatment.

  • I think this is completely not true. Two of my relatives were diagnosed with cancers. They underwent surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Despite all those conventional therapy, their cancers reemerged after a year.

    In desperation, they went for Cytotron treatment. After just less than 20 sessions both of them all shown no more signs of any cancers symptomatically, clinically, imaging and scans, histo- pathologically and through blood tests for cancer markers and liver functions.

    I think if conventional approaches to treating cancers failed miserably, it is just not ethical for the medical profession to deprive patients of their rights of other options which have been very successful. It would be a professional case of sour grapes

  • I read the posts since 2010 with interest and I trust all the non-scientific basis of the initial comment from Mr. Nayak that sparked these reactions since 2010 have been suitably responded to by end-users of the Cytotron i. e. the patients. While all this graffiti was being posted, I’m glad I wasn’t deterred from my purpose of working with the Cytotron to ensure that more people the world over could have access to this technology.
    For my erstwhile professional colleagues, I am a cancer geneticist with 25+ years of clinical cancer experience in India, US, Germany, and France and have been associated with stellar oncology institutions in these countries, entrepreneuring, advising, working and researching in different capacities. I have been directly involved with the Cytotron for cancer and OA treatment so I wanted to dispel some notions.Currently we are working on N.& S. American regulatory processes, so comments that it is quackery etc. a very largely misplaced and un-informed, harmful comment. Unfortunately, the internet is like a public toilet and anyone can Use it to say what they like but the repercussions are huge….. Can anyone give me the statistics of the different rates of cures of cancers and other chronic diseases in the world that are treated by conventional standards of care? If some cases do not respond in the “classical” text book fashion, what gives us the right to make a sweeping comment about the care giver, or the “care given” to a point where it borders on defamation? cancer in itself is a multi-faceted nightmare, and there is a pressing need to be able to help those that suffer from this disease and others like it. Let’s not be so callous in our comments as if posting a blog is a past-time and nothing more. The Cytotron for that matter is a CE marked device (which requires very detailed technical and clinical data evaluations for certifications for therapeutic devices the world over….please do not equate it to “miracle/objectionable quackery without doing a detailed analysis of its history. Most of us in the realm of oncology know that there are no miracle cures, except for reports of spontaneous regressions of cancer, but cartilage regeneration and PET-CT scans showing SUV improvements in advanced tumors, glioblastoma patients (adult and pediatric) are factual evidence; surviving beyond conventional standard of care therapy, evaluated by standards that are used in the field of oncology, is not “quackery”. Clinical studies are currently in the process of being published….it takes, time and resource commitments to do what the inventor and his colleagues are trying to do here, it all does not happen overnight…as any of you have been entrepreneurs yourselves might understand. Scientists who have commented above, please do realize that it’s not one and the same thing to “publish” some work that is done in a lab vs. putting out the data from R&D and clinical trials with innovative technologies that took severla man years to come to therpeutic application, so don’t trivialize it please….molecular mechanisms of the presumptive action of the Cytotron are available so please do not show your limited understanding of molecular oncology in a ‘post’….I can cite more than 10,000 publications that talk to electromagnetic effects on cancer / diseased cells in vitro, and in animals, but if you need evidence for how cellular pathology is being targeted by the Cytotron, in vivo, have some patience……. All I would like to say, is get your facts right before you dispel innovation with a flick of your fingers….one never knows how and who and when a dear one might need to be given another option to live life to its fullest. Again to set some of your doubts at rest, regulation of medical devices in India and the world over requires a process and regulatory path to be followed which is EXACTLY what the inventor and developer of the Cytotron and his global partners are doing as we speak and different countries regulatory requirements will be met and passed as needed. In the meantime, people who have been able to access the treatment wherever it is being offered have done so with their informed consent….no one took it involunatarily. If any of you need more one on one FACTUAL information please do not hesitate to reach me at and you are welcome to go to the website I want to end with this:
    “For those who believe, no explanation is needed, For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible”…so please take my comments or leave it but we will continue to do what we are doing in good faith!When one thinks they know it all, one stops learning….

  • Dear Prof Meena,
    I am Dr. N.V.Pai practicing clinical Nutritionist cum Biochemist, actively involved in treating Cancer patients with Herbal Nutritions and getting very good results who have been having toxic effects of traditional treatments like Chemo and readiotherapy.I fully agree with your opinion that any new concept and therapy that gives releif to patient will be universally accepted only if patient get results.Cancer even today has no 100 % cure . The chemo and radiotherapy becomes more toxic than disease itself.Cytotrone is going to be real NON-TOXIC and useful therapy and I congratulate you to do this research.

