Genetic mutations don't cause cancer

[FlyHi]

Tank, it looks like others in the science community are finally catching up with you. You are doc are on the right track suggesting mitochondria have a big role to play in our health. you should have a field day on this topic! 

 

Genetic Mutations Don’t Cause Cancer — Here’s What Does

0 Comments

 

 

 

2nd April 2016

By Carolanne Wright

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

Chances are, you know at least one person who has been touched by cancer. It’s a terrifying and life-altering diagnosis. Even more so if facing conventional cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation, which carry their own heavy side-effects without any guarantee they will help the situation. Some would say conventional treatments are far worse than the disease itself.

In light of this, many are taking their health into their own hands and living lifestyles that will (hopefully) keep cancer at bay. But before we can know how to prevent the disease, it’s important to understand how cancer comes about in the first place. We can then move forward with dietary modifications and lifestyle adjustments that will help support ultimate vitality and well-being.

 

Thomas Seyfried Ph.D, a brain cancer researcher with an impressive 25+ years of expertise, gave a revolutionary presentation about cancer at the Ancestral Health Symposium held by Harvard Law School. The lecture turned many of the ideas we have about the disease on its head. Dr. Seyfried believes cancer is not caused by genetic mutations, but rather linked with mitochondrial disease. Moreover, he stated that cancer can be successfully treated with a special high-fat diet. All and all, Dr. Seyfried presents a compelling case for how we should approach not only preventing cancer in the first place, but how to address it if cancer should gain a foothold when our health is not at peak levels.

Profile of a cancer cell

“The company line is that cancer is caused by mutations (changes) in DNA that transform healthy, well-behaved cells into reckless, ravenous, immortal renegades. These mutations hijack the set of instructions encoded in the cells’ DNA, and scientists think these mutations cause cells to go wild.” ~ Georgia Ede, MD in “What Causes Cancer?”

Currently, medical schools (and their graduates) subscribe to the idea that cancer is directly linked to genes going completely out of control, where something toxic comes along like a chemical or excess radiation and subsequently attacks DNA. These mutant cells then begin to divide like crazy and eventually take over the body. Conventional medicine believes that to rid the body of renegade cells, we need to flood the system with further toxic chemicals and radiation. This disconnect of logic has many questioning the validity of their recommendations.

Cancer cells behave very differently than normal cells, this we know. They grow rapidly and pay no heed to anti-growth signals and death cues that would keep healthy cells in check. Cancer cells establish their own blood supply and will divide forever. The more aggressive the cancer cell, the higher chances it will invade local tissue and/or travel in the bloodstream to other parts of the body (metastasize).

“Cancer cells have unstable DNA, which mutates easily and is therefore constantly changing. This is why there are so many mutations found in cancer cells. This “genomic instability” is viewed as a strong suit by scientists who believe in the mutation theory. They think that the tumor cells keep mutating to improve themselves, and that the ones with the most clever mutations are the ones which survive best and reproduce best (Darwinism—survival of the fittest). They think of cancerous cells as invincible—as stronger, faster, and smarter than healthy cells. But this isn’t true.” [source]

 

Cancer cells do grow faster than normal cells, but it’s not because they are dividing more quickly. It’s due to the fact they are unregulated. Tumor cells are also more vulnerable than normal cells and are more sensitive to heat and starvation. When the body is under stress, cancer cells are the first to die. Dr. Seyfried thinks mutations are simply red herrings, where we are actually dealing with a much deeper issue.

Consider this: there is not one example where a mutation caused the same kind of cancer every time — and mutations associated with certain cancers only caused the disease in particular individuals. Cancer cells themselves within the same tumor can have very different mutation characteristics.

Dr. Ede adds:

“Here’s the thing: if you transplant mutated cancer cell DNA into a healthy cell, the healthy cell almost never becomes cancerous. Only 2 out of 24 experiments were successful in transforming normal cells into cancer cells (and scientists couldn’t be sure that viral contamination wasn’t to blame). These results essentially kill the mutation theory dead on the spot. Just think about it: if cancer is a genetic disease, based on hundreds of thousands of mutations, what are we supposed to do, create hundreds of thousands of different drugs to treat it?”

