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”!
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 http://www.brianpeskin.com
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 www.brianpeskin.com “Good News: It’s Not Genetic”.
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.
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…
Achieving peak oxygen-absorbing function of ALL the trillions of cells that make up the body is the goal, because doing so is to greatly minimize the cells’ susceptibility to forming cancer. I have talked about this extensively in my book “The Hidden Story of Cancer”.
In the course of his research, Dr. Warburg designed equipment to measure the oxygen level in the body. Dr. Warburg conclusively showed that if there is just a 35% oxygen compromise (decrease in the tissue), then cancer develops – automatically! You didn’t do anything “wrong”, and you wouldn’t even know that this oxygen reduction is happening because you wouldn’t feel it. Does it make sense to stay “close to the edge” of the cancer cutoff point and risk contracting cancer? No.
Once again, cancer medical journal articles published in 1996 and 1997 make the decreased oxygen – increased cancer connection and increased spreading of localized cancer cleaer:
“Tumor oxygenation predicts for the likelihood of distant metastases [cancer spreading] oin human soft tissue sarcoma.” 
“Tumor hypoxia [too little oxygen in the cell] adversely affects the prognosis of carcinoma of the head and neck.” 
How can we detect and remedy such an oxygen-deficient condition?
Find out how in “The Hidden Story of Cancer”. You can get your copy from http://www.brianpeskin.com today.
 Brizel, D.M., et al., Cancer Research 1996:56-941-43.
 Brizen, D.M., et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1997;38:285-290.
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” (www.brianpeskin.com).
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 http://www.brianpeskin.com.