  • Cytotron is a fake therapy, many pts die during treatment. Its costly not worth a try. it is a torture for the pts to take treatment for 21 or 28 days daily one hour. Research is not done under any oncologist or orthopedician supervision. These are self styled scientists, cheat the dying pts & also allopathy drs. Loot & escape type of ppl. If what they claim is true, they should convince IRDA to claim it under health insurance & make it as cashless treatment.
    Or will they install one machine fir free in any one cancer hospital like Tata cancer institute & prove their worth to the world?.

  • Dear Mr. Rohit,

    I really don’t know who you are or what your grievances are or whom you work or represent. However, without understanding what is really happening you don’t have the right to comment, please remember freedom of speech is also expression of truth. Cytotron is an approved therapy in about 20 countries if you don’t know, it has many peer reviewed publications in many leading journals. Now, Mr. Rohit, what is that you say is a fake, do you think, the whole world are morons and you are the only intelligent one..? Who said we have no Oncologist or Orthopedic supervision. Well if you don’t know, we have physicians, Oncologists, Oncosurgeons, Radio-oncologists, Radiologists, Oncogenitic experts, cell biologists, spread over 4 universities worldwide.

    You say Allopathic doctors loot you, Mr. Rohit, please realize, they are the ones who keep you alive, they care for you from a mosquito byte to cancers. If you had a problem that insurance companies don’t respond to you, you should take up the case with them. It is not our business as researchers to take commercial matters with IRDA or any other insurance regulatory authorities. We have already proved our technologies efficacy with competent authorities.

    Further Mr. Rohit, your allegation that Cytotron is “Fake”, will be severally dwelt with, by the international community who use Cytotron technology for their research and treatment, where millions of dollars are spent. Please be informed you have to pay for the allegation you have made in here unprovoked, hugely, appropriate authorities have been already informed, kindly keep all your evidences handy, that would prove Cytotron is a fake.

    Mr. Rohit, I spent 27 years fighting against cancer and tissue engineering, I don’t know you, but I will make you pay for your uninformed allegations, unless you immediately accept your incompetency and apologies at this website, for misguiding the people, if not you and this web site is in trouble. we ignored this website for the last 6 years as non significant, but now we are not going to take it lying down. Let us also see how the law of the land operate.

    Hope you comply..
    Still regards to you,

    Dr. Rajah Vijay Kumar,
    Inventor of Cytotron.

  • @R.V. Kumar
    OK, Mr. “Inventor” and “researcher”… nothing is stopping you from citing your publications.

    What are these 20 countries that approved it?
    Which 4 universities?
    Please provide links, publications and grant numbers.

  • Hush hush research, all top secret. Contact numbers of patients will not be given, if given skeletons will tumble out of scientist’s cupboard. All those failed treatments & those patients who die are not disclosed. If 1 in 100 show little improvements they show it to the world as cured, successful & that one patient they will multiply in publications & research papers, other 99 will be discarded (or buried) & never disclosed. If the research is 10% & the rest 90% will be business (Dhandha). It reminds me of venus’ fly trap, a type of carnivorous plant.

  • @ Sha,
    Do you think it right that patients number are given out? Would that not be unethical and a complete breach of privacy. Yes it most certainly is!

    Secondly, for all of you who do not do scienctific research and then throw questions at the inventor and related researchers and institutions- I would highly recommend doing your due diligence and getting your facts from reputable sources. I say go do some reading and seek the truth for yourself and you will find ample proof of the benefits of cytotron. For those of you who know the blessings of Cytotron, then the initial post by Nirmukta is misinformed.

    I do wish that such articles that debunk technologies or innovation would go through some sort of review process before they write junk. Actually take some time to write peer- reviewed scientifically conducted research publications such as those who have knowledge of cytotron and then you will see and know the truth for yourself.
    Regarding those who have no knowledge of cytotron- now is the time to get more information, especially if you work in the cancer research/ treatment field.

  • @Nshah

    Never mind Sha. I do research. I have peer-reviewed publications in well-recognized journals in my field. I posed very pertinent questions to this so-called “inventor” above. Here are they again.

    What are these 20 countries that approved it?
    List all of them. There is a difference between some poor, corrupt country approving it (meaningless certificates for bribes or simply low critical standards) and leading science-contributing countries approving it. How did you verify these certification claims?
    Which 4 universities?
    Internationally ranked universities or degree mills?
    Please provide links to publications and grant numbers.

    Don’t go on and on about peer reviewed research. First ask: where are these peer reviewed papers that talk about this Cytotron? Were they published in actual, reputed journals or were they published in scam journals of which there are plenty? Do you understand how to tell the difference?

