Cancer is not a disease based on genetic mutations as has almost universally been touted by the mainstream, but is instead a metabolic disorder
http://www.doctorschierling.com/blog/epigenetics-relationship-to-inflammation-cancer-and-a-myriad-of-other-genetic-diseases?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitterExcerpt: "One of the reasons I left cancer research, I noticed early on the approach was all wrong. First they were essentially using germ theory - treating cancer as an invader other than self that had to be defeated with external weapons of mass destruction. Obviously an ineffective approach, yet it continues. In many of the trials we conducted the treatments were so toxic that patients died much sooner than they would have with no treatment at all. Then came the gene theory- they were convinced they could isolate just a few genes gone rogue, target them and cure cancer. Still failed. Then they targeted angiogenesis (VEGF inhibitors) proliferation proteins Kinase inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors etc. These drugs would control cancer growth for a period of time but the body is so intelligent that after awhile the cellular machinery adapted and bypassed the inhibition, and became much more virulent. Essentially, they were chasing pathways that could be inhibited to stop growth, but they failed to search for the underlying cause. People do not get' cancer their body has created cancer. Why is the body making these changes on the cellular level? What is the body attempting to protect itself from by making these changes? I believe that allopathic medicine is stuck in an old paradigm based on Newtonian physics and linear cause and effect ---- car mechanic medicine. Until there is a massive paradigm shift based on quantum physics, energy, metabolism, and cellular adaptation in response to environment; allopathic approaches to cancer and other chronic diseases will continue to fall short. I like to ask patients….. if your goldfish was sick what would you do? Most likely you would look at their tank - is it big enough? and their water- is it clean enough? is the pH correct? and their food- too much? too little? wrong kind? Are there other fish in tank? You probably wouldn’t take them immediately to the vet for blood work and an MRI.
( An astounding quote from an individual from a functional medicine group I am in, who left cancer research to become an MD.)
Although we've made some progress since the early days of the Genome Project --- started in 1990, it took 13 years to sequence all 3.3 billion base pairs in human DNA --- it has not proved the be-all-end-all it was, and in many cases, continues to be hyped as. It seems that the next big "genetic" thing is always just around the corner, with CRISPR being the latest. Why is this? Why hasn't genetics proved to be as helpful as many prophesied it would? In a word, epigenetics. Huh? According to a twelve year old study from Environmental Health Perspectives (Epigenetics: The Science of Change), we not only get a working definition of epigenetics, but why, as I've been telling readers for years, it's arguably more important than the field of genetics.
"Understanding cancer would be one long-term goal for the U.S. project, but epigenetics—changes in gene expression heritable from cell to daughter cell without changes in DNA sequence—transcends any one disease. 'It has profound implications in aging, neurological disorders, and child development,' says Peter Jones, another group member and director of the Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Southern California. Jones and his colleagues argue that the importance of epigenetics in human disease, together with the maturing of technologies for mapping epigenetic changes, make a human epigenome project both critical and feasible. Epigenetics, says cancer biologist Jean-Pierre Issa of The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, could prove more important than genetics for understanding environmental causes of disease. 'Cancer, atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease are all acquired diseases where the environment very likely plays an important role,' he points out. 'And there’s much more potential for the epigenome to be affected … than the genome itself. It’s just more fluid and more easy to be the culprit.'"
Allow me to explain EPIGENETICS in a nutshell. Although people carry genes for any number of diseases, said diseases are not expressed unless the genes are acted on by their environment. In other words these genes must be 'turned on' by certain chemical messengers or they don't create the disease processes mentioned above. What's more, because of epigenetics we are learning that at least to some degree, the sins of the fathers (or mothers) can be passed on to their offspring. Did you follow that? Some of these epigenetic traits are actually heritable.
This month's issue of Oncotarget published a study (Inborn-Like Errors of Metabolism are Determinants of Breast Cancer Risk, Clinical Response and Survival: A Study of Human Biochemical Individuality) by a team of 35 researchers from 17 institutions throughout the U.S., Brazil and Europe. Over 1,200 patients were involved. The gist of the study? Cancer occurs because cancer cells make and use energy differently than normal cells. Challenging decades of genomic research, this team determined cancer not to be a disease based on genetic mutations as has almost universally been touted by the mainstream, but is instead a metabolic disorder just as diabetes is a metabolic disorder. Lead author, oncologist, hematologist, internist, and Professor of Pharmacology at Cal State Irvine, Dr. Robert Nagourney, put it this way.
"This suggests that cancer is not a genetic disease arising solely from mutations as we have all been taught, but instead a metabolic condition that develops under the stress of cellular nutrient deprivation. Cells that cannot generate enough energy due to lack of oxygen, sugars or proteins, common to many cancers, use altered metabolic pathways to ensure their survival. Unfortunately these cancer cells' success comes at the expense of the host patient."
