One Law For All Cancers - Cancer Is A Viral Disease

OP
T

TreasureVibe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
1,941
Peat has said this multiple times and this is why he recommends the carrot salad, bamboo shoots, charcoal (maybe) and occasional antibiotics. Have you read his articles? He mentions this a number of times but says that keeping the gut completely germ-free all the time is not practical as it gets so easily re populated. So, reducing the bacteria burden and endotoxin they produce is a more realistic goal. I don't think bacteria directly cause cancer, but the endotoxin they produce increases serotonin and NO, thus immediately switching cell metabolism from oxidation to fermentation. Serotonin is required for cancer to form. No serotonin, no cancer.
The Serotonin Receptor 5-HT2B Is Required For Cancer; Can Be Blocked

There is no difference between normal and cancerous cell. It is a quorum thing. Once enough cells in a vicinity start fermenting due to a strong stress signal of some sort it forms a cancer "field" and this metabolism and proliferation continues until a strong signal from the environment convinces the cells to stop stressing out. Removing/lowering drastically endotoxin is one such signal, which is probably why antibiotics help for cancer. Progesterone, testosterone, pregnenolone, DHT, DHEA, etc are other such signals with various strength. Estrogen, cortisol, ACTH, CRH, histamine, prolactin, serotonin, growth hormone, hCG, PUFA, excess lipolysis, inflammation from PUFA metabolites, NO, endotoxin, etc are all stress mediators and can all cause the cancer metabolism. Again, mutations in cancer cells happen AFTER their metabolism gets deranged. But the cells themselves are (at least originally) quite normal and can simply do only what the environment allows them. Remove the environmental stress signals and the cells revert back to normal metabolism. In some cases of very severe organ/tissue fibrosis (often seen in solid tumors) completely reversing the scar tissue may not be practical, but the tumor growth can still be restrained so that it does not kill the host.
Ofcourse I am familiar with the works of Dr. Ray Peat on gut bacteria. My opinion is supported by his works.

Are you certain about the highlighted part I put in your quote? Don't you think that even if the environment is completely healthy in all ways you described, that a cancer cell can still stay in its state of fermentation? This scientific article from 2015 says that even in the presence of oxygen, the cancer cell still prefers fermentation in alot of cases. How Fermentation Gives Us Beer, Wine, Cheese—and Cancer? I see the fact that its in a state of fermentation as a sign that it requires a nutrient of some sort in order to get better. Gaston Naessens happened to cure people using nitrogenated camphor, and said on the basis of his scientific work that cancer cells are in a state of nitrogen deficiency. This happens to be linked to Warburg's cancer cell that is in fermentation as nitrogen is heavily involved in fermentation processes in for example wine making. Nitrogen happens to be in Amygdalin as well as antibiotics as a constituent. There is a "nitrogen trap" in every tumor, what do you ascribe to this nitrogen trap?
 
OP
T

TreasureVibe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
1,941
Cancer Is An Infection Caused By Tuberculosis-Type Bacteria
By Alan Cantwell M.D.
©. 2008 Alan Cantwell - All Rights Reserved
1-30-8

Why does the medical establishment ignore a century of research pointing to tuberculosis-type "acid-fast" bacteria as the cause of cancer? TB-type bacteria can be seen in specially-stained tissue sections of cancer tumors and viewed under the highest magnification of the light microscope at a magnification of 1000 times, under oil immersion. So why isn't this simple microscopic procedure performed in cancer?

As long ago as 1890, Scottish pathologist William Russell discovered "a characteristic organism of cancer" in every cancer he examined; and other pathologists of that era confirmed his findings. Yet, a century ago, the powers-that-be in medical science ignored this research and declared emphatically that bacteria were not the cause of cancer. The reasoning behind this dictum was that cancer did not act like an infectious disease, nor was it communicable. We know now this reasoning was false. Many scientists believe viruses cause cancer; and sexually- transmitted cancer-causing viruses can be passed from person-to- person as well.

For more than a half-century, the cancer microbe has been reported as a pleomorphic, intermittently acid-fast bacterium closely related to the acid-fast mycobacteria and to Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the acid-fast microbe that causes tuberculosis (TB). The acid-fast stain is a time-honored laboratory stain specifically used to detect TB-type mycobacteria in tissue and in culture. Virginia Livingston M.D. (1906-1990) was the foremost proponent of the bacterial cause of cancer. She was the first to discover that the acid-fast stain was the key to the detection of the cancer germ, both in tissue (in vivo) and in laboratory culture (in vitro). Livingston, along with microbiologist Eleanor Alexander- Jackson, cell cytologist Irene Diller, and chemist and TB expert Florence Seibert, all reported that the cancer germ was pleomorphic (meaning it has various appearing growth forms) and was filterable, indicating that in certain stages of its life cycle the microbe was virus-like and submicroscopic. Bacteria can be seen with the light microscope; the much smaller viruses cannot. (For more information on the acid-fast stain, mycobacteria, and pleomorphism, simply Google those key words.)

What do the bacteria in cancer look like? Cancer microbes in vivo are primarily in the cell-wall-deficient (CWD) form. As a result of the loss of a cell wall, the bacteria appear as round, coccus-like, granular forms that are found both within the cell (intracellular) and outside the cell (extracellular). Various types of bacteria may all look similar when in the CWD form. In the body and in the laboratory CWD bacteria (also known as "mycoplasma") have the amazing capacity to enlarge in size. These so-called round "large bodies" can attain the size of red blood cells and even larger. When seen in cancerous tissue these large bodies of bacteria can resemble large spore forms of yeasts and fungi, perhaps explaining why some researchers claim Candida and other fungi are the cause of cancer.

