Cancer As A Solution For Sulfur Deficiency - Stephanie Seneff

[jb116]

Well, without the cancer, maybe the individual would die even quicker? So how do we know the cure is worse than the disease?

We do know that certain drugs that forcefully alleviate certain symptoms such as high cholesterol (statin drugs) indeed DO cause quicker death, after all.

That's entering a world of infinite "what-ifs" and the burden falls on such claims to prove a negative. What we know is cancer kills people and not having it also reflects a good metabolism/well-functioning system. If we keep it simple with what is known we work from there. We ask what's good and what's bad defined by how well it preserves and empowers the health of the individual. Anything short of that is manipulating notions of necessary evils into inherently beneficial things. "Cure" is presumptive here in that one simultaneous beneficial thing can't be assumed to be the holistic fix. For example, the statin you mentioned. Statins are presumed to be "cures." More accurate would be to say "We do know that certain "necessary evils" or presumptive "cures" as drugs that forcefully alleviate certain symptoms such as high cholesterol (statin drugs) indeed DO cause quicker death, after all." And who would argue with that...

 

[Cirion]

I mean obviously cancer is bad as it shows the whole body is degrading -- but it's a symptom not a cause of anything directly, although certainly it can aggravate existing problems in some ways. But blaming the cancer in and of itself is a fallacy, because the real problem is an overall broken metabolism. This is why mainstream medicine can't seem to cure cancer, because they focus on the cancer instead of fixing the whole organism. Even in the cases where they successfully surgically extract the cancers, or otherwise destroy the tumors, it frequently comes back, because they didn't fix the actual problem.

 

[jb116]

I mean obviously cancer is bad as it shows the whole body is degrading -- but it's a symptom not a cause of anything directly, although certainly it can aggravate existing problems in some ways. But blaming the cancer in and of itself is a fallacy, because the real problem is an overall broken metabolism. This is why mainstream medicine can't seem to cure cancer, because they focus on the cancer instead of fixing the whole organism. Even in the cases where they successfully surgically extract the cancers, or otherwise destroy the tumors, it frequently comes back, because they didn't fix the actual problem.

I think there's a happy medium in that line of thinking. Let's say we have the effect and its cause along with the prima causa to the effect, so to speak. Obviously treating the effect as the cause in the most extreme way isn't truly the answer. I think we all agree on this and acknowledge every day on this forum. That's the mainline approach; like you mentioned "blaming cancer" and directly trying to mitigate the effect (the cancer) and its cause (death) by some mechanical means i.e. physical cutting out or the like.
Then you have the prima causa, again, something we can and do agree on as seen on this forum, I mean it's the reason we are all here and for the most part agree on an overall picture of things. Addressing this prima causa is our thing, right? That's how we think of these things. And that's reasonable. But we aren't hoisting cancer up on our shoulders still. We may not blame it for its own existence but we certainly don't twist the picture so much as to start using words like "rescue" in relation to it. We acknowledge defensive things that arise in these bleak situations but we don't praise the situation because that good defensive thing happens to be there. We instead realize those defensive things but also resort to understanding health as an on-going flux in which we induce those good things in healthful ways.

There's a toxin in your body and in response, the body creates more cholesterol, namely HDL. Great, that's a good thing but can't we skip being poisoned altogether and understand that we increase our intake and/or exposure to cholesterol in more healthful ways that coincide with the on-going flux? Yes, I'd say so, because again why are we here? To do just that: not to get sick but enhance all the good stuff without conjuring the bad just to get the good. And just because the good is there in a bad situation, we shouldn't look at the bad as a hero. If anything, it's the body as a whole that shows some kind of response and like we said, without the bad we can still attain the good which is what we want.

 

[jondoeuk]

I agree with your exposing the bizarre logic, @jb116, but, for the record, want to point out that, according to Ray Peat, there is actually such a system/ thing that

It is called the immune system: Its function is to clear the debris (a problem) and it potentially can kill you (e.g., as anaphylactic shock or some other strong immune reaction).

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

 

[pepsi]

Isnt it usually the cancer treatment and not the cancer itself that kills the patient.

 

[SOMO]

why would not additional sulfur bring back balance? There are plenty of people out there taking sulfur, and stories of it curing cancer have not made the rounds yet.

SULFUR is NOT the same as SULFATE.

And SULFATE is not the same as SULFITE.

 

[LucyL]

Well, without the cancer, maybe the individual would die even quicker? So how do we know the cure is worse than the disease?
/QUOTE]

Touche‘. That's a double-blind study we'll never get.

 

[rei]

But why is there excess glucose in the first place?

