Utrecht, the Netherlands, have discovered a substance that has an adverse

effect on nearly all types of chemotherapy — making cancer cells

insensitive to the treatment. Chemotherapy often loses effectiveness over

time. It is often unclear how or why this happens.

It now appears that chemotherapy is made ineffective by two types of fatty

acid that are made by stem cells in the blood. Under the influence of

cisplatin chemotherapy, the stem cells secrete these fatty acids that induce

resistance to a broad spectrum of chemotherapies. These substances are

referred to by researchers as ‘PIFAs’ which stands for platinum-induced

fatty acids. Cisplatin is a type of chemotherapy that is widely used for the

treatment of cancer, including cancer of the lungs and ovaries.

Tumors under the skin

The researchers studied the effect of PIFA’s in mice and human cells. The

mice studied had tumors under the skin. Under normal conditions, the tumors

would decrease in size following the administration of chemotherapy. In the

study, after administering the fatty acids to the mice, the tumors were

found to be insensitive to chemotherapy. The fatty acids were isolated from

the medium in which chemotherapy exposed stem cells were grown. But also

stem cells in the blood of patients produce the fatty acids that desensitize

tumors to chemotherapy.

The fatty acids are also found in commercially-produced fish oil supplements

containing omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids as well as in some algae

extracts. In the experiments conducted in mice, the tumors became

insensitive to chemotherapy after administration of normal amounts of fish

oil. Natural products that include fish oil are frequently used by cancer

patients in addition to their regular treatment.

“Don’t use these products”

Professor Emile Voest, a medical oncologist at UMC Utrecht, supervised the

research. “Where resistance to chemotherapy is concerned, we usually believe

that changes in the cancer cells themselves have occurred. Now we show that

the body itself secretes protective substances into the blood that are

powerful enough to block the effect of chemotherapy. These substances can be

found in some types of fish oil. Whilst waiting for the results of further

research, we currently recommend that these products should not be used

whilst people are undergoing chemotherapy.”

Researchers at the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands,

describe these findings, that will appear online on September 12, in the

journal Cancer Cell.

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily

staff) from materials provided by University Medical Center Utrecht, via

EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Journal Reference:

Jeanine M.L. Roodhart, Laura G.M. Daenen, Edwin C.A. Stigter, Henk-Jan

Prins, Johan Gerrits, Julia M. Houthuijzen, Marije G. Gerritsen, Henk S.

Schipper, Marieke J.G. Backer, Miranda van Amersfoort, Joost S.P. Vermaat,

Petra Moerer, Kenji Ishihara, Eric Kalkhoven, Jos H. Beijnen, Patrick W.B.

Derksen, Rene H. Medema, Anton C. Martens, Arjan B. Brenkman, Emile E.

Voest. Mesenchymal Stem Cells Induce Resistance to Chemotherapy through the

Release of Platinum-Induced Fatty Acids. Cancer Cell, 2011; 20 (3): 370 DOI:

10.1016/j.ccr.2011.08.010

“Cholesterol modulates the fluidity of the membranes (ed. read that sentence again and remember it!). By inserting itself between the fatty acid chains, cholesterol prevents the ‘crystallization’ at temperatures below Tm [melting point temp] and sterically [structurally] blocks large motions of the fatty acid chains at temperatures above Tm. In fact, high concentrations of cholesterol abolish phase transitions of bilayers. The modulating effect of cholesterol maintains the fluidity of membranes in the range required for biological function.”

“LDL (cholesterol) contains up to 80% lipid [fats and oils], including polyunsaturated fatty acids and cholesterol, mainly esters. Linoleic acids [parent omega-6], one of the most abundant fatty acids in LDL…”

Reference: “Postprandial Lipid Oxidation and Cardiovascular Disease Risk”, Bowen, Phyllis, et al., Current Atherosclerosis Reports; 6:477-484, 2004.

NEWSFLASH: It’s the processed, adulterated oils found in cooking oil sections of the supermarket that cause the majority of the cholesterol problems. The cholesterol is the transporter of a “poison” – those defective oils!