Russell's nineteenth century "parasite of cancer" is now recognized by pathologists as "Russell bodies." Pathologists generally believe these large forms are "immunoglobulins" and they do not accept them as microbial in origin. It is my contention that Russell bodies represent large, variably-sized CWD forms of bacteria in vivo; and that is why both coccal forms of CWD bacteria, as well as Russell bodies, can both be identified in cancerous tissue. (For more details and microphotographs, see my paper "The Russell body: The forgotten clue to the bacterial cause of cancer," posted on the joimr.org and the rense.com websites; and view my video lecture "The cancer microbe and the Russell body," currently available on Youtube.com.)

Why aren't cancer bacteria recognized by pathologists and oncologists? As mentioned, bacteria were excluded a century ago, and medical science never looked back. The result was that any physician who persisted in cancer microbe research was never taken seriously and was often viewed as a medical pariah. There are less than a handful of living physicians in the world who actively promote cancer microbe research. Erik Enby is a 70 year-old Swedish physician, whose accomplishments are cited in the Wikipedia. Nevertheless, his medical license has recently been revoked by the government for his belief in cancer-causing bacteria. I am currently regarded by the Wikipedia as a "conspiracy theorist in the field of cancer microbiology."

Although largely ignored, the microbiology of cancer has a rich history. Details of this research can be found in my books, The Cancer Microbe, and Four Women Against Cancer: Bacteria, Cancer, and the Origin of Life.

At present, doctors generally regard cancer-associated bacteria as laboratory "contaminants" of no consequence, or as "secondary invaders" of diseased tissue. However, cancer bacteria can be observed in precancerous conditions and in areas distant from the tumor. In general, microbiologists have been silent regarding bacteria in cancer and some remain skeptical about bacterial pleomorphism. Over the past decade British microbiologist Milton Wainwright has written extensively about the history of the cancer microbe and his reports are easily accessible on the Net. In Current Trends in Microbiology in 2006, he wrote: "There are signs that more consideration is being given towards the potential role of non-virus microorganisms in cancer, a fact reflected in the recent appearance of major reviews on the subject, and the consideration of novel approaches such as the possible role of nanobacteria in carcinogenesis. It remains probable however, that until the potential role of non-virus microorganisms in carcinogenesis is taken seriously, and a massive research effort is directed towards determining their role in carcinogenesis, we will face another century when the solution to the enigma of cancer may be staring us in the face, only to remain ignored."

In retrospect, it was premature and irrational a century ago to discard bacteria in cancer because the science of bacteriology was in its infancy. Nothing was known about CWD forms and filterable virus-like forms of bacteria. The recent acceptance (after a century) of bacteria (Helicobacter pylori) as the cause of most stomach ulcers is a case in point. For several decades after his 1940 discovery of peculiar S-shaped bacteria in stomach ulcers, A. Stone Freedberg MD stood alone. His research was totally ignored because doctors believed that bacteria could not exist in the acid environment of the stomach. A half century later, these same bacteria were finally accepted and are now a major factor in the development of stomach cancer. Two Australian scientists (Barry Marshall and Robin Warren) received a Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005 for proving this. Interestingly, in 1998, a new tumor-like stomach lesion was discovered called "Russell body gastritis."

In order to recognize CWD bacteria in cancer in vivo, one must know what they look like. Physicians are taught that bacteria have a certain fixed type of appearance. Most know little about the pleomorphism of CWD bacteria, particularly the acid-fast mycobacteria. In TB the microscopic appearance of the typical red- staining "acid-fast" rod-shaped bacillus of M. tuberculosis is well-known. However, the pleomorphic CWD forms of M. tuberculosis and mycobacteria look entirely different from the typical rod form. CWD forms in vivo appear primarily as small, round coccal and granular forms. They stain poorly, if at all, with the time-honored Gram stain for bacteria. In addition, the routine stain (hematoxylin-eosin stain) used by pathologists to diagnose cancer is not suitable to demonstrate CWD bacteria. To demonstrate the typical red-staining rods of M. tuberculosis, an "acid-fast" stain in required.

Likewise, in cancer an acid-fast stain is necessary. However, in cancer it is almost impossible to find acid-fast rods typical of mycobacteria. As a result of all this, CWD bacteria in cancer are not recognized; and the large body forms are passed over as Russell bodies of dubious significance. Examples of the microscopic appearance of intra- and extracellular cancer microbes in acid-fast stained tissue sections (viewed at a magnification of 1000 times, in oil) are shown in breast cancer, lung cancer, Hodgkin's disease (lymphoma), Kaposi's sarcoma, AIDS-related immunoblastic sarcoma, and prostate cancer in Figures 1-7. Note that the microscopic appearance of CWD bacteria in vivo appears similar in various types of cancer, and consists primarily of small coccoid forms, resembling the size and shape of ordinary staphylococci.

BreastCA-4NOprnt.jpg

Fig 1

BreastCA-2.jpg

Fig 2

LungCan-1.jpg

Fig 3

hig.jpg

Fig 4

KSAIDS-4.jpg

Fig 5

ImSarcoma54A.jpg

Fig 6

Acid-fast-bact-7.jpg

Fig 7

Can the cancer microbe be seen in diseases other than cancer? Further complicating the bacteriology of cancer is the observation that similar-appearing microbes can be seen in vivo in certain chronic diseases, such as lupus, scleroderma, sarcoidosis, and others.(For details, consult my papers posted on the joimr.org website.) Livingston claimed that all human beings carried cancer microbes; and she postulated these microbes were closely connected with the origin of life. In the healthy state these microbes caused no harm and were beneficial. However, when the immune system was weakened, these bacteria were capable of inducing a variety of human illnesses, including cancer. CWD bacteria may
prove to be the cause of many illnesses currently regarded as "of unknown etiology." Because submicroscopic forms of CWD bacteria are virus-sized, they may be confused with ordinary viruses. CWD bacteria are also resistant to antibiotics and are difficult (if not impossible) to eradicate or subdue, at least in the current state of our knowledge.

Are these microbes the true cause of cancer? Although bacteria can be identified in cancer, there are obviously other well-known factors that can induce cancer, such as sunlight in skin cancer, smoking in lung cancer, radiation-induced cancer, etc. But in each case it may require these ever-present bacteria to induce the cellular changes of cancer. The demonstration that these microbes are found within the cell and even within the nucleus (as shown by Irene Diller) indicates that these agents may access the genetic material of the cell, thereby transforming the cell to a cancerous state. In this respect, CWD forms may act like viruses. Studies by Douglas Robinson MD show that bacteria (like viruses) may swap genes back and forth between the infected cell and the microbe.

If cancer is finally accepted as an infection with bacteria it could explain why some people develop two or more different kinds of cancer in their lifetime. At present, physicians believe each type of cancer is different, each requiring its own special type of treatment. Because physicians do not believe in the existence of a cancer microbe, there has been no therapy devised to treat this infection. In my view, Virginia Livingston's greatest contribution was her observation that the microbe could be detected in all cancers in vivo with an acid-fast stain. Only when physicians learn to recognize and accept these infectious bacteria in cancer can we begin to design appropriate therapies against them.

(Dr. Cantwell is a retired dermatologist. A full list of his published scientific reports can be found at the PubMed website.

His books are available through Aries Rising Press (www.ariesrisingpress.com) and also through Amazon.com and Book Clearing House @ 1-800-431-1579. E-mail: [email protected].)

Canum.jpg


Source: Cancer Is An Infection Caused By TB Type Bacteria

Royal Rife Phd (inventor of the high-magnification Rife Microscope) -determined that spores of bacteria could change shapes so that the spore could change into a typhoid bacteria, then into a salmonella bacteria and then into a virus-like organism that he called T-bacillus , that causes cancer.
Heal Yourself At Home

The Cancer Microbe
In 1990, "Aries Rising Press" published The Cancer Microbe by Dr. Alan Cantwell, who had previously authored the highly dubious book Doctors of Death, in which he alleged that AIDS is the product of a secret government genetic-engineering project. More than half of The Cancer Microbe deals not with cancer research at all, but instead serves only as a vitriolic attack on the evil medical establishment that supposedly systematically suppresses all "alternative" cancer cures due to their stuffy, closed minds and vulture-like desire to make money off of other people's suffering. He claims to have discovered a microbe given off by cancerous tissue and which, when injected into people, gives them cancer.
T-BACILLI: A Skeptical Scrutiny of the Works and Theories of Wilhelm Reich

So we have our body's own pathogens called somatids or microzymes that can cause cancer, and we have pathogens that originate from outside the body that can cause cancer...
And... They only cause cancer when the immune system is compromised. The somatids are a part of the immune system, and when the environment they live in gets bad, they will turn bad and cause cancer. So cancer is indeed an autoimmune disease in some way. You have been vindicated, @Peater.

So you can look at cancer like an immunodeficient disease and a viral disease. This probably means that cancer is contagious too? Oh, and nutritional deficiencies related to the yeast that rule the cancer cell like nitrogen are also a cause of cancer. I am just at a loss at the moment, feeling overwhelmed with all of this suppressed information just existing and no one picking it up. What's so crazy is things like these were already known 28 years ago at the least! Just crazy. I've seen so many people die from this awful disease and I always thought that it was a disease that just happened out of pure randomness to people most likely due to irreversible DNA damage by toxin exposure like everyone was being told, and that there was no way you could improve things by killing pathogens or anything like that... Most likely that DNA damage was caused by a pathogen. It always happens due to a pathogen, because the body can repair DNA... I'm just flabbergasted.

And then there is this. Just imagine you wouldn't know this, ''Oops!''

Pleomorphism: In a scientific article published in 1992 it was shown that yeast, starved of nitrogen, undergoes pleomorphic transformations. This work both parallels darkfield's pleomorphism and vindicates Naessens' rationale for 714-X. (Gimeno et al. Unipolar Cell Division in the Yeast S. cerevisiae Lead to Filamentous Growth: Regulation by Starvation and RAS. Cell 68:1077-1090. March 20,1992)

The effect of nitrogen sources including yeast extract, peptone, soybean hydrolyzate and some inorganic nitrogen sources, as well as the nitrogen concentration on the fermentative production of pyruvate by Torulopsis glabrata WSH-IP12 was investigated. The addition of yeast extract greatly inhibited pyruvate accumulation, while peptone was shown to be the most favorable nitrogen source. In flask culture, 15 g l(-1) peptone was needed to consume 80 g l(-1) glucose with 23.4 g l(-1)of pyruvate accumulated. Pyruvate production was markedly dependent on the ratio of carbon to nitrogen (C:N), its production was improved by increasing the concentration of glucose and peptone proportionally and reduced by exclusively increasing the glucose concentration. In a glucose fed-batch culture, cell growth and pyruvate production slowed after 28 h. However, cell growth and pyruvate production recovered after further nitrogen, in the form of peptone and ammonium sulfate, was added to the culture. A final concentration of pyruvate of 54.5 g l(-1) was achieved at 64 h (yield to glucose consumed of 0.471 g g(-l)). By using aqueous ammonia instead of potassium hydroxide for pH control, 57.3 g l(-1) pyruvate with a yield of 0.498 g g(-1) was produced by 55 h. This result further indicates that nitrogen level plays an important role in the production of pyruvate.

