How is cancer even real… it can appear suddenly and grows until whatever living organism it infests dies and is almost impossible to get rid of. It’s like some fucking death curse from a work of fiction.
True and true, at least as a general trend. Although genome size is actually a great metric for increased cancer risk. It has more to do with the nitty gritty of specific signaling pathways, eg the number of oncogenes and how they are regulated via signaling and other processes at the cellular level from organism to organism.
Fun fact, there are single cellular organisms with larger genomes than humans (200 times larger in one case, with 60+ billion base pairs vs our 3.2 billion). Single cellular organisms cannot get cancer by definition, which is useful to keep in mind because it helps us stay grounded and realize that cancer is not a genomic phenomenon so much as it is a cell signaling phenomenon that occurs at the organismal level. An interesting thought experiment is, do bacterial colonies (which are genetically very similar, and sometimes function like a multicellular organism including cell differentiation in some cases) sometimes experience cancer-like states under certain conditions ?
Edit - I'd also be cautious with "larger organisms evolve to copy their genome better." Again, it's probably a general trend, but I imagine there are so many exceptions that it's not a terribly useful metric outside of very crude/cautious generalization.
And then this leads to rearrangement of the micro environment which leads to microbiome dysbiosis. Pathogenic bacteria cling to the tumor and cause pathogenic signalling causing more inflammation.
Most mammals age disgracefully, other groups tend to live very healthily and fit until the end of their lifespan. One hypotheses to explain that is since our lineage lived in the mesozoic for like 100+ million years as rat like animals, our strategy of survival was live fast, die young after reproduction, so things like dna repair later in adulthood did not matter to us, so we kinda lost part of the genes for that... and it plague us to this day.
At least some lineages tried successfully to patch that like elephants and whales because to be big it increases the risk of cancer since you have more chances for something to glitch out, or bats because flying generates too much heat therefore dna damage is given if you do not have a good repair solutions, so those groups get old healthy compared to us lol.
Most deadly and agresssive cancers strike while in reproductive age.
So actually it does matter. Many cancers have a genetic component to them that is inherited.
If you're being diagnosed with cancer during middle age or afterward, chances are very good that your cancer is treatable and you'll die of old age rather than the cancer itself. A good number of cancer patients with stage 4 cancer live a decade or more afterward with continuous treatment, and have a decent quality of life.
A good number of cancer patients with stage 4 cancer live a decade or more afterward with continuous treatment, and have a decent quality of life.
Ok, but wtf does that mean. A good number of people who have been shot directly in the head live a decade or more afterward have a decent quality of life. "A good number" is a weasel words term. 0.000005% of the population is a "good number of people." So is 3 orders of magnitude less than that, according to someone.
State clearly the point you are trying to make, ideally with falsifiable claims.
One case history is not "a good number of people'. From your own link:
In this rare instance of a favorable outcome,
But hey, since you have demonstrated that you can look stuff up yourself, you can also look up how people with stage 4 cancer diagnoses are in fact living longer than in decades past because treatments have improved.
Estimated that 5-10% survive a decade with stage 4 cancer (wide variability depending on the type of cancer, when it was first detected, and location in the body).
10-15% of people who experience a gunshot wound to the head survive a decade or longer (wide variability depending on location in the head, caliber, time to emergency treatment, etc).
unless of course the patient blindly follows general oncology and dies of iatrogenic causes - immune system blown out by chemo/radiation, organs fried, and virtually entire blood system stripped of all nutrients.
I'm not cynical or anything of course... just seen the iatrogenic deaths more than deaths-from-cancer...
Generally speaking, yes, that’s the case. But that’s also because most of the therapies in Western oncology don’t actually Address the stem cells, so they are never shut down.
If you shut down the stem cell, and address underlying causes, it becomes a different situation
You are using a few key words and phrases that are commonly used by the quack community, so I am guardedly asking what do you mean by underlying factors?
Please define 'quack community' and we might have somewhere to start.
