Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Sep-19-13, 14:17
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,206
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default The Origins of Cancer

Wonderful article.

It goes into the history of the failed, but still not dead, genetic theory of cancer and then into the metabolic theory of cancer.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Sep-19-13, 14:29
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

I've been reading this and altho its tough going for those of us without a degree in chemistry, its frightening. But "the war on cancer" has been a major failure - My mother knew that and on her death bed (she suffered with Colon cancer) made me promise NOT to have anything to do with cancer research and to never give them money!

Jo xxx
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Sep-19-13, 14:35
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,206
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Just give the money to the right people, the ones studying the metabolic origins of cancer, like these guys: http://www.singlecausesinglecure.org/

Quote:
Single Cause, Single Cure.

Other foundations typically focus on one single cancer type; we focus on the one feature of cancer that pervades all cancer types – defective metabolism.

We don’t believe cancer is really a collection of over 200 different diseases, each one requiring a different cure. We believe cancer is a single disease, with a single cause, and requires a single cure.

To be honest we don’t like asking for donations – so we want to be abundantly clear why we are asking. Cancer research is off track. New “targeted” cancer drugs can cost up to $100,000 per treatment, offering no increase in survival time. The relationship between value and price is completely lost.

Cancer is capable of bring out the best in people, and sadly, the worst in people. Pharmaceutical companies are guilty of selling false hope. It is immoral to sell a drug treatment for an exorbitant price, that provides zero benefit, when people are at their most vulnerable. We are of the firm conviction that metabolic research, without question, promises the most benefit at the least cost – but funding remains challenged.

Most drugs that have shown promise are unable to be patented and as a consequence receive no attention. Sadly, it will most likely take your help for these promising therapies to be realized at all. We are different from other foundation because the status quo is no longer acceptable. Continuously throwing money at these failed concepts is no longer acceptable. Money that is capable bring to fruition meaning progress at very little cost is our mission.

The goal of our foundation is to put ourselves out of business as quickly as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Sep-19-13, 16:03
coachjeff's Avatar
coachjeff coachjeff is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 635
 
Plan: Very Low Carb
Stats: 211/212/210 Male 72
BF:
Progress: -100%
Location: Shreveport, LA
Default

Oh crud, I'm an idiot. I just started another thread about this great article, not seeing Nancy already had.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Sep-19-13, 19:40
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,238
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Defective metabolism, heh? Did I mention that I wrote a series of essays titled Paradigm with the central premise that normal metabolism starts with ketones?

I can see how cancer is just one disease. But I can also see how it can be caused by a multitude of things from tobacco to aflatoxin. I see it as an initial cause, then a growth medium. No, scratch that, it's good but too simplistic. I think I have a better idea. Evolution could not occur without genetic mutations. From those mutations, those that make the organism better adapted to the pressures of life survive, those that make this organism worse die off. Cancer would be one such bad mutation. This doesn't mean it's all about genetics. No, instead there must be a cause for the mutation in the first place, and it's not genetic. Genes don't just go askew for no reason. They are the product of billions of years of natural selection.

So, first premise is that the creation of cancer happens all the time, but can only grow if the medium is just right. Second premise is that without this growth medium, we still have a ton of other genetic mutations which make it difficult for bad mutations to take hold, and cancer does not grow. Third premise is that with just the right growth medium to muck things up, one bad cell is all that's needed. And final premise is that we don't have enough beneficial genetic mutations to take care of such a growth medium. If we did, we wouldn't even know about cancer.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Sep-19-13, 19:46
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,238
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

I forgot to make my point. Hehe. The point is that this growth medium is probably the same for most cancers, in spite of having a multitude of different initial causes, and this is the idea of "single cure". Rather, the cure is a return to normal metabolism, where our army of beneficial genetic mutations can finally handle cancer, because that's the proper medium these beneficial mutations thrive in.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Sep-20-13, 01:10
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

So to play devils advocate for a moment, are we saying that cancer would be rare if we, as a society reduced our sugar and wheat (bad carbs intake) and ate a ketogenic diet? Is it really possible that "the experts" at cancer research are missing something so basic and allowing 1000000s to die? If this is the case, surely they'd be some sort of world outcry??

Jo xxx
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Fri, Sep-20-13, 04:24
Sagehill Sagehill is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,722
 
Plan: Longer-term IF, Dr. Fung
Stats: 250/182.4/170 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 85%
Location: FL
Default

No, because the medical-pharm industry would be crippled and half the American economy would tank because of it.
That's why there's no "cure" after all these decades... there's no money in a cure.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, Sep-20-13, 04:32
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagehill
No, because the medical-pharm industry would be crippled and half the American economy would tank because of it.
That's why there's no "cure" after all these decades... there's no money in a cure.



I understand and agree - if they do find a cure, it would have to involve financial incentives for the big pharmas and the partnership with the food industry makes it a perfect financial circle - but sometimes, I find it hard to believe that these people behind it all can allow folk to die - even their own!???? If you look at the cancer research website, the only mention of diet is the usual "healthy diet" and to ignore "fad" diet cures!!!!

I guess its all too big now for them ever to admit that they were wrong and ruled only by financial incentives

Jo xxx
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Sep-20-13, 05:03
Sagehill Sagehill is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,722
 
Plan: Longer-term IF, Dr. Fung
Stats: 250/182.4/170 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 85%
Location: FL
Default

There's the other issue... if 600,000 Americans die every year from cancer, that's 600,000 MORE people around in addition to all the babies born every year, 600,000 more people who will live a much longer life and become useless old people, every year, a potential drain on society. Think we're crowded now??