Effect of nitrogen source and nitrogen concentration on the production of pyruvate by Torulopsis glabrata. - PubMed - NCBI

I'm starting to associate ''pleomorphic'' with ''cancerous''. Does anyone know something about the antibiotic/anti-pathogenic effects of nitrogen in human metabolism? Also there are conflicting sources on wether microzymes/somatids (if they are one and the same) are able to be killed. Some like Naessens say they can't be killed while other say they can. And Rife appeared to kill pathogens with resonance, was it the somatids/microzymes that he killed? And if these creatures are not supposed to be killed because they're immortal according to Naessens, can this have implications for your health? And why do all tumors crave nitrogen and glutamine? Can it be that they require it to become healthy again, and that this is the reason they crave certain nutrients, because they happen to be rich in nitrogen? Could this go for any nutrient that they happen to crave? Questions, questions, questions... This should've been researched tens of years ago.

Literally everything that hampers our immune system, is cancerous... And even small things like aluminum particles already do this by messing with our red blood cells!
 
Last edited:

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
reduction in coffee consumption
http://williamfkoch.com/pages/sf24/?pID=3&pID2=39
"Breaking the regime before one is fully cured, and the cure is “seasoned,” permits Carbonyl group antagonists to develop and possibly wipe out the defense. Amines produced from meat in the colon, the harmful nitrogenous derivative in coffee or tea, the tars of smoke and coffee, sulphides in coffee or sulphides developed in the intestinal tract by bacterial action on eggs and meat and sulphides in the drinking water, these all hinder or wipe out Carbonyl activity and block the activating power of the conjugated double bond systems. Patients are usually grateful that there is a regime worked out that helps them get well, but all are not, and perhaps 30% will desert the regime as soon as they think they are well, which is always too early and then there may be a slow reversal from the recovery status."
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Ofcourse I am familiar with the works of Dr. Ray Peat on gut bacteria. My opinion is supported by his works.

Are you certain about the highlighted part I put in your quote? Don't you think that even if the environment is completely healthy in all ways you described, that a cancer cell can still stay in its state of fermentation? This scientific article from 2015 says that even in the presence of oxygen, the cancer cell still prefers fermentation in alot of cases. How Fermentation Gives Us Beer, Wine, Cheese—and Cancer? I see the fact that its in a state of fermentation as a sign that it requires a nutrient of some sort in order to get better. Gaston Naessens happened to cure people using nitrogenated camphor, and said on the basis of his scientific work that cancer cells are in a state of nitrogen deficiency. This happens to be linked to Warburg's cancer cell that is in fermentation as nitrogen is heavily involved in fermentation processes in for example wine making. Nitrogen happens to be in Amygdalin as well as antibiotics as a constituent. There is a "nitrogen trap" in every tumor, what do you ascribe to this nitrogen trap?

The availability of oxygen is not the only signal that things are OK. If the cancer mediators are still present in sufficient amount and the cellular quorum is "divide/grow" instead of "differentiate" the cancer will persist.
 
OP
T

TreasureVibe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
1,941
The availability of oxygen is not the only signal that things are OK. If the cancer mediators are still present in sufficient amount and the cellular quorum is "divide/grow" instead of "differentiate" the cancer will persist.
What is the role then of oxygen in cancer? I thought that oxygen killed cancer cells or killed pathogens? I also thought that a reason for a cancer cell to be a cancer cell would be lack of oxygen, and that providing oxygen therefore would differentiate the cell. And are you a 100% certain that when all said cancer mediators, 'stressors', are dealt with, that the cell will differentiate? Do you have scientific evidence for it?
Also, what do you think of nitrogen metabolism, and nitrogen's potential role in cancer?

And, do you believe in somatids being a cause of cancer?

It appears that the blood has a "gut flora" of its own with the somatids, but unlike regular pathogens, these are bodily entities that mimick (pleomorphism) pathogens. When the immune system is lowered, they will mimick pathogens that cause cancer/set the stage for cancer to develop, by making the cell go into a state of fermentation.

Atleast, this is what Naessens studied and concluded, and Bechamp is someone who also studied them.

The debate is, when we acknowledge the existence of them, is wether or wether not they are immortal, and how they work in general in regards to causing cancer/setting the stage for cancer in a cell. By studying real yeast and bacteria, we could perhaps predict them. An example is the nitrogen theory, which was proven with real yeast.

A good question would be, can a cell go into a state of fermentation without the somatid? If not, then studying yeast and fermentation might hold the future for cancer.

They can be seen in a microscope and there are multiple videos of them on Youtube, you could buy a darkfield microscope and see for yourself.