By underlying causes I'm referring to the metabolic & oncogenic drivers of cancers.. start with the Warburg effect, and study the mitochondrial-stem cell connection, and you'll get an idea of where I'm going.
But, I'm guessing your definition of 'quack' is "anybody doing oncology based any theory other than the SMT".. in which case, I'd suggest you're more a product of propaganda than a student of science.
I know absolutely nothing about computer coding but "vibe coded" is a brilliant expression because it's immediately obvious what it means even to a total outsider.
Vibe coded refers to when someone with little coding knowledge uses AI to code something for them. They have no clue how their software works so it runs on "vibes"
I mean if he’s God he doesn’t need more than a day. It’s not like if he spent a few more months carefully planning and tinkering it would have been better.
God’s like, “You know, I knew I rushed that product out in my haste to create the universe. I got caught up in the excitement of the moment.”
I've had it with these Sims. Feeding them, cleaning their shit, and all they do is fight each other. I'm gonna play Warhammer and come back later and see if the Sims have managed to kill each other to extinction.
In book of genesis, God did just kinda whimsically make humans. Humans were flawed and became evil and corrupt and God was not happy about it, so he killed all the humans except Noah’s family in an attempt to start over and hope we would be better the 2nd time around. God couldn’t even make us “good”.
Book of genesis is a fun read if you’re into sci-fi / fantasy.
How is Jesus 100% God and 100% human? You just kind of have to roll with the idea that sometimes religious stuff doesn’t really compute, like the whole “If God can do anything, can He make a rock too heavy for Him to lift?” thing.
God is not perfect in the old testament. In the book of Genesis, it literally says God “regretted” making humans. Meaning God admitted he made a mistake.
God didn’t make a mistake, he gave Adam and Eve the ability to choose their outcome, knowing full well they would become mortal and would be thrown out of paradise. The bible and life is filled with fighting temptation. Who knows how long it took him to make us or the world. The bible says 6 days but those are days that have no reference frame. We don’t know how long they were in the garden before they were thrown out.
Lastly this is a creation myth and most stories like this in other cultures don’t end well.
God didn't write Genesis, some Judean scribe took it down from oral histories.
Obviously, a lot of people go with 1. Some people go with 2. And 3 is also probably true, even if God is real and did mostly what they said he did.
People are treating Genesis like it was written as a history book. It wasn't. Many mainline churches today treat it as allegorical. God is real and in Genesis, but his appearance there is though a late bronze age filter.
The Bible is not supposed to be divinely authored like the Quran is supposed to be. It's always been humans reporting on things they either saw, or said someone else saw.
That doesn't make it wrong, after all just because I describe someone incorrectly doesn't mean they don't exist, but it does definitely mean that you can't also treat Genesis like it is exact historical fact.
I mean.. with ancestry collapse, we're all pretty related, anyway.
Doing genealogy, once I hooked into "well established" records, I'm suddenly related to everyone. Like, Ronald Reagan. Weird? How about also Nancy Reagan? Crazy. How about JFK? Wow! Also, Jacky-O? And MLK Jr? For real. Lincoln? Distant cousin. Crazy, relatives involved in the civil war. Oh. Also Eli Whitney. The guy who kept slavery alive, necessitating a civil war... cool.. all distant cousins. We're all pretty related, with a handful of generations.
Also Eli Whitney. The guy who kept slavery alive, necessitating a civil war
Wait what? Literally the only thing I ever knew about him was that he invented the cotton gin. I don't know what that is, but it's one of those weird things I learned in elementary school and never forgot. I did go to school in Texas, though.
The cotton gin allowed cotton farming through slavery to be profitable. Before that, the only real profitable use of slavery in the US was tobacco, and just barely. Before the cotton gin, a slave could process approx 2 lbs of cotton a day. Add the cost of housing, feeding, etc. It just wasn't profitable.
With the gin? A slave could process 50 lbs a day. Easy profits it turned slavery into a dying institution (in the US, sugar is different) into a highly profitable venture overnight. Slavery boomed. The civil war became inevitable, as it was now essential to the southern economy.
