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

[Travis]

Glycolysis is neither aerobic or aerobic. Even Wikipedia has it wrong (a submission has been submitted to correct the page).

Wikipedia has it right (now at least). It says: "Glycolysis is an oxygen independent metabolic pathway, meaning that it does not use molecular oxygen (i.e. atmospheric oxygen) for any of its reactions."

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

Thanks Travis. I was about to submit for the site, but someone had beat me to it. Glad it was corrected.

 

[tara]

He also explains hyperventilation as a lack of carbon dioxide in the blood, and aligns with my understanding of it. I was not in agreement with what Chris Masterjohn, in one of his videos, describing increased breathing rate (does this include hyperventilation) as caused by excess carbon dioxide. Perhaps I'm being presumptuous to question an authority such as Chris.

Both true, as I understand it, no contradiction.

Roughly, there is a CO2 range that the body needs to maintain good functioning of lots of processes. Hyperventilation results in lower CO2 levels. This can be acute or chronic, and can have negative health consequences. Very high levels of CO2 can also be harmful.

There seems to be something like a CO2 set point that is part of the system that controls breathing rate. If the CO2 level gets below that level, the automatic drive is for breathing to slow to bring it up again; if CO2 is higher the breathing automatically speeds to lower it towards the set point again (consistent with what you say about Masterjohn's point). Eg, if you sprint or hold your breath for a long time you can build up CO2 and have a drive to breathe faster to pant to bring it down afterwards. I think oxygen level can also play a role in driving breathing rate if it gets low enough, but under normal conditions the CO2 mechanism is the main regulating parameter.

Ideally the CO2 set point would generally be aligned with the optimal CO2 level. Breathing rate can change to adapt to circumstances. For instance, an acute stress requiring instant action for survival tends to trigger increased breathing rate as part of the fight/flight response - extra breathing to supply more oxygen to the big muscles to get out of danger. It's transient - drops back to normal when the acute stress is over. If your muscles work, that produces lots of CO2, and doesn't necessarily result in any hyperventilation. On the other hand, chronic stress, or an acute stress that one doesn't get to relax from afterwards, can raise breathing rate without raising CO2 production, resulting in chronic hyperventilation and a CO2 set point that is lower than optimal longer term.

I think there are other factors that can affect the CO2 set point and breathing rate too, probably including nutritional status and health conditions affecting pH levels.

(If anyone more knowledgable than me can see I've got this wrong, I'd be pleased to be corrected.)

 

[tara]

"We inhabit and share the same reality" is a collectivist notion even though you tried to qualify it with "distinct individuals." One truth or one reality is the enemy of individuality and personal spirituality, so you can't creatively include those in the same sentence--that's doublespeak. I don't subscribe to that ideology. I don't share your reality obviously. I don't want to share anyone's reality. I want to experience my own reality and express and share my experiences. And learn from the experiences of others and their separate reality. I want people to interpret their own reality. Have you studied the difference between subjective and objective reality? Everyone perceives the world in much different ways even though we "inhabit" common areas.

I tend to find the assumption of an objective reality to make sense of trying to engage in collective anything.

It seems entirely consistent with each of us having our own unique vantage point and valuable perspective from which to view and engage with the universe, or with each of us having our own personal unique experience of it.

If there were no single objective universe, any of the projects of science, education, public policy, etc, or even anything as everyday as setting the table and inviting someone to dinner would be be rather odd things to be engaged in.
If the table is not an objectively common feature of a common world, how can we load it with food to share?

For analogy, I don't know which country you hail from, but what ever land you call home, I imagine there have been many maps drawn of it. One real country, many perspectives/experiences expressed as maps. Some maps are more consistent/accurate in particular ways with the territory they describe.
I see my experience of the universe as including something like a map of it in my own head. Isn't that what you would call 'my reality'?
Some scientific hypotheses are more consistent with the observable/testable attributes of the shared objective reality than others.

Not surprising that, with own limited human senses and cognitive capacities, our maps do not always perfectly align.

O, my misspent youth and now my advancing years. :)

 

[burtlancast]

Yes I have kindle unlimited

Did you find in the book examples of human "victory over cancer", as the title alleges?

