(New Book) Cancer Cured: Victory Over The War On Cancer

[burtlancast]

Cancer Cured: Victory Over the War on Cancer


Mark needs to make clear to people he has no medical/scientific background, that he doesn't have first hand experience with cancer patients and that his book is simply what he would do if he contracted cancer, according to existing cancer research.

Both the title of the book (the words "cure", "victory") and the reference to Ray are intentionally misleading for financial gains.

 

[yerrag]

I can see that he doesn't say he is a medical professional. That implies that he isn't. Or does he need a disclaimer: "I am no medical professional."

That he isn't a medical professional implies somehow he doesn't have first hand experience with cancer patients, as technically he isn't allowed to treat patients, or maybe even advise cancer victims.

What particular reference to Ray is misleading? He didn't say "endorsed by Ray Peat." On the contrary, to not give reference to Ray Peat would be an egregious omission. Either way, the author is caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

Yeah, I'm through the book. Please someone cite specific examples where the author is "using Ray Peat"? He mentions Peat, but in no way is this a Ray Peat book. Look at Gary Taubes. The guy had no medical background, and he cost me years of my life. He accumulated a ton of research. I've read Ty Bollinger's Cancer book. It's more on the Alex Jones/Mike Adams conspiracy side of the cancer industry, but it's still not bad.

 

[ecstatichamster]

honestly this book is fantastic. It is a tour de force on cancer and copiously footnoted and checks out. It is written from a unique "Peat-esque" point of view. I am thrilled that the author wrote it and think it is an amazing value. I am not being paid for this, LOL. I really really like the book.

It does not of course pay off on its title, but that is a difficult thing isn't it. Curing cancer is not an easy job.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

@tara, I try to strike a balance between objective and subjective reality, as was noted above about a balance between universalism and relativism. When someone says the earth can't be flat, that's living in a pure objective reality, where one person isn't experiencing another's reality. "What's wrong with that person," they say. "That person is an idiot for not thinking the way I do. Isn't it obvious that the earth is a globe?" I used to live in a total objective reality, but that doesn't suit humanity (in my experience). When you can't step out of an objective reality, and conceive that people have a different perspective, then I think you're missing the big picture of life.

Without getting into conspiracy, I feel The Machine (who knows who/what that consists of but I consider it a system that disconnects us and skews the line between illusion and reality) is working hard to separate us from universal truths like freedom, rights, respecting others, exploring our environment, and transparency (because bad people will always exist in power positions). It wants us dumbed down, distracted, overly medicated, sick, non-questioning drones of the State. However, it also wants us to believe that we are not "subjective" individuals. It wants us to think collectively, not for ourselves. It wants us to see one reality--THEIR REALITY. Their reality is based on fear, divide and conquer, and mind garbage. Their reality pushes fate, not free will. It wants us worshiping authority.

Take the black/white issue. I think the OJ situation was staged from beginning to his recent parole hearing. The American people were punk'd. It was a Hollywood event to divide and conquer. It worked. Now, take two other events, the Rodney King incident (white cops acquitted) and the Reginald Denny incident (black kids prosecuted). America also watched these two "real" events on TV, just like the OJ chase/trial. I feel the Rodney King and the Reginald Denny incidents were real. That's my perception. I think they were real events that the Media twisted to make me feel "white good/black bad." I'm white. Imagine how a black person perceives those events. I speak to black inmates all the time. Those events destroyed the psyche of black people (by creating more powerlessness), and it oddly empowered white people (by creating a fake,deluded powerfulness). Was I just being punk'd again or were people/lives destroyed by those incidents? Who knows.

Objective reality, science, and common knowledge needs to be protected. That is no debate in my mind. However, people need to understand that there is so much out there that can't be explained by science. Deja vu always brings me out of the pure objective reality. What about lucid dreaming? Who knows. Thanks for chiming in.

 

[aquaman]

^^ hamster and Colin, totally agree with you.

Burt hasn't even read the book it appears!

 

[burtlancast]

Writting a book called "Cancer Cured: Victory Over the War on Cancer" without having treated first hand cancer patients makes a mockery of this disease and the countless individuals who have worked to cure it, and also the people suffering from it.

That's in direct line with the attitude shown on this forum by the author.

Start by being honest in the presentation of your work, desist from misrepresenting its content for purely financial gains, and then i might just read it.

