Cancer, Pseudoscience, and Fear: A Scientific Perspective from Dr. Oksana Mankovska
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The New Enlightenment Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/05/08
How does pseudoscience exploit fear in cancer treatment, and what distinguishes it from evidence-based oncology?
“Pseudoscience tries to imitate science, but magical thinking does not even attempt that.” – Dr. Oksana Mankovska
Dr. Oksana Mankovska is a Ukrainian molecular biologist specializing in cancer research and biomarker discovery. She serves as a research scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biology and Genetics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and as an ambassador for the European Association for Cancer Research. Holding a PhD in Molecular Biology from Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, her work focuses on liquid biopsies, cell biology, and translational oncology within both academic and biotech environments.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Dr. Oksana Mankovska about cancer biology and the persistence of pseudoscience. Mankovska explains cancer as uncontrolled cell division and contrasts evidence-based treatments with fear-driven myths, magical thinking, and fraudulent “cures.” She highlights how uncertainty, cost, and emotional vulnerability push individuals toward unproven methods, emphasizing the importance of reproducibility, scientific consensus, and open science in combating misinformation and improving public understanding.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, let us talk about your experience with science, real science, and what presents itself as science but is actually pseudoscience. In your discipline, what kinds of pseudoscience do you encounter or see in public discourse?
Dr. Oksana Mankovska: I work in the field of cancer biology, and there is a lot of pseudoscience around cancer. Unfortunately, I have come to accept that it exists, because cancer is a very complex and heterogeneous disease.
It is not only complex; people are afraid of cancer. I am also afraid of cancer, because we still do not have a single solution for all cancers, and we often cannot predict how the disease will progress in a particular person.
Jacobsen: A good starting question might be: what is cancer? Then we can define pseudoscience in contrast to real science.
Mankovska: Yes, cancer is a disease in which the cells of a person’s body divide actively and uncontrollably. They undergo genetic changes, become aggressive, invade surrounding tissues, and can spread through the blood or lymphatic system throughout the body. This process is called metastasis, and metastasis is the main cause of death from cancer.
There are many different types of cancer. There are solid tumors, which are located in specific tissues, and there are cancers of the blood system. In that case, the problem originates in cells from the bone marrow.
If we talk about what cancer is, there is something I would not call pseudoscience. It is something more like magical thinking. It is not science at all. Pseudoscience tries to imitate science, but magical thinking does not even attempt that. It simply says, for example, that you have cancer because you did something bad.
Jacobsen: So, you sinned against God, or you are demon-possessed. There is no naturalistic mechanism proposed; it is all supernatural. That is an important distinction. Where does this come from in the culture?
Mankovska: I have not studied this directly, but I think it comes from things that people cannot explain and are very afraid of. It is similar to religion. I do not criticize religious people.
Jacobsen: So your clarification is that this is about supernatural ideas.
Mankovska: Yes, it is about fear.
Jacobsen: Which may or may not intersect with religious ideas. This is not about religious individuals.
Mankovska: Yes, yes. A person does not have to be religious. I mean that the roots are similar. A person is afraid of something and wants to find an explanation. It is much easier to think that it is because of your behavior or because of something bad around you, rather than to try to understand it from a scientific point of view, because that is much more difficult.
People often choose the easier way to understand. Another point is that these simple explanations offer solutions, easy solutions. Science does not do that. Science says that if you have cancer, you need to go to a doctor and use treatments like chemotherapy, and we cannot guarantee that it will work. But if you believe cancer is caused by bad behavior, you can say, “I will be a good person, and I will never have cancer.”
These are easy solutions that people, even very intelligent people, want. But unfortunately, in the real world, we do not have such certainty.
Another issue, which is closer to science, is treatments that try to imitate scientific explanations. For example, among younger people, it is very popular to listen to bloggers. Even people with some medical education sometimes misrepresent science. I have seen bloggers who claim to treat cancer with things like baking soda or potassium-based substances, which are not evidence-based, approved cancer treatments when promoted as cures.