The point is, a Ray Peat anti cell stressor diet and lifestyle might not safe a cancer patient, while the studies on these pseudo-pathogens might, and could therefore contribute to new additions to the Ray Peat diet and lifestyle, and then it might safe a cancer patient. It's like an opportunity just sitting there, and no one is grabbing it.
 
Last edited:
OP
T

TreasureVibe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
1,941
James Sloane, who has been in the medical field for 13 years, and now specializes in herbs, give an interview with what he recommends for treating cancer, his first recommendation is ozone, and he also recommends herbs which I haven't heard before, and also anti-viral herbs, and he mentions that he estimates that most cancers are viral.



His website: MEDCAPSULES.COM

He once recommended mastic gum for H. Pylori, but didn't clearly mention the doses.. I took it and I took too much I think, and had itching all over my body all night. Another person on the internet said that she took mastic gum and had permanent damage to the stomach and kidneys.

So ofcourse, trust but verify!

From other topic:

Actually James Sloane seems very knowledgeable on cancer, decribing in the following interview how cancer is parasitic-like in nature, as it even secretes angiogenesis inhibitors in small amounts to prevent other smaller metastasises to feed, so that the main tumor keeps all the food and oxygen supply going into it. That is why cancer comes back 2 to 3 years later after a tumor gets removed/dissapears, as the small metastasises don't get blocked by the angiogenesis inhibitor anymore and start to grow. He studied the cancer - shark link, and the reason sharks rarely get cancer is that their immune system is much stronger/bigger than that of humans. He also names chlorinic acid which he says is anti-tumor. Perhaps that is the link with the study I posted about dichloroacetate. He also says that Warburg wasn't right, that cancer can live without oxygen, so it is not anaerobic, it can take fuel from multiple sources. He also recommends ozone therapy as primary therapy for cancer. I think he or the interviewer recommend some things like probiotics which are not Peaty, though. He recommends keeping the immune system strong as a good measure for cancer too. Again he mentions that perhaps even 95% of the cancers are viral in origin if you study the studies according to him.

Full interview with these and more details:
 
Last edited:

jondoeuk

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
176
It isn't. But some antivirals could be of help.

From this Cancer as a metabolic disease: implications for novel therapeutics they state: ''Many cancers are infected with human cytomegalovirus, which acts as an oncomodulator of tumor progression (228). Products of the virus can damage mitochondria in the infected tumor cells, thus contributing to a further dependence on glucose and glutamine for energy metabolism (18,229–231). The virus often infects cells of monocyte/macrophage origin, which are considered the origin of many metastatic cancers (145,146,232,233). We predict that the KD-R used together with anti-viral therapy will also be an effective Press-Pulse strategy for reducing progression of those cancers infected with human cytomegalovirus (234).''
 

pszamrej

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
26
Location
Poland
Ofcourse I am familiar with the works of Dr. Ray Peat on gut bacteria. My opinion is supported by his works.

Are you certain about the highlighted part I put in your quote? Don't you think that even if the environment is completely healthy in all ways you described, that a cancer cell can still stay in its state of fermentation? This scientific article from 2015 says that even in the presence of oxygen, the cancer cell still prefers fermentation in alot of cases. How Fermentation Gives Us Beer, Wine, Cheese—and Cancer? I see the fact that its in a state of fermentation as a sign that it requires a nutrient of some sort in order to get better. Gaston Naessens happened to cure people using nitrogenated camphor, and said on the basis of his scientific work that cancer cells are in a state of nitrogen deficiency. This happens to be linked to Warburg's cancer cell that is in fermentation as nitrogen is heavily involved in fermentation processes in for example wine making. Nitrogen happens to be in Amygdalin as well as antibiotics as a constituent. There is a "nitrogen trap" in every tumor, what do you ascribe to this nitrogen trap?

So do we have safe ways to increase nitrogen balance in case of cancer ?
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
BUT Ray Peat says there is no such thing as autoimmune disease. So we're at a T-intersection here. But we'll keep that in mind.
He also says viruses aren’t pathogenic and/or do not exist lmao
 

Steve

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
444
TreasureVibe said:
"BUT Ray Peat says there is no such thing as autoimmune disease. So we're at a T-intersection here. But we'll keep that in mind."

I think that statement is a little misleading. Yes, it's not a disease, but it is a condition that people suffer from.
For instance because of diet or environment or whatever your thyroid gland becomes inflamed or irritated. Now the body sends antibodies to go clean up the destruction taking place & you now have an auto-immune disease.
Ray may call it something else, but the condition still exists.
That's the way I interpret it anyway.
 

Vinero

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,551
Age
32
Location
Netherlands
Cancer Is An Infection Caused By Tuberculosis-Type Bacteria
By Alan Cantwell M.D.
©. 2008 Alan Cantwell - All Rights Reserved
1-30-8

Why does the medical establishment ignore a century of research pointing to tuberculosis-type "acid-fast" bacteria as the cause of cancer? TB-type bacteria can be seen in specially-stained tissue sections of cancer tumors and viewed under the highest magnification of the light microscope at a magnification of 1000 times, under oil immersion. So why isn't this simple microscopic procedure performed in cancer?

As long ago as 1890, Scottish pathologist William Russell discovered "a characteristic organism of cancer" in every cancer he examined; and other pathologists of that era confirmed his findings. Yet, a century ago, the powers-that-be in medical science ignored this research and declared emphatically that bacteria were not the cause of cancer. The reasoning behind this dictum was that cancer did not act like an infectious disease, nor was it communicable. We know now this reasoning was false. Many scientists believe viruses cause cancer; and sexually- transmitted cancer-causing viruses can be passed from person-to- person as well.