    Don’t argue. Just paste the citations here. Don’t tell others to do “research”. Show me yours. After that, we can debate the quality of the said publications, quality of study designs etc.

    For all his huffing and puffing, R.V. Kumar never answered these simple questions.

  • @ Ravi,
    Now who is this Ravi, why should I even respond to someone who asks stupid questions (Scientific people search literature to find the truth) , now that he talks about poor and corrupt countries, dubious universities; well US and Europe is not poor and corrupt, Jefferson, Johns Hopkins, Rotterdam and Waganagan are not dubious universities. We are a 25 year old research organization, with all required approvals and clearances from Europe, North and South America, China, India etc., I don’t have to provide any links to you, or anymore information. Who the hell are you Mr. Ravi, I am sure you are not the king of England nor the President of India. First disclose yourself, then answer these questions; what is your field, how many publications you have, what is your interest here, who pays you to be here, then ask questions, I will answer as a professional.

    Enough is Enough, we wait for your answers, if we don’t get your answers, we have to report you to Cybercrime and appropriate authorities to get the truth about you and your intentions. I have been very nice with this website, and taking it lightly, my organization will not; Unfortunately for you, you have made many unsolicited remarks generally connecting poor to corruptions for no reason and that is not acceptable and illegal under international law. Mr. Ravi, Please answer our Questions above, or we go forward with legal requirement and you face the cost and consequences. Remember, Your freedom ends, where our nose ends.. so come up with your answers on this very same website, or face consequences.

  • @R.V. Kumar

    Now who is this Ravi

    It does not matter whether I am a high school student or an endowed professor at Harvard. I posed you simple critical questions. They aren’t “stupid questions”, just because you can’t address them. You utterly failed to answer them and you are resorting to faux outrage to cover that up. All it takes is a simple copy-paste, that is if you actually have proper publications. No need for all this drama.

    Scientific people search literature to find the truth

    So I did… before I typed the first post on this article. I looked up Cytotron in Pubmed. One match and that has absolutely nothing to do with your product.

    ncbi.nlm.nih . gov/pubmed?term=cytotron&cmd=correctspelling

    I typed cytotron “RV Kumar” into Google Scholar and I got some worthless results with no citations at all. . com/scholar?as_sdt=1,5&q=”rv+kumar”+cytotron

    So how should I search for these wonderful publications of yours. Please teach stupid me how to search for your spectacular papers.

    If this is all the “publications” you have – wow, just wow. There isn’t a single person at my workplace with a worse publication record. I literally know 25 year old students with far superior publication records than this. I mean how exactly does one manage to not get any citations at all. Your record can’t possibly be this dismal. Right?

    I hope you will correct me and tell me a better way to search for your wonderful publications. I am sure you have written some light-weight studies in some small potatoes journals that are not even indexed by Pubmed or Google Scholar, but who cares about them? Neither Pubmed nor Google Scholar are exactly high standards thresholds. I thought I had to look up publication impact factors, check who is citing you, look for replication studies etc. But this just looks embarrassing. For your sake, I hope you can share better publications on the evidence of Cytotron curing cancer.

    Jefferson, Johns Hopkins, Rotterdam and Waganagan are not dubious universities.

    I agree, they aren’t. Go ahead then, post the research papers you generated from say, Johns Hopkins. I bet you would have published at least these in some very high impact journals, right? They received numerous citations and were greeted with excitement from the research community, correct? Then proudly list them. That will convince me. What are you waiting for?

    We are a 25 year old research organization

    It does not matter if you are a 25 year old organization or a 200 year old organization. There is 200 years of Homeopathic “research”. India “approves” it, as do some European countries. Still does not change the fact that it is a silly pseudoscience that has not validated a single claim it has ever made.

    with all required approvals and clearances from Europe, North and South America, China, India etc

    Let me get this straight: Are you actually claiming that your device has US FDA approval for treating cancer? Just so you know, I can check with the FDA.

    Point me to any reputed cancer society that has guidelines that include Cytotron use… at any level. Your refusal to answer will automatically imply that there aren’t any.

    I don’t have to provide any links to you, or anymore information.

    Not don’t… CAN’T.

    Who the hell are you Mr. Ravi, I am sure you are not the king of England nor the President of India.

    Yes. At least you are right on that one thing. I am no king or president, just a critical thinker who has seen enough scams and is suspicious of treatment claims, not backed by sound evidence.

    First disclose yourself

    Hey, I am not the one who says I am curing cancer. You are the one making claims. The burden is on you, not me, a critic questioning you. Stop deflecting.

    what is your interest here

    Fostering scientific literacy, debunking pseudoscience and scams, promoting rational thought.

    who pays you to be here

    Take a little time to read around this web site. No one pays anyone here. It is entirely volunteer driven.

    we have to report you to Cybercrime and appropriate authorities to get the truth about you and your intentions.

