Why a Cure Is 'No Longer Fantasy'

Miracle recoveries are now commonplace... Why a cure is 'no longer fantasy'... We're not just killing tumors, we're eliminating cancer... A phenomenon – and opportunity – that's just getting started...

Jamie smoked for all 20 years since I met him – and 30 more before that...

So I (Dave Lashmet) wasn't surprised when he was diagnosed with cancer...

We all thought he was gone. So did Jamie. Lung cancer is one of the hardest cancers to beat.

Years of smoking have often damaged patients' lung tissue. Unlike other tumors, lung cancers are black... thanks to the cigarette tar, failed air sacs, and chronic infections. These infections – emphysema and bronchitis – kill twice as many smokers as lung cancer does.

Plus, the chemicals in smoke can alter your genetic code. The only other tumor site with as many mutations as lung cancer is the most severe skin cancer... melanoma.

Jamie was dealing with a monster of a cancer. It started in his lungs... then spread to his brain – where a peach-sized tumor grew.

He retired overnight from his job, said goodbye to his family, and went to the hospital for surgery. There, he also got immunotherapy treatment... the new and increasingly common line of attack against the worst cancers.

Remarkably, Jamie started to recover...

His lung surgery was a success. And his brain tumor started to shrink, then stabilized.

His family – especially his grandkids – were thrilled to have him back. And in about six months, Jamie was back at work. He was beaming as I shook his hand. He had beaten his cancer.

In fact, I just saw Jamie again yesterday... He was overseeing repairs at his business – directing the bucket trucks and more. It was grand.

I've tracked cancer therapies for two decades. And even as recently as a few years ago, I didn't think we would see this type of incredible, potentially universal cure for cancer within my lifetime.

But suddenly... that's all changed.

And in just a few years, I believe stories like Jamie's will be commonplace...

For the first time in my life, I'm ready to start talking about a 'cure'...

"Cure" is a difficult word in cancer medicine... It has been used and abused for decades.

As I wrote on Tuesday, I've been covering advancements in the fight against cancer for 20 years.

For all that time, you could bank on the fact that anyone talking about a "cure" for cancer was at best misinformed... or worse, preying on scared and vulnerable people.

I've been adamant with my editors at Stansberry Research for years that we would not call the therapies I wrote about "cures." At my most optimistic, we could describe them as "pathways" to one day finding a cure.

But now, some of the most respected cancer doctors in the world are embracing the potential that a real cure is within reach...

As Dr. José Baselga, the former physician-in-chief and chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, put it... "Every field in medicine has a moment in history... The moment where the knowledge that was required to change the field became available. This is our time."

And another top doctor just said... "The word 'cure' can now be used in oncology. It's no longer fantasy or a cruel promise that you can't fulfill."

And these are just two of many highly credentialed experts who are saying similar things...

Why now?

Many of you – especially if you've been a subscriber to my Stansberry Venture Technology service or have read my colleague Dr. David Eifrig's book The Living Cure – may be asking that question.

For more than five years, I've been writing about the progress of drugs like Novartis' (NVS) Keytruda and Bristol-Myers Squibb's (BMY) Optivo, which effectively train the body's immune system to recognize and attack cancerous tumor cells.

In fact, I watched in 2014 as 5,000 doctors at a medical conference gave a standing ovation to early trial data on immunotherapy drugs. That was impressive... Scientific presentations like that rarely get more than polite "golf" applause.

So yes, I've always believed in the promise of these drugs.

But what's different now is that doctors and researchers are learning how to combine these drugs with other leading-edge technologies to radically improve the results. And after years of study, the data coming in now prove it works. The results are almost miraculous...

In one critical trial, doctors showed that using immunotherapy drugs in combination with these new tools doubled the positive response rate. And for many of the trial subjects whose cancers were the most advanced... several experienced "complete responses."

In other words, their cancers disappeared.

The drugs aren't just killing tumors – they're eliminating cancer from patients' bodies...

As it turns out, the new immunotherapy techniques don't just shrink the tumors they target... They unleash a powerful effect in the body.

For decades, doctors heard rumors of it... But instances were so rare, it was impossible to measure or study. It's called the "abscopal effect"... It happens when you treat cancer at just one site in the body, but then it starts to disappear everywhere.

For 100 years, the abscopal effect was so rare that a doctor would be lucky to see one case in his entire career. But now, in the age of immunotherapy, it has become more common – occurring around 10% of the time. For example, my friend Jamie, who was treated for tumors in his lungs and saw the one in his brain wither away.

Now we know why it happens, and we're learning how to harness it.

And that change – the ability to not just shrink a patient's tumors... but eliminate cancer cells throughout his or her body – is why I believe it's time to start talking about a universal cure for cancer.

That's why my team here at Stansberry has put together a video on the latest developments in immunotherapy.

This free video goes into more detail than I can in a single Digest... In it, you'll learn about the new techniques improving the results of immunotherapy treatments and why the scientific community believes a universal cure is within reach.

The important part of this story is the millions of people who will live longer, healthier lives thanks to these treatments...

That's why I hope everyone will watch our video... to inform yourselves about these treatments that are becoming available now...

But it is also true that billions of dollars will flow into the development and refinement of these drugs and technologies in the coming years. The financial opportunity in immunotherapy is just getting started... The market is expected to nearly triple by 2026.