So if mutations aren’t causing cancer, what does?

Damaged mitochondria and their role in cancer

The answer lies in tiny structures within our cells that turn the food we consume into energy. Mitochondria are intricately folded membranes that house unique enzymes, fats and proteins, which in turn are used to trigger sophisticated chemical reactions. They shatter the chemical bonds within food molecules in order to absorb the energy into the cell.

Normal cells with high functioning mitochondria utilize a elegant system of respiration to transform a nutrient (fat, carbohydrate, or protein) into high quantities of energy. The process demands oxygen in order to break food down into benign carbon dioxide and water. But with a cancer cell, the process used is fermentation, which inefficiently uses either glucose or the amino acid glutamine from protein to generate small levels of energy. [Fats cannot be fermented, which will be an important distinction to come.] Fermentation does not need oxygen and doesn’t fully break down food particles — what it does break down results in lactic acid and ammonia, which are toxic waste products.

Strangely, cancer cells will still resort to fermentation even when there is plenty of oxygen. The reason for this is the malignant cells are desperate because they cannot rely on respiration for energy production. Why? Their mitochondria are damaged.

Elements that can damage mitochondria include radiation, toxic chemicals, viruses and chronic inflammation. According to Dr. Ede, “It just so happens that some of the genes most strongly linked to cancer (“oncogenes”) are those that code for mitochondrial proteins.”

Mutations in these genes are sometimes found in cancer cells:

• BRCA-1 (breast cancer gene)
• APC (colon cancer gene)
• RB (retinoblastoma gene)
• XP (xeroderma pigmentosum gene)

And viruses strongly linked with cancer are also known to harm respiration:

• Kaposi’s sarcoma virus
• Human papilloma virus (cervical cancer)
• HIV
• Cytomegalovirus

When our mitochondria are damaged and unable to produce high levels of energy, the body suffers by gradually succumbing to deterioration. On a cellular level, this manifests as unstable DNA, loss of unique shape, disorganization and uncontrolled reproduction. In other words: cancer.

Besides limiting exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals, and keeping our immune system in top form to efficiently battle viruses, what is the best way to stop mitochondrial damage and cancer?

Most effective diet for preventing and healing cancer

Virtually all tumors are heavily dependent on glucose (a simple sugar found in carbohydrates). Moreover, it’s well-documented that there is a strong link between high blood sugar (hyperglycemia), diabetes and cancer. When we have high blood glucose levels, insulin levels rise as well. This in turn stimulates cancer cells to take in more glucose for fuel — which makes it easier for cancer cells to feed themselves. Insulin also increases fermentation pathways, further damaging the mitochondria and cells.

Additionally, high blood glucose raises a circulating hormone called IGF-I (Insulin-like Growth Factor I). Receptors for this hormone on the surface of cancer cells encourage rapid growth.

Dr. Seyfried believes cancers are not an assortment of unrelated diseases, it’s actually only one disease — mitochondrial disease. Damaged mitochondria can only use glucose and glutamine for fuel, and cannot fully use fat because it requires respiration. Whereas cells with healthy mitochondria function best when they burn fat for fuel. This is good news for preventing and treating cancer since we now know what energy source will starve the malignant cells: fat. And a ketogenic diet is a perfect example of how to do just that.

As with any new dietary program, it’s important to talk with your wellness practitioner before beginning — especially if you are on medication. A ketogenic diet is very specific and it’s crucial you enlist someone knowledgeable to avoid pitfalls. Those with kidney disease should not use a ketogenic diet. Dr. Seyfried recommends a modified low-calorie ketogenic diet, which consists of 80% fat and the remaining 20% being made up of protein and carbohydrate. You want to avoid excessive protein because it means extra amino acids like glutamine — which feeds cancer cells. Since both protein and carbohydrates can raise blood glucose levels, the lion share of the diet is fat.

