Posts Tagged ‘cancer’

What happened to this knowledge?!?

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”!

Three Devastating Problems Proving Fish Oil is the Wrong Choice, Part 4

Claim: Fish oil helps diabetics and helps prevent diabetes and its complications.

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…


Three Devastating Problems Proving Fish Oil is the Wrong Choice, Part 3

We will look at three of the most egregious claims by fish oil advocates. There are many more, but let’s focus on these three claims, and then the true data:


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


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

Three Devastating Problems Proving Fish Oil is the Wrong Choice, Part 1

Fish oil use has many advocates and a ridiculous number of studies that apparently support the use of fish oil prophylactically, as well as to treat a laundry list of ailments.

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…

The Ineffectiveness of Current Cancer Cures

February 27, 2011 Leave a comment

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, 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 or order “The Hidden Story of Cancer” today.

Newsflash 2008: Case Closed, Closed, Closed…IT is NOT Genetic

February 8, 2011 2 comments

The Special Edition of Scientific American (Vol. 18, No. 3, August/September 2008) devoted the entire issue to cancer. Many of the articles repeated the previous nonsense we hear time and time again that leads nowhere. However, the article “Untangling the Roots of Cancer,” by W. Wayt Gibbs, was excellent in presenting the truth, starting with the failure of the “oncogene theory.”

• “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

Passing of Genes During Cell Division

When scientists speak of “cancer genes” and diseases being passed along via genetics, they also commonly refer to another means of passing genetic traits: the process within one single organism or human body in which genes are duplicated and passed to a new cell during cell division. Scientists speak of the possibility that a gene mutation in one cell may then be passed along when the cell divides, and spread a disease throughout the body.

But many scientists and researchers believe that, despite the massive hype that has been put forth to persuade the public that genetic answers to disease are just around the corner, trying to cure cancer or other serious diseases via genetics is still so far off in terms of what we understand about how genes “work,” that it is wasted effort.

See more at “Good News: It’s Not Genetic”.