    Please go ahead. Maybe, they will give you a dictionary and ask you to look up what a “Cybercrime” is. A bit of advice: You are supposed to try to intimidate me accusing me of “Slander”, not “Cybercrime”. That is the usual playbook by which companies attempt to shush up any criticism.

    that is not acceptable and illegal under international law.

    Oh, please do educate me about this “international law”. Don’t talk about things you have no clue about.

    or we go forward with legal requirement and you face the cost and consequences.

    Be my guest.

    Remember, Your freedom ends, where our nose ends.

    The correct form is: Your freedom ends, where my nose BEGINS. I am not trying to punch you in the nose, although people who take advantage of desperate cancer patients helplessly suspending rational thought, deserve more than that. I am questioning you. I think you need to look up the word “freedom” in the dictionary as well. Nobody has the freedom from being challenged with questions. At most, you have a freedom to refuse to answer questions (and we will reach conclusions consequent from that refusal). These are rather basic concepts that are eluding you.

    so come up with your answers on this very same website, or face consequences.

    So I assume that you still won’t answer my questions and will continue to throw a tantrum because you don’t have any arguments?

    BTW, if Nshah is your associate (or you under an alias), that falls under astro-turfing, for not disclosing the association. Look up the term. It is not a crime, but is regarded as highly unethical.

  • why this inventor is intimidating & threatening every body, everyday?
    Atleast give the names & phone numbers of atleast 20 oncologists in India who are (convinced with this technology) referring patients to this treatment or using this machine & are happy with the outcome.

  • @Sha

    Actually, that would not be adequate proof at all. Doctors aren’t researchers. Their perceptions are not confirmatory since they don’t have the big picture from their practice settings. That is why we have clinical trials with elaborate designs.

    Oncologists are generally quite scientific. But given how large a country India is, it would not be difficult to find support from a handful for pseudoscience. I came across several doctors in India who peddle pseudoscience. Likewise, anywhere in the world, you can always find an MD or a PhD here and there to support pseudoscience.

    What we should be looking for is the preponderance of evidence and expert consensus. We should not be looking for testimonies from people solely on the basis of experience or training. Replicable scientific findings are the key. If this stuff were real, the entire cancer research community would be talking about it. In my view, Cytotron falls under what used to be called: Patent Medicine.

    en.wikipedia . org/wiki/Patent_medicine

    “Inventors” claims patents, claim all sorts of proofs, but produce little actual evidence that would be considered by the research community. They produce an illusion of legitimacy. They market directly to patients who are unequipped to distinguish between bad research and good research… and there is a LOT of bad research.

    Generally speaking, in the world of quackery, the word quantum is synonymous with magic. Real researchers will show you their failure rates and discuss uncertainty about their own claims. Quacks on the other hand are boisterous and will deal mainly in apparent success stories and testimonies.

  • A message received by me
    Hi sir,
    I had purchased one Cytotron machine from Raja Vijaykumar of Bangalore to cure cancer. After using for two years I found it is not as useful as they promised before being. In two yrs about 12 pts I treated, neither the pts nor me are happy with the results. Initially before buying they had assured weekly 2 pts they will send to us for treatment, but after sending 3-4 pts they stopped answering our phone calls & mails.
    After 2 yrs I shifted that machine to that scientist’s friend’s place where he was treating with old machine. Agreement was for 50:50 sharing of income.
    For first 3 months 3.14 lakhs they paid, from last June not even single he is able to pay me.
    I want to take action on both scientist & his friend. How can I go about this? Plz help me.

  • @Krishna

    I made half a post. It will appear after Narendra Nayak notices and clears it. I always had this issue. Rest after that.

    Short answer: “Breakthrough Device Program” is FDA, but it isn’t what you think it is and the press doesn’t know any better.


    “Nearly half (14/29) of the devices approved under priority review during that time were cardiovascular devices that were studied in a total of 18 pivotal trials. Only half of the studies were randomized, none were double-blind and only three were single-blind.”

    “”We found that most FDA priority review approvals for the cardiovascular devices were granted on the basis of a single nonrandomized, nonblinded pivotal study that used surrogate endpoints,” the authors write.”

    “FDA also required advisory committee reviews of 10 of the devices. Of the nine committees that voted on safety and effectiveness, four votes found that there was not a reasonable assurance that the device was effective, though all were found to be safe.”

    “Six of the 14 devices have been subject to a recall after gaining approval, with a total of two Class I and 13 Class II recalls for those six devices.”

    Here is a very detailed discussion written by a very well-known surgical oncologist, David Gorski, MD, PhD, who writes about quackery.