To begin the diet, you need to either water fast for 3-5 days or limit carbohydrates to less than 12 grams per day and protein to 0.8 to 1.2 grams per kg body weight per day. According to Dr. Ede, your initial caloric intake should be about 30% below your resting daily metabolic requirements (free basal metabolic rate calculators are available online).

For further information about the diet — as well as the coorelation between cancer and damaged mitochondria — read Dr. Ede’s excellent series on the subject, “What Causes Cancer?“

Article Sources:

• “Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer” Thomas Seyfried Ph.D, Wiley Publishers, 2012
• “What Causes Cancer? Part I“
• “What Causes Cancer? Part II“
• “Cancer Part III-Dietary Treatments“

About the author:

Carolanne Wright enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness and joyful orientation for over 13 years.

Through her website Thrive-Living.net, she looks forward to connecting with other like-minded people from around the world who share a similar vision. You can also follow Carolanne onFacebook, Twitter and Pinterest.

 

 

 

http://wakeup-world.com/2016/04/02/genetic-mutations-dont-cause-cancer-heres-what-does/

[Thaiexpat]

Good post FlyHi. Good to see some of the smarter fellows out there getting the recognition they deserve. Seyfried cites a lot of work from Dr. Otto Warburg. If you are interested, please read as much as you can about him. Ketogenic diet is good and very effective even for overall health. Remember, cancer eats sugar (basically and the non-essential amino acid glutamine), so why eat something that feeds cancer? Calorie-restriction is quite effective also. Intermittent fasting is what I do.

There are tests to determine the metabolic pathway used in cancer which can help direct a diet more specifically: LDH iso, M2PK, TKTLI. By knowing which pathway is used for energy production, you can eliminate it (glutamine is impossible to eliminate, BUT you can limit the foods high in it).

As a doc, I will say the surgery is the only valid treatment option I would accept. The rest are BS. Please see my posted about the reality of science research. Much of it is a fraud. So just because it is "peer-reviewed" means nothing. RCT mean nothing. The proof is in the pudding. How many lives are improved or saved with so-called science-based treatments?

Why it is the medical establishment is so resistant to DIET as the key factor? Because diet doesn't pay for the BMW. Pretty simple. Once you figure out that you are basically on your own in a sea of egotistical jerks, you will follow the right path.

Finally, on this note: ANYONE who claims cancer is from an ACIDIC ENVIRONMENT is a FOOL. They don't have clue to what they are talking about. I will be happy to debate those idiots in open forum also. I savor the chance to destroy that utter BS. So, if someone states "cancer is promoted in an acidic environment only...." just walk away. Don't waste your time/money on such stupidity.

To your health......Cheers

[tankdude]

Allow me to post just a little food for thought....

"Cancer is widely considered a genetic disease involving nuclear mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. This view persists despite the numerous inconsistencies associated with the somatic mutation theory. In contrast to the somatic mutation theory, emerging evidence suggests that cancer is a mitochondrial metabolic disease, according to the original theory of Otto Warburg. The findings are reviewed from nuclear cytoplasm transfer experiments that relate to the origin of cancer. The evidence from these experiments is difficult to reconcile with the somatic mutation theory, but is consistent with the notion that cancer is primarily a mitochondrial metabolic disease."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4493566/

"Emerging evidence indicates that impaired cellular energy metabolism is the defining characteristic of nearly all cancers regardless of cellular or tissue origin. In contrast to normal cells, which derive most of their usable energy from oxidative phosphorylation, most cancer cells become heavily dependent on substrate level phosphorylation to meet energy demands. Evidence is reviewed supporting a general hypothesis that genomic instability and essentially all hallmarks of cancer, including aerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect), can be linked to impaired mitochondrial function and energy metabolism. A view of cancer as primarily a metabolic disease will impact approaches to cancer management and prevention."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/719423

And just because I can....

