Posts Tagged ‘carcinogens’

Excerpt from “On the Origin of Cancer Cells”, Science, February 1956, Volume 123, Number 3191

March 22, 2010 1 comment

The following was written by Dr. Otto Warburg (comments inserted by Professor Peskin as “bp”)

For more of this information, please read, “The Hidden Story of Cancer” (


Cancer cells originate from normal body cells in TWO PHASES. The first phase is the IRREVERSIBLE INJURING OF RESPIRATION. Just as there are many remote causes of plague – heat, insects, rats – but only one common cause, the plague bacillus, there are a great many remote causes of cancer – tar, rays, arsenic, pressure, urethane – BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE COMMON CAUSE INTO WHICH ALL OTHER CAUSES OF CANCER MERGE: THE IRREVERSIBLE INJURING OF RESPIRATION.

(bp: Dr. Warburg makes it clear that cancer has but one primary cause, and all other effects lead to this prime cause.)

The irreversible injuring of respiration is followed, as the second phase of cancer formation, by a long struggle for existence by the injured cells to maintain their structure, in which a part of the cells perish from lack of energy, while another part succeed in replacing the irretrievably lost respiration energy by fermentation energy.

Because of the morphological inferiority of fermentation energy, the highly differentiated body cells are converted by this into undifferentiated cells that grow wildly – the cancer cells.

To the thousands of quantitative experiments on which these results are based, I should like to add, as a further argument, the fact that there is no alternative today. If the explanation of a vital process is its reduction to physics and chemistry, there is today no other explanation for the origin of cancer cells, either special or general.

(bp: Thousands of experiments confirm Dr. Warburg’s conclusions.)

From this point of view, mutation and carcinogenic agent are not alternatives, but empty words, unless metabolically specified. Even more harmful in the struggle against cancer can be the continual discovery of miscellaneous cancer agents and cancer viruses, which, by obscuring the underlying phenomena, may hinder necessary preventive measures and thereby become responsible for cancer cases.


Harvard Professor Lewontin eategorically states that genetic causes are meaningless unless a metabolic pathway is specified and understood. Dr. Warburg knew of, and stated this same insight earlier, in 1955.

Dr. Warburg’s Conclusions:

* Mutation (the “genetic theory”) is not cancer’s cause.

* Supposed carcinogenic agents (other than oxygen deprivers) are not cancer’s cause.

Dr. Warburg warns here that researchers looking into genetic causes or various non-specific carcinogens will bring forth no significant results because they are not the true direct cause of cancer. Valuable time has been wasted in these fruitless searches.

But apparently, no one has listened. We keep hearing about the so-called genetic “predisposition”, the “viral” possibility, the DNA “mutation”. Dr. Warburg made it clear that those “researching” these areas are wasting precious time, hindering protective measures, and indeed, becoming responsible for causing more cancer cases…

See the full explanation in “The Hidden Story of Cancer” by Professor Brian Peskin. You can get a copy at

Proof of EFA Deficiency

Todays food processing requires widespread use of preservatives, additives, and artificial chemicals. EFAs have a short shelf life since they spoil quickly. Food processors have to replace ingredients that spoil with stable long-lived alternatives. Everything in food mfg. revolves around increasing shelf-life and making the EFAs inactive. Virtually every processed product in the supermarket has a substantially, though artificially, increased shelf life. As a result, it is difficult to obtain enough UNPROCESSED EFAs through our diet.

For example, margarine was developed at the request of Napoleon as an inexpensive, long-lasting spread costing much less than butter. The chemical process of hydrogenation that creates transfats was patented in 1911. It was known in 1939 that the transfats caused by hydrogenation were associated with increased skin cancer contraction rates. Margarine can be left out for a year with no refrigeration and it won’t spoil. Compare that result to any “real food”. No food can last longer than a few days without spoiling unless there are cancer-causing additives in the food. This means that the oxygen transfer is ruined. Thousands of products now contain these harmful oils and preservatives – from cakes and cookies and bread, to frozen pizza.