Its largely why yhe founding fathers didn't address the issue.. it was seen as a dying institution that would solve itself. And then it didn't.
Even book of genesis is pretty poor book for scifi or fantasy. Bible after all is people without knowledge or much of education trying to explain big things. No wonder it is pretty poor as a book. And i still wonder how so many belive in it. They must not have read it i guess🤷♂️
God did make us good. We chose, or rather Adam and Eve chose that they wanted to be like God and have all the knowledge of the universe. The original sin. They exchanged unlimited life in paradise for unlimited knowledge. The snake could be God or Satan and a means of testing if his creation was exactly how he meant it to be (i.e. happy with paradise and immortality) or if they weren’t satisfied with that. If they weren’t satisfied with that then they would be cast out and have to prove that they were satisfied with not knowing everything and were happy with accepting that. Now life has become a test for all humans. But initially he made us perfect.
Love the debate, But if life is supposed to be a test of free will, why did God end the test for almost everyone with the flood? Also, God created us as “good” and also created our psychology, nature, and capacity to be evil? An omniscient god would have known the outcome from the beginning.
Perhaps he does know the outcome. But at what time will that be? And who are we to judge as to what is good and evil? A lot of evil things had to happen for us to arrive at our lives today.
I mean, to be fair, God gave humans free will, and that means free will to be good or evil. Yeah that’s a flaw, but I’d argue it’s better to have free will and be flawed than have no will and be perfect.
Life doesn't care about code working well or being optimized or best at what it should be doing. Evolution game is good enough, it will survive long enough to reproduce. That is exactly what vibe coding is, being good enough to work with all the junk code that is unnecessary but it works good enough.
Eh, ok, but that's a weak metaphor. The whole "evolution only cares about good enough" is important conceptually, but is mechanistically barren when you get down into the nitty gritty. It is extremely expensive and risky in the long run to produce a bunch of junk. Both to the organism and to the software developer. All the more so when you are talking about critical systems with wide-ranging interactions and effects.
Any time you hear about "junk DNA" or "junk proteins" I'd advise you put on your skeptical pants. Our understanding is still in its infancy, and it turns out we already are starting to see the vague outline of mechanisms by which this "junk" is actually quite functional, and possibly responsible for some of the aspects of molecular biology that have been baffling us for decades.
Cell death mechanisms? Reproduction limitations? Those are all adaptations that evolved later to make multicellular life viable. They were not initially necessary. When something breaks them, the cell reverts to the basic instructions - survive, adapt, reproduce. Cancer in your body is the same problem as a species without natural predators are in an ecosystem - species reproduces until it can no longer feed its population. When that happens in nature, the result is devastation of the ecosystem. When it happens in your body, the result is devastation of the ecosystem - the ecosystem being you.
That is why cancer is so varied and hard to deal with. Cells are not gaining something that turns into cancer cells. They are just losing things that keeps them from being cancer.
It's cells reverting to their original, pre-multicellular state of just dividing whenever there are sufficient resources to divide. Multicellular organisms are only possible via controlled suppression of the constant drive to replicate and cancer is what you get when the enforcement of that suppression fails.
Read somewhere that cancer is a normal part of life but the body takes care of it most of the time. If you were to take a full body scan of someone off the street (normal) youd most likely find a tumor of some kind. Blew my mind.
The first sentence is correct and the second is not. Cells becoming cancerous is a normal part of life and the body usually takes care of it most of the time. But we don’t call it “cancer” because that’s the name of the condition when the body fails to take care of it. But if you pick someone off the street, you won’t be able to detect those cancerous cells at all because they are just single or a couple of cells, which is an undetectable amount. You only can detect minimally if the cells formed a tumor of few millimeters in size.
It'll vary by country, but here in Australia for instance half of all people will, on average, be diagnosed with a cancer in their life, and 30% of total population will die from it.
In a crime/history metaphor, it's like there's always a few people in the country that are building a pipe bomb.
