OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Glycine is a precursor to Glutathione which is the master antioxidant that cancer uses to protect itself from high ROS. Cancer hijacks normal cells and uses the Redox system to its advantage. All cancers have a phenotype that determines how it feeds itself. Some are Glucose feeders, some are Fatty Acid feeders, some are Glutamine feeders. Many are all three. If you block one source it will redirect and use another source. Diet alone will not cure cancer. That's why repurposing drugs are now being used to fight cancer. Jane McLelland recently wrote a book "How to Starve Cancer" and put together a "Metro Map" identifying all of the cancer feed lines and the drugs and supplements that block those lines.
View attachment 13390

The Care Oncology Clinic has identified a cocktail of 4 repurposed drugs that are used to weaken cancer and block their fuel lines. They are Metformin, Atorvastatin, Doxycycline, and Medbendazole. Jane has identified other drugs and supplements to further block these lines. Some cancers follow the Warburg effect. Others follow the reverse Warburg effect. The metabolic approach is to starve the cancer of nutrients and then go for the kill via high ROS.

So far I have not seen any evidence that cancer can evade blocking FAO. All cancers overexpress FAS and beta-oxidation. A potent fatty acid oxidation inhibitor, either alone or combined with something like MB to take care of blocked cytochrome C oxidase by NO, is unlikely to fail. I once emailed Peat asking about this and his response was something along the lines of if the FAO is potent enough this combination will likely cure most cancers, or at the very least shrink them to the point where they do not pose a problem. The approach with creating ROS is OK but that is what chemotherapy does (in a very toxic way) and ultimately still amounts to trying to kill the "bad cells". There are no bad cells, just cells in an extremely metabolically stressed condition. As long as the approach is still some form of "kill, poison, burn" cancer will not be cured.
The problem is also that the ROS approach only takes care of existing semi-differentiated cancer cells but does not do anything for cancer stem cells. That's why the cancer almost always comes back after chemo/radiation/surgery. The metabolic approach stops the very process of "cancerization", which ultimately stems from environmental signals of stress manifesting metabolically. Oxidation of fat is one of the most potent such manifestations, high cortisol/serotonin are next. Hence the recent studies of treating cancer with cyproheptadine. Just search PubMed for it.
So, progress is being made, but the majority of doctors still view cancer as an alien life form that needs to be killed and that is what hinders progress the most. And since all of them are trying to make a ton of money in the process they break down the approach into a thousand of reductionist ideas such as restricting a single amino acid since patentable drugs can be developed to target that pathway. Nobody is (currently) interested in drugs that work at the very top of the cascade. My guess is that we will see another 20-30 years of reductionist, isolated "restriction" approach before the true metabolic cause is acknowledged and addressed. It is a BIG social problem as well. It would be hard to sell the idea in politics that our current lifestyle and environment kills. It would mean a ton of lawsuits and companies going under. Possibly even mass social unrest if enough people realize what they have been systemically subjected to for decades.
 
Last edited:

Obi-wan

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
1,120
So far I have not seen any evidence that cancer can evade blocking FAO. All cancers overexpress FAS and beta-oxidation. A potent fatty acid oxidation inhibitor, either alone or combined with something like MB to take care of blocked cytochrome C oxidase by NO, is unlikely to fail. I once emailed Peat asking about this and his response was something along the lines of if the FAO is potent enough this combination will likely cure most cancers, or at the very least shrink them to the point where they do not pose a problem. The approach with creating ROS is OK but that is what chemotherapy does (in a very toxic way) and ultimately still amounts to trying to kill the "bad cells". There are no bad cells, just cells in an extremely metabolically stressed condition. As long as the approach is still some form of "kill, poison, burn" cancer will not be cured. The problem is also that the ROS approach only takes care of existing semi-differentiated cancer cells but does not do anything for cancer stem cells. That's why the cancer almost always comes back after chemo/radiation/surgery. The metabolic approach stops the very process of "cancerization", which ultimately stems from environmental signals. Oxidation of fat is one of the most potent such signals, high cortisol/serotonin are next. Hence the recent studies of treating cancer with cyproheptadine. Just search PubMed for it. So, progress is being made, but the majority of doctors still view cancer as an alien life form that needs to be killed and that is what hinders progress the most.