[FlyHi]

Shoot that tickles some vague memories of Biochemistry from aeons ago ..... but you upgraded the info to today, not the stuff I knew of yesteryear

Good work Tank. Keep up the work of informing us plebs of the real truths .... not the pseudo science of studies that are compromised by vested interests as they sift through the data to show what they desire to create sales

[tankdude]

FlyHi - BTW - went and checked - According to the United States Postal Service - "Your item departed a transfer airport in International, Brisbane, AUSTRALIA on March 30, 2016 at 8:40 am. The item is currently in transit to the destination."

Which is kind of crazy - since I mailed it out to you on the 10th of March - "it's a small world" my bu**"

[FlyHi]

Ha ha welcome to the reality of living in the third world.... If I see the said parcel inside the next 2 weeks I will be astounded.

Sometimes they take 2-3 years to "arrive" if at all.  However, it has a real chance as it has brain food...books are beyond customs usage so I may just get lucky!

[Thaiexpat]

Good replies all. Simply put: if you extract the DNA from a cancerous cell and put it into a healthy, normally respiratory cell, the cell does NOT become cancerous. IF genetic mutations were the cause, then the healthy cell would express such. It DOESNT. Likewise, if you place a healthy DNA nucleus into a cell with a "broken" respiratory system (mitochondria), the cell will likely develop oncogene expression. Dr. Warburg stated such a long-time ago. In addition, there are thousands of genetic mutations per tumor cell. Which one is causing the cancer? How can it be that there are so many variations in genes, but only 1 result? The experts will state, "because cancer cells adapt/modify their genes so quickly/rapidly...". Well, perhaps, but perhaps, genes are NOT the cause but rather a result of faulty cellular respiration.

In addition, it is widely known that cancerous cells will promoted nagalase expression. This will "turn-off" the immune system. Proper immune response is impeded. So, we have 2 possible ways to fight cancer: maintain proper cell respiration (diet, healthy living, detoxification, etc) and limit nagalase production (Gc-MAF).

To your health....Cheers

[Thaiexpat]

2 books which help explain all of this are:

Seyfried's "Cancer as a Metabolic Diease" (a bit technical, but the 2nd half talks about diet)

Perskin's "The Hidden Cause of Cancer" (very easy read, but a big book. Explains Dr. Warburgs ideas well)

[FlyHi]

Cheers Doc, very helpful succinct points and good ref books to dive into.

[FlyHi]

Doc

I like your description of two possible ways to fight cancer:

1) Proper cell respiration:I lean towards a ketonic type (fat based diet) to avoid the more normal krebs cycle energy release to cells form high GI foods especially refined carbohydrates. The krebs cycle inadvertently feeds the cancer by allowing glucose to pass by cell walls that the cancer cells grab for their own use). As Tank points out intermittent fasting is another good way to lower blood sugar levels and improve insulin sensitivity which is lost at the cell level with high blood sugar levels bombarding it over time. It then becomes a viscous cycle of more insulin production to mop up the blood sugars but the cells ignore it and it ends up either feeding cancer or being deposited as fat. Some herbs really assist with either lowering blood sugars or cell insulin sensitivity/resistence- namely Cinnamon; Tumeric and Ginger. so it is good to incorporate these as much as you can into your diet. Other herbs like black seed (nigella sativa) and berberine are also reputed to assist greatly in insulin resistance reversal

2) Limit nagalase production: I'm about to embark on the GcMAF culture trying with UHT milk (until i can import or track down some fresh or pasteurized milk.)

 

In my opinion we all need to be personally responsible for staying healthy. The above is not hard to do/follow and is a hell of an insurance policy to keep cancer at bay

[Thaiexpat]

Roger that, FlyHi. Also, don't forget cancer can make energy from glutamine, which is a non-essential amino acid, so there is ZERO way to avoid this. However, MAAP (MAP) is a supplement which provides only essential AA's (and glutamine AINT one of them). So if someone is suffering from cancer, consider that product. It is usually sold with Gc-MAF stuff. people with cancer need to keep their amino acid reserves up. One problem with cancer is that so many people lose their appetite. Unfortunately, this is well-known and the only recommendations docs give it "I don't care what you eat, you just need to eat!". This is wrong. Eat RIGHT is the key. Ketogenic diet provides a good source of energy which is not usable by cancer cells. Speaking of drugs: there are a few old-school drugs which help regulate insulin levels, but few docs consider their use in fighting cancer: metformin is one. In addition, there are a few drugs which destroy the mitochondria in cancer cells: 3-bromopyruvate and 2 deoxyglucose which causes an energy loss (again, 30% or more of mitochondrial damage can induce oncogene expression. PPP and glycolysis are inhibited). finally, you can promote mitochondrial to respire with DCA. So can drugs be used safely in cancer treatments? Yes, carefully applied and under the guidance of someone experience in their use can be a real plus.