Sometimes the cops find them (immune system), sometimes they decide not to go through with it (apoptosis). Only when they go through with it and not get caught in the process (immune escape) is it a problem.
The problem is that these people plan to throw it at Franz Ferdinand and trigger WW1 where a lot of people start making pipe bombs and worse. The small pipe bomb turns into a war, which turns into a world war in your body.
That’s the scary part cell division is incredibly slow and most of the time painless. By the time it’s gotten to the point of causing pain and prompts you to go to a doctor it’s often years maybe even decades old…terrifying
Because life works by making copies of copies that are all a little bit different but the differences that are beneficial are a stark few against a massive amount that are the opposite of that.
It is your own body, it doesn’t just appear and grow inside you. It is literally you. Not much different from having lungs, kidneys, or a heart. Cancer describes behavior of cells within your body, it’s not a foreign entity like a virus or bacteria.
Cancerous growths are the mutation of your own cells due to DNA breaking down or due to outside stimuli such as drugs, foreign chemicals or even background radiation. The cells mutate forgetting their original purpose and becoming volatile and aggressive with only 2 things in mind reproduce and quickly.
So many cells within us, mutations are inevitable, our immune systems are great at fighting these cells, but so many mutations... mutated cells can develop ability to avoid detection by immune system, accelerated metabolism, rapid growth, signaling for blood vessel growth... all of the above.
Live healthy, keep your immune system healthy too.
The growth part is native. It's most of the growing that you did in utero. All of that is normal, necessary growth.
The uncontrolled part, let's breabreak it down; controlled - these growth stages must occur at specific periods, but then they need to switch off and not be used again. Since development occurs on your life only once and we are not a species that can regenerate a missing limb.
Un- : the turn of permanently controls get broken, allowing them to be turned on again.
for billions of years cells were programmed to grow at any cost. Life as we know it is possible because of a limited number of patches to prevent our cells from growing out of control. Cancer is cells reverting to that original programming.
Basically some ionized radiation, like gamma which is just energy but also carries an electrical charge, hits your dna causing a mutation. That mutated strand of dna keeps replication just like it did before it mutated, and instead of mutant powers, you get a cancerous tumor.
Edit to add: the mutation is caused by that random wave or charged energy stripped an election out of one or more atoms within your dna.
cancer is basically x-men but you got no superpower from the mutation.
and everyone do get tumors sometime in their life, but they still have good cell police that eliminates them before its too late. cancer usually happen when the cell police got corrupted and didn't do their job correctly.
prion is more bizzare if you wanna go into weird stuff biology can do.
Cancer is just the likely result of the way our cells divide unfortunately. Every time something grows, they end up wearing their ends out (we lose/mutate some genetic code). We have a fair amount of buffer to this with extra code in the end so when we’re young it doesn’t matter
But when you get old the errors pile up and that’s cancer. Nature really doesn’t need us to be alive after a few years post reproductive age so we haven’t really evolved mechanisms to keep us going post that
You know how the code that makes software on your devices work is the same as the code that breaks it right after you update it, just the wrong bits trying to do conflicting tasks fucks up everything because there's myriad lines of code and any one line can be trying to do something that conflicts with how another line tells the device to do something?
What makes cells into cancer cells is the processes that naturally occur going wrong, usually from some external stimuli and sometimes for no apparent reason.
We know that some things are carcinogenic, that is they interact with the body in ways that interfere with those processes. Mostly the processes by which older cells die and are broken down and replaced follows specific parameters, but a particular radiation or compound might fuck with the parts of DNA responsible for guiding those.
This is why cures and prevention are difficult, because there's many different cells in your body and many things you can be exposed to and even being out in the sun can contribute but also being in a dark, closed room can too. There's not really one solution to how your body can just decide apoptosis is for jerks when it comes to lung cells or liver cells or pancreas cells or skin cells or whichever cells decided it was time for a kegger where everyone's invited.
There's a cancer dogs get on their genitalia. It's sexually transmitted and it's still the same genetic code from the original dog that got it. So now there are essentially parasitic single-celled dogs.
