Posted on 08/03/2019 3:55:13 AM PDT by Windflier
Hospitals feed cancer patients sugar and high carbohydrate diets for a simple reason: they are abysmally ignorant of the role of nutrition in health and disease — hence their burgeoning growth, packed rooms, and ‘return customers.’
Even though the science itself shows – at least since the mid-20’s with Otto Warburg’s cancer hypothesis — that tumors prefer to utilize sugar fermentation to produce energy rather than the much more efficient oxygen-based phosphorylation* – hospitals have actually invited corporations like McDonald’s to move into their facilities to ‘enhance’ their patient’s gustatory experience, presumably to provide comfort and take the edge off of the painful surgery, radiation and chemo treatments erroneously proffered to them as the only reasonable ‘standard of care.’
But the times are changing, with new research requiring these medical institutions to reform their dietary strategies, at least if they wish to claim that their interventions are in fact ‘evidence-based,’ as they so often claim.
Study Reveals Sugar Doesn’t Just Feed But Causes Cancer
A groundbreaking study, uncovered by one of our volunteer researchers at Greenmedinfo, is the first of its kind to identify sugar, not only as fuel source for an already existing cancer, but as a primary driver in oncogenesis – i.e. the initiation of cancerous characteristics (phenotype) within previously healthy cells.
Published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation and titled, Increased sugar uptake promotes oncogenesis via EPAC/RAP1 and O-GlcNAc pathways, researchers addressed a common perception (or misperception) in the cancer research community regarding sugar’s relationship to cancer: namely, “increased glycolysis [sugar based metabolism] is frequently viewed as a consequence of oncogenic events that drive malignant cell growth and survival.”
Contrary to this conventional view, the new study “provide[s] evidence that increased glycolytic activation itself can be an oncogenic event.” That is to say, the activation of sugar-based metabolism in a cell – driven by both the presence of increased quantities of glucose and the increase glucose receptors on the cell membrane surface (i.e. “overexpression of a glucose transporter”) – drives cancer initiation.
Moreover, the study found that “Conversely, forced reduction of glucose uptake by breast cancer cells led to phenotypic reversion.” In other words, interfering with sugar availability and uptake to the cell causes the cancer cell to REGRESS towards its pre-cancer structure-function (phenotype).
What Are The Implications of This Research to the Diet?
What this new research indicates is that sugar – of which Americans consume an astounding 160 lbs annually (imagine: 31 five-pound bags for each of us!) – is one of the primary causes of metabolic cell changes in the body consistent with the initiation and promotion of cancer. And, the research indicates that removing it from the diet, and depriving the cells of it, could REVERSE cancer. Why is this so surprising? It’s because Americans have been lead like lambs to the slaughter to think of “prevention” as “early detection,” focusing not on identifying and removing the well known nutritional and environmental causes of cancer, rather, to spend their time, energy, and money on cause-marketing campaigns focused on “finding a cure” — as if one didn’t already exist right in front of our noses, or more aptly, on the end of our forks.
I can't eat solid food. The tumors are in the roof of my mouth, and I've lost most of my upper teeth due to the cancer. I haven't had meat or any kind of solid food for quite some time now. I simply can't handle it.
Yes. Our whole health care system is designed to keep people sick and spending their money in a hopeless quest to find healing.
They go broke if they make us well, or cure us. It's one of the reasons I decided to go the alternative route from my very first diagnosis.
Besides, the oncologist's recommended course of treatment was a death sentence.
A number of years ago I was at a party where there were a large number of doctors in attendance I asked a group what was the greatest cause of cancer. The usual list culprits were named. I asked whether aging could be the major cause be aging weakens the immune system and after some discussion many had to agree.
That's by design. Long story, and as insidious as any deep state plot you've ever heard of.
Go ahead: Quit sugar. With no other changes everyone who would’ve gotten cancer will get it anyway. The article irresponsibly misrepresents the findings of the study and the study authors intentionally misrepresent their study by invoking Warburg.
Ask “Why?”
‘Treatment’ for a diseased condition genuinely requires a prescribed and intelligent nutrient intake, but labeling such a thing as a ‘diet’ which is cancer preventative is laughably-ignorant. Furthermore, the article’s authors in their terminus play cheerleaders for toxic chemical analogues of sweetness in abject ignorance of THEIR effects upon biology, including sucralose.
Lots of study grant $$ out there and little to show for the investment, but plenty of emotional hyperbole as desperate people ignore sound choices in the search for single point fixes & magic pills, powders and elixirs (’diets’, too).
It’s long past time someone audits research grants and ceases the cavalcade of ridiculous ‘studies’ which are nothing more than welfare for scientists. This study may very well assist in treatment & recovery for afflicted patients, but likely poses zero hope for those who seek to avoid a dreaded diagnosis for one of the pair of America’s greatest killers and significant drain on healthcare resources.
There are innumerous reasons to limit sugar intake; this one is on the FAR end of the scale, but utilizes hype and label to predictable effect.
Had? I've still got it. It's squamous cell carcinoma.
Mine expressed itself at the site of a rotten tooth, and spread from there. Apparently, I had it for a long time before it was discovered.
Well, as an actual cancer sufferer, I can tell you for a fact that consuming sugar will cause cancer to go into an immediate growth surge.
I know this because every time I've slipped and had some sweets, my tumors have blown up within 24 hours. Backing away from sugar always results in the tumors shrinking back to their normal size.
That's all the research I need, but the scholarly work has been done and the papers are out there. For me, they only corroborate my personal experience.
Mostly right, but sugar is only part of it. The larger class of macronutrient that sugar belongs to is CARBOHYDRATES and they include starches (noodles, bread, etc.) and items like rice and beans. As far as the human body goes, they are ALL THE SAME, and all breakdown into blood glucose - which cancer cells just LOVE.
“I don’t think any nutrition courses are taught in medical school. Too bad.”
They do a bit, but it’s the government ‘guidelines’ that drive everything, and guess who gets to write those:
Yep, a bunch of Vegans and Animal Rights types. And the fact that these ‘guidelines’ are now literally killing people (diabetics in particular), doesn’t matter to them - what counts is that less cows are being eaten, that simple.
The ‘guidelines’ are effectively laws for the medical practice - tell someone to cut way back on Carbs, the doctor puts his license at risk, along with putting his practice in financial jeopardy. There are doctors who know they dispensing horrific advice, but they either do that, or put everything they’ve worked for at risk. It is also very difficult to deal with mentally - when your job is to keep people healthy...easier to just keep doing it and act dumb about it.
My wife is stage 4. She had a lumpectomy in 2013. The surgeon told us he got it all, and the associated lymph nodes were free of cancer, so she opted for no post-op radiation or chemo.
Then she started having back pain a couple years ago, but wrote it off to old age, arthritis, etc. She finally went to see her doctor in April of 2018. He ordered an MRI, and it showed she was very late stage 4. It had almost eaten through her spinal column, plus she had two crushed vertebrae and damage to her right hip.
She had radiation to stabilize the spine and hip, which have healed, but she is still bedridden, though she can make it around a bit on her own, to go potty, etc.
When diagnosed, I did a quick search and learned glucose is the main fuel, so I immediately put us both on a very low carb diet.
The only anti-cancer drug she is taking is letrozole. The oncologist got her a one month trial of Ibrance, but it made her sick after a week, so she stopped. Our co-pay would have been $2500 per month.
I have been doing research online, watching Dr. Dominic D’Agastino, so we are also doing hyperbaric oxygen threapy.
I also learned metformin can help, so I asked the oncologist if she would write a prescription. I was surprised when she offered to provide it through their in-house pharmacy.
A new book by Jane McClelland shows many old drugs have an anti cancer effect, including lovastatin and dipyridamole. But, lovastatin caused muscle spasms so she had to stop after just a few days. We are still waiting approval to get dipyridamole.
She is also taking berberine, plus I give her a tablespoon of fish oil three times a day. The brand is Nature’s Answer, from amazon. It’s very pleasant to take, no fish taste or smell, and it’s orange flvored. I found a paper that shows it may stop cachexia. Just in time, because she is down to 135, from 195 a year ago.
Since her appetite has been so poor, I have been making a high fat, low carb, protein shake. It took a bit of experimenting, now it’s tasting very good:
1 large scoop Simple Truth chocolate protein powder
1 cup water
1/4 cup MCT oil
3 tablespoons fish oil
1 tablespoon olive oil
2oz cream cheese
2 tablespoons unsweetened cocoa powder
2 scoops of ice
Blend the protein powder and water first. In a separate bowl, mix the cocoa powder and MCT oil, add to the blender, then add the rest of the ingredients.
It’s a large drink, about 1200 calories, and takes my wife two days to finish. I give her a few sips, then back into the fridge.
Don’t drink it all at once, as the MCT oil and fish oil can cause the runs.
Immune systems do not kill everything. They have to learn how to kill some things, which is why vaccines work. I know they have been trying to develop a cancer vaccine.
I am assuming that even a “healthy”, fully functioning immune system might not be able to fight all cancers. After all, cancer cells originate in the host body itself.
This makes sense - lots of calorie density from the oils.
Also Windflier, you might look up the Budwig cancer diet, which emphasizes cottage cheese and flaxseed oil - this could be blended to prevent any chewing needed.
I never meant to imply that the immune system was 100% effective. Indeed, the evidence which shows the immune weakens with age confirms that it is totally effective.
Yeah, I don’t think most of them have nefarious intent, they are just clueless and “don’t know what they don’t know.”
I mentioned to a Dr friend of mine that I didn’t want to go to Wendy’s because I was trying to eat “clean” (i.e., avoid CAFO chicken and meat) and she literally thought I was implying the restaurant was dirty. Absolutely clueless.
Why not? Everything else weakens with age.
Why not? Everything else weakens with age.
I want you to look into these study references:
Grape seed extract kills head and neck cancer cells, leaves healthy cells unharmed
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-01-grape-seed-neck-cancer-cells.html
As colorectal cancer gets more aggressive, treatment with grape seed extract is even more effective
https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2013-01-colorectal-cancer-aggressive-treatment-grape.html
Compound in magnolia may combat head and neck cancers
https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-compound-magnolia-combat-neck-cancers.html
Grape Seed Extract Halts Cell Cycle, Checking Growth Of Colorectal Tumors In Mice
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061018093946.htm
Thing is, if sugar caused cancer, I’d expect cancer rates to be way higher in women than men, because men don’t tend to be such suckers for sugar as women are. Men tend to crave meat and salt. It’s women who are the chocoholics, generally. Yet men are more susceptible to cancer than women are.
Was just about to ping you :)
We don’t have the double chromosome coverage women do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.