Oxidative metabolism of glucose needs many nutrients, minerals and processes in the body. Anaerobic metabolism just happens. Modern food is so empty of nutrients and processed to become toxic that a vast majority of people are forced to ferment the glucose as maintaining the mitochondria functional just does not work.

This is why keto/fasting is so very effective cure for so many people. Switching over to fat oxidation bypasses the depleted glucose oxidation pathways and can return the body quickly to oxidative metabolism.

 

[yerrag]

Oxidative metabolism of glucose needs many nutrients, minerals and processes in the body. Anaerobic metabolism just happens. Modern food is so empty of nutrients and processed to become toxic that a vast majority of people are forced to ferment the glucose as maintaining the mitochondria functional just does not work.

This is why keto/fasting is so very effective cure for so many people. Switching over to fat oxidation bypasses the depleted glucose oxidation pathways and can return the body quickly to oxidative metabolism.

Can you explain more on how this would return the body quickly to oxidative metabolism?

 

[rei]

If you run out of the vitamins necessary to oxidize glucose or drive your body into such a state it might be easier to completely switch over to a metabolism that does not depend on these to function correctly instead of trying to convince the body to shift away from anaerobic glucose utilization to oxidation.

 

[yerrag]

If you run out of the vitamins necessary to oxidize glucose or drive your body into such a state it might be easier to completely switch over to a metabolism that does not depend on these to function correctly instead of trying to convince the body to shift away from anaerobic glucose utilization to oxidation.

Yes, but how would shifting to fat oxidation prepare the body to eventually restore its ability to revert back to its ability to use oxidative metabolism?

 

[Oraganic4me]

This was my question too. Why does the tumor then eventually kill the patient, why would the body have a cure worse than the disease, and why would not additional sulfur bring back balance? There are plenty of people out there taking sulfur, and stories of it curing cancer have not made the rounds yet.

Lucy,
Is this this the same sulfur that a lot of people from India use to flavor food. They call it “black salt” / Kala Namak” and it smells like rotten eggs?

 

[rei]

yerrag, Because when you don't force so much carbs to be metabolized the carb oxidation nutrient consumption goes down and allows the body to resume normal balance. Also nutrient absorption might change significantly when the emergency metabolism turns normal.

 

[yerrag]

yerrag, Because when you don't force so much carbs to be metabolized the carb oxidation nutrient consumption goes down and allows the body to resume normal balance. Also nutrient absorption might change significantly when the emergency metabolism turns normal.

It may work. Perhaps you've personally experienced it and seen it working, but I'm skeptical of it being something that would come as a natural consequence. My experience with solving health problems usually don't involve very clear-cut transitions. Usually there are more layers of complexity involved. In this case, the problems that caused glucose metabolism to not be fully optimal will still remain. Perhaps going to fat oxidation mode can be a first step, but some other protocol/s need to take over after it.

 

[rei]

Absolutely, IF and fasting are therapeutic interventions, not diets for optimal health for the rest of your life. After years of trying different diets and theories these two strategies stabilized my health, and once that was achieved peaty eating and supplements allowed for regeneration.

 

[yerrag]

Absolutely, IF and fasting are therapeutic interventions, not diets for optimal health for the rest of your life. After years of trying different diets and theories these two strategies stabilized my health, and once that was achieved peaty eating and supplements allowed for regeneration.

Thanks. I can see now why you encouraged me to fast in another thread.

 

[jondoeuk]

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

 

[jondoeuk]

Isnt it usually the cancer treatment and not the cancer itself that kills the patient.

No, that is not true. Also, progress is being made. Prior to Yescarta, relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients had a median survival of just over 6 months [1]. At two years (and in many cases up to three), after a single infusion of Yescarta, half of this same patient population are still alive. The median survival has not yet been reached [2].

Refs:
1 Outcomes in refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: results from the international SCHOLAR-1 study
2 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(18)30864-7/fulltext

 

[Forsythia]

LucyL said:
There are plenty of people out there taking sulfur, and stories of it curing cancer have not made the rounds yet.

Sulphur is part of a cancer diet called the Budwig diet, with the main component being flax oil + quark/cottage cheese. There are cancer patients, especially men with prostate cancer, who follow this diet. The quark/cottage cheese is for the "sulphur amino acids" it provides. Supposedly when you mix flax oil (omega 3) with sulphur amino acids, it has an effect on cancer cells according to Budwig. Peat off course says otherwise; he has said any benefit from the Budgwig diet is from the laxative effect of the oil purging the intestines. There are even people on this forum who have tried the Budwig diet....and now of course are trying to detox all that pufa,

 

[danishispsychic]

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