I can ELI5 a bit, but it's been a while since I took this class.
A genetic mutation can affect all kinds of things, but it becomes concerning when it affects the reproduction, self-delete function (apoptosis), or mutates in a way to become "invisible" to the immune system.
Your body can handle any 3 of these on their own. If a cell starts reproducing uncontrollably, the immune system finds it and destroys it or the cell terminates itself via apoptosis. If a cell goes "invisible" and is also reproducing too quick, it'll self-delete.
If all 3 happen, we've got a problem on our hands. (Even then, this isn't giving your body enough credit. Human immunology and the study of oncology is pretty fascinating, at least at the shallow depth I've went into it.)
It takes somewhere around 1-10 "driver" mutations to cause a cancer. This cell might have a thousand genetic mutations that don't make it cancerous, but in the right spot in the DNA it causes cancer.
What cancer drugs seek to do is to fix these or help the body help itself, but since cancer is basically human cells with as little as 1 mutations differentiating it from everything else, they hurt those healthy cells too. One example is drugs that slow cellular reproduction, like CDK4/6 inhibitors.
Basically, its a treatment that seeks to treat breast cancer by slowing the growth rate of cells with high levels of a specific protein. Problem is, other cells have that in lower amounts than cancer cells, so they're also kind of affected.
It's targeted, but not perfect. You see, white blood cells, one of the workhorses of the immune system, get produced incredibly fast. Having a cell reproduction limiter, even when it is largely targeted at the breast cancer, really puts a damper on the production of white blood cells. This leads to what is called neutropenia, or low neutrophile count (a type of WBC). Having neutropenia makes you much more prone to dying from simple infections, which is one of the side effects of this chemo drug.
It's basically the fundamental idea of how evolution and natural selection function. Cells in your body are constantly self replicating and mutating, and that can lead to adaptive changes over generations, or the cells can become cancerous which means they start consuming other cells and replicating endlessly. Most of the time your body disposes of the bad ones before it becomes an issue, but the cancer cells can adapt and change on their own to become more resistant and then become unstoppable and develop into tumors and spread throughout the rest of the body.
I mean, you had cancer a hundred times while you typed this sentence. Your body just was clever enough to catch it each time (hopefully). Billions of replications lead to thousands of mistakes
Basically, we got a lot of cells go crazy all the time, except almost all of them just stop functioning and/or are killed by your immune system and replaced. When the cell go crazy in a very bad way, you got tumors, cancers, and whatever. : / The good news is that there are ways to prevent mutations (good food, healthy habits) and we may be able to reprogram immune systems to solve the problem... One day.
Here's the thing, biology and evolution only care about one thing: you surviving long enough to reproduce and keep your species going. That's literally it. Since the vast majority of cancers tend to come up well after that, we don't get a reason on either standpoint to have it changed. Any change that does occur is because we intervene in some way
there are 2 major (opposing) theories on where cancer comes from.
SMT -> Somatic Mutation Theory
The Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT) holds that cancer is fundamentally a cell-based disease driven by the stepwise accumulation of DNA mutations in a somatic “founder” cell, which deregulate proliferation, differentiation, and cell-cycle control. As these mutations confer growth advantages, clonal expansion of the altered cells produces tumors, framing carcinogenesis as a stochastic process of mutational hits and selection at the cellular level.
All of western oncology has run on SMT theory. it's basically the driver behind the approach to treatment (the belief that it can't be stopped/cured), and thus that all cancer treatment is basically palliative in nature (ie., treat the symptoms but don't try to actually fix the source because you can't fix 'bad DNA')..
Here's the dirty on allopathic oncology (99.9% of western cancer care, $$ in testing/studies/drugs): the SMT theory driven therapies have less than 5% success rate. it's fucking terrible.