  • All this reporting is based on their press release and is misleading.

    They have not been “designated” as a breakthrough device. They themselves went and applied to this “breakthrough devices program” and FDA agreed to test. That is all. Testing takes years.

    The program was also criticized a lot because they were not testing well in this program. Having to withdraw 6 out 14 approved devices is quite bad. This is usually not like FDA. Normally this only happens rarely. Researchers are complaining that “breakthrough devices program” is treating things too casually.

  • This is not the first time they have gone to clinical trials. There are two entries on clinical trials dot gov for the device Cytotron.

    The reason the clinical trials web site exists is that people do trials and when they fail, they keep quiet about them them, but only publish when they get a positive result. This gives a false sense that the evidence is strong when it isn’t. The web site exists to force people to declare a trial before the result so that they can’t keep quiet about it later if they don’t like the result.

    In both cases of these Cytotron trials, there is no result submitted.

    In India, they submitted “Cytotron Delivered Rotational Field Quantum Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis (RFQMR)” in 2010. There has been no update since 2011.

    In Mexico, they applied for “Compassionate Treatment in Children With Brain Tumors With the Cytotron” in 2018. One year later, the study was “Withdrawn (suspended due to administrative problems)”

    Now in 2019, they are doing it again in US, using an poorly named program, with a press release that implies that they have been recognized by FDA as a breakthrough, when all they have been approved for is to just go for a trial to test whether it really is a breakthrough, just like they have in India and Mexico, that too in an FDA program known for operating well below FDA standards.

    The sub-par FDA program exists because lobbyists pushed for a bill that tied NIH funding to its creation. Politics is messy.

  • No one can easily tell you if a journal article is correct or not. The authors do the study and write the article themselves. Did they perform the research correctly? Did they misrepresent or lie about anything? The journal reviewers or readers cannot check. Simply being published does not mean anything is correct.

    Nearly all published research (not specific to these authors) claims a positive result. But we know at least 50% of that is wrong, far more so in low impact journals – I can point to journals where 100% of research articles are wrong. This is why proper clinical trials are important.

    This is a small study, with poorly standardized patient pool (“all comer study” with 11 cancers), with no control group (instead relying on “predicted” mean), published in a low impact journal, which seems to have been cited entirely in India, not across 20 countries where they claim to have been approved.

    It is completely opposite of a clinical trial; it is unrandomized, uncontrolled, with no blinding, conducted by its advocates with financial stake in its success. These are not taken seriously by the scientifically minded.

    So far their clinical trial participation appears to have the same purpose as “patent-pending” medicine advertisements of the past. Enrollment provides an air of legitimacy, but they seem to hastily exit trials before they can declare it does not work.

    And the questionable program they currently enrolled in has as little trust in the scientific community as a patent of a device has (many do not know that patents are granted on weak evidence as well). Let’s see if they complete even that (I know – you want answers now).

    As of now, there is no proof anything in any of this works (their cleverly misleading press release not withstanding). When there is proof, all oncologists in the world will endorse it. You won’t need to ask anyone on the Internet.

    They claim it as cure for all sorts of diseases, not just cancer; no proof there either. To me, this is just a sophisticated version of a magnetic bracelet promising to cure all sorts of problems.

  • @Payal Verma

    I have a few questions.

    1.) What did they say your relative can expect from the treatment?

    2.) What are they charging for the 28 hrs of treatment?

    3.) Is the payment upfront or by session?

    4.) Did a local oncologist direct you there or did your relative follow an advertisement in the media?


  • My mother is diagnosed with stage 4 gallbladder cancer and i need to contact Dr Rajah. She is a decorated veteran and is good to sign an NDa as well as no liability clause. Her tumor markers are showing a lot of improvement but there is increased lesions as per the last pet cet. If you are on this forum Sir, request you or your team to please connect with me at 982zero4-1zero485. I believe you are basing your trials in Bangalore and i will be happy to connect on you for the same for her. Ashish . Director M&J Strategic M PVt ltd

  • Congratulations on getting USFDA approval. I see some cities in India are already offering this treatment. Why is there no large scale publicity? It would benefit a lot of people. Thank you and congratulations once again.

  • @Jehangir Chinoy

    Congratulations on getting USFDA approval.

    They did NOT get US FDA approval.

    FDA did not even test their machine yet, let alone approve it.

    Currently they are enjoying the publicity that comes from the understandably confused public and the scientifically incompetent Indian press assuming that FDA tested it, approved it and considers it a “breakthrough”. None of these assumptions are true.

    US press made the same mistake in 2012 and were schooled by scientists for their mistake. Indian press made the same mistake now in 2019. I am not sure they learned the truth about this designation yet.