The FAO blockers on the Metro map are Doxycycline and Mildronate. The metro map is a "stem cell" map. By blocking the fuel lines you weaken the stem cells. The cell still has to go through Apoptosis which is the normal process of the body to get rid of the mutant cells
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
get rid of the mutant cells

Those "mutant" cells do not have to be killed. The DNA changes in those cells are a result of metabolic derangement. Remember the Reddit discussion? See the top comment.
The Warburg Effect drives oncogenesis: researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and in Japan show cancer really does have a sweet tooth : science

Also, remember the example with the salamander turning tumor grafts into completely normal tissue? The salamanders's high regenerative capacity tells the "mutant" cells to form a coherent field and differentiate into a normal organ again. The same thing has been shown to happen in humans and it does NOT involve apoptosis. It's just that medicine claims it does not know how to trigger it on demand.
 

Obi-wan

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
1,120
Those "mutant" cells do not have to be killed. The DNA changes in those cells are a result of metabolic derangement. Remember the Reddit discussion? See the top comment.
The Warburg Effect drives oncogenesis: researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and in Japan show cancer really does have a sweet tooth : science

Also, remember the example with the salamander turning tumor grafts into completely normal tissue? The salamanders's high regenerative capacity tells the "mutant" cells to form a coherent field and differentiate into a normal organ again. The same thing has been shown to happen in humans and it does NOT involve apoptosis. It's just that medicine claims it does not know how to trigger it on demand.


"PROSTATE CANCER METABOLIC CHANGES
Citrate/Zinc
As noted above, the hallmark of the healthy prostate epithelial
cell is the zinc accumulating, citrate synthesizing phenotype.
However, a well-noted shift occurs within malignant prostate
cells. Prostate cancer cells reverse this phenotype and adopt a
zinc wasting, citrate oxidizing phenotype, thereby representing a
major shift in energy metabolism (19). This shift allows these cells
to utilize the Krebs cycle and subsequent oxidative phosphoryla-
tion (Figure1). It has long been identified that prostate cancer
does not conform to the standard Warburg effect seen in most
cancers. Unlike most cancer cells that resort to aerobic glycolysis,
prostate cancer cells exhibit a higher level of citric acid cycle activ-
ity compared to benign cells (10).
Accumulation of zinc may also lead to a mitochondrial apop-
totic phenotype
within prostate cells. Therefore, malignant cells
preferentially decrease the amount of stored zinc in order to avoid
cell death (20). This reduction in zinc in malignant cells may be
due to alterations in a zinc transporter ZIP1 (19). Altering these
transporters does not allow the concentration of zinc to reach lev-
els sufficient to inhibit m-aconitase. Thus, it has been argued that
the altered zinc and citrate phenotype in prostate cancer has a dual
role. Not only does the return to citrate oxidization increase the
energy available for cell growth but also by avoiding an increased
concentration of zinc these cells avoid apoptotic regulation (3).
Further research is being done to better understand how dietary
zinc can influence prostate malignancy as well as how the zinc/
citrate metabolic path can be targeted therapeutically."
 

Obi-wan

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
1,120
Great article on eradicating cancer stem cells at Antibiotics that target mitochondria effectively eradicate cancer stem cells, across multiple tumor types: Treating cancer like an infectious disease

