What peer-reviewed studies contradict Pete Sulack's holistic healing claims?

1. What Sulack says he did — the narrative and claims

Pete Sulack’s public account says he was diagnosed with terminal Grade 4 diffuse astrocytoma in November 2024, adopted a regimen of diet change, supplements and therapies (high‑dose vitamin C IVs, hyperbaric oxygen, cold plunges, coffee enemas, repurposed drugs and metabolic strategies), and by March 2025 was “declared in full remission” after applying those protocols ^{[1] [3] [4]}. His websites and interviews repeatedly present this as a faith‑driven, integrative healing journey and promote a written “protocol” and supplements tied to his Redeem Essentials brand ^{[2] [4] [5]}.

2. What the available reporting does not include: peer‑reviewed evidence

None of the supplied pages link to, summarize, or cite peer‑reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews that demonstrate causation between Sulack’s specific multi‑component protocol and remission of Grade 4 diffuse astrocytoma. The materials are personal narrative, promotional copy, or interviews and do not present clinical trial data or independent peer‑reviewed verification of his outcome ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.

3. Where one would expect contradiction from peer‑reviewed literature — but isn’t shown here

For a claim that an individual with an almost uniformly poor‑prognosis brain tumor achieved remission through a listed set of off‑label therapies, the academic literature typically provides RCTs, cohort studies, case series, or mechanistic studies either supporting or refuting components (e.g., IV vitamin C, hyperbaric oxygen, repurposed drugs). The sources provided do not cite such literature or point to any peer‑reviewed paper that contradicts Sulack’s claims — therefore no explicit peer‑reviewed contradiction appears in the current reporting ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas in the available sources

The materials are promotional and faith‑oriented: Sulack’s personal site, profiles on clinic pages, and interviews emphasize his clinic background, products (Redeem Essentials), and the offer of a proprietary protocol — an implicit commercial and reputational incentive to present a successful outcome ^{[1] [2] [6] [5]}. Conversation pieces like Journey to Wellness frame his approach as part of a growing integrative movement and encourage interest in “repurposed compounds” without providing independent clinical validation ^[4]. The promotional framing and product links create a potential conflict of interest that readers should note ^{[2] [5]}.

5. How to interpret absence of peer‑reviewed contradiction in these sources

Because the supplied reporting lacks peer‑reviewed studies either supporting or contradicting Sulack’s exact protocol, we cannot conclude from these sources that peer‑reviewed literature disproves his claims; rather, “available sources do not mention” any independent trials that validate or refute his outcome ^{[1] [3] [4]}. The absence of such studies in promotional and interview pieces is not the same as evidence of effectiveness or disproof — it is a gap in the documentation presented here ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Practical next steps for a reader seeking verification

Seek independent peer‑reviewed research on the specific components Sulack lists (e.g., high‑dose IV vitamin C, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, metabolic therapies, repurposed drugs) and on outcomes in Grade 4 diffuse astrocytoma from academic databases and oncology journals; check whether case reports, cohort studies, or RCTs exist and whether they are authored independently of parties with commercial interest. The sources provided by Sulack do not supply those citations, so a reader should treat the personal narrative and product links as unverified medical testimony until corroborated by independent peer‑reviewed evidence ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

Limitations: This analysis uses only the supplied sources. If you want, I can search for peer‑reviewed studies on the specific therapies Sulack mentions and report which trials support or contradict those interventions.