There is no sufficient evidence-based clinical research supporting them as cancer cures. No sufficient evidence. These methods are not approved by regulatory authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, yet they claim they can treat cancer this way. They try to explain it in scientific language, and people who are not scientists, who have not consulted real experts, think, “This is cheap, I can do it, and I can treat my cancer.” It seems better than going to a real doctor, paying a lot of money, and still not having guaranteed results.
These bloggers, or hypothetical figures like them, say their method will help. They also promote things like hypnosis or distant “treatments.”
I had a personal situation. I will not name anyone, but I tried to explain to a close friend, who is not a scientist, that they should not go to a certain practitioner. I knew that what they were offering was not a scientific method. But they said, “This doctor told us he has success in treatment, and he cannot reveal his method because it is his secret.”
Jacobsen: That is fraud.
Mankovska: Yes. When I tried to explain why it does not work this way, my arguments were rejected. It was a very difficult conversation, and I never returned to the topic with this person. Fortunately, they eventually went to a proper doctor, and everything turned out fine.
But even people who know me, who are in my close circle, when they are afraid, they can make irrational decisions.
I am not the best person to discuss all examples, because I do not remember all the details. But I know there were cases of professors who published clearly pseudoscientific ideas in academic work and even taught students these ideas. That was very concerning.
We have a Facebook page, something like “Pseudoscience in Ukraine”, where people share examples of pseudoscience. During COVID-19, for example, there were many strange claims.
Jacobsen: Yes, yes.
Mankovska: Some people said things like, “The sun spoke to me, it was coronavirus.” There were also anti-vaccination movements and many problems related to vaccination. Probably the most speculated and manipulated topic was where the virus came from.
Even now, we do not have absolute certainty. The weight of currently available evidence supports a zoonotic spillover hypothesis. Major bodies such as the World Health Organization continue to say that more data are needed.
This is connected to human interaction with nature. People move species from one place to another and disrupt natural habitats. That is always harmful for ecosystems and can contribute to the emergence of new viruses and pandemics. Not a direct cause, but it creates conditions that make them more likely.
Jacobsen: Rapid exposure and adaptation.
Mankovska: There has been a lot of scientific work to understand where this virus came from. Journals like Nature published detailed studies. Researchers analyzed genetic sequences and environmental samples, for example from markets, to trace possible origins and identify likely species involved. This view still exists.
I do not understand why they do not read the research and evaluate the evidence. And if even some scientists think this way, then what can we expect from people who are not scientists?
Jacobsen: Disagreement is normal in science among experts. What matters is the overall consensus or the weight of evidence. You can always find one scientist saying something different.
But the strongest position comes from the total direction of the evidence. That is far more reliable than quoting religious texts, reading tarot cards, or consulting horoscopes, or thinking it comes from spirits.
Running a proper experiment is difficult. Building evidence from many independent sources is the best system we have for discovering knowledge.
Mankovska: Yes, it is the best system. And overall, the system works very well. And now, in Ukraine, we have started to introduce open science principles. For example, you can publish your methods and experiments in open-access sources, and anyone can take them and try to reproduce them. This is very important for understanding reproducibility. We can also adopt methods from other laboratories. I think this is a very good development, and it is important that we have already started to introduce these principles.
Jacobsen: So, to conclude, science, regardless of where it is done, should produce consistent results if the same methods are followed. It does not matter who performs the experiment. If the procedure is correct and the methodology is comparable, you should generally obtain similar evidence. If not, disconfirming evidence is also valuable.
Mankovska: Yes, that is why scientists do not like certain methods. Some methods are very complex and not easily reproducible, even within a single laboratory. Between laboratories, it becomes even more difficult. Scientists tend to avoid relying on such methods.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Oksana.
Image Credit: Scott Douglas Jacobsen.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 