While it is possible to get enough natural EFAs from modern food, it has become extremely difficult.

To learn more about these transfats, pick up a copy of “The Hidden Story of Cancer” at, and turn to the section titled, “Transfats – A Small Percentage Causes Great harm” on page 255.

Margarine vs Real Butter

February 20, 2010 Leave a comment

The Professor’s NEWSFLASH!

Prior to the advent and huge rise in margarine (and other hydrogenated oil) use:

• Death rates from Heart Disease & Cancer were at only 3%.

• Obesity was at only 5%.

• Diabetes was practically nonexistent!

The strong case against margarine:

Eating margarine (and other trans-fats), not getting enough of the critical healthy essential oils (EFAs), along with high sugar consumption and lack of sufficient protein in our diets has caused an epidemic of disease and ill health in this country and around the world. Margarine plays a key role in our deteriorating health because it is unnatural – our bodies are not designed to use it. A plastics engineer would call margarine “plastic food,” – meaning that margarine’s molecular structure resembles a low-grade plastic. Margarine is not real food by any stretch of the imagination. If you leave margarine sitting out, no insect will touch it and it won’t spoil. They seem to know better than us what is edible and what isn’t.

Margarine contains a tremendous amount of harmful distorted EFAs called trans-fatty acids.1 Hydrogenation is the chemical addition of hydrogen to another chemical. When applied to oils, the process turns the healthy essential oils into dangerous trans-fatty acids, which are very unhealthy for humans.2 The process of hydrogenation requires a metal catalyst, like nickel, and is stopped when the margarine looks butter-like, without regard to the unnatural fat by-products, which have been produced.3 These by-products include trans-fatty acids, lipid peroxides and other potentially toxic compounds. Some large studies have been published, which suggest that ingestion of trans-fatty acids is considered a risk factor for heart disease.4 In 1956 Lancet published a 16-page article warning physicians of its dangers but few listened.

Trans-fatty acids can block the body’s ability to use healthy Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs) in the production of eicosanoids and they lessen the transfer of the life-giving nutrient, oxygen, across cell membranes.5 Sufficient transfer of oxygen is crucial for cellular health, prevention of cancer, energy, and a healthy immune system.

In 1939, The American Journal of Cancer published that eating trans-fats produced cancer when skin was exposed to ultra-violet rays. Your skin needs unadulterated parent omega 6 EFAs (it contains NO omega3), but most people have been consuming trans-fats or excessive amounts of omega 3 instead, so their skin (and other tissues) are deficient in EFAs, causing it to be susceptible to UV rays that can lead to the development of cancer. It is important to understand that your skin doesn’t utilize omega 3 EFAs (like in fish or flax oils), which is one reason why I recommend a formula with a higher balance of organic, cold-pressed “parent” omega 6 than omega 3.

It is difficult to get undamaged parent omega 6 oils in your diet. Despite what you may read from popular health publications and “professionals” about omega 6 oils, ALL of my research clearly shows that nearly every bit of omega 6 in the foods we eat has been damaged in one fashion or another so that we absolutely need to get it in a high-quality supplement. The balance of parent omega 6 and 3 is crucial as well. Simply taking flax oil (I NEVER recommend fish oil – because it is excessive in harmful omega 3 derivatives) is not enough. Flax is excessive (unbalanced) in omega 3, and without enough unprocessed omega 6 there will be an imbalance. It is nearly impossible to avoid all trans-fats, so the best way to ensure your cells get the good oils you need is to take a high-quality supplement.

You can also expect vision-related problems when you consume too many trans-fats in your diet.6 This is because your eyes are supposed to contain healthy EFAs, but are getting the distorted oils instead. Studies show that the trans-fatty acids we eat do get incorporated into brain cell membranes, including the myelin sheath that insulates neurons. They replace the natural DHA in the membrane, which affects the electrical activity of the neuron. Trans-fatty acid molecules disrupt communication, setting the stage for cellular degeneration and diminished mental performance.7 This shows that EFA deficiency likely plays a key role in mental and emotional disorders from children to the elderly.