"Here, we propose a new strategy for the treatment of early cancerous lesions and advanced metastatic disease, via the selective targeting of cancer stem cells (CSCs), a.k.a., tumor-initiating cells (TICs). We searched for a global phenotypic characteristic that was highly conserved among cancer stem cells, across multiple tumor types, to provide a mutation-independent approach to cancer therapy. This would allow us to target cancer stem cells, effectively treating cancer as a single disease of “stemness”, independently of the tumor tissue type. Using this approach, we identified a conserved phenotypic weak point – a strict dependence on mitochondrial biogenesis for the clonal expansion and survival of cancer stem cells. Interestingly, several classes of FDA-approved antibiotics inhibit mitochondrial biogenesis as a known “side-effect”, which could be harnessed instead as a “therapeutic effect”. Based on this analysis, we now show that 4-to-5 different classes of FDA-approved drugs can be used to eradicate cancer stem cells, in 12 different cancer cell lines, across 8 different tumor types (breast, DCIS, ovarian, prostate, lung, pancreatic, melanoma, and glioblastoma (brain)). These five classes of mitochondrially-targeted antibiotics include: the erythromycins, the tetracyclines, the glycylcyclines, an anti-parasitic drug, and chloramphenicol. Functional data are presented for one antibiotic in each drug class: azithromycin, doxycycline, tigecycline, pyrvinium pamoate, as well as chloramphenicol, as proof-of-concept. Importantly, many of these drugs are non-toxic for normal cells, likely reducing the side effects of anti-cancer therapy. Thus, we now propose to treat cancer like an infectious disease, by repurposing FDA-approved antibiotics for anti-cancer therapy, across multiple tumor types. These drug classes should also be considered for prevention studies, specifically focused on the prevention of tumor recurrence and distant metastasis. Finally, recent clinical trials with doxycycline and azithromycin (intended to target cancer-associated infections, but not cancer cells) have already shown positive therapeutic effects in cancer patients, although their ability to eradicate cancer stem cells was not yet appreciated."

"Because mitochondria evolved from bacteria that were originally engulfed by eukaryotic cells millions of years ago (known as the “endosymbiotic theory of mitochondrial evolution”) [10, 11], many classes of FDA-approved antibiotics actually target mitochondria, as a mild side-effect, which is well-tolerated in most patients"

"More specifically, the erythromycins and chloramphenicol selectively bind to the large subunit of the mitochondrial ribosome and inhibit mitochondrial biogenesis, by preventing the translation of mitochondrial proteins, mainly related to the mitochondrial OXPHOS complexes (Figure (Figure1A).1A). Similarly, the tetracyclines and glycylcyclines both bind with high affinity to the small subunit of the mitochondrial ribosome and inhibit mitochondrial biogenesis as well"
 
Last edited:

Obi-wan

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
1,120
Sorry I'm on a roll

"In this regard, doxycycline is relatively attractive as a new anti-cancer agent, as it has a long half-life systemically and has been used successfully for the long-term treatment of patients with urinary tract infections (UTI), prostatitis or acne, for extended periods of time, of up to 4-to-6 months or more (200 mg per day). Doxycycline also encourages the growth of normal stem cells, has anti-inflammatory properties, and even increases lifespan, in certain experimental contexts [12-14]. Thus, the toxic side effects of anti-cancer therapy would be minimized.
Doxycycline has also been used in human tumor xenografts and other animal models to significantly reduce tumor burden and even metastatic cancer cell growth [15-20]. For example, in pancreatic tumor xenografts (with PANC-1 cells), doxycycline treatment reduced tumor growth by ~80% [20]. In a xenograft model of breast cancer bone metastasis (with MDA-MB-231 cells), doxycycline treatment reduced bone and bone-associated soft-tissue tumor mass by >60% and ~80%, respectively [19]. However, its anti-cancer activity was attributed to the inhibition of matrix-metalloproteinases (MMPs), rather than the targeting of mitochondrial biogenesis, and doxycycline has not been previously implicated in the selective eradication of cancer stem cells [15-20].
Our results are consistent with the previous finding that metformin, a widely used anti-diabetic drug, which functions as a mitochondrial inhibitor, can also be used to selectively target CSCs [21, 22]. Metformin functionally inhibits OXPHOS by targeting complex I of the electron transport chain and can even induce lactic acidosis, as a lethal side effect [21, 22]. As a result, the use of antibiotics, such as doxycycline, may provide a safer and far more effective alternative to anti-cancer therapy with metformin." Two of the four COC cocktail drugs! WOW!!!!

