Today’s cancer treatments are based on an outdated and problematic cancer theory – but there is good news…
It’s been over 50 years since Nixon declared a War on Cancer, predicting to end cancer by 1978. Nixon’s declaration of “war” empowered congress to budget billions of dollars for research.
What have we gotten for the hundreds of billions of dollars and five decades of research? We’re still using toxic chemotherapy and radiation as standard therapies, we’re measuring life expectancy in weeks and months and not years, and it’s unclear how much of the perceived increase in life expectancy is actually due to earlier detection (e.g. starting the clock earlier, not make it run longer).
The current, mainstream theory of cancer our struggling therapies derive from is called the somatic mutation theory (SMT) – the belief that cancer is fundamentally due to genetic mutations.
The SMT has been proven erroneous by hundreds of studies (most too recent to produce approved treatments), such as the many by Tufts professor Michael Levin, notably “Endogenous Voltage Potentials and the Microenvironment: Bioelectric Signals that Reveal, Induce and Normalize Cancer“. In that study, Levin demonstrated that, using bioelectricity, he could induce, reverse and normalize cancer in mice that had genetic mutations the SMT perceive as causing 100% fatal cancers.
Hundreds of other studies also debunked the SMT’s supposed role of mutations, providing clear evidence that cancer is actually a bioelectrical malfunction, albeit with many possible tipping point drivers.
In the 2021 retrospective study, “A bioelectric model of carcinogenesis, including propagation of cell membrane depolarization and reversal therapies“, biologists review the current body of knowledge and propose readily available “reversal” therapies (which I’ll get to…).
Over 97% of SMT Pharmaceuticals Don’t Make it to Market
Very few SMT cancer drugs are approved (less than 3%). Of those that do, only about 20% are effective, and when they are effective, the results are usually temporary (we call this “durability”). To make matters worse, when cancers eventually come back, they often do so with a vengeance (having built up therapeutic resistance). These patients are “refractory” or “chemorefractory” – meaning they no longer respond to therapeutic interventions (or at least for the SMT treatments).
But I Have an Excellent Oncologist…
An oncologist can only be as good as the best treatment available to them. No matter how great your oncologist is, the regulatory path from new idea to FDA approval is 10-15 years – thus, today’s standard treatments do not represent the cutting edge of research elucidations, and these are SMT based treatments.
However, some oncologists are using “lab bench to bedside” therapeutic interventions and *claim* success rates with Stage 4 cancers that are well beyond the potential of current SMT based treatments.
The Good News
Cancer theories such as the Metabolic Theory and the “Tissue Organization Field Theory” (TOFT), we believe, provide more accurate definitions and elucidations about cancer as a disease.
For metabolic therapy concepts, we recommend watching the below video, “Cancer is a metabolic disease” – Dr Thomas Seyfried reveals stunning non-toxic cancer therapies.”
Recommended reading:
- “Can the Mitochondrial Metabolic Theory Explain Better the Origin and Management of Cancer than Can the Somatic Mutation Theory?” (2021) Thomas N. Seyfried and Christos Chinopoulos
- “Bioelectrical approaches to cancer as a problem of the scaling of the cellular self” (2021) Michael Levin
The information provided is not meant to be medical advice. We give this to you so you can show your oncologist and discuss whether these treatment strategies are safe and appropriate for you.
Therapeutic Protocols
The links below may be considered required reading for anyone interested in learning about the most promising emerging pipeline therapies.
- Keto Protocol – for tumor-based cancers, the keto protocol is key – see this dog study for details and outcomes (dog studies are predictive for humans). The main take-away is cutting out all simple sugars “starves” cancer cells (tumors use anaerobic glycolysis for energy). So eliminating sugars and maximizing blood oxygen severely inhibits / blocks tumor progression. Results in that dog study speak for themselves. Here is a 2021 retrospective study for keto in humans (which has been controversial and which the study addresses).
- Also note use of hyperbaric oxygen, IV antioxidant therapy and an antiobiotic to block insulin levels – these are key treatments for better outcomes
- Electrical grounding – lifestyle change
- 15 min must see film – Clint Ober (“discover” and “evangelist”) of grounding as a therapy. Ober ran the first studies on grounding, investigating its effect on inflammation (which is considered the underlying root of cancer, aging, and many autoimmund and countless other
- Ion Channel Drugs – Pharmacological targeting of ion channels for cancer therapy: In vivo evidences – retrospective study reviews both pharmaceutical and natural therapies that target ion channels (which have been shown to “cause” cancer growth, as opposed to genetic mutations). You could share this study with your oncologist or visit a clinic offering similar treatments.
- Cold water therapy – this well-written article (by a doctor in easy to understand terms) explains cold water therapy’s role keeping the body in a state of “ketosis” (sugars no longer used for energy, thus depriving tumors of fuel). She uses a famous case study as an example and cites sources for further evidence.
Other Therapies, Protocols, Information
- Metabolic / mitochondrial theory of cancer
- Detoxification of home and body (there are local companies that will test your home for EMF’s, toxins, air quality, etc – just Google it). The idea is: we know cancers can be caused by environmental factors – therefore eliminating them is key to mitigating the disease state progression,.
- Regarding body, holistic physicians often have detoxification protocols. See protocol this Florida practice offers. Read their many other articles. Their protocol seems to lack some of the TOFT / bioelectrical principles – that’s a discussion beyond the scope of this list
What Do I Do With All of This Info?
Nothing without your doctor. Maybe a second opinion from a clinic near you with experience practicing emerging cancer treatment strategies (again, such as this one in Florida).