 

[yerrag]

Did you find in the book examples of human "victory over cancer", as the title alleges?

I can cite one. A Julie Figueroa had breast cancer, had conventional cancer therapy, and those didn't help. Her breast cancer had metastasized to the skull. She came back to her farm in the Philippines to rest, After four months of taking 4 tbsp of coconut oil everyday, she was cured. I remember this one well, because I'm now coaching a friend who has been on chemotherapy for 14 years, and I shared with her this story. She also has breast cancer, but I wouldn't just rely on coconut oil, given what I've learned from this forum. I think the example was an oversimplification, personally, but getting too detailed likely isn't within the scope or intent of the book. Some depth is sacrificed for breadth.

 

[Xisca]

farm in the Philippines to rest, After four months of taking 4 tbsp of coconut oil everyday, she was cured.

Let's not miss the 2 first ingredients! And these ones for sure contain very much more ingredients that we are not told about.... Maybe some familly and social support? Fruits? Sun?

 

[yerrag]

Let's not miss the 2 first ingredients! And these ones for sure contain very much more ingredients that we are not told about.... Maybe some familly and social support? Fruits? Sun?

For sure. Por supuesto Xisca! Very important. She is taking fruit juice. Just heard a nice interview with Hope for Health with Ray Peat on thyroid. And he mentions how good fruits are not just for sugar but also potassium. Having potassium with the sugar helps the liver produce thyroid. I'm asking her to check PTH, vitamin D3, and ionic calcium. Even if she's in Nevada with the desert sun, there's no telling if she's getting enough sunshine.

Today she told me she failed in her Achilles tendon reflex test. It's good knowing her thyroid needs fixing.

 

[aquaman]

Did you find in the book examples of human "victory over cancer", as the title alleges?

There are lots, yes.

 

[burtlancast]

I can cite one. A Julie Figueroa had breast cancer, had conventional cancer therapy, and those didn't help. Her breast cancer had metastasized to the skull. She came back to her farm in the Philippines to rest, After four months of taking 4 tbsp of coconut oil everyday, she was cured.

That story can be found here: Testimonies Of Coconut Oil Cancer Cures! | Alternative

Whatever the veracity of it, why would anyone use third party information, already freely available on the net, and repackage and sell it as his own work?

 

[burtlancast]

There are lots, yes.

Were they helpful to you?

 

[Xisca]

and sell it as his own work?

A writer's work is to select the information he is going to pack together.
Not to say it is always good!
For example, vegetarian writers will take out of ayurveda the parts about vegetarianism that is about making the body sufer for spiritual purposes, and forget about beef broth recipes! And I took this example from a blog of an ayurvedic practitionner who stopped putting everybody on a vegetarian diet. I just trust and never read references.

 

[yerrag]

A writer's work is to select the information he is going to pack together.
Not to say it is always good!
For example, vegetarian writers will take out of ayurveda the parts about vegetarianism that is about making the body sufer for spiritual purposes, and forget about beef broth recipes! And I took this example from a blog of an ayurvedic practitioner who stopped putting everybody on a vegetarian diet. I just trust and never read references.

Right. If he attributes his sources properly, it isn't improper. The book does not pretend to be original, other than the way it is put together and presented. It draws from various sources and the book is an amalgamation of all the information he has thus far collected, vetted, and presented in a manner that the author deems suitable for his audience. If the presentation and veracity of the information offered serves the needs of the readership well, and helps people in curing cancer, it would have met the author's objective of helping people with cancer.

If he were to discard all sources that doesn't come from his personal experimentation and discovery, he would not attain his objective, given how limited any one person can be in creating original information in his lifetime.

 

[Xisca]

Yes we lack time, and we just have to hope we climb on the shoulders of the right giants.....

And still use our own feelings to process the enormous quantity of informations.

We have to make our intelligence work what it is for, and make it work with the rest of our brain and body.
People who think we have it all inside will miss others experience and reinvent the wheel, but people who look only at he giants and learn and stay that entangled into their brain, will also miss something, creativity, all the parts of us that process informations much quicker than the cortex alone.

 

[chispas]

Yeah, me too.

Hopefully we can get him to admit that the flat-Earth meme is, in fact, a high-quality disinformation campaign.

