EndAllDisease
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2014
- Messages
- 195
Hey Ray!
I've got a couple quick questions.
I will post them on the Ray Peat Forum so other people will learn from them too!
1. I am writing a book right now on Cancer and want to be sure I don't miss any studies. I have found 32 studies conducted on Sea Cucumber and it's anti-cancer properties, all from pubmed. I know the US will suppress anything novel in the world of science that they can and I want to make sure I don't miss any research (i.e. from Russia or other countries). Are there any other 'search engines' of published scientific research, like pubmed, that you recommend so that my work is complete?
2. If mainstream 'psy-ience' is so wrong about the structure of the cell (based on the work of gilbert ling, etc), what makes us think we can trust the ways in which mainstream science believes the cell produces energy (glycolysis, krebs and oxidative phosphorylation)? If they're wrong about the cell's structure, how could they possibly get it's function right?
Best,
-Mark
Ray's Response:
Some of the basic ideas about the mechanisms of energy production are mistaken, for example that glycolysis is controlled by random diffusion, and the chemiosmotic theory of mitochondrial phosphorylation, but there’s still useful information available regarding the bigger picture, looking at the “energy charge” and the ratios of oxidized and reduced molecules, for example. Cancer involves a shift in the direction of reduction—an idea that has been around for over 60 years, but kept in the background by the genetic dogma. Oxidative metabolism shifts the balance away from cell multiplication, allowing specific functions, and so allows an organism to recover from cancer. The doctrine that cancers are genetically mutated cells justifies the standard treatments—surgery, radiation, cytotoxic chemotherapy—intended to kill 100% of the mutant cells. The problem is that the damaged region where the tumor had been is left in a reductive state, and signals the organism for repair cells, and those become abnormal when they enter the region of destruction. Cancer mortality figures have been manipulated to convince the public that the standard treatments produce a certain rate of cure, but cancer deaths have increased parallel to the increased number of people treated. For example, the biggest surge in prostate cancer deaths came in the 1990s after the discovery of the prostate specific antigen, PSA, which greatly increased the number of people receiving treatment. In the 1950s, Dan Mazia and Albert Szent-Gyorgyi were showing how the reductive condition of a cell relates to cancer; Frances Knock was another person working in that direction. In just the last few years, there are signs that this approach is coming to the foreground of biological research. But it can’t be officially acknowledged, because it would reveal the carcinogenic and irrational nature of the standard treatments.
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1962 Feb;114:189-201.
Methods of potentiating the action of sulfhydryl inhibitors against human cancer
cells.
KNOCK FE.
Physiol Chem Phys. 1981;13(4):325-33.
Ascorbic acid as a thiolprive: ability to induce immunity against some cancers in
mice.
Knock FE, Gascoyne PR, Sylvester R, Wibel R.
Immunological studies are reported showing that ascorbic acid, like selected
sulfhydryl inhibitors, can induce immunity against some cancers in mice.
Accompanying this immunizing action are changes in the surface structure of the
cancer cells, as revealed by scanning electron microscopy. Electron spin
resonance measurements show that the ascorbate anion free radical is readily
produced in oxygenated cancer tissue and that this radical can react with
sulfhydryl groups which are free radical scavengers. It is proposed that
ascorbate acts as an effective thiolprive in oxygenated cancer tissues. This
action is thought to lead to the observed changes in the cancer cell surface
structure and to the concomitant immunological response.
I've got a couple quick questions.
I will post them on the Ray Peat Forum so other people will learn from them too!
1. I am writing a book right now on Cancer and want to be sure I don't miss any studies. I have found 32 studies conducted on Sea Cucumber and it's anti-cancer properties, all from pubmed. I know the US will suppress anything novel in the world of science that they can and I want to make sure I don't miss any research (i.e. from Russia or other countries). Are there any other 'search engines' of published scientific research, like pubmed, that you recommend so that my work is complete?
2. If mainstream 'psy-ience' is so wrong about the structure of the cell (based on the work of gilbert ling, etc), what makes us think we can trust the ways in which mainstream science believes the cell produces energy (glycolysis, krebs and oxidative phosphorylation)? If they're wrong about the cell's structure, how could they possibly get it's function right?
Best,
-Mark
Ray's Response:
Some of the basic ideas about the mechanisms of energy production are mistaken, for example that glycolysis is controlled by random diffusion, and the chemiosmotic theory of mitochondrial phosphorylation, but there’s still useful information available regarding the bigger picture, looking at the “energy charge” and the ratios of oxidized and reduced molecules, for example. Cancer involves a shift in the direction of reduction—an idea that has been around for over 60 years, but kept in the background by the genetic dogma. Oxidative metabolism shifts the balance away from cell multiplication, allowing specific functions, and so allows an organism to recover from cancer. The doctrine that cancers are genetically mutated cells justifies the standard treatments—surgery, radiation, cytotoxic chemotherapy—intended to kill 100% of the mutant cells. The problem is that the damaged region where the tumor had been is left in a reductive state, and signals the organism for repair cells, and those become abnormal when they enter the region of destruction. Cancer mortality figures have been manipulated to convince the public that the standard treatments produce a certain rate of cure, but cancer deaths have increased parallel to the increased number of people treated. For example, the biggest surge in prostate cancer deaths came in the 1990s after the discovery of the prostate specific antigen, PSA, which greatly increased the number of people receiving treatment. In the 1950s, Dan Mazia and Albert Szent-Gyorgyi were showing how the reductive condition of a cell relates to cancer; Frances Knock was another person working in that direction. In just the last few years, there are signs that this approach is coming to the foreground of biological research. But it can’t be officially acknowledged, because it would reveal the carcinogenic and irrational nature of the standard treatments.
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1962 Feb;114:189-201.
Methods of potentiating the action of sulfhydryl inhibitors against human cancer
cells.
KNOCK FE.
Physiol Chem Phys. 1981;13(4):325-33.
Ascorbic acid as a thiolprive: ability to induce immunity against some cancers in
mice.
Knock FE, Gascoyne PR, Sylvester R, Wibel R.
Immunological studies are reported showing that ascorbic acid, like selected
sulfhydryl inhibitors, can induce immunity against some cancers in mice.
Accompanying this immunizing action are changes in the surface structure of the
cancer cells, as revealed by scanning electron microscopy. Electron spin
resonance measurements show that the ascorbate anion free radical is readily
produced in oxygenated cancer tissue and that this radical can react with
sulfhydryl groups which are free radical scavengers. It is proposed that
ascorbate acts as an effective thiolprive in oxygenated cancer tissues. This
action is thought to lead to the observed changes in the cancer cell surface
structure and to the concomitant immunological response.