    Google for: CBS proclaims ‘cancer breakthrough’ – doesn’t explain what FDA means by that term

    “I can’t believe @60Minutes is using ‘breakthrough’ for what’s basically a speed-up-the-paperwork thing.” – Matthew Herper of Forbes

    I know this sounds really hard to understand because getting FDA Breakthrough Designation does not actually mean FDA tested it yet (they will) or that they approve (they might) or that it has been scientifically validated as a “breakthrough”. Later approval in this program is also highly controversial.

    Just from Wikipedia: “The FDA’s “breakthrough therapy” designation is not intended to imply that a drug is actually a “breakthrough” or that there is high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy for a particular condition”.

    This is a really confusing name and I can’t blame non-medical public to be confused about this, but the press has a responsibility to not mislead.

    Some scientists even did a study on the misleading nature of the title.

    From Carnegie Mellon University: Krishnamurti T, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Fischhoff B. A randomized trial testing US Food and Drug Administration “breakthrough” language. JAMA internal medicine. 2015 Nov 1;175(11):1856-8.

    “In colloquial terms, “breakthrough” connotes an important, definitive advance.”… “Unless patients understand the FDA’s usage of breakthrough, they may have unwarranted confidence in the evidence supporting drug claims. In a randomized trial, we test how these terms affect lay judgments”.

    I have a lot more problems about these guys claims, such as advertising to patients as if it is curative (See ad above: “Fight Cancer with Cytotron”) while publishing and approaching FDA as mainly palliative, not that even palliative is proven at this point.

  • FDA’s ‘Breakthrough Drug’ Terminology Confuses the Public

    “Breakthrough” is an aspirational term (does not actually describe the device).

    The term breakthrough “may cause people to have unwarranted confidence about these drugs, which could prevent them from making a fully informed decision about whether to take the drug or not,” Dr. Krishnamurti said.

    Simple, clearly worded disclosures can help mitigate some of the incorrect judgments associated with these designations, she said.

    “To protect patients from spurious hopes for miracle cures, Congress and the FDA should abandon the adoption of terminology like breakthrough and focus on strengthening the evidentiary requirements for meaningful clinical data to ensure the promise of new drugs and devices,” Ross and Redberg write.

    ‘Breakthrough’ drug may not mean what you think

    What the Food and Drug Administration calls a ‘breakthrough’ drug is often not the same as what a layperson would call a breakthrough, a new study shows.

  • I was doing research on my own regarding these flase claims by ‘cytotron’ people. Did a routine pubmed search and found articles published in near-dubious ‘potato’ journals. No corroborative studies by other scientists apart from their own.
    No details about mechanism of action. Being a general surgeon, I know for a fact the ‘quantum’ ,p53, radiation can’t be thrown in the same bucket and expect a miracle cure. I also tried to find about these ‘breakthrough devices’ but couldn’t find much skeptical insight on the same on the net. Thanks to earlier comments in this thread by Ravi I could clarify these doubts.
    I also thought the skeptical community in india was in it’s infancy but then I found the link for your FB page and it’s wonderful such throngs of people on it.
    Whatever I gathered about the skeptical method was through a wonderful podcast called “skeptics guide to the universe” and their recently published book. It’s worthwhile recommending it to people who have doubts about stuff which just feels too good to be true.
    Great going.
    This really is a great platform.

  • Mr. Ravi,

    Good for you for fighting the good fight. I just came across an equally scandulous invention “Corona Guard” today, and some googling brought me here.

    For everybody else: I am a professor in the US in a top 5 university, specializing in quantum physics. I do not want to leave my contact info since I am not able to respond to emails regularly. Let me assure you, this machine is a total and utter fraud – it violates the very basic laws of physics and cannot be true. It is very sad that this person is taking advantage of people when they are most vulnerable. Shameful!

  • @Professor

    Interesting, I did not realise that they have moved to Covid-19 exploitation. Did not hear about Shycocan until now. Please do write, with any discussion on the lack of science. People with formal academic credentials in quantum physics addressing these pseudosciences are not many.

    “electron-mediated virulence transmission jamming mechanism”

    Looks like Mr. Inventor is at it again with meaningless science-sounding gibberish

    “In April 2019, it was placed in the reception areas and hardly any cases of influenza were registered by the staff”

    Good ‘ol post-hoc fallacy.

    There is a large number of pseudoscience medical devices trying to make hay while the outbreak shines as regulatory standards are further lowered and there is panic buying.

    And our press does not read any further than the word FDA, even if the said clearance often says nothing about the evidence of effectiveness and merely that this might not kill people.

