On February 24 1956 was published in the journal Science a remarkable and exceptional paper by an equally remarkable and exceptional scientist. The paper was entitled On the Origin of Cancer Cells, and the author was the winner of the 1931 Nobel prize for Physiology or Medicine, Professor Otto Warburg.
After more than 50 years of research on cellular respiration, metabolism and physiology, Warburg had identified, understood, demonstrated and now explained the mechanisms by which cancer cells develop, survive, spread and proliferate, and what, at the most fundamental level, distinguishes them from normal cells.
It is my intention to relate the essence of these results, together with the necessary background, as clearly as it is possible for me to do with the hope that you will remember it well. This is without any doubt one of the most important and far-reaching results of medical science in its entirety. Such is the importance of this work, that it may well be the most important bit of medical science I will ever write about and that you will ever read about. But although this is so, it can be stated in a single sentence.
The truth about the origin of cancer is that despite the numerous carcinogenic agents, those identified as such and those still unknown, and despite the numberless forms and tissues in which cancer can manifest itself, there is only one fundamental cause of cancer at the cellular level: injury to respiration by damage to mitochondria.
The mitochondria, independent micro-organisms with their own metabolic and reproductive systems living symbiotically with the other organelles inside the cell, could be considered as the most important of the organelles because it is the mitochondria that normally produce the energy (in the form of adenosine triphosphate or ATP) on which each cell, and therefore also the entire organism, rely for function and survival.
Each cell must produce the energy it needs to sustain its activity and maintain its structure, and each cell cares only about itself: it knows only what it must do and what it needs in order to keep itself alive in the best possible condition and health that it can manage through continual adaptation. The way it knows anything else outside of itself is by sensing its environment, its immediate surroundings, through the various sensors (biochemical receptors) and doorways (ionic channels) in its walls (the cell’s outer double-layered membrane).
Cells can produce energy using glucose (from carbohydrates), amino acids (from protein) or fatty acids (from fat). By far the most effective way to do it is through burning fatty acids. This produces the most energy and no acidic byproducts. This is therefore a normal cell’s preferred fuel.
There are two intervening factors, however, that make it rather rare for humans to function primarily on energy derived from fat. And although this is true today, it wasn’t for the bulk of our evolutionary history during which all species of homo must have derived most, and probably often even all, of their energy from fat. The first and most important of these factors is that today, we tend to get most of our calories from carbohydrates.
Because it is easier for cells to breakdown and use the much smaller and simpler glucose molecules than it is to use the longer and more complex fatty acids, while there is enough glucose in the bloodstream, it will always be used preferentially, and eventually almost exclusively, as the cells grow insulin-resistant and become unable to use fatty acids almost completely. In such a metabolic state, because protein can relatively easily be converted into glucose, this is what the body does when it runs out of glucose, because, from the lack of practice, it cannot access the fat stores. Therefore, due to insulin resistance, fat just keeps accumulating, stock piled in ever larger and distended fat cells throughout the body, and never used to make energy for the now struggling, energy-starved cells.
The second factor is strictly physiological, and relates to the fact that it takes longer to oxidise fat than to oxidise glucose, and even for glucose, it takes about 100 times longer to oxidise inside the mitochondria than it does to process it anaerobically (without oxygen) in the protoplasm, the general space within the cell, outside the mitochondria. For this reason, in circumstances where the cell needs ATP quickly (in lifting weights or sprinting, for example), it will need to use this super fast energy production mechanism in addition to the slower oxidation in the mitochondria, with proportions that depends on the energy demand.
All ATP production using glucose begins with its breakdown into something called pyruvate. This is called glycolysis (or substrate level phosphorylation). It takes place whether there is oxygen available or not, and does not involve the mitochondria because it takes place in the protoplasm. Glycolysis involves 10 steps each of which requires the action of specialised worker proteins (respiratory enzymes). From this process the cell derives two molecules of ATP. Pyruvate is the main product, but the process also leads to the production of lactic acid and hydrogen ions.