Researchers have found that trans-fats are more detrimental to the ability of blood vessels to dilate, a marker for Heart Disease risk. “This suggests that trans-fatty acids increase the risk of heart disease more than the intake of saturated fats,” concluded the scientists at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. It suggests that if French fries were cooked in saturated fat instead of in hydrogenated vegetable oils, they would probably be safer.8 It is important to note that even though margarine is promoted as “heart-healthy,”

The Professor’s NEWSFLASH!

Margarine eaters have twice the rate of heart disease as butter eaters.9

The actual numbers will prove to be much greater.

Now read about the truth about real, full-cream butter by downloading the rest of this highly informative Science Not Opinion e-Newsletter at:  (pdf file).

To learn more, please visit  today. Your health will thank you!

Avoiding Nitrates in Foods such as Hot Dogs and Lunch Meats is Unnecessary

February 12, 2010 Leave a comment

The long-standing nitrate scare is another of many incorrect recommenndations. Nitrate is a preservative used in hot dogs, bacon, and lunch meats. Its consumption has been said to comprise a “possible” link to stomach cancer, because nitrate derivatives (N-nitrosamines) have caused cancer in rats and farm animals. For decades, we have livec in fear of nitrate-containing foods.

But these recommendations were made even though numerous studies in humans showed no negative effects! And no one mentions that nitrate is naturally occurring in greens such as lettuce and spinach. The article, “Bad Rap for Nitrate: Infamous Preservative Maj Help Defend Against Bacteria,” by J.R. Minkel, Scientific American Biochemistry Section, September 2004, page 24, details that “they” were wrong again and sets the record straight. It was known in 1994, that the stomach contains lots of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide kills germ in the bloodstream. Therefore, it is obvious that nitrate is a helpful substance. Why this has taken ten years to be publicized is astounding, Here are some key points from the article:

” … [D]ietary nitrate is actually part of the body’s inherent defense against infection ….

“Bacteria in the mouth convert nitrate to nitrite, which gets swallowed, so the stomach can naturally produce nitric oxide …. ”

”’We’ve gone from considering all of these things to be toxic and carcinogenic to realizing that [nitrates are] playing a fundamental homeostatic role [safe and required, and NOT cancerous],’ says microbiologist Ferric Fang of the University of Washington.” (Emphasis added.)

Interested in learning more about medicine’s long history of mistakes and wrong recommendations? Pick up a copy of “The Hidden Story of Cancer” at today!

Misunderstanding Mitochondria

On Professor Peskin’s Facebook Fanpage, a fan writes:


First, let me say I love your work and have implemented your plan; however, I ran across this statement: However “recent evidence now supports that mitochondria are not dysfunctional in
cancer cells and they contribute to the energy production like they do
in normal cells.” On this website…dukty-detail/15/. You will find the quote right next to Otto Warburgs picture. The author of the the page cites a couple of sources and provides the links. What do you think? Was Warburg wrong?

Here is Professor Peskin’s reply:

Hello Laura,

Thank you for writing, and I am delighted to hear you are also having success with the science I have shared with people around the world.

Yes, I have have seen this information before, and in “The Hidden Story of Cancer” (appendix pp 514-519) there is a major discussion on this experiment and others that you may be interested in reading to have a better understanding re. what is really being said. A lot of the science is “technospeak” and complex to those not in the industry, so I have explained it in an easy to understand way.

As is often the case, current researchers regularly misunderstand the Warburg results, or they misquote him, or misrepresent his findings.

For example, Warburg always stated the significant factor in cancer was the high RATIO of fermentation to respiration (p518).

In 1968 an extraordinary physician Joseph Gold, M.D., looked at precisely the same metabolic pathway to kill the cancer cells and prevent cachexia (severe metabolic wasting that ultimately kills many cancer victims), so this is not really “recent” as the authors in that website suggest.