    In India, the Organisation de Scalene has inked pacts with Godrej and Eureka Forbes among other companies for mass production.

    Godrej and Eureka Forbes signed pacts? This should be interesting. There will be scrutiny if they make claims that this specially kills SARS-CoV-2 over any routine ionizer or air purifier. Let’s see if this ends up being another Coronil situation.

  • Some more thoughts…

    Corona Guard reminds me of the Coronil fiasco.
    Shycocan is more like Shycoscam.

    Let’s review: Patanjali took some herbs with sketchy publication record as immune boosters. However, the scientific community does not accept that they have any value in treating viral infections. Perhaps using this sketchy science, Patanjali applied for license as an immune booster and after that started claiming it cured Covid-19 in their “study”. It didn’t. It was fully expected for young people to get better anyway; they carefully recruited only young and otherwise healthy subjects with no pre-existing conditions who have very low mortality rates even in the absence of medical management. The combination of herbs which would basically be a placebo was marked up in price with a false implied promise of a cure, implicitly invoked using a deceptive name.

    Scalene essentially did the same thing. They seem to be selling what is effectively a cheap ionizer at jacked-up prices, with a dubious claim that they invented some super-alloy, the claim of which is not backed up by any credible study. Their claim that it protects against Covid-19 is just as laughable. Mr. Inventor says he installed it in his office last year and people did not get the flu at his office. He seems to not understand statistical power required to prove such effectiveness claims.

    Much like Ramdev and his associate Balkrishna, who are clueless about science, Scalene seems to have no better competence. Mr. Inventor seems to be confused between something as basic as protons and photons. That is 10th to 11th grade science and he calls himself a scientist.

    While his current quack venture goes by the playbook of Coronil, his earlier quackery reminds me of the Rife machines from almost a century ago. Rife machines are based on the incorrect notion that cells – our own, those of bacteria and virus particles (not really cells) have unique frequencies and by playing those frequencies, therapeutic effects may be obtained. This has been debunked and proponents hide behind conspiracy theories to explain the lack of evidence. They are marketed to exploit the desperation of cancer patients.

    Cytotron basically replaces EMF with RFQMR. There is not much more to it than that. At least EMF is a real phenomenon, while RFQMF is a completely fictional phenomenon promoted by Scalene.

    And what of the FDA clearance that Scalene always advertises? This is what seems to have happened.

    Scalene: FDA, we want to sell our air purifier.
    FDA: Sure, go ahead. We don’t really test them these days during the pandemic, just use our general code for air purifiers.
    Scalene: Hey everybody, we have FDA designation.

    Sure you do, but no more than any run-of-the-mill ionizer in the market. Your device was not actually validated by the FDA for effectiveness. To me, these are technically-true weasel words. People assume that FDA designation means that it somehow passed high levels of testing. None of that happened. This is just a casual bureaucratic code for we-don’t-care for things like this. It is the exact opposite of a crucial invention. They literally don’t care. Scalene keeps playing this game over and over and our press is too dull to recognize it.

    I have no idea where they got this 99.9% effectiveness data from, which clinical setting did they test? Where are the papers? Perhaps they thought 100% claims for Coronil did not work and decided to be slightly more modest or they are using the lines from Eureka Forbes water filter purity shtick.

    Shame on Eureka Forbes and Godrej for failing to do due diligence. They have the resources for to consulting experts to validate the claims.

    Also note that there is no word from Scalene on claimed Cytotron FDA study. They previously quietly exited trials with no explanation (from ClinicalTrials dot gov records), presumably since the results were not what they expected. Buy hey, they got their press release with the word “FDA” in it, so I guess it is good enough for them.

  • I did a search for who is linking to this article and disappointingly, there was only one – A twitter thread.

    But what a find! Amit Schandillia was very systematic. This would be what is called due diligence that should be expected from any journalist. Our’s just copy and paste press releases. Amit does not even seem to be a journalist. His approach (as it demonstrates his thought process) should be a required component in any journalism course with regards to covering medical claims or else the hucksters will run amok as they do now.

    Mainly, he checked the FDA databases and Scalene is nowhere to be found in any of the FDA databases – not for Shycocan, and more concerning, not even for Cytotron or Scalene itself. This looks quite fishy.

    What proof do we have other than Scalene’s assertions that they even made any contact with FDA? All they seem to talk about is shooting emails to FDA.

  • Original Thread

    Also see
    The conversation went so badly for shycocan twitter account that @shycocan deleted all their replies.

    One went like this
    @potax: Exactly what do you think is a photon?
    @shycocan: A sub-atomic particle that thinks of itself as a wave, o’course. Isn’t that a wee confusing?