And the shares of some of the small companies working in this area – which I've highlighted for my Venture Technology subscribers – could do even better... growing from a few million in sales – or less – to billions... creating massive fortunes along the way.

In addition to the video, I've also written a comprehensive report on the latest in immunotherapy... the companies developing the best tools... and which stocks to own to profit as these treatments become mainstream.

It's available to all Venture Technology subscribers as part of their subscriptions. So if you would like to learn all about the latest in immunotherapy and how to subscribe to my newsletter for my ongoing coverage, please click here to watch our video.

New 52-week highs (as of 10/17/19): Celgene (CELG), Americold Realty Trust (COLD), Dollar General (DG), Digital Realty Trust (DLR), Home Depot (HD), iShares U.S. Home Construction Fund (ITB), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), NVR (NVR), and Aqua America (WTR).

Thursday's Digest inspired some spirited reader feedback. What did you think? Let us know at feedback@stansberryresearch.com.

"I really appreciated the cerbic and pointed message by Dan Ferris in [yesterday's] Digest. There are only a few people who will call out the 'squids' in the financial business and community... I thought Dan Ferris did an excellent job with the Digest today. And pointing out the absurdities some of the political proposals being put forth was priceless. I for one really appreciated it. I can only hope some of the voters will take heart. Although at this point I have fading hope. That's why I am adding to my gold and silver positions. Unfortunately, Porter is probably correct in his prognostication." – Paid-up subscriber Jim F.

"Dan, I'm still cracking up after reading your WeWork/cockroaches rant. I've been reading and appreciating your work for a number of years. I didn't know you had a knack for entertainment. Keep it up." – Paid-up subscriber Luis A.

"All you have to do to counter socialists like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren is quote former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who said, 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'" – Paid-up Stansberry Flex member K.S.

"The net result will be Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged." – Paid-up subscriber Frank D.

"Dan, I appreciated what you said in the 'cockroaches' Digest. However we have a conundrum. I'm totally on board with the idea of not penalizing (with excessive taxes) the successful people that truly innovate and create. What about the greedy bastards that make up so many of the C level officers within large companies? If they are simply running the company that someone else built what makes them so special to deserve a $300M salary, and stock options on top of that. I get that it takes talent to operate large companies. I've owned and sold two small companies and I know I don't have the right stuff to run a fortune 500. But some of these guys should be strung up in public and taxed at 90%. Others truly deserve what they earn, even if it's in the Billions. Because they did so by providing value to the public ten thousand fold what they earned. So how do we separate those that earn it from the greedy bastards? I fear Bernie's and Warren's tax proposals will solve that problem since the wealthiest will relocate to a country with a friendlier tax environment. Then we won't have any billionaires any more. I'm both fearful and hopeful for the future – at the same time." – Paid-up Stansberry Alliance member Mike B.

Dan Ferris comment: Mike, thanks for the question. It's a good one, and different from the one I asked yesterday about how to tax the Wall Street "Vampire Squid" billionaires compared with the productive ones.

I don't think overcompensated CEOs are a huge drag on society, and they're not criminals like the Wall Street crowd. Highly paid CEOs are a sign that we're still a healthy risk-taking culture... And risk-taking is the only way anybody ever makes any progress in this world, so that's a good thing.

The No. 1 guy in any sport, industry, company, or organization will likely always be at least somewhat overcompensated in any decent risk-taking culture. No. 1 guys always garner disproportionately more attention than anybody else. Nobody ever asks, "Who's second-best?" It's baked into human nature. It's best not to fight it. (I highly recommend Albert-László Barabási's book, The Formula, which is enlightening on this topic.)

And like I said yesterday, the top guys and gals provide an invaluable service... They inspire the rest of us. I listen to classical guitarists like John Williams, Manuel Barrueco, and/or David Russell every single day of my life. It is my most cherished dream to produce such a sound from my guitar.

Without them, I'd be lost, and probably not still playing the guitar at age 57. Francisco Tárrega inspired Andrés Segovia... who inspired Williams... who inspired Barrueco and Russell's generation... who inspired me.

The mix of skill and luck it takes to be No. 1 is a different but also important question bearing on compensation levels. In my opinion, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has gained more by luck than by skill. I'm willing to bet Warren Buffett is luckier than most people will admit or understand, but I also think he possesses a breathtaking level of knowledge and skill. He's the real deal, and Blankfein is a poser.

I agree that some CEOs are truly overpaid. Anybody who complains about overpaid CEOs needs to use whatever power they have as a shareholder to get tough on the board of directors. When the compensation committee gives somebody $300 million and you think they're worth a tenth of that, it's up to you to try to make the committee answer for it.

If they can't, they're out.

The problem only exists from the bottom up, one company at a time, from the shareholders' point of view and can only be handled that way. There is no overcompensation cancer in our society that must be eradicated by law or regulation.

My ultimate underlying point is that politicians routinely offer us facile, top-down solutions (including magical degrees of larceny) to highly subjective, insanely complex problems – most of which either don't really exist or simply can't be solved as easily as politicians represent.

Politicians want us to think they're highly trained, experienced surgeons using the finest tools available. But they're really imbeciles with hammers who think every problem is a nail.

Regards,

Dave Lashmet
Seattle, Washington
October 18, 2019