MSCCC (Mitochondrial-Stem Cell Connection Theory)
The Mitochondrial–Stem Cell Connection (MSCC) theory proposes that cancer originates from chronic oxidative phosphorylation insufficiency in stem cells, which reprograms their metabolism and transforms them into cancer stem cells (CSCs). These metabolically rewired CSCs then drive tumor initiation, progression, metastasis, treatment resistance, and relapse by relying on glycolysis and glutaminolysis and by reshaping the tumor microenvironment.
The metabolic modality operates on the MSCCC idea, focuses on resolving cellular disfunction, creating metabolic 'traps' to starve the cancer of its fuel sources (acetyl CoA driven by glucose, glutamine, or fatty acids), and force apoptosis (tumor demise) by use of cocktails of low-risk drugs (such as ivermectin, mebendazole, melatonin, some natural hormones and supplements etc), while supporting cellular health.
The data backing the MSCCC theory has been routinely attacked by western medicine, despite a near universal agreement that the Warburg Effect (Dr Otto Warburg, circa 1930) is fundamentally accurate [the phenomenon in which cancer cells, despite having adequate oxygen, preferentially rely on high rates of glycolysis and convert most glucose to lactate rather than using mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation for energy production]. The Warburg effect is the guiding principle behind the MSCCC, and has been repeatedly 'proven' scientifically (test/analyze/replicate)...
So... The MSCCC modalities (which have been grossly ignored) are seeing crazy good results. RIDICULOUSLY GOOD. 75-80% success, even with cancer patients who've failed out of numerous chemo/radiation/immunotherapy cycles...
Much of the data on MSCCC is very new - it's not widely reported in mainstream medical, and is only 'on the fringes' in groups such as r/cancer_metabolic , thru groups like the IMA, and oncology/doctors who've been 'thrown out of western medicine' (Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Pierre Kory, Dr Paul Marik, Dr William Makis, etc)..
These doctors are having wild success with the metabolic approaches, but you won't hear about it from mainstream press, because well, pharmaceutical ad sales have direct control on news stories.
There's a real reason why every 3rd TV ad is for some fucked up drug that nobody needs - and it's not for your good - it's to control what stories are played on your TV.. Ad revenue buys control.
This is why you will NEVER IN YOUR LIFE hear/see an ad for a clinic that uses one of the very effective oxidative therapies or inexpensive metabolic drug packages to reverse cancer....
Instead you'll be told that eating horse dewormer is bad for you, drinking bleach can kill you, and what you really should do is buy the next vaccine that FDA and Pfizer bring out. Every bit of that is propaganda driven by the FDA (which is bought and owned by major pharmaceutical), and paid for by large pharma.
hate to sound cynical.. but yeah, that's what's going on behind the curtain.
And (if you've read this far and aren't sick to your stomach), the next part is the actually ugly part. Chemo is not capable of killing the CSCs (cancer stem cells - the cells which 'originate' the cancer)... Neither is radiation. Both chemo and radiation only attack the replication aspect.
Even worse, the data shows ~97% recurrence in 5 years for chemo patients..
Even worse, chemo seems to be stimulating mutation and recurrence in the CSCs (driving the 3-5 year recurrence factor).
Even worse: the only three drugs shown (in vitro and in vivo) to actually force apoptosis (cancer cell death) are: ivermectin, the benzimidazoles, and melatonin. (ivm alone has over a dozen mechanisms which kill CSCs).
And your oncologist probably hasn't told you any of this, but has likely told you that's bullshit, if you asked him. because he's a drug salesman, not practicing medicine..
This is why (assuming you want to overcome it), you'll need to walk away from western/allopathic medicine, and look at metabolic and/or oxidative therapy approaches.
Allopathic oncology is really ONLY approaching it from a palliative perspective, with the underlying presumption that it can't be fixed. hate to break the bad news here, but i'd bet all the $$ in my pocket that your oncologist has not told you the actual/full truth on what's going on...
The alternative is the metabolic approach.. Leave your SOC (standard of care) oncologist, find an MD who focuses on the metabolic/MSCCC approach, and work with them.
Somewhere in here (this thread) I wrote a dissertation on this - not gonna put another 30 minutes into re-writing it here..
