Cancer Debate May Be Finally Over, Confirming Ray's Views Again

aguilaroja

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
850
Wilfrid said:
....The role of the ANS on the cancer genesis and pronostic are often underestimated.
But Ray's answer strongly confirm the work of Fuad Lechìn on the ANS and diseases.

....Managing balance within the ANS is a tricky one which could explain why some people have positive results from diet excluding proteins and eat only fruits, grains, vegetables and juices while others have positive results excluding starches, fruits and eat mainly a protein based diet. And a lot of legit testimonials of different peoples claiming they cured their cancer with often opposite diet.
So the debate is probably not over yet...

There's lots of unclear notions about so-called autonomic nervous systems. ANS is used in a way that's often more confusing that helpful. There is an old essay which still seems relevant:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9185301
Trends Neurosci. 1997 Jun;20(6):235-9.
Inadequate frameworks for understanding bodily homeostasis. Blessing WW.

Separate nervous systems, somatic and autonomic, were proposed to regulate the portion of the individual's life that is concerned with the external environment and the portion that is concerned with internal homeostasis. Regulation of the autonomic system by the CNS was assigned to the limbic system. Brainstem circuitry, between limbic and autonomic systems, was assigned to the supposedly nonspecific reticular formation. In fact, daily survival depends on integrated control of behavior and internal physiology. In mammals only the brain has the inbuilt programming for patterned co-ordination of these activities. The terms autonomic nervous system, limbic system and reticular formation are at odds with this patterned co-ordination. They should be abandoned and replaced with the term visceral neurons (afferent and efferent) and with reference to relevant specific-neural circuitry in the brain.

http://raypeat.com/articles/other/auton ... tems.shtml

"Although I don’t think the autonomic nervous system, with its sympathetic and parasympathetic divisions, exists in the way it has traditionally been conceived, the idea can be useful if we think of using drugs and other factors in ways that tend to 'quiet an overactive autonomic nervous system.'"
 

Kray

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
1,850
How does this answer the question I posted earlier? Sorry, I'm no science whiz. What do these studies mean? None of the good Peat fats? I haven't heard him say anything about that lately.
 

LucyL

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,244
Wilfrid said:
"The notable exception is flaxseed oil, which didn't seem to make tumors grow, and it would be interesting to hear Ray's take on this."

here it is:

http://askwaltstollmd.com/archives/oils/49752.html

I have read quite a bit of Dr. Stolls' site over the years, but hadn't been there in a couple of years. Suffice it to say I was surprised to see he had died. He was only 74 - do you have any idea what was the cause of death?

Also I asked Dr. Peat this same question about the use of flaxseed oil in Gerson Therapy, and here is what he wrote me

The value of (pure) cottage cheese is that it has an extremely low iron content, and isn't irritating to the intestine. I think the flax oil idea derived from a professor who suggested using a cup of it as a time as a purgative. Gerson's coffee enemas achieved a similar purpose; endotoxin is a major problem in cancer patients. But when a smaller amount of the oil is used, as a food, it's mostly absorbed, and omega-3 fats can affect the immune system and possibly promote metastasis. The cottage cheese shouldn't contain additives besides salt.

He also pasted several study abstracts which I won't reproduce here, unless someone wants them.
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
LucyL said:
Wilfrid said:
"The notable exception is flaxseed oil, which didn't seem to make tumors grow, and it would be interesting to hear Ray's take on this."

here it is:

http://askwaltstollmd.com/archives/oils/49752.html

I have read quite a bit of Dr. Stolls' site over the years, but hadn't been there in a couple of years. Suffice it to say I was surprised to see he had died. He was only 74 - do you have any idea what was the cause of death?

Also I asked Dr. Peat this same question about the use of flaxseed oil in Gerson Therapy, and here is what he wrote me

The value of (pure) cottage cheese is that it has an extremely low iron content, and isn't irritating to the intestine. I think the flax oil idea derived from a professor who suggested using a cup of it as a time as a purgative. Gerson's coffee enemas achieved a similar purpose; endotoxin is a major problem in cancer patients. But when a smaller amount of the oil is used, as a food, it's mostly absorbed, and omega-3 fats can affect the immune system and possibly promote metastasis. The cottage cheese shouldn't contain additives besides salt.

He also pasted several study abstracts which I won't reproduce here, unless someone wants them.

Thanks.
In a search on Ray's site, he's written a very small footnote in one of his articles mentionning the Gerson books published after his death were FRAUDULENTLY modified to include the opposite things Gerson had advised for .

In their preface, Nelson and Cox say their book has retained "Lehninger's ground-breaking organization, in which a discussion of biomolecules is followed by metabolism and then information pathways," but that at every other level "this second edition is a re-creation, rather than a revision, of the original text. Every chapter has been comprehensively overhauled, not just by adding and deleting information, but by completely reorganizing its presentation and content...." This is reminiscent of the book published under the name of Max Gerson after his death, which inserted essentially fraudulent material to support an approach that is exactly what Gerson strongly advised against.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/membranes.shtml

So, Ray is implying downright fraud.
But fraud committed by who ?
 

Blossom

Moderator
Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
11,033
Location
Indiana USA
I read this and thought it would be a nice addition here:
Ray wrote in The Cancer Matrix September 2013
The vicious cycles that promote cancer can be interrupted to some extent simply by reducing exposure to things that promote stress and inflammation- endotoxin, polyunsaturated fat, amino acid imbalance, nutritional deficiency, ionizing radiation, estrogens- and maintaining optimal levels of things that protect against those- carbon dioxide, vitamin e, progesterone, light, aspirin, sugars and thyroid hormone, for example.
 

TreasureVibe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
1,941
Imo the Warburg effect is just simply the showcase of the metabolites of a cancer cell (that uses fermentation metabolism as its source of energy). These metabolites cause an environment that is pro-cancer, but they're simply metabolites, not (necessarily) the cause of a body cell becoming a cancer cell. I think we should de-mystify the Warburg effect and start using common sense and seeing it for what it is in order to understand the bigger picture. I wrote (necessarily) because there could always be the possibility that the Warburg effect plays some role in the transition of respiration to fermentation, but from a logical perspective on metabolism, it is unlogical to see it as the sole cause of the transition and therefore be the cause of a cancer cell or cancer in general.

If you define ''cancer'' as 1 cancer cell being okay and not being cancer, then yes, the Warburg effect causes cancer, because it creates a pro-cancer environment through lactic acid and the liver after 1 cancer cell has developed, causing new cancer cells to grow from that first one. However, if you say that that first cancer cell is not okay and is already "cancer", then the Warburg effect is not a cause of cancer. Why does that first cancer cell occur?

I think 2 crowds exist,

the crowd that says cancer cells ultimately happen for no reason
and the crowd that believes there must be some reason for it metabolically, which is perhaps correctable

I think the latter is right.

A good question would be in the bigger sense of the picture, why do our bodies start to ferment? (which you could say, is cancer in the broader sense)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom