Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong is sounding the alarm that for too long America’s medical establishment has celebrated tumor shrinkage while ignoring what actually wins the war: the patient’s immune system. He bluntly argues that chemotherapy and high-dose radiation often destroy the very natural killer and T cells that could provide durable cures, a critique he has repeated in recent interviews and articles.
What Dr. Soon-Shiong calls the old “poison the patient” paradigm is being replaced with a playbook that stresses exposing the tumor and then unleashing immune cells to finish the job. He promotes a strategy of low, targeted doses to stress and expose cancer cells, combined with immune activators like IL-15–based therapies and engineered NK cells, which his company says can bolster the body’s frontline defenders.
Those are not just armchair theories; ImmunityBio’s clinical program showed striking results in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, with reported complete response rates and long durations that gave many patients a real shot at avoiding bladder removal. Dr. Soon-Shiong and colleagues have also pointed to long remissions in some patients treated with immune-boosting approaches, arguing these outcomes expose the limits of relying solely on chemo or radiation.
But don’t expect the system to bend without a fight. The FDA paused earlier approval efforts over manufacturing and inspection deficiencies, forcing resubmissions and delaying access for patients who might benefit from these new immunotherapies. That bureaucratic gridlock — whether from legitimate safety concerns or an overly cautious agency culture — has real human costs when time is the difference between life and death.
Meanwhile, critics and legal battles swirl around any company that dares to challenge the status quo, and ImmunityBio itself has faced investor suits and settlements that opponents will happily use to discredit innovation. Washington bureaucrats and Wall Street skeptics love to weaponize complexity while patients just want hope and options, which is why conservative readers should demand transparency without choking off progress.
This is exactly the kind of fight where conservative principles — individual liberty, limited interference, and faith in American ingenuity — matter. We should be cheering on medical pioneers who risk reputations and fortunes to move past fifty years of dogma, not letting regulatory timidness or entrenched pharmaceutical incentives decide who gets a chance at a cure.
Congress and state legislatures must stop outsourcing medical progress to faceless committees and ensure regulators prioritize patient access while maintaining safety, not reflexively defend an industry’s comfortable conventions. Let the evidence, not the bureaucracy, guide treatment options and let patients and their doctors make timely decisions without endless foot-dragging.
If America still prizes innovation, we’ll back those like Dr. Soon-Shiong who are rewiring cancer care around the immune system, and we’ll hold the FDA, Big Pharma, and the medical establishment accountable when they stand between sick Americans and lifesaving advances. Hardworking families deserve the best science applied quickly, not a slow-motion surrender to failed orthodoxy.