 UHT milk is fine. No problems. They have a 4th generation Gc-MAF called B.I.G which is stronger than the 91-octane stuff. And they just released a new product that is supposedly 50 x stronger that the old Gc-MAF called RERUM (I think). it is accepted that certain macrophages (M2) actually promote inflammation and protect cancer cells. By using Gc-MAF you can "reprogram" those M2 macrophages so they help you.

Oh, sorry wrote too much! Hope I didn't complete lose you all. Dunno, just saying....To your health

[tankdude]

From what I'm reading, I'm beginning to think the PQQ and Redox Supplement would make pretty powerful adjuncts to just about any type of tumor treatment.  PQQ is now being shown to induce cancer cell apoptosis (suicide).  Apparently it stimulates the Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) in side those cells and the glutathione levels. 

So - if the PQQ is helping to create more mit0chondria as well as regulating ROS/NOS levels, and the Redox Supplement is supplying more of the OS/ROS that the cells normally make but can't because they have been compromised - plus both appear to be influencing the body master antioxidants, especially glutathione.  Sounds like a win-win to me.

http://www.jcancer.org/v05p0609.htm

[FlyHi]

Good stuff Doc and Tank. Yes I was remiss to omit the role of glutamine in energy for cancer cells.

Good info on the drugs to wipe out mitochondria inside cancer cells and the use of DCA to promote respiration.... no doubt under someone like your watchful care/guidance.

Please keep us informed of new developments with Gc-MAF stable of products and there availability. I finally got around to starting my GcMAF culture with UHT milk last nite so will wait 24 hrs until it thickens to start ingesting.

Doc I have read somewhere that Burberine (a natural product with no serious side effects) performed just as well as drugs like Metformin; glipizide & rosiglitazone in reducing insulin resistance as well as reducing fasting and post - meal blood glucose levels

Tank the PQQ is such an eloquent name pyrroloquinoline quinone. If memory serves me correctly it is the third redox cofactor discovered in the early 2000's (after nicotinamide and flavin). In my limited understanding it is neuroprotective compound and reverses cognitive impairment. I imagine it would have great potential in early treatment of Parkinson's disease (as it has a role in stopping or safeguarding against DJ-1 protein that causes self oxidation that is a precursor to the onset of Parkinson's.) It might have also have a place in treating the effects of mercury from forced vaccinations in kids. I didn't know it helped create more mitochondria so thanks for that info. it certainly sounds like a win- win situation to me too.

This is a very interesting topic indeed, totally missed by the majority of the public and certainly not promoted by the medical/pharmaceutical industry.

Edited April 5, 2016 by FlyHi

[Thaiexpat]

Right on. I consulted with a patient today (advanced liver cancer) and she NEVER heard of any of the stuff we write about here. Zero. What a sad state when doctor (experts, mind you) have no clue about "Warburg. Mitochondrial disorders, etc.." The claim there are no peer-review studies on this or that is utter CRAP. Well, lets look at the peer-review studies...Bought and paid for my industry interests, lecturers bought and paid for by industry, studies that show a drug/therapy to be practically worthless-never published, those with statistical games accepted as "proof". I wrote about this in another post on statins: you all need to know the REALITY of these so-called "scientific research papers". Not only for cancer, but anything that is pushed. Do the new drugs work just as well as the older, safer (usually) drugs? Sorry, not many studies on that issue and usually they say, "Not really". regulators who protect those making the drugs. Government-ditto. Its a BIG industry to deal with and it needs to be fixed. There are plenty of books out there explaining this in detail: it is systemic. Natural cures/therapies will never get the support they need-no money in having healthy folks. The cost for Gc-MAF when compared to the latest-and-greatest chemo wont pay for all those adverts/free meals and vacations the industry slicks-up so-called KIO's (Key Influential Opinion-makers) to promote their crap.