Just thought I'd chime in here in saying that Dr Ramadian, the inventor of the MRI, and major appreciator of Gilbert Ling's cellular physiology, also thinks the Earth is 5000 years old.

I suppose you have to take the good with the bad sometimes...

 

[aquaman]

That story can be found here: Testimonies Of Coconut Oil Cancer Cures! | Alternative

Whatever the veracity of it, why would anyone use third party information, already freely available on the net, and repackage and sell it as his own work?

You've got a serious axe to grind against this guy. Ray writes in his books about eg Ling, Szent-György, Koch etc etc... is he repackaging their work and selling it as his own?

 

[Travis]

...also thinks the Earth is 5000 years old.

LOL! I do remember reading about Damadian's unscientific belief in creationism. You would think that someone very familiar with NMRI would trust data from ¹⁴C-radioactive dating.

But hey. If God can make Adam and Eve out of clay (or was it a rib?), then he certainly can plant dinosaur bones (cleverly post-dated with very low ¹⁴C activity) to fool archaeologists.

 

[burtlancast]

You've got a serious axe to grind against this guy. Ray writes in his books about eg Ling, Szent-György, Koch etc etc... is he repackaging their work and selling it as his own?

The book is sold under a title leading to believe the author has direct, first degree expertise on the cancer subject.

He does not.
He has no medical/scientific background.

He takes unverifiable, third party information, without control, and repackages it in a book for profit. It's just an "it might happen" doc, the kind already widely available on the internet. Freely accessible, but often very confusing.

"I am reluctant to believe that something happens just because it could happen." Ray Peat

And to top it up, he uses and associates Peat, falsely leading readers to believe he has reviewed/endorsed the book, which he has not.

 

[yerrag]

There are many authors of books coming from health writers, for example, Gina Kolata of New York Times. I don't think a medical background is always necessary. Sometimes, it becomes a hindrance given the whitewashed training doctors get these days. The ability to comprehend and to perceive, think, and act is not exclusive to people with scientific backgrounds. Education is a lifelong pursuit, and basing one's knowledge and aptitude on degrees exclude many capable people.

The reason many people are sick is they rely solely on judging the competence of a health consultant/adviser on the basis of their medical/scientific background. They don't trust anyone who makes sense as long as they don't have that qualification. They don't trust themselves because of the same reason. Trust an expert, so they say.

What are the unverifiable, third party information you speak of? Is the book full of them? Are you describing the exception or the rule? I have nothing against him profiting from the book. It is an added incentive for him to make the effort to write the book. If he repackages and makes information more easily understandable to cancer victims, he deserves credit for it, especially if and when people actually get cured using that information.

How has he led readers to believe Ray Peat has endorsed the book? Was it explicitly stated? Implied? In what way?

It would not be inaccurate, as I read the book, to say that he draws many of his information from Ray Peat, and from this forum, which is also focused on Ray Peat's ideas, and also reflects the same questioning attitude of Ray Peat. Many people have contributed to his forum. Your work in putting together the transcripts is a very valuable contribution, and I'm sure that I, along with many other members, appreciate that. There is no monetary profit in those efforts, and that is commendable. But I don't expect everyone here to be similarly disposed. If someone can profit from the forum monetarily, by providing a product or service members need, I'm happy for him. Most especially because he is amply rewarded for providing something that benefits the health of members.

 

[aquaman]

The book is sold under a title leading to believe the author has direct, first degree expertise on the cancer subject.

No the title doesn't mean that.

He takes unverifiable, third party information, without control, and repackages it in a book for profit. It's just an "it might happen" doc, the kind already widely available on the internet. Freely accessible, but often very confusing.

Have you even read the book? He's got over 300 studies linked per chapter. You can tell an enormous amount of work has gone into this.

And to top it up, he uses and associates Peat, falsely leading readers to believe he has reviewed/endorsed the book, which he has not.

You're literally just making stuff up. This is a total lie from you. All he does is acknowledge Ray's work. Nothing more. THere's nothing linking Ray to the work at all. I just searched on Kindle for every mention of Peat, so stop lying about this.

I think you need to up your Vitamin C intake to 20 grams and stop fabricating things.