    So @shycocan (probably Mr. Inventor) are graduates of Internet New Age school of physics, I see. We all know the double slit experiment guys. There is no thinking. Observer effect isn’t what you think it is.

  • Earlier, I mentioned how these scammers are fooling the public with basically the same scam method as the Rife machines. Here is an article that explains how these scams work.

    How one man’s invention is part of a growing worldwide scam that snares the desperately ill

    These people are masters of manipulation by omission. They will tell you they are “FDA registered”. They will tell you it is “approved therapy”. What this means in most cases is that they simply met the basic safety requirements. All they assured the governments is that this machines won’t burn you or give you new tumors because it is low energy. None of these approvals are actually guaranteeing that this treatment is effective or even scientifically plausible. But they let you make that logical leap by keeping quiet about it.

    Now for some excepts from the article

    These victims are casualties in the growing field called “energy medicine” — alternative therapies based on the belief that the body has energy fields that can be manipulated to improve health. Energy devices range from handheld machines the size of television remotes to behemoth machines that weigh hundreds of pounds, with costs ranging from $1,200 to $55,000.

    Many energy-medicine operators dupe the public by posing as highly trained health-care professionals through the use of deceptive credentials and unaccredited degrees. Some of the largest and seemingly independent credentialing organizations are in fact controlled by two men who run competing mail-order operations.

    Today, dozens of energy-device manufacturers present flashy Web sites with video testimonials and fake science.

    “The message itself has stayed the same for centuries: ‘This is the cure that I discovered and it’s backed with testimonials from lots of people snatched from the grave by using it,’ ” said James Whorton, professor of medical history at the University of Washington’s School of Medicine.

    The National Institutes of Health says research in the area of energy medicine may hold promise, but so far none of the devices, or their treatments, has been scientifically validated.

    “Undoubtedly, there’s a lot of quackery,” Whorton said. “They will tell you what you want to hear. The average person isn’t educated or trained to be able to evaluate these therapies critically.”

    I see a lot of parallel with William Nelson and “Mr. Inventor” and his accomplices.

  • Update From Mumbai Mirror – Corona Guard now has the same fate as Ramdev’s Coronil.

    Excerpt below.

    Eureka Forbes asked to withdraw COVID-19 safety claim

    The order comes on a complaint of an ex-IIT faculty that the claims were inadequately substantiated.

    The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has asked Eureka Forbes Ltd to withdraw certain claims about its medical device, Forbes Coronaguard, which, it boasts, is proven to attenuate 99.9 per cent of coronaviruses in enclosed spaces.

    The CCC upheld a complaint filed by a former faculty member of IIT-Bombay, who did not wish to be named.

    The CCC has said that the company’s claims that because of the device “up to 99.9 per cent viruses were disabled on surfaces and in the air, giving you real-time protection against infection from coronaviruses in closed spaces,” were inadequately substantiated.

    Previously from Deccan Herald
    Many unanswered questions about device that ‘neutralises’ coronavirus

    Despite Shycocan not qualifying as a medical device, Kumar has submitted papers for review to the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), he said.

    Physicists Ajay Kumar Sood and Arindam Ghosh, both professors at IISc, have been following the announcements made with regard to Shycocan. A glaring question that both raise is the absence of safety and efficacy studies of Shycocan in public domain, and why the device was not tested in an Indian Biosafety Level (BSL)-3 lab.

    Sood told DH: “There are many BSL-3 labs in the country. Why test in Mexico? Also, there is no scientific evidence available in the public domain on the parameters in which the studies were conducted, the viral load that the device was exposed to, and the duration for which it was exposed.”

    Ghosh reviewed the seven-page technical write-up shared by the company on Shycocan and told DH: “The basic mechanism is unclear. It is not known whether creating a large number of electrons around the S protein of coronavirus would mitigate or deactivate it. It could be an empirical observation, but I do not know of any biological or another scientific basis behind it.”

    There is no clear peer-reviewed publication regarding this, Ghosh said. “There has to be data. There has to, at least, be a scientific paper. It may not be a medical device, but are there any health hazards of having a charged atmosphere?

    We have a BSL-3 lab at IISc itself, a lab next door in the same city,” he said.

  • “I did a search for who is linking to this article and disappointingly, there was only one – A twitter thread.

    But what a find! Amit Schandillia was very systematic. This would be what is called due diligence that should be expected from any journalist. Our’s just copy and paste press releases. Amit does not even seem to be a journalist. His approach (as it demonstrates his thought process) should be a required component in any journalism course with regards to covering medical claims or else the hucksters will run amok as they do now.”

    yes. i commend Mr Amit and Mr Ravi also for taking pains to dig. May your tribe prosper Mr Amit and Mr Ravi



Leave a Comment