“NOT A MEDICAL DOCTOR — BUT TALKING CANCER: Inside the Undercover Meeting That Left More Questions Than Answers”
Undercover Interview Raises New Questions About “Immunotherapy” Claims
By Steven Millard — Investigations Desk
A second undercover conversation with a senior figure linked to Wellbeing International has revealed fresh questions about cancer-related claims, patient safeguards, and who really stands behind a controversial regenerative treatment business.
During a tense recorded exchange, the man presenting himself to patients as “Dr Stephen Ray” — who holds a PhD but is not a registered medical doctor — attempted to draw a distinction between stem-cell therapies and what he described as “dendritic cells” and “exosomes”.
When pressed directly about cancer, Ray insisted the treatments were not an alternative to conventional medicine.
“This isn’t an alternative to surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy,” he said, describing the approach instead as an “adjuvant” to mainstream treatment.
Yet when asked why cancer patients were being told the therapies could help, Ray pointed broadly to “an enormous amount of literature” on immunotherapy — without citing specific studies during the interview.
“Are Vulnerable Patients Being Sold Hope?”
The undercover reporter challenged Ray over whether seriously ill patients — some described as desperate for options — were being offered expensive treatments without sufficient evidence.
Ray responded:
“If there is a doubt that we can’t help… we tell them.”
However, the conversation turned sharply when the issue of medical records arose.
The reporter alleged that some clients had not been asked for full medical histories — and in certain cases were reportedly told their records were not necessary.
Ray denied ever refusing to review documentation, stating:
“If medical records are available… happy days, we want to see them.”
The exchange highlights a recurring concern raised by critics of private regenerative medicine ventures — whether adequate clinical assessment is being performed before treatments costing tens of thousands are offered.
The £50,000 Question
Perhaps the most striking moment came when the discussion shifted to pricing.
Asked whether he knew what patients were being charged, Ray initially said he did not deal with financial matters, before estimating treatments were “something around the 50,000 US mark”.
The reporter questioned how someone front-facing with patients could remain detached from fees of that magnitude — particularly when vulnerable individuals may view the therapies as a final chance.
Ray replied simply:
“I can only speak to the science.”
A Warning About the Law
As tensions escalated, the undercover journalist raised the UK’s Cancer Act 1939, which makes it an offence to advertise or claim to treat cancer in certain ways without proper authorisation.
Ray appeared unfamiliar with the legislation at the time.
“I think there’s a big difference between treating cancer and helping cancer patients,” he said, acknowledging his interpretation “might be wrong.”
The exchange underscores a grey area increasingly scrutinised by regulators — where clinics avoid explicit cure claims while still marketing therapies alongside cancer care narratives.
“The Fall Guy?”
In a particularly charged moment, the reporter suggested Ray was being placed at the forefront while others remained in the background — naming senior figures allegedly connected to the organisation.
Ray confirmed he had worked with one associate since around 2009 but declined to discuss internal structures.
When asked whether he would consider acting as a whistle-blower or assisting authorities, he responded:
“No.”
Despite repeated challenges, Ray maintained confidence in the scientific basis of extracellular vesicles and exosome-based approaches, citing “over seven thousand publications last year”.
Critics argue that while research exists, clinical validation and regulatory approval for many commercial uses remain limited.
Science — or Sales?
The interview ended with Ray reiterating his willingness to “defend the science”.
But the undercover reporter closed with a warning:
“Some people would say you were so early in the game… it was before kick-off.”
That remark cuts to the heart of a global debate — whether experimental regenerative therapies are being promoted faster than the science can safely support.
Comments
Post a Comment