Cancer As A Solution For Sulfur Deficiency - Stephanie Seneff

[BigChad]

and........i wonder what it means if you are actually allergic to sulphur? oy.

I thought sulfur is an essential nutrient. Can you be allergic to it, usually its milk, eggs or certain foods?

 

[LucyL]

@LucyL (re: post 27) Withholding proven treatments would be unethical, immoral and quite possibly illegal.

Forcing people to enroll in a study would also be unethical, immoral and (ought to be) illegal. But even to this day, there are people who choose to refuse treatments for their cancers.

 

[burtlancast]

But this person is going to the extreme with the idea of "purpose" and in essence is flipping the tenses to absurd degree. Reading between her lines: cancer is a hero and lactate is a superior fuel, and yea sugar is the enemy.

Seneff never heard of cancer cachexia, where the body consumes itself trying to convert all the lactic acid back to glucose.

Her scientific proof is nowhere to be found, just as the one where she's claiming MMS detoxifies glyphosate.

Basically, she's just throwing mud at a wall hoping it will somehow stick.

And a lot of people just gobble it up.

 

[jb116]

Seneff never heard of cancer cachexia, where the body consumes itself trying to convert all the lactic acid back to glucose.

Her scientific proof is nowhere to be found, just as the one where she's claiming MMS detoxifies glyphosate.

Basically, she's just throwing mud at a wall hoping it will somehow stick.

And a lot of people just gobble it up.

 

[Cynthia386]

Back in 2000 Dr. Oldenborg and colleagues hypothesised that CD47 served as a marker of 'self.' Specifically, they proposed that the surface expression of CD47 on red blood cells served as a mechanism to prevent macrophage (a type of white blood cell) phagocytosis (ingestion). In immunity this functions as a "don't eat me" signal when it interacts with SIRP-a on macrophages. Cells that have lower levels of CD47 and higher calreticulin (an ''eat me'' signal) are removed by the immune system, whereas cells expressing elevated levels of CD47 are resistant to destruction due to a balance of pro- and anti-phagocytic signals. So in order to avoid phagocytosis by macrophages, cancer cells upregulate CD47. This is observed in nearly all solid and hematological malignancies. It is likely a broadly conserved tumour escape mechanism The CD47-signal regulatory protein alpha (SIRPa) interaction is a therapeutic target for human solid tumors

We now know there are other ''don't eat me'' signals CD24 signalling through macrophage Siglec-10 is a target for cancer immunotherapy

I am in a trial for an anti-cd47 drug. Tumors on the surface of my breast were eaten alive in the first few weeks of treatment.

 

[yerrag]

Came across this essay by Stephanie Seneff from 2014 - Cancer to the Rescue? This is her theory of cancer.

exerts:

Cancer cells are extraordinary, however, because, even in the presence of abundant oxygen, they refuse to use their mitochondria to produce energy. Instead, they are a powerhouse for taking in glucose—eighteen times as much as a normal cell to obtain equivalent energy—and shipping out lactate. This is the Warburg effect.

Why would cancer cells do this? I have a very simple explanation: the tumor is clearing the excess glucose from the blood and replacing it with an abundance of lactate to provide usable fuel for the critical organs like the heart and the brain. This is one reason why the tumor is part of the solution instead of part of the problem. The service it performs is essential to allow the heart and the brain, in their compromised state of severe cholesterol and sulfate deficiency, to continue to function by utilizing lactate as a source of fuel instead of glucose. But the tumor suffers from glycation damage and acidification as a consequence, so it struggles to survive under such harsh conditions.

The tumor has another more practical reason not to run its mitochondrial engines. Because it is severely deficient in sulfate, it needs to somehow produce sulfate from an available substrate. A promising candidate is homocysteine thiolactone. But, unfortunately, superoxide is required as a source of reactive oxygen to oxidize the sulfur atom in the homocysteine thiolactone. Furthermore, nitrate is needed to offset the kosmotropic effects of sulfate (otherwise, the blood will become too viscous). But the precursor to nitrate, nitric oxide, reacts with the precursor to sulfate, superoxide, to produce a nasty, highly reactive oxidizing agent called peroxynitrite,26 which will destroy the iron-sulfur containing proteins such as aconitase in the mitochondria.5 It’s really hard to avoid peroxynitrite exposure if a cell is producing both nitric oxide and superoxide. However, it has to produce both of these in order to be able to synthesize sulfate and not gel the blood in the process. A tumor cell is a very good candidate for the job, precisely because it’s not performing other essential duties, so it can “take the heat.”​