 

[DaveFoster]

Let's just ease off this flat earth nonsense and get down to the real truth:

 

[yerrag]

Hyperventilation results in lower CO2 levels.

Thanks for your explanation on the previous page Tara. I had to think it over for some time before replying. It's just that my observations on my mom didn't seem to square with what you're Chris Masterjohn was saying. I seem to recall that I was able to reduce my mom's breathing rate by letting her bag breath, rather than letting her continue being oxygenated thru the hospital's oxygen tank. It seemed to prove to me that the increased carbon dioxide from bag breathing allowed her blood CO2 levels to rise, which allowed better and more adequate tissue oxygenation, such that her breathing rate decreased because she wasn't straining for more oxygen. So it makes me think that rather than hyperventilation resulting in lower CO2 levels, it's the other way around.

When someone hyperventilates, is it because he exhaled too much CO2, or was it because the hyperventilation came about because there were underlying stress factors that put him over the edge as far blood CO2 levels are concerned?

Very high levels of CO2 can also be harmful.

It can be. But I just am at a loss as to how someone can actually get high levels of CO2. The textbooks call excessive levels of carbon dioxide in the blood respiratory acidosis, and supposedly it's from hypoventilation. That means someone is not breathing at a fast enough rate. But if the rate of breathing isn't enough, it also means that there's no metabolism pathway going on that's using enough oxygen to produce enough carbon dioxide to cause an excess of carbon dioxide in the blood. So how can someone have excess blood CO2 unless it is externally supplied, as in excessive bag breathing, or being fed CO2 from a tank?

This goes back to why I'm still having difficulty making sense of this. Wouldn't a lack of blood CO2 actually be the cause of increased breathing rate, of which hyperventilation is an extreme example of?

 

[tara]

Thanks for your explanation on the previous page Tara. I had to think it over for some time before replying. It's just that my observations on my mom didn't seem to square with what you're Chris Masterjohn was saying. I seem to recall that I was able to reduce my mom's breathing rate by letting her bag breath, rather than letting her continue being oxygenated thru the hospital's oxygen tank. It seemed to prove to me that the increased carbon dioxide from bag breathing allowed her blood CO2 levels to rise, which allowed better and more adequate tissue oxygenation, such that her breathing rate decreased because she wasn't straining for more oxygen. So it makes me think that rather than hyperventilation resulting in lower CO2 levels, it's the other way around.

When someone hyperventilates, is it because he exhaled too much CO2, or was it because the hyperventilation came about because there were underlying stress factors that put him over the edge as far blood CO2 levels are concerned?

I don't think it's really contradictory, I think it's more that there are dfferent mechanisms interacting, and they take more or less effect in different ranges.
AIUI, in the normal operating ranges, it's CO2 that drives breathign rate. But when things get far enough out of range, O2 supply to tissues can get so compormised that oxygen deprivation starts driving the breathign rate instead.If hyperventilation becomes too extreme, I think this may be what happens - the CO2 gets really low low and therefore the oxygen supply to critical tissues starts to get so low that the body demands increased breathing rate to try to get more oxygen - which doesn't work because withotu the CO2 to facilitate the supply, it won't get where it's needed - and you have a vicious cycle. By introducing bag-breathing, you raise the CO2 level a bit, thereby getting more oxygen delivered, interrupting that unproductive cycle, and the breathing can calm down.

It can be. But I just am at a loss as to how someone can actually get high levels of CO2. The textbooks call excessive levels of carbon dioxide in the blood respiratory acidosis, and supposedly it's from hypoventilation. That means someone is not breathing at a fast enough rate. But if the rate of breathing isn't enough, it also means that there's no metabolism pathway going on that's using enough oxygen to produce enough carbon dioxide to cause an excess of carbon dioxide in the blood. So how can someone have excess blood CO2 unless it is externally supplied, as in excessive bag breathing, or being fed CO2 from a tank?

This goes back to why I'm still having difficulty making sense of this. Wouldn't a lack of blood CO2 actually be the cause of increased breathing rate, of which hyperventilation is an extreme example of?

