Blog

The Real Truth About What Can Cause Cancer and Why Doctors Constantly Ignore It

in Health July 26, 2017

The number of cancer cases has steadily increased over the last few years. It is a terrible disease that has destroyed the lives of millions – and it could’ve been prevented if the pharmaceutical companies and cancer treatment facilities weren’t all a scam.

Over 1,600 people in the United States die every day from cancer. There is no possible way that anyone can think that is normal. Cancer has become an epidemic, a plague even. Worldwide, over 20,000 people die from cancer every day. Many of these deaths are preventable and could’ve been saved entirely if we had just been delivered the truth instead of being taken advantage of for our money.

Nutritional ketosis has been studied by many people in the fight against cancer. Dr. Otto Warburg, one of the most brilliant biochemists of the twentieth century, spent his life searching for a cure for cancer. While many people to this day believe cancer to be a genetic disorder, it is actually a metabolic disease. This was first found by Warburg in the 1930’s. He discovered that the cancer is really caused by a defect in the cellular energy metabolism of the cell. This is primarily related to the cell’s mitochondria, its primary energy source.

Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D. is a professor of biology at Boston College and a leading expert and researcher in the field of cancer metabolism and nutritional ketosis. As noted by Seyfried,

“A dogma is considered irrefutable truth, and that cancer is a genetic disease is, no question, a dogma. The problem with dogma is that sometimes it blinds you to alternative views and sets up ideologies that are extremely difficult to change.

All of the major college textbooks talk about cancer as a genetic disease. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) website, the first thing they say is cancer is a genetic disease caused by mutations … [and] if cancer is a genetic disease, everything flows from that concept.

It permeates the pharmaceutical industry, academic industry and textbook industry, the entire knowledge base. There’s very little discussion of alternative views to the genetic view. The argument now is that, yes, metabolic problems occur in cancer cells. No one denies that.

But these are all due to the genetic mutations. Therefore we must maintain ourselves on the established track that all of this metabolic stuff could be resolved if we just understood more about the genetic underpinning of the disease.

Now that would be well and good if it were true. But evidence is accumulating that the mutations we see that are the prime focus and the basis for the genetic theory are actually epiphenomenal.

They’re downstream effects of this disturbance in the metabolism that Warburg originally defined back in the 1920s and ’30s.”

He says that the problem is not that scientists and doctors cannot understand the science of cancer. It is that they cannot accept that this could be the truth behind the nature of the disease because it changes how you approach the treatment. This leaves only one question; is cancer is a product of defective mitochondria, and defective energy metabolism is responsible for the majority of all phenotypes, then how do you treat the disease?

According to Seyfried, “Those nuclear transfer experiments were always present in the literature. They were considered anomalies. They were not consistent with the view that cancer is a nuclear genetic disease … but the observation was not interpreted in light of [being] the origin of cancer.

I bundled all those observations together in a new light, looking at the conclusions of those experiments in light of whether the results would support a nuclear gene-based theory versus a mitochondrial metabolic theory …

It was just interpreting a series of experiments in light of the origin of the disease and then asking what conclusion would these experiments support. Would it support the nuclear genetic theory of cancer, or would it support the mitochondrial metabolic theory of cancer?

In each of these cases, the results more strongly supported the metabolic theory of cancer than the nuclear genetic theory,” Seyfried says.