For more than a half-century, the cancer microbe has been reported as a pleomorphic, intermittently acid-fast bacterium closely related to the acid-fast mycobacteria and to Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the acid-fast microbe that causes tuberculosis (TB). The acid-fast stain is a time-honored laboratory stain specifically used to detect TB-type mycobacteria in tissue and in culture. Virginia Livingston M.D. (1906-1990) was the foremost proponent of the bacterial cause of cancer. She was the first to discover that the acid-fast stain was the key to the detection of the cancer germ, both in tissue (in vivo) and in laboratory culture (in vitro). Livingston, along with microbiologist Eleanor Alexander- Jackson, cell cytologist Irene Diller, and chemist and TB expert Florence Seibert, all reported that the cancer germ was pleomorphic (meaning it has various appearing growth forms) and was filterable, indicating that in certain stages of its life cycle the microbe was virus-like and submicroscopic. Bacteria can be seen with the light microscope; the much smaller viruses cannot. (For more information on the acid-fast stain, mycobacteria, and pleomorphism, simply Google those key words.)

What do the bacteria in cancer look like? Cancer microbes in vivo are primarily in the cell-wall-deficient (CWD) form. As a result of the loss of a cell wall, the bacteria appear as round, coccus-like, granular forms that are found both within the cell (intracellular) and outside the cell (extracellular). Various types of bacteria may all look similar when in the CWD form. In the body and in the laboratory CWD bacteria (also known as "mycoplasma") have the amazing capacity to enlarge in size. These so-called round "large bodies" can attain the size of red blood cells and even larger. When seen in cancerous tissue these large bodies of bacteria can resemble large spore forms of yeasts and fungi, perhaps explaining why some researchers claim Candida and other fungi are the cause of cancer.

Russell's nineteenth century "parasite of cancer" is now recognized by pathologists as "Russell bodies." Pathologists generally believe these large forms are "immunoglobulins" and they do not accept them as microbial in origin. It is my contention that Russell bodies represent large, variably-sized CWD forms of bacteria in vivo; and that is why both coccal forms of CWD bacteria, as well as Russell bodies, can both be identified in cancerous tissue. (For more details and microphotographs, see my paper "The Russell body: The forgotten clue to the bacterial cause of cancer," posted on the joimr.org and the rense.com websites; and view my video lecture "The cancer microbe and the Russell body," currently available on Youtube.com.)

Why aren't cancer bacteria recognized by pathologists and oncologists? As mentioned, bacteria were excluded a century ago, and medical science never looked back. The result was that any physician who persisted in cancer microbe research was never taken seriously and was often viewed as a medical pariah. There are less than a handful of living physicians in the world who actively promote cancer microbe research. Erik Enby is a 70 year-old Swedish physician, whose accomplishments are cited in the Wikipedia. Nevertheless, his medical license has recently been revoked by the government for his belief in cancer-causing bacteria. I am currently regarded by the Wikipedia as a "conspiracy theorist in the field of cancer microbiology."

Although largely ignored, the microbiology of cancer has a rich history. Details of this research can be found in my books, The Cancer Microbe, and Four Women Against Cancer: Bacteria, Cancer, and the Origin of Life.

At present, doctors generally regard cancer-associated bacteria as laboratory "contaminants" of no consequence, or as "secondary invaders" of diseased tissue. However, cancer bacteria can be observed in precancerous conditions and in areas distant from the tumor. In general, microbiologists have been silent regarding bacteria in cancer and some remain skeptical about bacterial pleomorphism. Over the past decade British microbiologist Milton Wainwright has written extensively about the history of the cancer microbe and his reports are easily accessible on the Net. In Current Trends in Microbiology in 2006, he wrote: "There are signs that more consideration is being given towards the potential role of non-virus microorganisms in cancer, a fact reflected in the recent appearance of major reviews on the subject, and the consideration of novel approaches such as the possible role of nanobacteria in carcinogenesis. It remains probable however, that until the potential role of non-virus microorganisms in carcinogenesis is taken seriously, and a massive research effort is directed towards determining their role in carcinogenesis, we will face another century when the solution to the enigma of cancer may be staring us in the face, only to remain ignored."

In retrospect, it was premature and irrational a century ago to discard bacteria in cancer because the science of bacteriology was in its infancy. Nothing was known about CWD forms and filterable virus-like forms of bacteria. The recent acceptance (after a century) of bacteria (Helicobacter pylori) as the cause of most stomach ulcers is a case in point. For several decades after his 1940 discovery of peculiar S-shaped bacteria in stomach ulcers, A. Stone Freedberg MD stood alone. His research was totally ignored because doctors believed that bacteria could not exist in the acid environment of the stomach. A half century later, these same bacteria were finally accepted and are now a major factor in the development of stomach cancer. Two Australian scientists (Barry Marshall and Robin Warren) received a Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005 for proving this. Interestingly, in 1998, a new tumor-like stomach lesion was discovered called "Russell body gastritis."