At this point, the pyruvate can be carried to the mitochondria where through a much lengthier and vastly different process (oxidative phosphorylation), which in this case relies on an ample supply of oxygen, the mitochondria can produce up to an additional 34 ATP molecules (this is the case in aerobic yeasts), for a total of 36 counting the first two from glycolysis.
In practice, factoring in some metabolic inefficiencies in the process, the result is probably somewhere around 28-30 molecules of ATP for our cells. This is nonetheless a lot of energy—15 times more than from glycolysis alone—that can be derived from a single molecule of glucose. Bear in mind, however, that gram for gram, fat can produce six times more energy than glucose, raising the total to around 200 molecules of ATP, and this without producing acidic byproducts.
Aside on the use of words and names as symbols
Before going any further, I want to bring your attention to something important, generally unrecognised, but essential to our understanding and perception of the world and everything we come into contact with. It is language, complex language, symbolic language, that allowed a small subgroup of Homo Sapiens to first distinguish themselves from all other animals and also from all other species of Homo, and then spread across the continents and come to dominate almost every ecosystem on the planet.
The more language is refined and the more thorough is its mastery, the more complex cognitive processes become and the more subtleties of understanding can be both expressed and discerned. There is a major problem, however, that comes about in every language-using person, and this is that the symbol used to refer to something, the word, is unconsciously taken to be the same as the object to which it refers. Furthermore, not only is the object treated as an entity on its own, a thing that does not depend on anything else to be what it is (which, of course, it does), but the word also becomes a thing unrelated to other words that are different in appearance and sound.
This is a serious problem for understanding complex processes. And it is particularly relevant in this discussion here. We must remember that even if we are talking about all sorts of different things like glucose, amino acids, fats, pyruvate, enzymes, mitochondria, organelles, and on and on, that these are all words, symbols that we use to identify molecules and little beings like mitochondria that do not possess language, and further, that do not care at all what we call them.
It is best to view this whole business of processes at the cellular level as a ceaseless dance where atoms mostly of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen with a few others here and there, combine into molecules that are manipulated by proteins into other molecules, sometimes simpler and sometimes more complex, the change sometimes being unidirectional and sometimes a reversible state change going back and forth, everything depending everywhere on the characteristics of the environment, the stage, in which this dance is taking place. And that all of this takes place totally unaffected and independently from any of the names we have for any of its characters and dancers.
So don’t be fooled by the words and names in thinking that because the names are so different they are referring to inherently different things. This is not so. Words and names are just words and names. We use them to express ourselves, but must not be moved to believe that they are referring to entities having a life of their own, interacting in a world of things where every thing bounces against every other thing. This is just wrong, and it is highly misleading: clearly misleading in the realm of cellular biology, which is our immediate concern in this article, but also misleading in our everyday, which should definitely be of concern.
Back to cellular respiration
Cellular respiration (oxidation in the mitochondria) requires oxygen. If for any reason there is not enough, the cell uses a backup method to sustain its energy needs. This happens when the energy demand is so great that the cell cannot wait for the mitochondria to produce the additional ATP (as mentioned above under extreme exertion), but also if there is simply a lack of oxygen for any other reason, whether it is acute, like from exposure to a large enough amount of a respiratory (mitochondrial) poison or during an asthma attack, or chronic, like when we spend our days in an office building with recycled air where levels of oxygen are lower and carbon dioxide higher than they should ideally be, but not quite enough to become a problem noticeable by a critical number of people. In such cases, instead of being brought to the mitochondria, the pyruvate can be used as the oxidative agent by the respiratory enzymes to ferment the lactic acid, and recondition the NAD so that it can engage again in the breakdown of another molecule of glucose into pyruvate. (We’ll come back to the details of this another time.)
Essential to remember is that for a normal cell this is the solution of last resort when there is not enough oxygen, and that animal tissues suffer serious damage when deprived of oxygen for an extended time, where ‘extended’ here is on the timescale of cellular processes, which for us is very short—on the order of minutes.
Anyone who has done all out sprints with high resistance on a bike, or bench pressed a heavy weight to muscular failure, knows the feeling associated with the muscles being unable to respond to the load. This is because the cells are starved of oxygen and overloaded with acid. Under extreme exertion, lactic acid fermentation for ATP production dominates from about 10 to 30 seconds, and muscular failure follows within 30 to 60 seconds.
Struggling to survive
As we’ve seen, there are two major differences between these processes of using glucose for energy production. The first is that for one molecule of glucose, complete oxidation produces around thirty molecules of ATP, whereas glycolysis or fermentation produces only two. The second is that oxidation occurs inside the mitochondria, whereas fermentation, sustained by respiration enzymes, takes place outside the mitochondria. Therefore, it is both the quantity and quality of the energy that is degraded.
Also as we’ve seen, a normal cell under normal circumstances sustains itself—both in function and structure—by relying on the energy produced by the mitochondria, whether by oxidation of glucose (pyruvate) or fatty acids, and only ever use fermentation for energy balance adjustments in exceptional circumstances. If, however, for any reason at all, even a small number of the mitochondria in the cell get damaged, a serious problem arises because the injury makes the cell incapable of producing the energy it needs for proper function, maintenance and repair.
If the damage is severe, the cell will die, and will, if things are running relatively smoothly, be broken down, cleaned up, excreted and replaced by a new one that will take its place. If the damage to the mitochondria is not so severe, the cell will not die, but will be crippled in its energy-producing capacity, the mitochondria will not be able to produce all of the ATP the cell needs, and this will force it to use fermentation to top up its energy requirements.
Unfortunately, the injury to the mitochondria’s genetic code will not only be passed down from the damaged parent to the next generation, but will lead to an irreversible degradation of mitochondrial function with each transcription and reproduction into each successive generation of these vital organelles. With each generation, the mitochondrial function is degraded further and the energy deficit grows.
As a consequence, the growing energy deficit is compensated by increasing ATP production from fermentation. But the energy from fermentation is not just less plentiful, it is also of a much lesser quality compared to that resulting from proper aerobic respiration involving the mitochondria, and it simply cannot maintain the structure and function of the cell. Thus, the cell degrades. Everything about the cell degrades as it struggles for survival.
The evolution in the ratio of energy produced by respiration to that produced by fermentation, initiated by the damage to the mitochondria and driven by the cell’s striving to maintain energy balance, is in fact a devolution from a finely tuned energy production system of a highly refined and specialised cellular structure and function, to a primitive energy producing mechanism and a coarse and severely degraded cellular structure and function akin to what we see in yeasts and fungi.
The birth of a cancer cell
Degradation and devolution continue until fermentation energy is enough to fully compensate the loss of respiration. It is at this point that we witness the emergence of a cancer cell. And it is now a perfectly functional and healthy cancer cell that has lost enough of its original characteristics, both structural and functional, to begin a programme of its own, intended to increase as much as possible survival probability in its new and partially self-generated environment that should ideally be high in glucose—as high as possible, low in oxygen—this is preferred but not critical, and highly acidic—cellular pH as low as 6 or even less and extracellular pH potentially significantly lower.
Although these terms, birth and emergence, are powerful and very useful in conveying a vivid imagery of a developing process that eventually reaches and overcomes a critical threshold as it is the case here, it is not really a birth or an emergence as much as it is a metamorphosis, gradual and typically very slow, taking place over decades if not over most of a person’s lifetime, with a continual and intimate dependence on the biochemical makeup of the environment surrounding the cell, and surrounding each and every cell throughout the body, from hair, scalp and skin, to fingers, fingernails, toes and toenails, from mouth to colon, from brain to liver, from breast to uterus, from throat to prostate, and from and to everything else that constitutes the entire human organism inside and out.
Over this long struggle for survival, because this is truly what it is, the cell is at first forced to generate supplemental energy from fermentation to make up the small difference that the slightly damaged mitochondria cannot. This increases the level of acid inside the cell. Because every enzyme-mediated biochemical process that takes place—and that indeed has to take place—is sensitively pH-dependent, all are instantaneously affected negatively by this acidification and drop in pH.
Moreover, increased acid translates directly into lack of oxygen, which further stresses the mitochondria, making their oxidation of glucose and fatty acids more difficult and less efficient. This in turn leads to a further degradation of the mitochondria, cell structure and function, an increased reliance on fermentation energy, a rise in acid levels, and a drop in oxygen availability: clearly a vicious cycle—a very vicious cycle.
Because ATP production is so much less efficient through fermentation than through respiration, the cell needs much greater amounts of glucose. This forces it to develop a greater sensitivity to it, which forces the formation of more insulin receptors because it is insulin that carries the glucose through the cell wall. And it is, in fact, the case that cancer cells typically have about ten time more insulin receptors than normal cells, and that this makes them ten times more capable of grabbing hold of circulating glucose to sustain themselves. But again, remember that this is yet another adaptation in a struggle for survival without which the cell would die.
Questions, questions and more questions
There is quite a lot more that needs to be addressed and explained. General questions like: How did Warburg figure all this stuff out? And what else did he discover? Specific questions like: Are cancer cells weaker or stronger, more fragile or more resilient? What is it that fundamentally distinguishes them from normal cells? And why does it sometimes take an entire lifetime but at other times just a few years to grow a cancerous tumour? Epidemiological questions like: Why is cancer spreading? Why does it appear more and more in young people? And why does it tend to not only develop but intensify with each generation along family lines? Finally, from all of this detailed information and knowledge, wouldn’t we like to know if there is something to do to prevent or cure cancer? Wouldn’t we like to know what that is: what we can do to prevent and cure it? Of course! That’s our main goal, isn’t it?
We will look at all of these issues and more together, but now I can’t help wonder if the following question, this multi-billion dollar question, might have popped up in your mind while you were reading, as it did for me when I read Warburg’s paper: If he, and by extension, we, as the community of thinking human beings, had understood, explained and demonstrated how cancer arises and then develops in 1956 already, why is it that today, almost 60 years later, cancer rates continue to rise every year, cancer cases appear in people at an increasingly younger age every year, and cancer claims the lives of more people every year than it has ever done? How can this be, and why is it so? Hasn’t anybody else looked at his research and reproduced the results? Haven’t we got today much better instruments and technical means of verifying everything he presented throughout his long career? Don’t worry. We’ll definitely look at that too.
If you think this article could be useful to others, please ‘Like’ and ‘Share’ it.
21 thoughts on “On the origin of cancer cells – part 1”
Great. A remarkable and satisfyingly thorough and clear explanation of what cancer is and how it develops on the cellular level. Indeed, if all this is known since Warburg’s times it hard to imagine how cancer could become a plague of modern civilisation. The answer has probably not much to do with medical science but human ignorance, misbelief, convenience and a lot of money. Looking forward to part II!
Thank you Uwe. I appreciate your positive feedback and your interest. I find all of this truly fascinating, but rarely see this to be the case in others. So once again, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Thank you for the great article. I have been confused about the function of mitochondria for some time. Your article really helps me get a clearer understanding of it, particularly for an amateur marathoner like me. I’m 72 years 8 months preparing for the Boston Marathon next month. I need 4 to 5 hours to run 26 miles, and this means energy from fat. There is so much conflicting information about protocols for efficient fat burning and yet it is still so confusing. Very luckily, I met Dr. Shapiro, at the SF marathon and learned about his method of fasting two years ago. My health literally transformed with my running thereafter. My main goal is ketonic energy and autophagy. I eat two meals per day but Dr. Shapiro does only one meal per day that is my future goal. I believe my health really depends upon the health of mitochondria. I can’t wait for the part II.
Thank you again!
You’re welcome. I’m very glad you found it useful. Yes, intermittent fasting is excellent; Yes, ketogenic energy is an excellent goal to have, attain and nurture; and Yes, the health of the organism depends entirely on the health of the mitochondria. Your performance at such an age is truly remarkable. My marathon history is very short: only two races. The first at 3:17 in 1996 (Montreal, Canada; age 24). And the second, the personal best, at 2:58 in 2006 (Mont Saint-Michel, France; age 34). I stopped running at 37 (4 years ago) with my last 10K at 36:03 after getting acquainted with the work of Dr Doug McGuff (Body by Science). Now I cycle (30 min flat and downhill in the morning and 45 min uphill in the afternoon almost every weekday), teach Pilates (Tue, Thu), and do HIIT on a spinning bike (Sat) and cross fit with weights (short and intense kettle bell sessions after Pilates, and a long one on Sundays with my teenage son). Anyway, the very best of luck on your next marathon. I’m sure you realise just how rare your breed of runners actually is! Keep striving to get healthier and better at everything you do. It’s really great.
Thanks you for this! I look forward to part 2, and also part 2 of the arthritis article (the condition I am working to cure!)
You’re welcome. For the second on arthritis, I’m working on it, but there’s one thing you can start doing right away, and that’s taking B3 in the form of nicotinimide (non-flush niacin; not time-released) together with vitamin C, 1g (1000 mg) each three times per day with meals. That’s been proven to work really well on hundreds of arthritis patients by William Kaufman, M.D., Ph.D. over the many decades of his career.
Apart from imparting critical (if not-yet renowned) content, is your creative thought process and philosophical packaging. Nice. Thanks Guillaume.
You’re very welcome. And thanks for the compliment.
thanks! will add it to my regimen!
Thank you very much Henry. I truly appreciate this information and will definitely look into carefully.
Hi Henry: I have now listened to the interview and read the long article Gonzalez wrote as a review/critique of Seyfried’s book. I appreciate his conclusions which do put into question the effectiveness of a ketogenic diet in the treatment of cancer. There are a lot of issues here. Firstly, there are numberless ways to formulate a ketogenic diet, some are far more healthful than others. Secondly, he clearly cures cancers with his enzyme therapy, but does this mean that cancer is not reliant on sugar for survival? No, it does not. Thirdly, how can one explain the very clear fact that cancer in Africa simply did not exist at all until the introduction of refined sugar and grain products at the end of the 19th, other than making the connection between these refined foods and its appearance. Finally, as I will discuss in a series of articles, there are many treatment protocols that work in curing cancers. And they are often extremely different in appearance and implementation. So, the connection between the origin and genesis of cancer on the one hand, and its prevention and curing on the other, is not trivial.
Hi Guillaume, I just listened to the interview with Dr. Gonzalez, and a thing that stuck to my mind was his mentioning of long time surviving cancer patients drinking carrot juice on a daily basis. I always liked carrots myself, but when one wants to switch to a ketogenic diet, how ´bad´ do you consider them to be then? (and does it make a difference if you juice them?) Are you yourself staying entirely away from the carrots?
Hi Steffen: You cannot drink carrot juice and remain in ketosis: there is just too much sugar. I have not finished investigating his protocol, but currently, my impression is that the reason why it works is because of the massive amounts of enzymes he prescribes (350 pills a day!!!), together with the fact that vegetable juices are extremely rich in enzymes, minerals, vitamins and phytonutrients. My feeling is that the main element is the supercharging with enzymes, and that, drinking green juices would be far more beneficial than drinking carrot juice. Personally, I basically always remain in ketosis with less than 25 g of sugar per day (from all sources) and fat accounting for 70-80% of my calories. As far as I am concerned at this stage, the benefits of nutritional ketosis in the context of the overall regime I follow and recommend in my roadmap is optimal on all levels we care for if we strive towards optimal health and longevity. Of course, I have yet to experiment with cancer or gravely ill patients: I’m not an MD and I don’t have a clinic or health centre. Maybe one day I will.
It sounds right what you say about the green juice and the carrot juice, but it still makes me wonder why the ketosis results on cancer patients have not been better in the long run. If the cancer-cells need a sugary/acidic environment to survive, why is it they don´t succumb to the lack of sugar and acids when this is taken away? Seems like there is some information missing here.. hmm..
When you mention you have less than 25 g of sugar per day, is there anything about the maximum you can have and still stay in (move towards) full ketosis? This is probably my biggest ´worry´ right now, that if I take some (sweet)fruit/chocolate/sugar (which I don´t at all) then ´I set myself back in the process`, without knowing exactly how much given which conditions (what the ´price´ of for instance a piece of chocolate is on the process). If someone is following pretty much to the point the advices you give, do you have an idea how much ´sugar-slack´ is then allowed per day before it starts setting the ketosis build-up process back? Can I have 25g of sugar per day too, or is this something you can only do when the ketosis is established as the dominant ´system´?
Beatrice asked me, how it is possible to have a minimum level of glucose in the blood (the amount needed ´to survive´) without the insulin kicking in? Is the ´system´ constructed in a way that a certain level (not zero) of sugar is ´allowed´ (required) in the blood before insulin is released? And if this is the case, how much is this then? Is it like ´we can have one carrot a day without the insulin ´discovering it´, but if we have two, then it moves in and ´cleans up the whole house´´?
PS: I think you would be great having your own health center. Or for that sake, that it would be great, any center you had, that could diffuse the many unique insights you posses on this. This really should be out by the masses..
Yes, something needs to be understood further. However, there is no doubt that cancer cells can only use glucose and in some cases the amino acid glutamine as fuel, and cannot use fat. This is the essence of Warburg’s work over 30 years from the early 30’s to early 60’s that has now been confirmed by Seyfried’s group over the last 25 years. This was the first essential point that is explained in this article and that I will surely explore further, and is also what I would use as the main element in a anti-cancer regime.
What I believe is missing in the standard approach using a “ketogenic” diet, is the lack of attention to the other fundamental problem: acidosis, and the remedy: alkalisation, as a absolutely necessity for success. Most ketogenic diets are highly acidifying and rich in protein with a lot of meat, dairy and animal foods in general. This would therefore prevent them from being effective against cancer. Alkalisation comes first in fighting cancer, but one cannot really alkalise very effectively without eliminating the simple and starchy carbohydrates. This is not well understood nor appreciated by most, and I think that this is exactly the missing link.
About ketosis and the amount of sugar, you should read At the heart of heart disease. Volek and Phinney have shown that every person has their own carbohydrate tolerance, which depends both on genetics and metabolic function. This means that everyone potentially has a different threshold below which they remain in ketosis and above which they leave it. They have seen this in a group of study subjects vary between 20 and 100 g per day. There are also other issues that have to do with metabolic usage of glycogen by depleting reserves through muscular usage during exercise. So, if you use up 200 g of glycogen by cycling 5 hours, say, then you could eat 250 g of sugar and remain in ketosis because most of it will be used to replenish your muscle glycogen.
Therefore, each person at any given point in their life with the conditions defined by genes and state of metabolic function can eat a different amount of sugar between about 20 and 100 g and remain in ketosis. However, no matter what your personal tolerance is, what I think is more important is that there is very rarely a situation where eating sugar is useful or healthful. Therefore, I believe that we should always strive to keep it to the strict minimum independently of our personal tolerance. And note the use of the word “tolerance”. If there is a situation where you foresee having to eat a large quantity of sugar, like a birthday of your best friend, for example, then you can use the trick of doing a very long bike ride or run without eating anything other than some fat in order to deplete your glycogen reserves as much as you can. Then, the body will “soak up” the sugar and put in into the muscles, giving a large amount of sugar “slack” to use your terminology. Again, there is nothing healthy about that. It is just a trick to allow you to eat sugar and remain in ketosis.
Yes, there is a minimum amount of sugar in the blood. This is somewhere around 60-70 mg/dl. The main reason is that there is only one type of cells that can only use sugar. These are the most ancient and rudimentary cells on which our life depends: the red blood cells. However, it is the job of the liver to continuously monitor and adjust glucose levels according to the circumstances. This fine tuning that is done through hormonal regulation, and is performed on an instant to instant basis. As soon as you eat additional carbohydrates, insulin is secreted to put it away. All glucose that the liver and muscles store in the case that you don’t eat carbs comes from the glycerol backbone of fatty acids. I have written about this several times (so I think you should keep reading my articles, one by one, and go through the archive). There is never any need to eat sugar. It might be advantageous in certain specific circumstances, like when needing to perform a sprint at maximum intensity for some reason, but on the whole even in this circumstance, it is better to train the body to respond faster without the sugar then it is to eat the sugar and cause the physiological and metabolic damage is will cause.
Guillaume, I just want you to know that if you should come around some news concerning cancer (and diet), I am all ears right now. My father has just been told from the hospital that he has some cancer-cells they can’t get rid of (even though he can live with them), and yesterday I was informed that my ex-wife has been diagnosed with breast-cancer, going into surgery tomorrow. And no kidding, today we got a new dog, from a home where the previous owner just passed away, also from cancer. This seems to be filling up a lot these days. Thanks. I appreciate it.
There is already tons of stuff on my blog: basically everything I write about and recommend for optimal health is anti-cancer. Cancer is the modern plague, and yet it was completely non-existent in traditional societies eating non-processed foods from their environment. It’s important to understand that all the science of physiology and biochemistry of optimal health I write about is anti-cancer. This article, naturally, is foundational. So, I am really very confident that adopting the regime and supplements I propose in the roadmap will heal cancer, especially starting with a 2 week cleanse following my Green healing protocol.
There is a large number of alternative therapies that work very well to treat and cure cancer. The first thing everyone with cancer should do, especially breast, prostate and other glandular cancers, is to supplement with 100 mg (2×50 mg) of Iodoral per day. This single supplement cures breast cancers in many women without doing much of anything else (see Iodine: why you need it, why you can’t live without it, by Brownstein MD). Sodium bicarbonate is also extremely powerful anti-cancer medicine that has very effectively been used to cure very serious cancers (see Sodium Bicarbonate by Sircus MD). Turmeric has also been shown to be strongly anti-cancer (see articles on Mercola, for example). There is tons of things infinitely better than conventional treatments. I recommend these other books if you want to read about it: Cancer: Step Outside the Box; Outsmart you cancer; The Cancer Cure that Worked; The Trial and Tribulations of Gaston Naessens; and also the textbook Cancer as a Metabolic Disease.
Thanks a lot, Guillaume. All very, very helpful.
So if ‘alkalisation’ might be ‘the missing link’ to why it can be so difficult ‘to sugar-starve the cancer-cells’ in the long run (and it does seem logical from the way you explain things), why is it we don’t start alkalising all the water we drink? (not least in cases when (significant) acedosis exist).
When first we have made of it a habit drinking 2-4 liters of water per day, as you recommend as being optimal, wouldn’t this be like ‘keep flooding the acids/acidosis back to neutral’; not to say, a way of preventing the acids from ‘getting a foothold’ in the first place?
If we from our water-drinking habits made ‘banging the acids back to a neutral stance every time they made a move’ (=when we eat/have eaten lots of sugars/starches) through such ‘an extensive and permanent counter-armory’ as for instance 3-4 liter of alkaline liquid per day would seem to be, is it not likely then that ‘the final victory and the following dominance, everything being equal, would then go to the side with the most troops’, to ‘the alkaline forces’ then?’ (though making sure not to over-do it, creating, I suppose, alkal-osis?).
It also makes me think how easy that would be to do. That all it would take then would be for instance lemons/lemon-juice at hand to add to the water whenever we drink it. Something that could be taught to even a child, and probably even in a way that the child would understand the importance of doing it when explained to him or her (“the lemon being the body-police that keeps away the health-robbers”), and therefore would also find it ‘logical’ to do (and therefore would be more likely to do it). Like for instance brushing the teeth. And who knows, lemonate with for instance a drop of stevia, might not even be that bad in a childs mouth as a drink.
It seems so logical, what you are suggesting, that I am sitting here thinking wether your idea – ‘the lack of alkalisation’ being the fundamental/remaining problem in breaking the diet/cancer-code’ – might not be something really significant in the big picture of health, ‘a true stroke of genius’? (and something important for someone to pursue research-vise, if not being done already). But you probably know better than I do.
Alright Steffen. I’ll let you read a few more things: Treating Arthritis, Detoxification, Understanding Digestion, and A green healing protocol.
Thanks .. :-)