and

Breast cancer cells will respond to exposure to estrogen by multiplying, which is why estrogen receptor antagonists such as Tamoxifen have been used as a hormone therapy option to impede their growth.1,13 Cancer cells use estrogen to produce estrone sulfate, which they release into the surrounding medium (thereby distributing sulfate to other cells). They also produce lots and lots of heparan sulfate, and, since they produce a sulfatase that detaches sulfate from estrone sulfate,22 I suspect that estrone sulfate becomes a source of sulfate for the synthesis of heparan sulfate.

Prostate cancer has a story similar to breast cancer with regard to sterol sulfate synthesis, except that the tumor makes cholesterol sulfate instead of estrone sulfate.11 Both estrone and cholesterol are sterols (estrone, testosterone, and vitamin D3 are all synthesized from cholesterol). Cholesterol sulfate is the same molecule that is synthesized in the skin upon sunlight exposure. Thus, a plausible way in which sunlight exposure might protect from cancer is by leading to the production of a molecule—cholesterol sulfate— that is sorely needed to maintain the stability of the blood and the general health of the body.

While the tumor cell produces excessive amounts of heparan sulfate, it also produces excessive amounts of heparanase, an enzyme that breaks down heparan sulfate! Tumors that are more aggressive and more likely to metastasize (spread to other tissues) produce more heparanase than more benign tumors.18,3Tumors, in fact, produce a continual stream of small vesicles called exosomes, which are pinched off from their plasma membrane and distributed via the vasculature.41 These contain syndecans bound to heparan sulfate in their membranes, so the tumor cell is delivering heparan sulfate to other cells on the backs of these exosomes! It appears that the tumor is involved in a program of obsessively making and shipping out heparan sulfate chains.

Why would it do this? As astonishing as this may sound, one is tempted to conclude that a tumor cell is altruistic—it is providing a continual stream of fragments of heparan sulfate to the vasculature with the explicit goal of fixing a severe pathology that would otherwise lead to the death of the organism.
Or maybe this is not altruism but rather self-preservation. After all, if the blood supply to the tumor fails, the tumor itself will die.
...
Careful examination of the evidence leads to the inevitable conclusion that the tumor is not the problem. In fact, it is the solution! Sugar is piling up in the blood because the cells are unable to utilize it as fuel. This is a direct consequence of insufficient sulfate in the pancreas, leading to an inability to manufacture insulin,39 and insufficient sulfate in the extracellular matrix of all the cells, leading to insulin resistance.36 The tumor cell can perform a wonderful service by sucking all that sugar out of the blood and replacing it with lactate. Lactate is a beautiful fuel—its negative charge helps to alleviate blood acidification, and it does not glycate blood proteins, such as hemoglobin and ApoB in LDL, a huge problem with glucose and other blood sugars. And the tumor is producing estrone sulfate and heparan sulfate and releasing them into the blood, supplying the essential nutrients that can restore the blood’s stability to prevent blood clots and hemorrhages.​

She offers no solution for reversing cancer, only some strategies for protection/prevention. Interestingly enough, in her latest interview with Patrick Timpone (OneRadioNetwork) she said she is now living on a island in Hawaii, with ready access to a lot of organic foods. And of course, beaches, salt water and sunshine. Unfortunately I don't think any Hawaiian island is big enough for all of us

I think Seneff is right in some aspects, but wrong as well.

Mainly, the cancer isn't there in an attempt to make the body survive, but is self-serving. It is making the substrates such as sulfate available to maintain perfusion especially is the small blood vessels, the capillaries, so that the cancer can continue to be supplied with nutrients, and to create new capillaries to feed the cancer better.

I don't know how lactate becomes a fuel source for the cancer other than it becoming converted to glucose the Cori cycle, but if that is how lactate is used for energy by the cancer, it sure is a roundabout way. It would just be easier for the cancer to ensure the flow of nutrients it needs to grow and proliferate. And this is by ensuring the capillaries that feed it isn't plugged up, and if need be, to create new capillaries via angiogenesis.

Cancer creating cholesteryl sulfate helps with blood flow, benefiting the cancer.