In order to recognize CWD bacteria in cancer in vivo, one must know what they look like. Physicians are taught that bacteria have a certain fixed type of appearance. Most know little about the pleomorphism of CWD bacteria, particularly the acid-fast mycobacteria. In TB the microscopic appearance of the typical red- staining "acid-fast" rod-shaped bacillus of M. tuberculosis is well-known. However, the pleomorphic CWD forms of M. tuberculosis and mycobacteria look entirely different from the typical rod form. CWD forms in vivo appear primarily as small, round coccal and granular forms. They stain poorly, if at all, with the time-honored Gram stain for bacteria. In addition, the routine stain (hematoxylin-eosin stain) used by pathologists to diagnose cancer is not suitable to demonstrate CWD bacteria. To demonstrate the typical red-staining rods of M. tuberculosis, an "acid-fast" stain in required.

Likewise, in cancer an acid-fast stain is necessary. However, in cancer it is almost impossible to find acid-fast rods typical of mycobacteria. As a result of all this, CWD bacteria in cancer are not recognized; and the large body forms are passed over as Russell bodies of dubious significance. Examples of the microscopic appearance of intra- and extracellular cancer microbes in acid-fast stained tissue sections (viewed at a magnification of 1000 times, in oil) are shown in breast cancer, lung cancer, Hodgkin's disease (lymphoma), Kaposi's sarcoma, AIDS-related immunoblastic sarcoma, and prostate cancer in Figures 1-7. Note that the microscopic appearance of CWD bacteria in vivo appears similar in various types of cancer, and consists primarily of small coccoid forms, resembling the size and shape of ordinary staphylococci.

BreastCA-4NOprnt.jpg

Fig 1

BreastCA-2.jpg

Fig 2

LungCan-1.jpg

Fig 3

hig.jpg

Fig 4

KSAIDS-4.jpg

Fig 5

ImSarcoma54A.jpg

Fig 6

Acid-fast-bact-7.jpg

Fig 7

Can the cancer microbe be seen in diseases other than cancer? Further complicating the bacteriology of cancer is the observation that similar-appearing microbes can be seen in vivo in certain chronic diseases, such as lupus, scleroderma, sarcoidosis, and others.(For details, consult my papers posted on the joimr.org website.) Livingston claimed that all human beings carried cancer microbes; and she postulated these microbes were closely connected with the origin of life. In the healthy state these microbes caused no harm and were beneficial. However, when the immune system was weakened, these bacteria were capable of inducing a variety of human illnesses, including cancer. CWD bacteria may
prove to be the cause of many illnesses currently regarded as "of unknown etiology." Because submicroscopic forms of CWD bacteria are virus-sized, they may be confused with ordinary viruses. CWD bacteria are also resistant to antibiotics and are difficult (if not impossible) to eradicate or subdue, at least in the current state of our knowledge.

Are these microbes the true cause of cancer? Although bacteria can be identified in cancer, there are obviously other well-known factors that can induce cancer, such as sunlight in skin cancer, smoking in lung cancer, radiation-induced cancer, etc. But in each case it may require these ever-present bacteria to induce the cellular changes of cancer. The demonstration that these microbes are found within the cell and even within the nucleus (as shown by Irene Diller) indicates that these agents may access the genetic material of the cell, thereby transforming the cell to a cancerous state. In this respect, CWD forms may act like viruses. Studies by Douglas Robinson MD show that bacteria (like viruses) may swap genes back and forth between the infected cell and the microbe.

If cancer is finally accepted as an infection with bacteria it could explain why some people develop two or more different kinds of cancer in their lifetime. At present, physicians believe each type of cancer is different, each requiring its own special type of treatment. Because physicians do not believe in the existence of a cancer microbe, there has been no therapy devised to treat this infection. In my view, Virginia Livingston's greatest contribution was her observation that the microbe could be detected in all cancers in vivo with an acid-fast stain. Only when physicians learn to recognize and accept these infectious bacteria in cancer can we begin to design appropriate therapies against them.

(Dr. Cantwell is a retired dermatologist. A full list of his published scientific reports can be found at the PubMed website.

His books are available through Aries Rising Press (www.ariesrisingpress.com) and also through Amazon.com and Book Clearing House @ 1-800-431-1579. E-mail: [email protected].)

Canum.jpg


Source: Cancer Is An Infection Caused By TB Type Bacteria

Royal Rife Phd (inventor of the high-magnification Rife Microscope) -determined that spores of bacteria could change shapes so that the spore could change into a typhoid bacteria, then into a salmonella bacteria and then into a virus-like organism that he called T-bacillus , that causes cancer.
Heal Yourself At Home

The Cancer Microbe
In 1990, "Aries Rising Press" published The Cancer Microbe by Dr. Alan Cantwell, who had previously authored the highly dubious book Doctors of Death, in which he alleged that AIDS is the product of a secret government genetic-engineering project. More than half of The Cancer Microbe deals not with cancer research at all, but instead serves only as a vitriolic attack on the evil medical establishment that supposedly systematically suppresses all "alternative" cancer cures due to their stuffy, closed minds and vulture-like desire to make money off of other people's suffering. He claims to have discovered a microbe given off by cancerous tissue and which, when injected into people, gives them cancer.
T-BACILLI: A Skeptical Scrutiny of the Works and Theories of Wilhelm Reich

So we have our body's own pathogens called somatids or microzymes that can cause cancer, and we have pathogens that originate from outside the body that can cause cancer...
And... They only cause cancer when the immune system is compromised. The somatids are a part of the immune system, and when the environment they live in gets bad, they will turn bad and cause cancer. So cancer is indeed an autoimmune disease in some way. You have been vindicated, @Peater.