The mitochondria ARE IMPAIRED irreversibly;

It is also important to understand that in the experiment cited on the page you mentioned, the researchers apparently gave a DRUG to the cells and FORCED a change in output of the cells — This was absolutely UNNATURAL. It would be akin to putting a gun to a handicapped person’s head and making them run or kill them … may get a response temporarily but NOT on its own without the forcing of the cell to perform unnaturally by inducing a drug that does not occur naturally under such circumstances.

To understand this and more in greater detail, read “The Hidden Story of Cancer” at and pick up your own self-defence mechanisms in the “War Against Cancer” that has been pretty much unsuccessful for decades due to so many researchers either not knowing or not understanding the science of Dr. Otto Warburg.

On Carbohydrate Addiction

Everywhere I travel I hear the same thing, women complaining that they will never be able to lose their addiction for sweets – a permanent carbohydrate addiction. I am sympathetic to the carb addict, in the same way I am sympathetic to the drug addict. My comparison is not meant to be funny. Both addictions will kill you. With one you’ll die with a needle in your arm, while with the other your loved ones will find you face down in a tub of ice cream. (OK, a little humor doesn’t hurt). Seriously, in both cases your body is craving a substance we know is harmful. When it comes to drugs, would anyone suggest continuing this devastating addiction? Of course not. In the same way no one should suggest feeding your carb addiction.

Following the science in my book “The 24-Hour Diet” may cure you of this addiction. It already has for peole around the world. It makes no difference how much you currently weigh, your sex, your nationality, your religion… nothing. All you need is a small amount of desire to trust the science you will discover for just 24 hours. Trust me. You CAN do this.

My friend Jill says it best. “We went to my neighbor’s last night for dessert. It was the best feeling to be able to sit around her table and talk (with the desserts right under my nose) and not feel held captive by the desire to eat them! Because you know how it used to be for you – you take one plateful and then another and then another. I feel SO FREE of that horrible ‘after dessert binge’ feeling! I left her house feeling great! YOUR PROGRAM WORKS.”

If you would like to learn more, please visit and pick up a copy of “The 24-Hour Diet” today. The science will not desert you.

Industry Reversal: “CRP is Unlikely to be Causal for CVD.”

January 17, 2010 2 comments
Given the extremely difficult economic times that many of us are facing, let me help you maximize your health with “science – not opinion.”

Let me share with you one of several “reversals of common nutritional recommendations” that took place at the end of last year, beginning of this year. Personally, I get sick of seeing these reversals year-after-year. Does anyone get it right the first time before they publish misinformation and harm everyone who trusts the sources and follows it? Rarely.

This “reversal” has to do with the JUPITER (google this for more background information) study and their claim that it NOW isn’t LDL-cholesterol that is the cause of heart disease; because statins lower it and the heart attacks still occur just as frequently. They are attempting to claim that C-Reactive Protein (CRP) – a supposed measure of inflammation is the real culprit and that statins somehow improve it. If you read my Report about the Failure of Statins (, you’d understand their grave fallacy. Furthermore, here’s what was published in the medical journal December 22, 2009:

“Largest-Ever-Meta-Analysis Finds CRP is Unlikely to be Causal for CVD.”

“In the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis to date looking at C-reactive-protein (CRP) levels and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke, British researchers conclude that CRP is unlikely to be a causal factor for cardiovascular disease” [Lancet: December 21, 2009].

So the drug companies tell us that their statins are STILL GOOD at reducing heart disease (in order to keep selling their harmful bullets) while science disproves it! Hmmm….

Once gain, the FAILURE of statins to stop or reverse heart disease is proven regardless of the $15 billion dollars Americans spend on the worthless drugs! That’s the truth that the pharmaceutical companies do not want you or your physician to know. The correct way to stop or reverse heart disease is by consuming unprocessed, unadulterated parent omega-6 oils.

Learn more science-not-opinion at