I think you may be able to get excessive levels of CO2 by: suffocation, drowning, inadequate ventilation, severe lung damage of some types affecting ventilation-perfusion function, damaged or dysfunctional internal CO2 or breathing regulation mechanisms. Apparently scuba diving in too tight a wetsuit is one way to get in trouble.
Or people could have outright accidents or negligence with high concentrations of the gas. I'd be careful about thinking one can fill a regular bathtub with CO2 from a big CO2 tank and hop in for a dry CO2 bath, which I've seen someone suggest.
There are a few people here who have used supplementary CO2 added to their air supply, mostly at levels that have worked very well for them. Personally, I'd recommend a bit of caution about tying on firmly a mask that's going to supply higher doses of CO2 with no-one around to notice if it gets excessive and knocks them unconscious.

 

[artlange]

Wow hey guys!
I didn't realize there was so much activity on this thread. I appreciate all your replies and questions. I'll happily address for you the earth-shape issue right here and now.

It's very simple - my position is this:
I have never with my own eyes seen curvature on land and especially not on water, and until somebody can show me a real life practical example of still water with a convex shape on its surface then by default it's flat.

If we were on a ball, then there would be NO water that was completely flat. Meanwhile, the study of fluid dynamics as well as everyone's own experience tells us that when water comes to rest it's perfectly flat. Knowing that one single fact of reality, how could you be living on a ball?

The science of mind control is well understood by those who use it to control the masses. The upper class 'elite' are laughing at anyone who believes they're monkeys living on a spinning ball. If you were never told you're living on a ball, you would never believe it was so.

I work with agriculture equipment (very high accuracy GPS) and many of our customers use flood irrigation where they flood their fields with a few inches of water. For this to work properly and distribute the same amount of water across the field, they use a GPS or laser guided guided land leveler and can choose to make the field perfectly flat using a laser guide set in the middle of the field, or follow the geoid (convex equidistant surface from the center of mass of the planet) using a high accuracy GPS. After you flood the flat field leveled with a laser land leveler, perhaps 1000 feet on an edge, the water is clearly deeper in the middle of the field than at the edge, and the soil in that pert of the field gets more water, since it was deeper. After you flood the field that was shaped to the geoid using GPS, the water is uniformly deep across the field. The water always follows the geoid which can be easily measured with the high accuracy GPS on large fields. The geoid is generally round. Gravity changes slightly over the surface due to small differences in density in mountainous areas. Your human senses about flatness is generally based on a very small scale and when you include a larger area to study, it is very clear that the earth is round. Flat water does not exist but the curvature is pretty small and when you get to a large enough area you can measure the depth with a ruler.

I suspect you are attempting some humorous theories to generate some discussion, and can't really believe the earth is flat. And this example is a practical method used by thousands of farmers around the world.

 

[yerrag]

I don't think it's really contradictory, I think it's more that there are dfferent mechanisms interacting, and they take more or less effect in different ranges.
AIUI, in the normal operating ranges, it's CO2 that drives breathign rate. But when things get far enough out of range, O2 supply to tissues can get so compormised that oxygen deprivation starts driving the breathign rate instead.If hyperventilation becomes too extreme, I think this may be what happens - the CO2 gets really low low and therefore the oxygen supply to critical tissues starts to get so low that the body demands increased breathing rate to try to get more oxygen - which doesn't work because withotu the CO2 to facilitate the supply, it won't get where it's needed - and you have a vicious cycle. By introducing bag-breathing, you raise the CO2 level a bit, thereby getting more oxygen delivered, interrupting that unproductive cycle, and the breathing can calm down.

I agree with you here.

I think you may be able to get excessive levels of CO2 by: suffocation, drowning, inadequate ventilation, severe lung damage of some types affecting ventilation-perfusion function, damaged or dysfunctional internal CO2 or breathing regulation mechanisms. Apparently scuba diving in too tight a wetsuit is one way to get in trouble.
Or people could have outright accidents or negligence with high concentrations of the gas. I'd be careful about thinking one can fill a regular bathtub with CO2 from a big CO2 tank and hop in for a dry CO2 bath, which I've seen someone suggest.
There are a few people here who have used supplementary CO2 added to their air supply, mostly at levels that have worked very well for them. Personally, I'd recommend a bit of caution about tying on firmly a mask that's going to supply higher doses of CO2 with no-one around to notice if it gets excessive and knocks them unconscious.

I've always thought those cases you mention - suffocation, drowning, inadequate ventilation, severe lung damage - to be as much a matter of lack of oxygen, as they go hand in hand with an excess of carbon dioxide. But all these situations cannot be remedied by an increased breathing rate, because these are dictated by circumstances the person cannot control, and if otherwise the increased breathing rate does little to alleviate. What instances are there where there's dysfunctional internal CO2 or breathing regulation mechanisms can you think of? I can only think of impaired mitochondria, or lack on key enzymes, that disallow respiratory oxidation to proceed, thereby depriving the body of its ability to produce carbon dioxide. But this dysfunction is one where carbon dioxide is going to be deficient, and not in excess. Are there other processes in the body that could be a cause of excess carbon dioxide production, which requires remedial action in the form of increased breathing rate to expel the CO2 excess?

A tight wetsuit could defintely restrict breathing, as it restricts the volume of gas being expelled and replaced. It's a very difficult situation to be in for sure, as the person has to increase his breathing rate so much that in the underwater envirnoment could easily lead to a panic situation. And I can see how the increased breathing rate could easily lead to low blood CO2 levels and lower tissue oxygenation. But then again, I would submit that this situation isn't a CO2 excess situation.

This leaves us with externally generated circumstances, where a person is subjected to breathing much higher levels of CO2 from an external source. But I don't know at what point higher blood CO2 levels would trigger an increased breathing rate, if oxygen supply is still sufficient. Perhaps there would be a point of blood CO2 levels where the respiratory compensation Chris Masterjohn speaks of would kick in. But what point is this? Is this point where respiratory compensation kicks in only going to happen in extraordinary situations, where an external source is supplying a physiologically unhealthy level of CO2 to the subject?

 

[tara]

What instances are there where there's dysfunctional internal CO2 or breathing regulation mechanisms can you think of?

I don't have medical expertise - I don't know all the ways the body can malfunction. I think I may have come across something on this topic on Rakhimov's extensive Normal Breathing site.

A tight wetsuit could defintely restrict breathing, as it restricts the volume of gas being expelled and replaced. It's a very difficult situation to be in for sure, as the person has to increase his breathing rate so much that in the underwater envirnoment could easily lead to a panic situation. And I can see how the increased breathing rate could easily lead to low blood CO2 levels and lower tissue oxygenation. But then again, I would submit that this situation isn't a CO2 excess situation.

There may be other ways CO2 can become an issue with diving too.
I'm not an expert on this, but there are experts who treat it as CO2 excess, not just O2 deficiency:
Hypercapnia - Wikipedia
Scuba Diving: Carbon Dioxide Poisoning Symptoms

 

[tara]

This leaves us with externally generated circumstances, where a person is subjected to breathing much higher levels of CO2 from an external source. But I don't know at what point higher blood CO2 levels would trigger an increased breathing rate, if oxygen supply is still sufficient. Perhaps there would be a point of blood CO2 levels where the respiratory compensation Chris Masterjohn speaks of would kick in. But what point is this? Is this point where respiratory compensation kicks in only going to happen in extraordinary situations, where an external source is supplying a physiologically unhealthy level of CO2 to the subject?

You still have the very common situation where someone with what Rakhimov calls with chronic hidden hyperventilation has a lowered CO2 set point. The CO2- governed regulatory mechanism triggers increased breathing even though the CO2 level is actually still a bit low, and while there is still plenty of O2 in the system.

 

[yerrag]

There may be other ways CO2 can become an issue with diving too.
I'm not an expert on this, but there are experts who treat it as CO2 excess, not just O2 deficiency:
Hypercapnia - Wikipedia
Scuba Diving: Carbon Dioxide Poisoning Symptoms

That makes the two of us.

I guess I should probably trust these sites. But then again, having been steeped in Buteyko and seeing how the mainstream treats asthma and sleep apnea, I'm inclined to suspend my belief in some of these 'expert' websites. Knowing your understanding of Buteyko, you would understand where I stand. I've done my share of questioning expert forums, and when it's within my ability, I would experiment and find some expert websites to be sorely lacking in expertise. They can get a beginner by, but when you have to be the best, they just fall short in the 0.5% to make it 100%.

But I wouldn't dare to do my share of experimentation with scuba diving though. When I get proven wrong, that will be the end of me.