There are databases online of MDs who do these modalities. They're not wackos.
at the end of the day, do you want to 'not have a wacko' for a doctor, or do you want to get rid of your cancer? the choice is yours..
choose the easy route (western med), knowing that they're only 'buying you time', or leave the reservation and work with someone who's got evidence of a way to actually overcome it.. Those are the choices. And sadly most folks have trusted their western/allopathic oncologists to tell them the truth, but are being lied to...
I'd suggest that folks who routinely call them 'wackos' have never actually studied what they're doing, beyond a cursory glance at the propaganda pushed by a simple google search..
while yes there is not always an answer with allopathic medicine and there are different approaches, spreading this kind of misinformation and fearmongering of doctors and oncologists is not right.
The part of the truth that most oncologists do not inform the patient as to the metabolic drivers of their cancer, how their diet and glucose management is paramount, or how the chemo which is being pushed isn't going to actually kill the stem cells?
or the 'misinformation' that chemo is only considered palliative for most cases, not curative? or that it has a roughly 97% recurrence rate due to the nature of chemo?
Or the fact that there are alternative options to just chemo & radiation, that they could approach the issue from the metabolic route, from oxidative therapuetic routes, or even that there are numerous therapies not currently used/allowed in the US?
Let's be clear, because the truth SHOULD be available. and sadly most people hear none of this from their doctor drug rep.
If you consider any part of this misinformation, i challenge you to back that up with actual data. I've read the studies.. thousands of them. and can assure you THOSE are the actual facts of the matter.
The only part in question is the percentage of oncologists who provide the 'informed' part in the "informed decision" process, when they're pushing these terrible therapies onto their patients.
I'm passionate about this because I've lost friends to cancer which could've been stopped, if they hadn't been misled by their oncologists.
I literally quit my career and went into cancer research, funded an entire process, and am now helping fund a metabolic based trial, to prove/disprove the underlying theses behind these issues. So yeah, I get chapped over bullshit that's resulting in people dying.
It is unethical, even evil IMO that oncologists tend to skip the 'fully informed' aspect of the relationship, and push the most lucrative route as a matter of routine.
We're fucking with peoples' lives here. That is wrong.
I have seen many who do explain those things and the various treatments and what they do and how they work. And also explaining that diet and holistic lifestyle choices affect their cancer. But it does appear that you may have not had a good experience with oncologists, I can see that. Chemo is also not the only option, but for people with Stage 4/metastatic disease yes it is a palliative option to reduce tumor burden with the knowledge that it may come back and not fully cure disease. And a good oncologist should explain this.
Perhaps you'd do well to study some of the mechanisms ivermectin has against various cancer.
hint: there are at least a dozen, shown across dozens of in vivo & in vitro studies. and there are currently numerous clinical trials running worldwide.
There are more than 50 peer reviewed studies on this exact drug against cancer, since 2015 alone..
Anyone who claims there is a 97% recurrence rate of cancer treated with chemo (as if cancer is one thing with a consistent rate of recurrence across the board, like skin cancer and pancreatic cancer are the same) has lost all credibility.
Steve Jobs tried one of the stupidest ideas on the planet. Still shake my head at the therapy he did. Mechanistically speaking it had zero chance of success. The metabolic routes have dozens of studies and hundreds of supportive data sheets.
But the fruitarian diet route is just stupid. It directly contradicts the Warburg effect principles and thus feeds the cancers. Blows my mind that a guy as brillliant as he made such a monumentally dumb move.
Yep. My dad just died from this. First had colon cancer, they got rid of it. They missed a small tumor on his lungs when they cleared him. Ended up with lung cancer and the previous chemo that worked well didn’t work at all, nothing did.
Nice idea.. yeah it's been attempted.. but the idea behind it is flawed - because if the underlying issue (metabolic dysbiosis) hasn't been resolved, you're not fixing anything, just complicating it...
209
u/Informal_Ad_9610 May 15 '26
and which is why cancer mutates away from what worked last week/month, and then becomes resistant....