They also tested the Anti-parasitic drug: Pyrvinium pamoate which has similar properties to Fenbendazole and Mebendozole (3rd COC cocktail drug)
 
Last edited:

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
I cannot see how tetracyclines would also wreck non-pathologic mitos long-term.
Mitohormesis only goes so far, at some point, you kill your perfectly good mitos irreversibly.
 

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
So far I have not seen any evidence that cancer can evade blocking FAO. All cancers overexpress FAS and beta-oxidation. A potent fatty acid oxidation inhibitor, either alone or combined with something like MB to take care of blocked cytochrome C oxidase by NO, is unlikely to fail. I once emailed Peat asking about this and his response was something along the lines of if the FAO is potent enough this combination will likely cure most cancers, or at the very least shrink them to the point where they do not pose a problem. The approach with creating ROS is OK but that is what chemotherapy does (in a very toxic way) and ultimately still amounts to trying to kill the "bad cells". There are no bad cells, just cells in an extremely metabolically stressed condition. As long as the approach is still some form of "kill, poison, burn" cancer will not be cured.
The problem is also that the ROS approach only takes care of existing semi-differentiated cancer cells but does not do anything for cancer stem cells. That's why the cancer almost always comes back after chemo/radiation/surgery. The metabolic approach stops the very process of "cancerization", which ultimately stems from environmental signals of stress manifesting metabolically. Oxidation of fat is one of the most potent such manifestations, high cortisol/serotonin are next. Hence the recent studies of treating cancer with cyproheptadine. Just search PubMed for it.
So, progress is being made, but the majority of doctors still view cancer as an alien life form that needs to be killed and that is what hinders progress the most. And since all of them are trying to make a ton of money in the process they break down the approach into a thousand of reductionist ideas such as restricting a single amino acid since patentable drugs can be developed to target that pathway. Nobody is (currently) interested in drugs that work at the very top of the cascade. My guess is that we will see another 20-30 years of reductionist, isolated "restriction" approach before the true metabolic cause is acknowledged and addressed. It is a BIG social problem as well. It would be hard to sell the idea in politics that our current lifestyle and environment kills. It would mean a ton of lawsuits and companies going under. Possibly even mass social unrest if enough people realize what they have been systemically subjected to for decades.

Everything in my actual lived experience of health comes down to this kind of thinking.

Initially you go through all the reductionist methods to tackle the specific "condition" you believe you've run into, following formulaic or suggested approaches, but slowly it comes to the realisation that it's simply restoring overall metabolic health that will cure whatever ailment is in place - though it can sometimes be hard to know or understand the barriers in the way of proper mineral metabolism.

The problem is, specific and reductionist ideas are very easy to sell, especially when they might restore a short term semblance of quality of life. It can be really hard to encourage a wholesome approach as it shouldn't be prescriptive, each person has to journey to figure out what their own version of wholesome metabolic recovery actually entails, and often life doesn't offer the time and space for such a progression.

I think the best approach for all humans that have come to value life and wellbeing of others is to fundamentally influence society as best they can so as to allow plenty of safety nets when people are struggling, but also a humanist and rational approach to day to day life.

It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which huge profit making enterprises simply allow their nonsense to fizzle out and encourage truth. They're also fueled by people's hope, and often need for an instant gratification or pill based recovery.

It's a challenging climate - all we can really do is conduct ourselves in the most empathetic and considerate way possible and keep speaking rational truths and openly challenging ridiculous or hurtful mainstream dogma.
 

Obi-wan

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
1,120
I cannot see how tetracyclines would also wreck non-pathologic mitos long-term.
Mitohormesis only goes so far, at some point, you kill your perfectly good mitos irreversibly.

The COC alternates Doxy, 1 month on/1 month off
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Great article on eradicating cancer stem cells at Antibiotics that target mitochondria effectively eradicate cancer stem cells, across multiple tumor types: Treating cancer like an infectious disease

"Here, we propose a new strategy for the treatment of early cancerous lesions and advanced metastatic disease, via the selective targeting of cancer stem cells (CSCs), a.k.a., tumor-initiating cells (TICs). We searched for a global phenotypic characteristic that was highly conserved among cancer stem cells, across multiple tumor types, to provide a mutation-independent approach to cancer therapy. This would allow us to target cancer stem cells, effectively treating cancer as a single disease of “stemness”, independently of the tumor tissue type. Using this approach, we identified a conserved phenotypic weak point – a strict dependence on mitochondrial biogenesis for the clonal expansion and survival of cancer stem cells. Interestingly, several classes of FDA-approved antibiotics inhibit mitochondrial biogenesis as a known “side-effect”, which could be harnessed instead as a “therapeutic effect”. Based on this analysis, we now show that 4-to-5 different classes of FDA-approved drugs can be used to eradicate cancer stem cells, in 12 different cancer cell lines, across 8 different tumor types (breast, DCIS, ovarian, prostate, lung, pancreatic, melanoma, and glioblastoma (brain)). These five classes of mitochondrially-targeted antibiotics include: the erythromycins, the tetracyclines, the glycylcyclines, an anti-parasitic drug, and chloramphenicol. Functional data are presented for one antibiotic in each drug class: azithromycin, doxycycline, tigecycline, pyrvinium pamoate, as well as chloramphenicol, as proof-of-concept. Importantly, many of these drugs are non-toxic for normal cells, likely reducing the side effects of anti-cancer therapy. Thus, we now propose to treat cancer like an infectious disease, by repurposing FDA-approved antibiotics for anti-cancer therapy, across multiple tumor types. These drug classes should also be considered for prevention studies, specifically focused on the prevention of tumor recurrence and distant metastasis. Finally, recent clinical trials with doxycycline and azithromycin (intended to target cancer-associated infections, but not cancer cells) have already shown positive therapeutic effects in cancer patients, although their ability to eradicate cancer stem cells was not yet appreciated."

"Because mitochondria evolved from bacteria that were originally engulfed by eukaryotic cells millions of years ago (known as the “endosymbiotic theory of mitochondrial evolution”) [10, 11], many classes of FDA-approved antibiotics actually target mitochondria, as a mild side-effect, which is well-tolerated in most patients"

"More specifically, the erythromycins and chloramphenicol selectively bind to the large subunit of the mitochondrial ribosome and inhibit mitochondrial biogenesis, by preventing the translation of mitochondrial proteins, mainly related to the mitochondrial OXPHOS complexes (Figure (Figure1A).1A). Similarly, the tetracyclines and glycylcyclines both bind with high affinity to the small subunit of the mitochondrial ribosome and inhibit mitochondrial biogenesis as well"
Good to touch on antibiotics as there's another school of thought that isn't centered on cancer as a metabolic disease but as an infectious disease. Look up Paul Ewald, an evolutionary biologist, on his ideas. It's very interesting that he observes that in the past disease was associated with infection as a cause, and this has given way to its cause as being genetic as well as by deficiencies (and others I overlook off the top of my head) , but he makes a good and compelling case that in the future we will come around and back to the idea that disease is primarily infectious in origin.

I'm getting swayed to that thinking, and it isn't inconsistent with some of Ray's ideas, as Ray has touched on bacteria and endotoxins as a vector for disease, and has been recommending the use of antibiotics.

Giving too much focus on cancer as a metabolic disease sidesteps the part that infection plays in the metabolic derangement that brings about cancer. The part infections play isn't minor.
 

somuch4food

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
1,281
Good to touch on antibiotics as there's another school of thought that isn't centered on cancer as a metabolic disease but as an infectious disease. Look up Paul Ewald, an evolutionary biologist, on his ideas. It's very interesting that he observes that in the past disease was associated with infection as a cause, and this has given way to its cause as being genetic as well as by deficiencies (and others I overlook off the top of my head) , but he makes a good and compelling case that in the future we will come around and back to the idea that disease is primarily infectious in origin.

I'm getting swayed to that thinking, and it isn't inconsistent with some of Ray's ideas, as Ray has touched on bacteria and endotoxins as a vector for disease, and has been recommending the use of antibiotics.

Giving too much focus on cancer as a metabolic disease sidesteps the part that infection plays in the metabolic derangement that brings about cancer. The part infections play isn't minor.

I think the 2 are linked. A healthy metabolism is better able to deal with infections.
 
B

Braveheart

Guest
Good to touch on antibiotics as there's another school of thought that isn't centered on cancer as a metabolic disease but as an infectious disease. Look up Paul Ewald, an evolutionary biologist, on his ideas. It's very interesting that he observes that in the past disease was associated with infection as a cause, and this has given way to its cause as being genetic as well as by deficiencies (and others I overlook off the top of my head) , but he makes a good and compelling case that in the future we will come around and back to the idea that disease is primarily infectious in origin.

I'm getting swayed to that thinking, and it isn't inconsistent with some of Ray's ideas, as Ray has touched on bacteria and endotoxins as a vector for disease, and has been recommending the use of antibiotics.

Giving too much focus on cancer as a metabolic disease sidesteps the part that infection plays in the metabolic derangement that brings about cancer. The part infections play isn't minor.
I agree...thank you for Paul Ewald tip
 

Inaut

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
3,620
why isn't lymphatic flow discussed more in relation to cancer and the treatment of it...? It plays a huge part in both the removal of metabolic waste as well as viral/fungal infections. I'm a rather simple minded dude so please ignore my comments when getting into the nitty gritty science bitty.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I think the 2 are linked. A healthy metabolism is better able to deal with infections.
Some pathogens can trick our immune system and evade detection and do real damage, even with a healthy metabolism. For example, some parasites can hide inside macrophages and in so doing, disable the macrophages role in defending the body, and then do damage with impunity. When this leads to impaired metabolism, how will you restore the metabolism back? Will nutrition to restore metabolism be enough?
 
B

Braveheart

Guest
Some pathogens can trick our immune system and evade detection and do real damage, even with a healthy metabolism. For example, some parasites can hide inside macrophages and in so doing, disable the macrophages role in defending the body, and then do damage with impunity. When this leads to impaired metabolism, how will you restore the metabolism back? Will nutrition to restore metabolism be enough?
I rely on Artemisinin
 

somuch4food

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
1,281
Some pathogens can trick our immune system and evade detection and do real damage, even with a healthy metabolism. For example, some parasites can hide inside macrophages and in so doing, disable the macrophages role in defending the body, and then do damage with impunity. When this leads to impaired metabolism, how will you restore the metabolism back? Will nutrition to restore metabolism be enough?

I am not implying diet alone, or a good metabolism alone can cure cancers. I am implying that a healthy metabolism and an appropriate diet will help prevent infections and chronic issues from taking a hold in the body. I also think we have forgotten long held traditions that relied on specific herbs and teas to prevent those infections from taking place.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
After looking into Ewald...think he would understand...
Artemisinins: their growing importance in medicine

Artemisinin and cancer, yeasts and parasites | CANCERactive

Wormwood: The Herb Kills Parasites & Cancer Cells!

Just Google Artemisinin...parasites, pathogens, cancer, etc
Nice stuff, thanks!

I think that with my being open to the idea that cancer can be caused by infection, I am now more interested in artemisin and in substances that can resolve infection-based causes of cancer. It makes a big difference, as most alternative cancer protocols are very nutrient-based, and mainline protocols are chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy-based. They would miss their mark easily if the source of their cancer is infection-based.

I forwarded to a friend with breast cancer the link on how Fenbendazole, used mainly for animals such as dogs, helped with the treatment of cancer. I just don't know which reason plays more a part in her rejection of this approach towards her cancer- whether she felt turned off by using a dog medicine, or whether she was simply unwilling to accept that cancer can be infection-based. But I think it's more of the latter, as desperate people are forced to be more open to ideas they normally would reject (I think).

I am not implying diet alone, or a good metabolism alone can cure cancers. I am implying that a healthy metabolism and an appropriate diet will help prevent infections and chronic issues from taking a hold in the body. I also think we have forgotten long held traditions that relied on specific herbs and teas to prevent those infections from taking place.
Sorry I misread you. I agree that having a healthy metabolism from good lifestyle choices helps keeps us away from cancer.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom