SO dear frens, despite some early encouraging signs, the Keto diet with fenben and dozens of other supplements and treatments, did not affect my cancer even a little bit according to the scans! Just be aware! The keto diet starved ME but not this aerobic cancer which could metabolize like healthy cells! I lost weight and muscle. I appreciate all the advice given here and tried with all my energy for 5 months of treatment. Every cancer is different, every human body is different. The good news apparently is, it is the slow-growing ones which are still aerobic, so may it be indolent!! ANYWAY I have to live my life and Trust in the Lord.
Comments (72)
sorted by:
Hopefully ivermectin will help
My protocol used fenben which is similar but with goat vs horse dosage.
Look into dr jack Kruse. He has some great treatment ideas , without radiation
"Begin a meditation scheme as soon as possible to control your cortisol and anxiety."
OH I know this cancer started with anxiety and punishment of my person that I could not stop!
That is why I believe it will not recur, because I have learned that STRESS KILLS. And I cannot let other people's mistreatment of me, to kill me!
But what is your vitamin D3 level? That's REALLY important for success. If your immune system is below par, then your chances are poor.
Read "The Miraculous Cure For and Prevention of all diseases" by Jeff T Bowles
Yes I have been taking vit D with K2 for absorption. Thank you!
Good but you need to get above 100 ng/ml D3.
what do you recommend?
Well the fenben dosage is also adjusted for human size. Yes goats are tough!
Exactly 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Thank you u/ArmyLady for sharing your firsthand experience. It is incredibly valuable and unfortunately most of the time this info is lost.
If you could summarize your diagnosis, treatment, and timeline in full I'm sure it would be very appreciated and serve as a reference for other frens in your situation.
Well it is a very long story!
I had a chest x-ray at the ER ~2018 where they noticed a lung nodule. Despite it showing sugar uptake on the PET scan, it did not grow, so they became less interested in it over the years of looking at it. OH I had to refuse invasive biopsy, to convince them to just monitor it until it was apparent it was not cancer! They would have had me undergo biopsy. I did not have to undergo the biopsy, it was not cancer. Sometimes it is best to just monitor it. That worked.
Then, another nodule showed up. Time-frame covid when mother-in-law came here to live b/c they did not want her to fly back home. I thought we would just be a normal family living together. Boy was I wrong! It destroyed me and I am not kidding. I will not summarize all the sordid details because focusing on it is toxic for me. I learned from German New Medicine that such an unresolved conflict could indeed cause disease. We all know that stress causes disease. No surprise!
So they find this new nodule. Monitor it. Slowly growing. Of course they wanted me to undergo an invasive biopsy.
I agreed to the integrative-medicine cancer treatment when my naturopathic doc agreed it looked like cancer, even though the blood test was negative.
That was the fenben, keto diet (and I did not cheat on it!), many other supplements and IV treatments and HBOT. I KNEW that if it was cancer, that would cure it! I had no doubt! It was expensive, it was very time consuming, but I knew it was worth it!
Surprisingly, the nodule did not reduce. Well, the treatment would not reduce it if it were not cancer, right? So I finally agreed to the invasive biopsy, which diagnosed adenocarcinoma. I.E. cancer.
I and my natureopathic doc could not understand it. The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that this particular cancer could metabolize like healthy cells. So starving myself trying to starve the cancer did not work,
SO that is my reason for posting. There are cures! But they do not work for every particular cancer.
Do you have the details of the fenben protocol? Is mother in law still there? Did you have any exposure to other toxins that you're aware of?
Thanks again and I pray that you are healed from this and are with us to fully enjoy when Cankles and Soros are publicly charged.
Fenben was 3 days, then 4 days off, I think it was 2.5 ml. Anyway I followed the directions.
m-i-l is still controlling my husband "her SON!" but I have distanced myself. I can't control my husband or her! I can't control what they have done to me! I had to learn to just not care SO that I could HEAL. I do not have a m-i-l relationship with the mother of my husband. She is now to me just another elder person out there, like lots of elder persons out there. I have no ill-will for her, but I can't survive, with anything to do with her!! SAD but TRUE! I pleaded with both of them for YEARS for my well-being! Pleaded, begged! She showed me no human or female compassion despite seeing my extreme trauma and decline in health!! And husband still thinks she is wonderful?!?
YES Cankles and Soros behind bars! Now that should help all our well-being!
Thanks merf!
But, what do you ACTUALLY mean by that statement?
Did you eat ZERO food for a period of time, or ... did you simply CUT BACK on the amount of food?
Those two choices give VERY DIFFERENT results.
She posted more details about a month ago: https://greatawakening.win/p/19BZuNIIJm/warning-there-are-cures-but-bewa/c/
Reading through that thread, there is a serious disconnect between the problem of feeding cancer cells and her dietary choices.
I get the impression that as a bodybuilder, she was very lean and most likely averse to high dietary fat. Almost all bodybuilders are.
THAT is the #1 problem for her.
Her keto diet was (a) too low in total calories, (b) too high in carbs, (c) too high in protein, and (d) way too low in saturated fat.
Forget keto. Go full carnivore.
The carbs feed cancer cells. Even "just a little carbs" can do that. Cutting back is not the answer. Cutting OUT is.
Carbs might "provide energy," but they are NOT needed. Cutting them out will force the body to become fat adapted, and then the carbs will not be missed.
But the typical bodybuilder's mindset says they MUST have carbs.
Bodybuilders at the competitive level generally inject a lot of drugs, and those drugs DEMAND HIGH CARBS or the person could die.
Injecting insulin, for example, demands high carbs. In addition, carbs force glycogen and water into the muscle cells, making them appear larger. These are reasons why bodybuilders buy into the idea of "needing" carbs.
As a female bodybuilder, she likely injected a lot of exogenous testosterone, which puts things out of whack, as well.
So, there are many confounding variables that might apply to her situation that would not apply to most people.
Likewise, "high protein" means high glutamine, and probably several meals a day, which feeds a steady supply to the cancer cells. Most bodybuilders eat 5-6 meals per day, or more. This provides continual feeding to the cancer cells.
Therefore, a fasting protocol would probably be beneficial. But that is something that most who have the bodybuilder mindset cannot accept.
Her low calorie diet, combined with the fact that she is very lean and doesn't have much body fat to use for energy, means that her metabolic rate MUST DROP to match her low caloric energy intake from her diet. This is especially true if she is eating carbs, because carbs cause an increase in insulin, and high insulin blocks body fat breakdown, leaving muscle to be broken down -- especially if she has developed more than normal muscle size, and is no longer using them, due to reduced workouts.
This may have contributed to lean muscle loss, as well.
She has an unusual set of circumstances that do not apply to most people, and not utilizing a fasting protocol is probably the #1 reason her strategy is not working.
If it were me, I would do back-to-back-to-back 48-72 hour fasts, then have one big meal of meat (and maybe green tea, per the suggestion in this thread), with VERY HIGH FAT -- 80% of calories -- to satisfy and help with energy needs, and absolutely ZERO carbs. I would probably also look into getting glutamine blocker drugs prescribed.
I think this protocol would eventually kill the cancer.
Once the cancer is defeated, I would then return to the gym and build those muscles back up. "Muscle memory" is a real thing, and they will come back very quickly once back in the gym and eating big.
At least, that's what I WILL try if I ever get cancer again.
It was a fast-mimicking keto diet.
There is a cure out there. Just be patient and never EVER give up. The Joe Tippen's Portocol is a possibility, so don't fear or let doubt enter your mind. Go forward and fight, fight, fight because this can be overcome. God bless.
Thank you! My protocol was similar to Tippen's and some others. To be honest, I thought and believed it would work. Not freaked out that it didn't, more like . . . why did it not work for me??
I guess one reason I posted was so that others would not get discouraged if something promising actually did not work . . .
Prayers on the way.
Thanks for keeping us posted.
OH THANK YOU!
Cancer is tricky like that
Yes it IS! That is why I made this post. People need to explore the options and make educated decisions, but there is no silver bullet either . . .
I truly believed, no I KNEW I would be healed by this protocol as so many others have been! I would still recommend it to others. BUT I should have been more aware of my weight loss. I was so focused on the regime of the diet and the supplements and the many treatments. One day I discovered my skin was flabby and my muscle mass much reduced! : (
But WHO KNEW?? The protocol was supposed to starve the cancer which supposedly relied on sugar fermentation.
This one didn't rely on sugar fermentation . . .
"warburg doesn't always apply" as it didn't for me, but it still does work for many other cancers!
No I am not getting chemo. Yes I do take vit D etc. Thanks for your advice and prayers!! SO THANKFUL! Fenben was part of my protocol too.
I had cancer (lymphoma) 11 years ago.
I was VERY against chemo. I tried alternative ideas, like you are doing.
Nothing worked. I did not know then what I know now.
In my case, the cancer caused additional problems that became life-threatening.
So, I agreed to do the chemo. And it worked.
But I knew someone else with the same cancer who tried the same chemo, and it did not work for him.
Some chemo treatments are very bad. Others, not so bad.
I have been clean and healthy for 11 years now.
I am pretty sure I know what caused my cancer, and won't let that happen again.
Whatever you have, it was CAUSED by something, and most likely not stress -- at least, not primarily.
Anyway, just want to let you know that chemo is not necessarily a death sentence. Sometimes, it works.
I have zero complications from doing the chemo -- 11 years later.
Best of luck to you.
Any chance you can say or is there a good reason not to?
Just that nobody would believe me.
I stayed at a cheap motel, while traveling. Turns out, it was infested with bed bugs.
Woke up the next morning with HUNDREDS of bed bug bites all over my body.
They inject toxins into you. One or two, no problem. But hundreds?
Of course, there is no doctor and no website anywhere that I could turn to to ask for advice.
The lymphatic system is what processes toxins.
About 6-8 months later, I developed lymphoma.
2+2 = 4.
Damn near killed me.
On a side note, you know the old narrative that the White Europeans came to the New World and killed the Indians with smallpox?
I call bullshit.
First, smallpox is not a real thing. It is supposedly caused by a virus, and viruses are not real. They are a figment of the pseudo-scientist's imagination. So, yes people can get his thing we call smallpox, but it is not what the fake medical establishment claims it is.
Second, a more likely explanation is that the Europeans and the Indians wanted to trade things with each other -- guns, arrows, clothes, beads, food, etc.
One thing the White man had that the Indian did not was bedding -- mattresses, etc.
Some people speculate that these mattresses could have become infested with bed bugs. The White man had experience in keeping things clean, but the Indians did not.
Could have have been what made them become disfigured (bed bug bites) and what killed them.
Would have killed me, if not for the chemo, so I can believe it probably did kill them.
But ... how often do you ever hear about bed bugs killing someone?
Never.
So, nobody believes it.
But you heard it here first.
;-)
P.S. Speaking of Indians, now that I think about it ... it was Indians (the dot on the forehead type) who ran the hotel and probably one of the people who carried the bed bugs with them to my room. Not my favorite folks -- plus their food is nasty. Anyhoo ...
It’s amazing how unreceptive people are to terrain theory, when we kindof inherently know it, it just takes the concept a bit farther.
Makes total sense within that and parasitic paradigms.
The brainwashing is strong, in a lot of areas of life.
Also, I heard that Louis Pasteur himself said before he died that his Germ Theory was not valid, and Terrain Theory was probably more accurate.
Pasteur kept a diary/notebook, recording his personal thoughts about his life and his various experiments. In there, he wrote about how many of his experiments were fraudulent. He was cheating by intentionally poisoning some of his subjects, in order to get the results he was looking for.
He left strict instructions in his will to never let his diaries become public.
But his son-in-law hated him, found the diaries, and publshied them. LOL.
That's how we know that Pasteur was full of shit.
But he was a useful idiot to the Rockefeller Mafia, and they have used his ideas to push their poison-for-profit business ever since.
99% of doctors are clueless because they (a) don't learn the full truth in medical school, and (b) are arogant enough to believe that everything they learned in med school was the full truth and nobody else could possibly know anything.
I heard a podcast a few weeks ago where someone made the statement, "Every doctor should be in prison."
That's not such a crazy idea.
We can start with Fauci.
Thank you very much for your reassurance! So glad it worked for you!
Yes, one doctor's protocol (I forget who) concentrated on eliminating glucose AND glutamine. It was on YouTube so maybe a search for glutamine might find it. But, as I already wrote, vitamin D3 is really important - you need LOTS.
Edit. What u/5DchessWatch says.
Yes my diet, supplement, and treatment protocol was to eliminate glucose and glutamine, but if the cancer is using the same oxygen metabolism as healthy cells, it doesn't affect it. : (
How exactly did you do that?
A keto diet, especially if you eat 3+ meals per day, does NOT eliminate either, unless your diet was extremely unique.
But cancer cells do NOT do that. What makes you think they do?
Just because your protocol did not work does not mean you should jump to the conclusion that cencer cells use he same metabolism as healthy cells. They don't.
The protocol included other things to attack the cancer metabolism. fenben and I don't know what all. There were so many supplements, I don't know what they were all for.
The keto diet was fast mimicking. We looked at food labels. I did not cheat. 0 sugar and as few carbs as possible. Even supplements have carbs.
"Fast mimicking" is a false term someone came up with to make it sound better, since it means NOT FASTING.
Eating/drinking is not fasting. Period.
You might check out Jason Fung. He is a medical doc, so he will never say that fasting can "cure" anything, else is medical license would be pulled.
But he knows a lot about fasting, and might be worth a look.
Have you looked into the Gerson Therapy
Not until now!
I saw it do the (seemingly) impossible.
I mentioned this before in another thread, and maybe you should check it out.
Warburg was only partially right. Yes, cancer cells can feed off of glucose. A "keto" diet does NOT eliminate glucose, so that could be part of the problem.
But the BIGGER problem is that SOME cancer can ALSO feed off of glutamine, which is an amino acid that you probably got a decent amount of in a keto diet.
Thomas Seyfried has many lectures and interviews online talking about this, and about how he goes about killing off cancer in animals (and his foreign colleagues in other countries do it with humans, too -- in countries where it is allowed to "experiment" with human volunteers).
There are TWO options --
(1) Eat a diet with ZERO carbohydrates ("carnivore diet" which means ONLY red meat), and ALSO take glutamine blocker drugs. This is what Seyfried does to kill cancer cells.
(2) An alternative if you don't want/can't afford the glutamine blocker drugs is to FAST for 24-72 hours, then eat one BIG meal of red meat only. Then, fast again, and repeat. This would give you zero dietary glucose, and the glutamine would be in the meat, but very infrequently, which could give a similar effect. If you want to ramp up the idea (this is my idea, not Seyfried's), then buy steak and eat it RAW.
This sounds extreme to 99% of people, but if you are facing a life-threatening illness and nothing else has worked, what are you really risking?
Also, it is important to note that eating low calories (which kind of sounds like what you did) can make you lose lean tissue (muscle), but fasting does NOT. You will lose water weight, but the body goes into defense mode when fasting and preserves muscle tissue -- as long as you have some body fat for the body to utilize.
If you are super skinny, then fasting might not be an option. But if not, it will allow you to use body fat during the fasting period, and not lose lean muscle. (Look up Dr. Jason Fung online for his views of what happens to the body during a fast. He is probably the #1 expert on this topic.)
Remember: No matter what your doc says, cancer cells do NOT metabolize the same way that healthy cells do. The reason docs think this is because they dismiss Warburg's discovery because he was only half right (and modern docs do NOT know this fact).
If you eliminate BOTH glucose AND glutamine, your cancer cells should die.
Best of luck.
Caveat to this post----
https://eatandbeatcancer.com/2017/06/24/anti-cancer-strategies-inhibit-glutamine/
Green tea contains egcg which blocks the ability for the cancer to use glutamine. Just found that out today. The more you know. So army lady start drinking nothing but green tea and alternate fasting with strictly keto meals
Interesting find, but glutamate and glutamine are not the same thing, so I don't know if it would help.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/biology/difference-between-glutamate-and-glutamine/
Typo, sorry. Corrected.
From the article:
"While you’ll never be able to eliminate glutamine from your diet, you can, however, eat foods that keep cancer cells from using glutamine. Here’s the what, why and how:
green tea: contains EGCG, which inhibits an enzyme, glutamate dehydrogenase, that helps cancer cells use glutamineashwaghanda: contains the enzyme L-asparaginase, which keeps you from digesting glutamine. Make a relaxing tea from it.seeds of fresh peppers: All peppers from the capsicum annum family, including the large sweet bells and many smaller pungent peppers, contain L-asparaginase, especially in their seeds. (If you don’t have cancer, however, avoid a steady diet of pepper seeds due to your body’s need for glutamine.)
And while we’re on the subject of Thomas Seyfried, one of the most important minds in cancer cell metabolism (how cancer cells use fuels for growth), he also recommends fasting, such as long overnight fasts, to get your body into ketosis, a state in which it burns fats not glucose. Once you’re there, he suggests adding hyperbaric oxygen treatments to help kill cancer cells. Read my Love Letter to Senator McCain for an overview of Seyfried’s anti-cancer approach."
All good info!
Thank you.
Yes I was taking something for the glutamine as well. There were so many supplements; fenben was one.
Yes, I lost muscle; don't have much in the way of body fat.
My natureopath doc has cured lots of ppl with this protocol. He was stumped why it did not work for me.
I'm not surprised that keto didn't help. There is a profound misunderstanding in the bodyhack sphere that thinks cancer cells love sugar. Their mitochondria can oxidize fat (burn with oxygen), but not glucose. Because the cells are dysfunctional they can only use a more primitive pathway know as glycolysis to fermented glucose. This is anaerobic, wasteful, and gives off toxic byproducts like lactic acid. So yes, cancer cells use sugar like every other cell in the body, just not inside the mitochondria. Instead, their mitochondria are stuck in beta oxidation mode using fat, and are unable to flip back to healthy glucose oxidation. The excessive free fatty acids that a keto diet results in does not help matters -- it only serves to block glucose's way through the Krebs cycle.
Listen to Georgi Dinkov explain in this podcast Sugar Doesn't Cause Cancer
At 24:10 - 25:30 Ashley, the hostess summarizes what cancer is, and how it can't properly metabolize sugar.
The whole thing is worth your time. If you don't know him, Bulgarian immigrant Georgi is a fire hose of self-taught biochemical and medical knowledge wrapped in a bioenergetic framework. He imparts new information whenever he speaks, even to practicing physicians.
This podcast is most applicable to you. In it he discusses the results his of experiments in reverting human tumors using a simple combo of Vitamins B1, B3 and B7 taken with aspirin (0:50 - 10:40). Very promising.
At 24:10 - 25:30, again Ashley summarizes what cancer is, and how it can't properly metabolize sugar.
28:35 - 29:30 Covers how if glucose oxidation is restored, the cells can recover and many diseases disappear.
Why Modern Cancer Treatment Might Be Making Things Worse
Here's a relevant article from his blog I sent to my cousin who just learned he has a tumor in his brain: Aspirin, alone or with vitamin C, may treat many/most solid tumors
God's speed, soldier!
Thanks!
My protocol did include aspirin and high dose vitamin C.
That's an interesting comment, and made me do some light research into a few points, since they don't really jive with things I've learned.
Ultimately, I want to know the truth, regardless of who has the knowledge to help us understand the reality of the truth.
Would be interested in your response to my reponse.
As I understand it, cancer is a condition we have when mitochondria in our cells malfunctions.
Therefore, the cancerous cells cannot create energy from glucose in the normal manner.
When you say mitochondria can oxidize fat, I wonder what you mean. What do you mean by "fat?" In the body, there is no such thing as just "fat."
We eat food containing dietary fat. The body breaks it down into fatty acids, and some may be converted to ketones -- if there is not much glucose in the body.
Cancer cells cannot utilize ketones -- cannot feed on them -- so I doubt that is what you mean.
From what I have read, cancer cells also do not like saturated fat, but they do like unsaturated fat. So, maybe that is what you mean.
However, eating a diet of meat provides mostly saturated fat, which cancer cells do not utilize for energy.
It seems that the body can convert some saturated fatty acids to unsaturated fatty acids via an enzyme, and that would be a negative for getting rid of cancer. But I don't know to what extent that happens, and seems intuitively like it would be a demand-driven conversion, not something that happens at a large scale, but I don't know enough about it.
I would think that a "plant-based diet," which has a lot of unsaturated fats and not much in saturated fats would be a pro-cancerous diet, whereas a carnivore diet which is the opposite would be anti-cancerous. But need to know more about it.
However, in the absence of dietary sugar intake, there is little to no glucose for the cancer cells to use. Yes, there is gluconeogenesis, but the body does that sparingly, and on a demand-driven basis for the brain and a few other areas that need glucose. I don't think cancer cells can drive that demand.
There are many varieties of "keto." Some have higher sugar carbs and others less. Some have more saturated fats and others less. It seems to me that the free fatty acids feeding cancer cells or not depends on what TYPE of fats we are talking about.
I agree that sugar does not necessarily directly cause cancer. Cancer is a dysfunction of the mitochondria, and that dysfunction is caused generally by toxins and poisons.
Most likely, for most people, it is caused by many years of eating foods that have anti-nutrients that are just a little bit toxic, and over many years builds up to interfere with the proper function of certain cellular mitochondria, and that's where it starts. These foods are plant foods of most kinds, since they all have anti-nutrients that are toxic and cancerous.
Every plant food in the grocery store (possibly except for fruits) has a MINIMUM of 50+ KNOWN carcinogens that can cause cancer.
This is most likely where most people develop cancer.
It's just that it rears its ugly head in different parts of the body for different people -- but it is all the same thing, regardless of where in the body or what form of cancer it takes.
I don't have time to check out that video. I did skim through some of it, but could not get the real gist of what he was saying.
If he has developed a protocol that works, more power to him, and people should consider it.
If his focus is on vitamins, then why not just eat a lot of meat to prevent cancer? It has all those vitamins in abundance.
Of course, for someone who did not do that, ate a lot of plants, and now has cancer, then a vitamin protocol would likely need a "super-dose" rather than just normal amounts from a regular diet.
Anyway, interesting take on cancer.
We don't seem to be that far off, plus I am very much not an expert, and may have misspoke.
The bioenergetic view does indeed see cancer (and most other diseases) as an energy problem stemming from dysfunctional mitochondria. The big thought is instead of being mutations, cancer is composed of normal cells that have gone bad, and are simply malfunctioning due to lacking energy. To kill them is to kill ourselves. Many can recover if their healthy metabolic pathways are unblocked. The ones that can't be saved are coaxed into apoptosis.
Inside the mitochondria, a cell can burn either glucose or fatty acids through the Krebs Cycle. The sugar burning process is oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos), and the latter fat burning process is known as beta oxidation. This is what happens to most cells under keto. Something called the Randle Cycle sees to it that a cell does either one or the other, and switches between them according to various signals.
The Randle Cycle is in the cellular cytoplasm, outside the mitochondria. It turns the glucose into pyruvate, and the long chain fatty acids into LCFActal-CoA. As a switch, the Cycle will let one or the other into the mitochondria where both get converted into Actal-CoA, which is metabolized in the Krebs Cycle to eventually send electrons down the electron transport chain to synthesis ATP for cellular energy.
If for whatever reason some threshold of cells get stuck in beta oxidation there will be a buildup of pyruvate outside the mitochondria. To clear this, the cell uses an ancient pathway known as aerobic glycolysis, which can be oxygen-free if need be when fermentation is used. This results in two ATP molecules, far less than the Krebs Cycle, and gives off lactate. Glycolysis is thus, inefficient and produces harmful byproducts that are maybe as harmful as PUFA.
As you say, the cancerous cell cannot create energy from glucose in the normal manner. Without more energy, it can't differentiate into the cell type of the local tissue. Instead, it just consumes sugar, and grows and divides.
I don't know how ketones fit into this picture, nor do I yet understand where the energy produced by beta oxidation goes in the cancer scenario. The picture as drawn does not make a distinction between saturated and unsaturated fats. I imagine both go through beta oxidation, though the Randle Cycle seems to be only concerned with long chained fats.
There are enzymes that convert saturated into unsaturated fats. Brad Marshall at Fire in a Bottle discusses this in come videos. It is complex, and I'm not sure there is much to be done about it. Meat is fine. Georgi never says otherwise. I wonder what happens to the protein? If it's not used directly, it likely gets converted into glucose.
I would agree with that, and go further to say that it is specifically the mitochondria that is malfunctioning, and that is due to something specific (even if we don't know what, specifically).
This is why the cell lacks energy.
To kill the cancer cells is to kill ourselves? I don't follow that logic.
All cells are supposed to kill themselves, via apoptosis. But cancer cells won't/can't do that.
Seems like you're saying that the damaged mitochondria can be "fixed." If so, that would be interesting.
Remember, all dietary protein is broken down into amino acids. So, we are really talking about what happens to those amino acids, not the protein itself.
Most amino acids CAN be converted to glucose ... but to what extent, and what demands it be done?
The body uses amino acid conversion as a last resort, since it takes more energy to convert AA's to glucose than it does to convert fatty acids to glucose.
And can cancer cells, that want glucose, CAUSE that conversion to happen?
I don't know, but I doubt it.
Sadly, most oncologists have no clue about any of this. They are deep into the dogma of chemo, radiation, and surgery. They have no interest in cause-effect or non-medical solutions.
I know. I asked about a dozen some of these types of questions. Only 1 showed some interest in having a discussion. But I realized he was just humoring me to try to get me to see things his way, rather than understand the science behind it.
I would hope that RFK, Jr. will be pushing a more honest discuisson of cancer before his job is done.
Yes, my recent readings support the notion of cancer cells reverting to normal. So killing them as medicine would have us do (and not incidentally, at a large profit) is destroying cells that can take on a proper differentiated role in our body.
I used to be a keto-bro until I started reading and listening to Georgi Dinkov, Jay Feldman, and Mike Fave among others. Despite all I knew about how keto manages to work around all claimed reduced carb limitations, I couldn't put off the power of their arguments. I don't have a good enough handle on all of it yet to convince you, so I will take the honorable way out and bury you in references :-) Not to win an argument, just to make us both reconsider what we think we already know.
All are summaries from Georgi's blog of studies he comes across that support some aspect of his and Ray Peat's bioenergetic point of view.
Acidosis (Warburg Effect) drives cancer through increased fat oxidation (Randle Cycle):
Lactic acidosis arising from glycolysis is a major culprit. The increased acidosis blocks glucose oxidation and increases BOTH fatty acid oxidation (FAO) and fatty acid synthesis (FAS), further inhibiting the oxidation of glucose causing even greater rise of lactic acid. The study shows providing extra glucose can break the vicious circle.
The study also shows that the increased FAS activity seen in cancer is NOT fed by glucose, but by glutamine. And that cancer cells are apparently dependent on FAS for providing them with fuel to oxidize instead of lipids from the diet.
Achilles heel of cancer discovered – its lack of CO2
Study discusses fully stopping cancer growth with a patented CAIX inhibitor. Leaving out that vitamin B1 is a powerful CA inhibitor.
Cancer relies on fat as fuel due to high reductive stress
The study hypothesizes that limiting fat availability to cancer cells may be the best approach to curing it. Besides dietary restrictions, anti-lipolytic agents such as sugar, aspirin, niacinamide, vitamin E, insulin can be used to get down to baseline lipolysis.
Fatty acid oxidation – linking all illness (especially cancer) with stress and diet (fasting / low-carb)
This one is right up the ketogenic alley.
Cancer cells are the result of secondary and downstream effects of a deranged metabolism. Remove the deranging factor and the “cancer” cells likely revert to normal behavior/metabolism.
The study demonstrates that excessive fatty acid oxidation (i.e., β-oxidation) provides both the necessary and sufficient factor for initiation, growth and metastasizing of cancer.
Increased fat oxidation (FAO) sufficient to cause senescence/aging/disease
Addresses the role of reduced glucose oxidation and increased fatty acid oxidation in cancer, among other diseases.
Hope this gives you something to chew on, fren'.
Hey for what it's worth I've had two members of my family destroy their cancer by ingesting hydrogen peroxide. My uncle and cousin both cured their late stage colon cancer with it. Just look up how to do it. They would use high concentration stuff but I'm fairly certain you can just take more with the regular stuff. I've done it just for whatever just in case. Super easy to take with orange juice.
I will look it up. I have some in the refrigerator but haven't been taking it. Heck I was taking so many things on the protocol!
Best way to reduce toxins in the body is CDL.
When I search CDL I jest get info on commercial driving licenses.
Excuse me. I used the german abbreviation. It should be CDS. Chlorine dioxide solution. It helps detoxify the body.
thx!
There’s nothing that can help anyone except protein, fat, sunshine, and exercise.
Outside of that nothing matters
So sorry to hear this - I hope you find solutions soon.
Know that you are appreciated and loved by many (don't discount your keyboard friends).
I appreciate your kind words!!
My wife was recently diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's. We all have our struggles.
I read that Alzheimer's could be caused by excess insulin. Reduce insulin production by eating foods that don't require it (keto). [I'm a researcher not a doctor.]
Thanks. I've heard the same thing.
There is a crazy old cancer treatment involving concord grapes. You consume nothing but the juice, I think. With the idea that as the cancer eats the sugar it's also eating the cancer fighting antioxidants. Best of care to you. I hope your body fights it off.
Correct, every cancer is diff.
Hope you find the cure.
There is no single disease that is "cancer". Cancer is a term used for many different diseases, each of which has different causes, natural history and treatment.
Honest and prolonged research is needed to define each step on the way to success.