Looking at things from the US government angle as well as business angle, NOT curing cancer, especially with something so simple as diet, could well be considered a form of population control... it's much better to rape all these people of their finances as long as possibly via very expensive cancer "treatments" and consultations that don't give them much longer than they'd live without them, before letting them die a relatively early death and thus get them out of the way. A form of eugenics in action, so to speak.

I'm just too cynical. It's hard working in the medical industry, where one really sees what's going on. heh
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Fri, Sep-20-13, 05:21
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagehill
There's the other issue... if 600,000 Americans die every year from cancer, that's 600,000 MORE people around in addition to all the babies born every year, 600,000 more people who will live a much longer life and become useless old people, every year, a potential drain on society. Think we're crowded now??

Looking at things from the US government angle as well as business angle, NOT curing cancer, especially with something so simple as diet, could well be considered a form of population control... it's much better to rape all these people of their finances as long as possibly via very expensive cancer "treatments" and consultations that don't give them much longer than they'd live without them, before letting them die a relatively early death and thus get them out of the way. A form of eugenics in action, so to speak.

I'm just too cynical. It's hard working in the medical industry, where one really sees what's going on. heh
LOL, I work in the medical industry too - well the NHS in the UK and I too am cynical and dont disagree with you. Its just I do like to look at the other side of the argument, I also see so many sad cases and so many people taking on sponsors to raise money for things like cancer research, its hard to understand how this can carry on and why people seem so blinded by it. I personally find the whole cancer research thing horrendous. From what I can see, they've done nothing with the huge amounts of money they've been given in the last 50 years!!!! But you cant say that. Imagine the outcry if I wrote on my facebook page that I disapprove of Cancer research!!!!!

Jo xxx
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Fri, Sep-20-13, 05:37
Sagehill Sagehill is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,722
 
Plan: Longer-term IF, Dr. Fung
Stats: 250/182.4/170 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 85%
Location: FL
Default

Quote:
I also see so many sad cases and so many people taking on sponsors to raise money for things like cancer research, its hard to understand how this can carry on and why people seem so blinded by it.
It is appalling, isn't it?

But how better to pacify people's worries than keep them busy raising money for research that palliates rather than cures? And throw them a bone with a few easy cancer cures that keep them hoping... and spending on research: "We're making progress!!!"

Five years ago, my 82 yo mother was diagnosed with lymphoma, one of the more easily treated cancers. She was "cured"... but not after spending a major fortune for the treatments. However, if I hadn't told her to change her diet to LC, would she still be here today???

I'm betting not.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Fri, Sep-20-13, 06:20
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,238
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Anybody heard of mitochondrial disease? Me neither, until earlier this year when I was looking at the mitochondria in relation to my current condition. Anyway, the point is that this is an obscure disease, nobody talks about it, and we'd be lucky to find a doc who would even know it exists.

The problem I see with the hypothesis that it's all about the genes is that if we do anything about the genes directly, but ignore the cause, this cause will continue to act and eventually destroy any progress we've made toward genes. Success of direct gene therapy would only occur if this therapy somehow did something about the cause itself. It would be an accident.

Instead, if we go for the cause directly, and ignore the genes, the genes will be taken care of eventually as cells take care of themselves. In fact, some cause could inhibit this self-repair and self-rule ability of the cell so that the cause could continue to exist. This is explained by David Wheldon in this document:

http://www.davidwheldon.co.uk/ms-treatment1.html

The pertinent point is with treatment schedule which includes pulsing of one of the meds, as this one would positively kill the pathogen and in doing so finally allow the cell to suicide, as the pathogen inhibits the process to take place as long as it infects the cell. The reason for pulsing is to do with the release of inflammatory substances both from the infected cell and from the pathogen, substances which cause harsh symptoms of their own.

Finally, on the SCSC website, there's a chart titled Progression of Cancer, that explains pretty well what we can do about it, but most especially how we can diagnose the prerequisite conditions that must be met before cancer can even be allowed to be created or grow. Basically, if we start with a ketogenic diet, but only see a small effect or no effect, then we have a pretty good proof that there is another cause at play here, and it's just a matter of finding it at this point. I was arguing for the same idea with Richard Feinman regarding his research into cancer and KD, as some of the subjects did not respond as well as others, or at all.

Finally finally, if the problem is with the mitochondria, then the most obvious symptoms should relate to energy production. So, fatigue, weakness, time of recuperation/repair, or anything else that requires a lot of energy.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Fri, Sep-20-13, 07:30
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

M Levac's framework explains a lot about auto-immune diseases, too.

I am intrigued by the theory that, given proper nourishment, the proper genes will express, not the ones who've gone crazy on a sugar bender.

Recent research does point that way, for us being more adaptable. Instead of a blueprint, we have more of a Lego approach, and can sometimes grab a different piece for a different purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Fri, Sep-20-13, 08:11
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Also, speaking to motives, I think there's a simple reason no one is seriously considering diet as either treatment or preventative for cancer:

They don't believe it.

I'm as cynical as anyone. Of course there's a profit motive. My husband was recently diagnosed with a mutation in MTFHR (A1298C, to be precise.) There's even a treatment! By taking methylated forms of two B Vitamins, he can correct the issue and be more normal in his functioning. But because these are vitamins, insurance won't pay for it. Even though it's a medical issue.

Now, that's outright lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry. Cynically, so they can make more money. But also sincerely; because the people doing this don't believe in supplements. More accurately: their paycheck depends on it.

It's not like there are secret clinics where drug company bigwigs and cancer doctors and radiography machine companies all hang out, eating grassfed beef. When their children get cancer; they take them to the big hospitals and poison them, just like everyone else.

It takes incredible will, and extraordinary confidence, to think outside the box. Everyone here has done it.

But we know how much it takes to swim against the tide.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:01.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.