So you can look at cancer like an immunodeficient disease and a viral disease. This probably means that cancer is contagious too? Oh, and nutritional deficiencies related to the yeast that rule the cancer cell like nitrogen are also a cause of cancer. I am just at a loss at the moment, feeling overwhelmed with all of this suppressed information just existing and no one picking it up. What's so crazy is things like these were already known 28 years ago at the least! Just crazy. I've seen so many people die from this awful disease and I always thought that it was a disease that just happened out of pure randomness to people most likely due to irreversible DNA damage by toxin exposure like everyone was being told, and that there was no way you could improve things by killing pathogens or anything like that... Most likely that DNA damage was caused by a pathogen. It always happens due to a pathogen, because the body can repair DNA... I'm just flabbergasted.

And then there is this. Just imagine you wouldn't know this, ''Oops!''

Pleomorphism: In a scientific article published in 1992 it was shown that yeast, starved of nitrogen, undergoes pleomorphic transformations. This work both parallels darkfield's pleomorphism and vindicates Naessens' rationale for 714-X. (Gimeno et al. Unipolar Cell Division in the Yeast S. cerevisiae Lead to Filamentous Growth: Regulation by Starvation and RAS. Cell 68:1077-1090. March 20,1992)

The effect of nitrogen sources including yeast extract, peptone, soybean hydrolyzate and some inorganic nitrogen sources, as well as the nitrogen concentration on the fermentative production of pyruvate by Torulopsis glabrata WSH-IP12 was investigated. The addition of yeast extract greatly inhibited pyruvate accumulation, while peptone was shown to be the most favorable nitrogen source. In flask culture, 15 g l(-1) peptone was needed to consume 80 g l(-1) glucose with 23.4 g l(-1)of pyruvate accumulated. Pyruvate production was markedly dependent on the ratio of carbon to nitrogen (C:N), its production was improved by increasing the concentration of glucose and peptone proportionally and reduced by exclusively increasing the glucose concentration. In a glucose fed-batch culture, cell growth and pyruvate production slowed after 28 h. However, cell growth and pyruvate production recovered after further nitrogen, in the form of peptone and ammonium sulfate, was added to the culture. A final concentration of pyruvate of 54.5 g l(-1) was achieved at 64 h (yield to glucose consumed of 0.471 g g(-l)). By using aqueous ammonia instead of potassium hydroxide for pH control, 57.3 g l(-1) pyruvate with a yield of 0.498 g g(-1) was produced by 55 h. This result further indicates that nitrogen level plays an important role in the production of pyruvate.

Effect of nitrogen source and nitrogen concentration on the production of pyruvate by Torulopsis glabrata. - PubMed - NCBI

I'm starting to associate ''pleomorphic'' with ''cancerous''. Does anyone know something about the antibiotic/anti-pathogenic effects of nitrogen in human metabolism? Also there are conflicting sources on wether microzymes/somatids (if they are one and the same) are able to be killed. Some like Naessens say they can't be killed while other say they can. And Rife appeared to kill pathogens with resonance, was it the somatids/microzymes that he killed? And if these creatures are not supposed to be killed because they're immortal according to Naessens, can this have implications for your health? And why do all tumors crave nitrogen and glutamine? Can it be that they require it to become healthy again, and that this is the reason they crave certain nutrients, because they happen to be rich in nitrogen? Could this go for any nutrient that they happen to crave? Questions, questions, questions... This should've been researched tens of years ago.

Literally everything that hampers our immune system, is cancerous... And even small things like aluminum particles already do this by messing with our red blood cells!
This is interesting. So if cancer is essentially a bacterial infection is the treatment antibiotics? If so what antibiotic protocol has been developed to combat this cancer pathogen?
 
L

lollipop

Guest
This is interesting. So if cancer is essentially a bacterial infection is the treatment antibiotics? If so what antibiotic protocol has been developed to combat this cancer pathogen?
There was a doctor in New Orleans who believed cancer was a virus/bacterial infection (Forgive do not recall which) and treated fairly successfully with high dose antibiotics. One of my friend’s Mother was cured by him. Unfortunately he died and did not train many doctors. But I always remembered cancer cured with antibiotics.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
What is the role then of oxygen in cancer? I thought that oxygen killed cancer cells or killed pathogens? I also thought that a reason for a cancer cell to be a cancer cell would be lack of oxygen, and that providing oxygen therefore would differentiate the cell. And are you a 100% certain that when all said cancer mediators, 'stressors', are dealt with, that the cell will differentiate? Do you have scientific evidence for it?
I thought cancerous cells did aerobic glycolysis? That is, they get into fermentation mode, and then even when there is oxygen available again, they don't get back to full oxidation mode? I had been thinking of this as a key characteristic of cancerous cells.
 

Wayne J

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
34
Reading all this greedily! Was just diagnosed with 'Cancer at base of the tongue' so surgery is out.... Reading that is can be caused by the HPV virus which 65% of the people have. The medical community is dragging it's feet - took 5 weeks to get thru thr tests and BS procedures just to get biopsy results. It is Squamous Cell and lymph glands in the neck are 'inflamed' the right one 70-80% , the left one about 25%. Some antiviral stuff has helped and the right one is smaller in the mornings, more raised later in day.
Will look for the 'Peaty' solution. The anti-viral makes sense, but will still be going through the chemo and radiation - have alos contacted Mayo clinic as they seem more informed on this. Thank you all for these comments.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom