Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
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.
- Underrated Topic: How To Improve Lymph Flow? (from first link, worth reading)

"Unfortunately, many malignant tumors take advantages of the lymphatic system for their dissemination. A large number of in vitro animal and human studies have shown a causal relationship between lymphatic vessel density and tumor metastasis (Skobe et al. 2001; Stacker et al. 2001; Das and Skobe 2008), and more scientific and clinical attention is needed to prevent and intervene tumor metastasis through lymphatic vessels."​
 

Vinny

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
1,438
Age
51
Location
Sofia, Bulgaria
One thing the 'mainstream' will never do is admit they were wrong. If and when they fully embrace these ideas, they'll just act as if they knew it all along. It's like the colossal failure of the Genome Project. All that happens is the MSM stops reporting on it. Or the 70s when they were obsessed with finding a viral cause of cancer, and then just dropped it.
Exactly!
 

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
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.

It's important to consider both aspects, but I wonder if there exists a state in which no infection can exist in the body. Looking at basic things like copper being an anti fungal, and the role of the lymph system etc, then looking at the ways in which a given infection can inhibit the metabolism of given vitamins and minerals.

Certain bacterial infections can eat up B6, for example, and that inhibits methylation but also both directly and indirectly it prevents proper mineral metabolism.

So if one understands what the infection is feeding on, they could have a structured supplemental approach that feeds the bacteria and the immune system so the body can fight it off.
 

xetawaves

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
612
So what’s the verdict on glycine then? I was under the impression that it helps fight/prevent cancer.
 
Last edited:

oburns

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
17
This is perhaps the most stunning article to date I have seen in mainstream media (MSM). For more than 100 years the story has always been that cancer is a genetic disease due to mutations that turn cells into rampant killing machines. Now, one of the bastions of MSM - the mighty "Atlantic" - has published an article that reads as if it has been copied straight from one Ray's articles or the forum/blog posts we have been making here. The author is an MD, and this underscores just how big of a shift may be underway in medical thinking. First, the article starts by calling into question the theory that cancer is a genetic disease due to mutations. Instead, it says that cancer is a result of metabolic derangements. In other words, cancer is a metabolic disease! Second, it calls diet a drug! Hippocrates would be proud we finally found some common sense inside us. Third, it mentions specific dietary interventions that can likely treat cancer. Methionine restriction, asparagine restriction, glycine therapy, the importance of histamine in promoting cancer, the possibility that B12 is dangerous in excess, etc are all aspects that Peat has mentioned in his articles and we have posted on this blog. The article even coined a term for such an approach to treating cancer - metabolic therapy. So, it seems the powers that be are finally starting to listen to the "madness" we have been discussing for years. As such, now when you go to your doctor and tell him/her that "diet is a drug" you have some ground to stand on instead of being labelled a lunatic.

You Can’t ‘Starve’ Cancer, but You Might Help Treat It With Food

"...Cancer cells grow in distinctive patterns that defy normal limitations. That growth activity requires energy, and so cancer cells metabolize nutrients in different ways from the healthy cells around them. In an attempt to kill the tumor without killing the normally functioning cells, chemotherapy drugs target these pathways inside of cancer cells. This is notoriously difficult, expensive, and prone to toxic side effects that account for much of the suffering associated with the disease."

"...Now doctors are starting to think more about specific nutrients that feed tumor cells. That is, how what we eat affects how cancers grow—and whether there are ways to potentially “starve” cancer cells without leaving a person undernourished, or even hungry. “For a long time, the prevailing thought was that altered metabolism in cancer cells was the result of genes and mutations that determined metabolism,” says Jason Locasale, a cancer biologist at Duke University. “Now, as we know, it’s a complex interaction of environment and genes, and one of the major factors at play is nutrition.” The importance of nutrition has long been accepted for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, diagnoses that come with well-known dietary prescriptions. Even the most commonly used drug in type 2 diabetes, metformin, has been found in clinical trials to be inferior to diet and exercise. Cell biologists like Locasale see extending that line of thinking to cancer as a logical step, because at the cellular level, cancer is also a disease of metabolic pathways."

"...While the sugar-and-insulin angle has shown promise, more of the research has focused on dietary protein—or, specifically, individual amino acids that make up that protein. Studies have shown that the restriction of the amino acids serine and glycine can modulate cancer outcomes. According to a 2018 study in Nature, the chemotherapy drug methotrexate is affected by the amino acid histidine. Another, asparagine, is involved in the progression of breast cancer metastasis."

"...The most interest has gone to methionine, which is found in high levels in eggsand red meat. In 2018, a review of existing evidence from the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey deemed restricting methionine “a promising anti-tumor strategy.” That promise has also shown itself in brain tumors and melanomas, as the UC San Diego surgeon Robert Hoffman detailed in February. Methionine is made in normal cells—out of homocysteine, folate, and vitamin B12. However, many types of cancer cells lack the enzyme that makes cellular manufacturing of methionine possible. So they require extra methionine from outside the body—via food we eat—for survival. Cut off that supply, and it should help to slow the tumor without starving the person. This month, Locasale and his colleagues at Duke released findings showing that restricting methionine decreased tumor growth in mice and human subjects. Locasale’s particular area of research, known as metabolomics, uses enormous data sets to quantify metabolic activity. This allows the controversial field of nutrition research to operate with new levels of precision, where specific metabolic pathways can be monitored. Most nutrition research relies on self-reported data, in which people who say they eat almonds are found to have lower rates of some sort of cancer, and the best we can do is assume these two things are related. Locasale’s paper, by contrast, is full of complex statistical calculus involving “Euclidian distances” and “multidimensional scaling.”

"...In 2017, I reported on a provocative study of vitamin B12 supplements, which can prevent anemia in people who don’t get enough through food. In excessive amounts, though, using these supplements was associated with higher rates of lung cancer. Again, this seemed to be by way of a metabolic pathway that fuels the tumor cells. Nutrients or vitamins are not simply good or bad, cancer-causing or cancer-fighting. If a book or blog recommends a single “cancer diet”—or even a supplement that promises to fight cancer—beware. It could end up making things worse. Especially if there is a person on the cover in a white coat with arms folded, and with teeth that look like they have never been used.

"...For now, unless an oncologist has advised a specific diet tailored to your specific tumor, the most common recommendation is to eat a generally healthy diet. None of this challenges the principle that staying well nourished is part of a healthy approach to any disease; and there is no evidence that overall starvation is good or even safe. But focusing on specific patterns of eating will likely be part of many cancer-treatment guidelines in coming years. Food is medicine—or metabolic therapy. And no metabolic therapy is good or bad for everyone in every condition."
Yes you are correct ! Cancer is a metabolic deficit! The name is not important. The problem though is what the medical community will use to up your metabolism.
 

Inaut

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
3,620
although I've never met anybody who achieved spontaneous remission, I believe it is a real thing. What causes it is beyond my comprehension but I think the shift in mental/emotional/biological energy is what leads to it and no supplements are required for that. As @Obi-wan stated, it's a manifestation of chronic stress but is it as simple as removing a spiritual/emotional blockage that leads to it. At the end of the day, all we are is energy... My ramblings for the day
 

Obi-wan

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
1,120
although I've never met anybody who achieved spontaneous remission, I believe it is a real thing. What causes it is beyond my comprehension but I think the shift in mental/emotional/biological energy is what leads to it and no supplements are required for that. As @Obi-wan stated, it's a manifestation of chronic stress but is it as simple as removing a spiritual/emotional blockage that leads to it. At the end of the day, all we are is energy... My ramblings for the day


Once cancer starts and has momentum it requires effort to stop. Doing nothing is NOT the answer IMO. Cancer is smart and uses all of its resources to maintain its status and conquer additional tissue real estate. This is not an enemy that you ignore. Understand how to starve it and how to initiate apoptosis. In the normal prostate the epithelial cells are programmed to produce but not oxidize citrate. This excess citrate is secreted as a component of semen. Zinc is also accumulated at a high rate to prevent the oxidization of citrate. So ATP is produced without the Krebs Cycle. As epithelial cells become malignant (who knows why?) a shift occurs in the metabolism. The zinc transporter is down regulated which allows the citrate to become oxidized via the Krebs cycle which creates ATP via oxidative phosphorylation as the malignant energy. The oxidized citrate will promote the use of fatty acids synthesis which becomes the ideal fuel source for prostate cancer. It will use androgens to promote further lipid synthesis.
 

movebetter

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
198
True, the concept of selectively reducing single amino acids is not really useful, although it highlights some important aspects of harmful metabolic pathways. Still, the overall relationship between total protein intake and life-span and health seems pretty clear. Low-protein animals live longer, stay healthier longer, develop less cancer, and preserve high cognitive abilities into old age. High protein intake also seems to alter the microbiome in harmful way. If you eat a relatively significant amount of animal protein, it seems hard to avoid some of the harmful pathways associated with some of the amino acids involved in degenerative processes.
I can't see how anything above something like 1g/kg or 12-15% of calories as protein would be beneficial. Positive nitrogen balance is achieved around those levels, and this amount seem optimal for resistance against disease. Even rapidly growing babies get 14 units of energy for every unit of protein, and I don't see why an adult should need more than that.
Do you have an opinion on types of proteins foods that are best?
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
21,494
.
Not too sure about methionine restriction or any amino for that matter.

Aajonus Vonderplanitz has had great success at curing dozens of cancer patients with massive amounts of raw eggs and raw meat per day.
Up to 50 raw eggs and 2 pounds of raw meat per day was all they ate
Ray Peat said cancer will kill it’s own self eating EXTREME amounts of saturated fats, so eating massive amounts of eggs and meat to kill cancer has nothing to do with methionine or amino acids being okay it is about cancer overeating itself to death.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom