In 1955 Dr. Warburg gave a lecture to the German Committee for Cancer Control. It was then published in “Science” in 1956. It was also translated from German to English for the U.S. Dep’t of Health, Education & Welfare, the American Public Health Service and the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
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”!
An article titled “Cancer Cure Search Detoured by Reality of Resilient Disease” appeared in the ‘Houston Chronicle’ in July, 2003. In it, writer Daniel G. Haney was courageous enough to state the actual state of affairs regarding the “War Against Cancer”. In it he brought out important, little-acknowledged facts concerning the current dismaying “prognosis” for a cure for cancer.
“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 http://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.
The major metabolic route of ALA (parent omega-3) in the body is beta-oxidation. This means that parent omega-3 is mainly burned for energy – not incorporated into cellular structure or used for derivatives – your body requires very little and will attempt to remove an excess if it can. ONLY VERY LITTLE PARENT OMEGA-3 IS REQUIRED FOR PROPER CELL MEMBRANE STRUCTURE. However, if you are “overdosing” from supplements, based on incorrect advice [which is MOST of the current advice on the market], the excess will be forced into the cell structure as the “Lipids 2000” medical journal states:
“Linoleic acid (LA parent omega-6 FA) accumulates throughout the body of most mammals, whereas alpha-linolenic acid [ALA parent omega-3] is rarely found in those tissues to the same extent as LA”, “Increased alpha-linolenic acid [parent omega-3] intake increases tissue alpha-linolenic content [parent omega-3]” (Lipids 2000 Apr; 35(4):395-400.
This will NEGATIVELY IMPACT your cancer defense.
ALA accumultes in specific sites in the body of mammals, and only a small portion of dietary ALA is converted to DHA (Sinclair, A.J., et al., “What is the role of alpha-linolenic acid for mammals,” Lipids 2002 Dec;37(12):113-23).
The next piece of shocking information is from the “PUFA Newsletter”. “Alpha-Linolenic Acid Conversion Revisted” by Norman Salem et al., states,
“A recent article in the PUFA [Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid] Newsletter indicated that in adult men and women the ‘average estimated conversion of … alpha-linolenic acid to n-3-LC-PUFA metabolites and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA] was 17.3 +/- 12.8 and 3.6 +/- 3.8 percent, respectively (mean + SD)’. This is likely to be an OVERESTIMATE of the actual overall conversion rates for several reasons. We see even with this excessive estimate of the parent omega-3 derivative conersion that theoretically no more than 37% of them are converted to derivatives.”
The article makes the case that in reality only about 5% of the parent ALA [omega-]) is converted into derivatives. Pawlosky and others calculate that less than a mere 1% goes to derivatives. The article ends with, “The best estimates of alpha-linolenic acid conversion to n-3 LC-PUFA are much smaller than those claimed…”
Omega-6 conversion is also overstated:
“… Linking LA and AA in this way also implies a direct conversion of LA [parent omega-6] to AA [omega-6 derivative] which is not the case. In fact, a very high dietary LA will reduce membrane AA [the opposite effect!].” Note: This is why it was reported in the article by S. Bunting, s. Moncada, and J.R. Vane, titled “Prostacyclin – Thromboxane A2 Balance: Pathophysiological and Terapeutic Implications,” ‘British Medical Journal’, (1983)Vo.39, No.3, pages 271-276, that “AA in the phospholipids of Eskimo [consuming lots of parent omega-6] is approximately ONE-THIRD of that in Danes.”
The above quote was taken from Crawford, M.A., “Commentary on the workshop statement. Essentiality of and recommended dietary intakes for Omega-6 and Omega-3 fatty acids,” in ‘Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty acids 2000 Sep;63(3):131-4.
Here is the takehome to all the science above:
TOO MUCH OMEGA-3, OMEGA DERIVATIVES, OR DEFECTIVE EFAS RUIN THE CELL MEMBRANE STRUCTURE AND MINIMIZE YOUR LEVEL OF ANTICANCER PROTECTION.
Remember your goal is to MAXIMIZE the cell membrane structure so that the cells can remain fully oxygenated (cellular oxygenation), thus preventing a drop in cellular oxygenation of 30% which is the threshhold that Dr. Otto Warburg showed over and over again that healthy cells convert to cancer cells and cannot be reconverted.
So… when you are supplementing with Parent Essential Oils, PLEASE be sure you find a blend with the PROPER balance of Omega-6 and Omega-3 (2.5:1 to 1:1) or you could inevitably be negatively affecting your health and cancer prevention.
You can read more about this in much more detail in my book, “The Hidden Story of Cancer”, which can be ordered through the following website: http://www.brianpeskin.com.
• “In the last ninety-three years, there have been only two monumental works that have succeeded in explaining the actual cause and treatment of cancer: No. 1 is the Nobel Prize-winning German physician and scientist, Otto Warburg, M.D., Ph.D. work, The Metabolism of Tumours, published in Germany in1910. No. 2 is Professor Brian Scott Peskin’s The Hidden Story of Cancer, which details a scientific breakthrough that explains Dr. Warburg’s research and introduces new science that will prevent cancer. This is undoubtedly a breakthrough of biblical proportions.”