As a doc, I keep an open-mind to all things. Ready to change my opinion if I learn of something more effective than what we use now. I don't care WHO it comes from: the maid or a KIO. Show me the how and why along with clinical experience and I am all ears. For example, I used to recommend ALL cancer patients take glutathione (primary anti-oxidant). Now, I am not so certain. Seems cancer cells make a lot of it to protect themselves against oxidative bursts the body uses to destroy them. now, I know to test for levels before recommending this seemingly good thing. The foundational principle might remain the same: don't feed cancer, don't do thing which promote mitochondrial disorders, etc. But how I get there now is different from the way I got there before. On-going REAL research is what will work. Not an advert disguised as research paper.

OK rant done. To your health..Keep-up the good work all.

[FlyHi]

Doc, What I love bout your reply is your willingness to keep an open mind and be ready to change your opinion as new information comes to hand, from whatever source.

7 hours ago, Thaiexpat said:

 

As a doc, I keep an open-mind to all things. Ready to change my opinion if I learn of something more effective than what we use now. I don't care WHO it comes from: the maid or a KIO. Show me the how and why along with clinical experience and I am all ears. For example, I used to recommend ALL cancer patients take glutathione (primary anti-oxidant). Now, I am not so certain. Seems cancer cells make a lot of it to protect themselves against oxidative bursts the body uses to destroy them. now, I know to test for levels before recommending this seemingly good thing. The foundational principle might remain the same: don't feed cancer, don't do thing which promote mitochondrial disorders, etc. But how I get there now is different from the way I got there before. On-going REAL research is what will work. Not an advert disguised as research paper.

OK rant done. To your health..Keep-up the good work all.

Your example of how you applied that is noteworthy in order to keep the principle. Kudos and keep up the good work! Others would have blindly administered Glutathione with mixed results.

[tankdude]

Just caught something you said about the glutathione.  I found in the the posting I made about the PQQ

"Recently, studies showed that PQQ could induce apoptosis in human promonocytic leukemia U937 and lymphoma EL-4 cells, as well as Jurkat cell programmed death [5]. The underlying mechanism might be relevant to the increase of intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) and depletion of glutathione."

Some research to show you're on the right track

[Thaiexpat]

Before hearing about this PQQ, the standard was to give huge amounts of selenium (3,000 mg) to deplete glutathione levels in cancer cells. Selenium is also toxic to these cells. Good to know, I can use something that is caps (selenium in IV is what we use now) and don't have to worry the side-effects from a needle. Keep me posted, TD

[Thaiexpat]

Quote

touched the wrong button. Cant figure this out. Anyways. link to other ideas which can help. Cheers and to your health

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/bill-sardi/vitamin-c-therapy-cancer/

[FlyHi]

Hey doc how long do you recommend drinking the GcMAF yoghurt culture before taking a break ? How long before one should re-start the yoghurt?

 

[FlyHi]

Tank some researchers say Magnesium is very important to mitochondrial health. What are your thoughts and what form is the best to take to supplement what we ingest in our daily food.

[Thaiexpat]

Hey FlyHi, you don't need to take a break from it. I cycle thru: 1 to 3 mos and then stop for a few weeks. Right now I just finished the suppositories and wont take anything till next month, There is no set schedule as a preventative. Only if you have a problem then you follow protocols.

Magnesium Chloride or transdermal Mg is the best form. Spray it on and rub in or get the flakes and make a nice bath of it.

To your health...cheers

[tankdude]

I agree with the trans dermal magnesium.  That's what I use - I spay it on the bottom of my feet at bedtime. I do that because it tends to itch on most other areas, but not on my feet for some reason.  Magnesium is important for mitochondria, and is a co-factor in the whole ATP cycle.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7896768