As I recently mentioned to a subscriber with high cholesterol levels, it is the STRUCTURE of the cholesterol that is important, not the quantity!

I have no idea what the American institutes did with this information, or what the German government did with it either. I can only conclude that neither government had any idea of the significance of Warburg’s cancer discoveries.

At that time, no practical preventive regimens or treatments using these discoveries had been developed, so it is somewhat understandable that the information would have been “shelved”. Unfortunately for millions of people, it was kept there.

Even by 1985 it still wasn’t brought back into the public domain for the American researchers to be made aware of. Americans at the NIH (National Institute of Health) translated Dr. Warburg’s paper, so there is no doubt that American scientists knew about this work.

In this presentation, Warburg clearly, and very systematically explained the “origin of cancer cells”. This is, in fact what his discussion/publication was entitled.

Just to briefly summarize his landmark discoveries, Warburg explained that:

1. Cancer cells obtain the majority of their energy through a completely different mechanism than a normal cell – a reversal of respiration energy and fermentation energy magnitudes.

2. All cancer cells have first suffered damaged respiration.

3. Damage to the respiration is irreversible; once created, a cancer cell can NEVER return to normal. It is a renegade forever and must be destroyed.

4. It is a simple deficiency of oxygen that destroys a cell’s respiration.

5. Without sufficient oxygen, cell structure vanishes.

6. Undeniably, no matter what the cause of oxygen deprivation, the result is the same – damage to cell respiration, causing cancer.

7. Oxygen deficiency over a 2.5 year period (even if only intermittent) as a cause of cancer was conclusively shown in 1953 in America.

8. Chronic intermittent oxygen deficiency plays a greater role in cancer development than chronic interruption of cell respiration by poisoning because poisoning kills the cell.

9. Frequent small doses of poisons or oxygen deficiency keep adding up until a threshold is reached and damage is beyond repair.

Don’t you wish this information was made known to the researchers way back in 1985 or sooner? Imagine how much further along we would be in the “war against cancer”!

Truth: Resting blood sugars are consistently higher for fish oil users.8,9,10 Insulin amounts had to be consistently increased in diabetics who were using fish oil. Glucose tolerance decreased significantly, and the insulin response was significantly blunted (a bad outcome).

To be continued…

Read more at www.brianpeskin.com

Claim:

Fish oil helps give you the long-chain fats in which you are deficient.

Truth:

EFA derivatives (like DHA/EPA) are normally made in extremely small percentages by a human being.1,2,3 Scientists at the USDA used very precise analysis to measure and discovered only 0.05% of ALA was converted to DHA and only 0.2% of ALA was converted to EPA. However, fish oil gives you 20x–500x the amounts of DHA/ EPA—its active components—that your body would naturally produce on its own.

These are supra-physiologic amounts and reason for great concern. Contrary to popular belief, highly accurate current analysis shows the average person (even babies) is able to convert ALA (parent omega-3) into EFA derivatives without problem.4,5,6,7

.

To be continued…

.

Learn more at www.brianpeskin.com

Fish oil manufacturers and their advocates have claimed many things that fish oil accomplishes when included in your daily regimen. Our purpose is not to address each claim made by fish oil advocates since that will be a never-ending exercise in futility. Each time one outlandish claim is exposed, another will appear in its place. Instead, the approach we will employ is to enumerate the obvious problems in fish oil consumption by humans based solely on the biochemistry and physiology of the human being. Have you ever wondered why a human would suffer from a fish oil deficiency?

To be continued…

Learn much more about fish oil, cancer prevention, parent essential fatty acids and more at www.brianpeskin.com

Are over 15,000 studies showing the miraculous benefits of fish oil enough? It doesn’t look like it since countless more fish oil studies are continuously being conducted. Do you get the impression they are “trying a little too hard”? The eminent physician/statistician John Ioannidis, MD, DSc, heading Stanford University’s Preventive Research Center, has voiced his concern on more than one occasion.

Simply put, high numbers of “studies” alone can never be substituted for the incontrovertible proof and consistency that is required and exists in the hard sciences. Science is not swayed by the latest fad or poorly conceived study. However, medical scientists are human, and as such suffer from normal human weaknesses. They want to find a solution to the myriad of medical problems facing all of us today, and for the most part, want to help those around them.

Unfortunately, in their zeal to advance science, they all too often inadvertently compromise the scientific standards that have stood for centuries.

Always remember to distinguish the often inflated, well-intentioned latest findings from the unwavering rock-solid science that is at the core of the uncompromising scientist.

To be continued…

“Not long ago, the defeat of cancer seemed inevitable… no more chemotherapy, the thinking went. No more horrid side effects… Some now wonder whether malignancy will ever be reliably and predictably cured.

“The dearth of substantial impact so far suggests the fight against cancer wil continue to be a tedious slog, and victories will be scored in weeks or months of extra life, not years.

“… Several [drugs] have made it through testing, but despite their apparent bull’s-eye hits, lasting results are rare. Instead, these new drugs turn out to be about as effective – or as powerless – as old-line chemotherapy [ineffective long-term]. Aimed at the major forms of cancer, they work spectacularly for a lucky few and modestly for some. But for most? NOT AT ALL.

“… ‘It’s a much more complicated problem than anyone ever appreciated’, says Dr. Leonard Saltz, a colon cancer expert at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. ‘It will, unfortunately, be with us for a long time.’

“… scientists are even rethinking the goal of cancer research.

“”‘Society as a whole, and most of the medical profession, have a wrong understanding we’ll wake up one morning and find out cancer is cured. It won’t happen. The public should give it up,’ says Dr. Craig henderson, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and president of Access Oncology, a drug developer…’

*****

This was reported back in 2003. Nothing has changed since then.

For those of you who subscribe to the Medscape Today newsletter or visit the website and read the medical news on a daily basis (which you can get at www.medscape.com/medscapetoday), you will know that even though nearly 10 years have passed since the above information was published, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The FDA continues to allow Big Pharma to register their “blockbuster cancer drugs”, based on “potentially phenomenal results” (using weasel words like ‘may’, ‘possibly’, ‘have the potential to perhaps’, etc.), only to request further clinical trials due to ‘insufficient data’ showing the actual positive benefits compared to current cancer drugs already established in the market, or pull them all together due to their ineffectiveness.

You can read more on this at www.brianpeskin.com or order “The Hidden Story of Cancer” today.

• “But the oncogene/tumor suppressor gene hypothesis has also failed, despite three decades of effort, to identify a particular set of gene mutations that occurs in every instance of any of the most common and deadly kinds of human cancer.”

The article then details how geneticist Lawrence A. Loeb led cancer researchers astray with the silly notion that your cells are capable of having 10,000-100,000 mutations each.

• “For many years, he suggested that ‘early during the genesis of cancer there are enormous numbers of random mutations—10,000-100,000 per cell,’ but he had little evidence to support the idea.“ (Emphasis added.)

In 2006, researchers actually measured the number of mutations and it was a mere “65-475 mutations per 100 million nucleotides.” [Note: This is .000475% – .000065%—next to nothing.]

◗ Life-Systems Engineering Science Commentary

The number of misleading researchers in the medical sciences never ceases to amaze me, nor how they completely throw all the researchers off track. This type of behavior simply doesn’t occur in sciences like physics or engineering, where scientific standards are much higher. Witness the contrast in results — amazing advances in technology every few years. Contrast this with thirty (30) wasted years of cancer researchers looking in completely the wrong “genetic-based” direction for cancer’s source and cure. Are we doomed to another 30 wasted years before researchers get it right and discover Dr. Warburg?

Read more in “Good News: It’s NOT Genetic” on www.brianpeskin.com

Learn more by downloading “Relative Risk – Absolue Deception, Why Studies are Misleading” from www.brianpeskin.com, today.