You still have the very common situation where someone with what Rak(himov calls with chronic hidden hyperventilation has a lowered CO2 set point. The CO2- governed regulatory mechanism triggers increased breathing even though the CO2 level is actually still a bit low, and while there is still plenty of O2 in the system.

Interesting. I'll have to read more the normal breathing site. I have that tab open and I'm reading the first 20 page sampling of Buteyko's lecture (which Sloan refers to in his book). To read the rest, I have to buy the pdf.

So the chronic hidden hyperventilation is triggered when the blood CO2 is still much less than optimal right? That leaves the person in a catch-22 situation then? Then again, this still isn't a case of excess blood CO2, but a case of a lowered CO2 set point triggering hyperventilation.

 

[tara]

I guess I should probably trust these sites. But then again, having been steeped in Buteyko and seeing how the mainstream treats asthma and sleep apnea, I'm inclined to suspend my belief in some of these 'expert' websites. Knowing your understanding of Buteyko, you would understand where I stand.

Yes, but my understanding of Buteyko includes the undrstanding that CO2 is ideally maintained in an optimal range, neither lower nor higher. His major contributions included notice that many many people developed chronic ill-health because of chronically poor breathing habits and lowered CO2 levels (and lifestyle factors that contributed to this). He trained people to raise their CO2 to normal healthy levels. That in no way invalidates the point that there is also an upper limit to the healthy CO2 range.

 

[yerrag]

Yes, but my understanding of Buteyko includes the undrstanding that CO2 is ideally maintained in an optimal range, neither lower nor higher. His major contributions included notice that many many people developed chronic ill-health because of chronically poor breathing habits and lowered CO2 levels (and lifestyle factors that contributed to this). He trained people to raise their CO2 to normal healthy levels. That in no way invalidates the point that there is also an upper limit to the healthy CO2 range.

It doesn't invalidate the point. Which is why you have cautioned me in the past to not drink too much baking soda water, and I see how helpful that was. But I still don't agree on the question of increased breathing rate being driven by carbon dioxide excess in the blood. It could happen, but for me it is a case of the exception being made out to be the rule by Chris Masterjohn.

 

[tara]

So the chronic hidden hyperventilation is triggered when the blood CO2 is still much less than optimal right? That leaves the person in a catch-22 situation then? Then again, this still isn't a case of excess blood CO2, but a case of a lowered CO2 set point triggering hyperventilation.

Yes, lowered CO2 set point - the regulatory mechanism perceiving excess CO2, not actual excess in terms of an optimal range.
The set point can apparently be retrained, but it takes time and effort. AIUI, this is what Buteyko and Rakhimov taught people to do. I believe @ecstatichamster is an expert in this too.

But for a normal-breathing person (who does not suffer chronic hyperventilation), mild exercise raises the breathing rate by way of the CO2 regulating mechanism. Again, I think it is only when the O2 gets severely low that the O2 level becomes the driver.

 

[artlange]

Cancer Cured: Victory Over the War on Cancer


Mark needs to make clear to people he has no medical/scientific background, that he doesn't have first hand experience with cancer patients and that his book is simply what he would do if he contracted cancer, according to existing cancer research.

Both the title of the book (the words "cure", "victory") and the reference to Ray are intentionally misleading for financial gains.

Writting a book called "Cancer Cured: Victory Over the War on Cancer" without having treated first hand cancer patients makes a mockery of this disease and the countless individuals who have worked to cure it, and also the people suffering from it.

That's in direct line with the attitude shown on this forum by the author.

Start by being honest in the presentation of your work, desist from misrepresenting its content for purely financial gains, and then i might just read it.

It is quite obvious you did not read the book, because if you had, you would have found most of the answers to your objections. He does not claim to have academic training in medical or science and does make that clear. He did have a first hand experience with a cancer patient, his mother who died of cervical cancer when he was in the 8th grade who was the inspiration for writing the book. "the book is simply..... this sentence really shows that you did not read the book. It is much more than you have imagined. Please read the acknowledgements where he mentions Ray. You might get a different opinion.

 

[tara]

But for a normal-breathing person (who does not suffer chronic hyperventilation), mild exercise raises the breathing rate by way of the CO2 regulating mechanism. Again, I think it is only when the O2 gets severely low that the O2 level becomes the driver.

I don't think this contradicts Buteyko or others who recognise the importance of CO2, AFAIK. It's integral to why their theory works.