Achieving an accuracy rate of detecting cancer in over 95% of the cases, the researchers ran both healthy controls and patients with various sorts of CANCER, including BREAST CANCER, through a series of blood tests, where the blood levels of over 200 chemicals, sugars, amino acids, proteins, and fats, were measured via mass spectrometry. When the controls were compared to cancer patients, there were striking differences that clearly delineated those with cancer from those without. "The metabolic changes identified are consistent with inborn-like errors of metabolism and define a continuum from normal controls to elevated risk to invasive breast cancer." In other words, whether one carried a certain cancer gene or not, cancer could be detected with extreme accuracy simply by looking very closely at blood work (it could be done with a single drop of blood).
While this was hailed as a scientific breakthrough, I must disagree. It's just that a huge segment of the medical community has been ignoring their own research for the past century. Not only do we know that certain CHEMICAL EXPOSURES epigenetically predispose people to cancer, but we know that excess sugar consumption does as well. It was 1931's Nobel Laureate, DR. OTTO WARBURG, who won because nearly 9 decades ago he was referring to cancer as a metabolic disease ---- a disease that survives, thrives, and spreads, by fermenting sugar."
My comment: Genetic mutations are no causes for cancers, instead they are consequences. DNA reading procedures are done via epigenetic information layers, factors and control. Cellular processes go through the epigenetic regulation before DNA is read. And DNA is read because the cell produces functional RNA-molecules that also control cellular processes. The cell has several clever ways to edit and modify RNA-molecules. This means genetic mutations don't necessarily mean anything for the cell, because they can be edited out during RNA-production.
DNA is just a passive information library and it's not your destiny. The theory of evolution is the most serious heresy of our time. Don't get lost.
This month's issue of Oncotarget published a study (Inborn-Like Errors of Metabolism are Determinants of Breast Cancer Risk, Clinical Response and Survival: A Study of Human Biochemical Individuality) by a team of 35 researchers from 17 institutions throughout the U.S., Brazil and Europe. Over 1,200 patients were involved. The gist of the study? Cancer occurs because cancer cells make and use energy differently than normal cells. Challenging decades of genomic research, this team determined cancer not to be a disease based on genetic mutations as has almost universally been touted by the mainstream, but is instead a metabolic disorder just as diabetes is a metabolic disorder. Lead author, oncologist, hematologist, internist, and Professor of Pharmacology at Cal State Irvine, Dr. Robert Nagourney, put it this way.
"This suggests that cancer is not a genetic disease arising solely from mutations as we have all been taught, but instead a metabolic condition that develops under the stress of cellular nutrient deprivation. Cells that cannot generate enough energy due to lack of oxygen, sugars or proteins, common to many cancers, use altered metabolic pathways to ensure their survival. Unfortunately these cancer cells' success comes at the expense of the host patient."
Achieving an accuracy rate of detecting cancer in over 95% of the cases, the researchers ran both healthy controls and patients with various sorts of CANCER, including BREAST CANCER, through a series of blood tests, where the blood levels of over 200 chemicals, sugars, amino acids, proteins, and fats, were measured via mass spectrometry. When the controls were compared to cancer patients, there were striking differences that clearly delineated those with cancer from those without. "The metabolic changes identified are consistent with inborn-like errors of metabolism and define a continuum from normal controls to elevated risk to invasive breast cancer." In other words, whether one carried a certain cancer gene or not, cancer could be detected with extreme accuracy simply by looking very closely at blood work (it could be done with a single drop of blood).
While this was hailed as a scientific breakthrough, I must disagree. It's just that a huge segment of the medical community has been ignoring their own research for the past century. Not only do we know that certain CHEMICAL EXPOSURES epigenetically predispose people to cancer, but we know that excess sugar consumption does as well. It was 1931's Nobel Laureate, DR. OTTO WARBURG, who won because nearly 9 decades ago he was referring to cancer as a metabolic disease ---- a disease that survives, thrives, and spreads, by fermenting sugar."
My comment: Genetic mutations are no causes for cancers, instead they are consequences. DNA reading procedures are done via epigenetic information layers, factors and control. Cellular processes go through the epigenetic regulation before DNA is read. And DNA is read because the cell produces functional RNA-molecules that also control cellular processes. The cell has several clever ways to edit and modify RNA-molecules. This means genetic mutations don't necessarily mean anything for the cell, because they can be edited out during RNA-production.
DNA is just a passive information library and it's not your destiny. The theory of evolution is the most serious heresy of our time. Don't get lost.