—Bernardo C. Majalca, N.D. (Stage Four Cancer Researcher)
• “I had been taking high-dose fish oil for many years in an attempt to prevent C-V disease and retard inflammation. However, I noticed that my fasting blood sugars were always in the high range (100-115) and measurements of oxidative stress also reflected high levels. No one could explain it since my hemoglobin a1c always stayed low. Since switching to the parent EFAs (PEOs), as recommended in The Hidden Story of Cancer, my FBS came down to 84. My lipids also looked better than ever. I think many of our colleagues do not appreciate the dangers of high dose fish oil. Derivative EFAs like fish oil easily oxidize, and although some surrogate markers may improve, the final cost is still unknown. Thanks so very much for your book.”
—Ira L Goodman, M.D. Ophthalmic Surgeon (retired), Holistic Medicine
• “I’ve been studying Health & Nutrition for over 25 years. Your book, Brian, is knocking the socks off of me. It is indeed the greatest book on health & nutrition I have ever read. People won’t believe me when I say how can something as complicated as cancer and other degenerative diseases have such a simple solution. ‘Well, just read Brian Peskin’s book, The Hidden Story of Cancer and find out for yourself,’ is what I tell them. I can’t put it down – it is that interesting and informative!”
—Mahalo, Gary Shimabukuro, Honolulu, HI
You can read all the accolades by downloading this PDF:
Pick up your copy of “The Hidden Story of Cancer” here:
The following excerpts are from ‘Physics’ (“Notes on the Scientific method”) by Oscar M. Stewart (published by Ginn and Co., New York, N.Y., 1924, 1931, 1939, 1944). This insight seems to be lost on too many of the medical researchers in the field today.
“One should never accept a statement of facts unless he feels confident thatit is in agreement with experiment.”
“The habit of trying to explain things in terms of general principles is one of the most important attitudes of a good scientist.”
“… [T]he number of fundamental concepts and fundamental principles is small. This assumption is sometimes called the ‘law of parsimony’…”
“Any attempt to find a general law is an attempt to reduce the number of laws.”
What this means from a Life-Systems Engineering Science perspective, is that the SIMPLEST explanation is most likely to be right.
Now, think about this:
If a risk factor cannot be attributed to the majority of cases of a certain disease, then that factor is not the primary cause of the disease.
Let’s look at current cancer theories.
Most are too complicated and they do not fit this requirement. A risk factor may be a contributing actor to the disease or merely a concidental factor termend an “association”. In my book, “The Hidden Story of Cancer”, I talk about how the current “risk factors”, “associated factors”, and theories linking cholestoerol, saturated fat and heart disease do NOT fit this requirement, either.
Unnecessary complication is NNOT required to find answers in science.
Dr. Warburg knew this a long long time ago.
So why don’t the researchers of today know this?
That is a mystery…
Did you know that your brain is 60% fat? Much of it is supposed to be EFA-based. With a potential EFA deficiency solved (and I talk about this in my books), your brain will run with maximum speed, better focus, better clarity and improved memory.
It is expected, although we have not proven, that Alzheimer’s occurrences would decrease if EFA deficiencies were eliminated.
ADD and ADHD have become rampant illnesses with no end in sight. A significent number of ADD children (40%) had significant deficiencies of EFAs as measured in their blood in studies*.
Children with attention issues have been seen to improve dramatically when their diets are supplemented with the correct blend of omega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids (2.5:1 to 1:1)
It makes good sense to have the correct combination of parent essential oils in your body as high as you possibly can for the best health in all respcts.
Read more at http://www.brianpeskin.com today or pick up a copy of “The Hidden Story of Cancer”, or “The 24-Hour Diet” today.
* “Attention Please,”, by Rafael Avila, ‘Energy Times’, December 1996, pages 52-58, published in the ‘American Journal of Clinical Nutrition’.
The article, “Probing Surgery’s Link to Cancer Recurrence,” published in The Wall Street Journal , is enough to terrify any woman:
“Doctors have long noted that the rate of recurrence for women with breast cancer is highest during the first two years after surgery to remove the tumor. Now a group of researchers say they have found a reason why: the surgery itself…
“… They [researchers] say the cases recurred too early to be explained by another mechanism, so the researchers concluded that they were related to the women’s surgery…
“Dr. Retsky, lead investigator and lecturer in surgery at Children’s Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School, states ‘over half of all relapses in breast cancer are accelerated by surgery.’…”
Despite the best intentions, the surgical method to cure you of breast cancer can actually accelerate cancer’s destructive path. We don’t advocate rejecting surgery; it serves an often necessary purpose. But because breast surgery leads to increased relapse rates, the five-step protective measure plan I describe in my book, “The Hidden Story of Cancer”, is vital to your long-term survival.
Read more about this Five-Step plan by picking up a copy of “The Hidden Story of Cancer” today. You can order your book from http://www.brianpeskin.com.
 “Probing Surgery’s Link to Cancer Recurrence,” by Amy Dockser Marcus, “TheWall Sreet Journal”, September 13, 2005, page D1. Ref.: Database of over 1,100 breast cancer surgery patients treated from 1964-1980.