# Cancer Cure?



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I've known about a ketogenic diet being a possible cure for cancer for a few years. Cancer needs glucose to grow, so by eliminating sugar from the diet, it may be possible to kill or at least stop the growth of cancer. There's some good videos on youtube about ketogenic diets and cancer, so do a search if you are interested in them.

But the reason I created the OP is because of an article just published at mercola.com. This is very exciting information.



> However, I believe that if you're on a ketogenic diet and you _add _3BP, you can likely reverse just about any cancer.  mercola





> 3-Bromopyruvate (3BP) a fast acting, promising, powerful, specific, and effective "small molecule" anti-cancer agent taken from labside to bedside NIH





> In researching his book, Travis had long discussions with Ko about sugar, and its ability to promote cancer. Her research â much of it still unpublished â shows that simply giving too much sugar to a cell will provoke it to start exhibiting all the phenotypes of cancer.
> So glucose by itself, at least within the model she was using, can start to shift cells toward cancer. It does this by upregulating the expression of a critically important enzyme called hexokinase II, which by itself, is responsible for the Warburg Effect.



3BP has been known to be beneficial for several years, but seems to be only available at a few clinics. I might be wrong about this, but that's the impression I get. I found these cases of cancer that were treated with 3BP at Dayspring Cancer Clinic.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Read the book "_Recalled By Life_" by Anthony J. Sattilaro.

Good synopsis here:

http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/remembering-michio-kushi


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Darren said:


> Read the book "_Recalled By Life_" by Anthony J. Sattilaro.
> 
> Good synopsis here:
> 
> http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/remembering-michio-kushi


Here's a quote from a reporter who had interviewed Sattilaro (on Amazon comments)



> His adoption of an extremely low protein and no-sugar diet (and by that is meant no fruit juice, no honey, so sweets period, not just sugar) gave him relief from the pain and sent him into remission.


Perfect description of a ketogenic diet.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It goes back to the macrobiotic diet from China via Japan.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

It was an interesting article until it said "Mitochondrial Function Determines Cancer Growth and Repression "

The thing is, your blood will always have some sugar in it because your body makes it in order to nourish every cell in your body. You cannot entirely starve the cancer cells because they can use this sugar themselves. 

The thing is, I *DO* know that free radicals increase the risk of many illnesses, including cancer, and that eating too much sugar increases the free radicals in your blood stream. So high blood sugar really CAN increase your risk of cancer. 

I don't really rust this article because it is exaggerating something that needs no exaggeration: I think they are trying to boost their income for Mercola.com. And, that is a shame because I cannot sort out the good info from the inaccurate info.

Ah, face it. I am, in general, a cynic, plain and simple!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Terri said:


> It was an interesting article until it said "Mitochondrial Function Determines Cancer Growth and Repression "
> 
> The thing is, your blood will always have some sugar in it because your body makes it in order to nourish every cell in your body. You cannot entirely starve the cancer cells because they can use this sugar themselves.
> 
> ...


Read the book. It doesn't push supplements.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Everything in balance.
Isn't that the wisdom of all good philosophies?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Terri said:


> It was an interesting article until it said "Mitochondrial Function Determines Cancer Growth and Repression "
> 
> The thing is, your blood will always have some sugar in it because your body makes it in order to nourish every cell in your body. You cannot entirely starve the cancer cells because they can use this sugar themselves.
> 
> ...


But since you are restricting carbs, even with glucose being created by gluconeogenesis plus glycerol from fat metabolism, there isn't enough glucose for the cancer cells. There might be enough to keep them alive, but the hope is it is low enough to kill them or at least stop their growth. Then the 3BP finishes them off. At least that's the hypothesis.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Darren said:


> Read the book. It doesn't push supplements.


But the website apparently does. At the bottom of the page it says "Thank you! Your purchases help us support these charities and organizations"

I believe the purchases also support the website itself. The fact that the addy ends with .com would tend to support this.


----------



## Maura (Jun 6, 2004)

Cancer loves sugar. Unfortuneatly, when someone has cancer and especially if undergoing chemo, their friends all bring over sweet treats because &#8220;you need the calories and there&#8217;s nothing else I can do to help you&#8221;. 

Cancer also loves an environment depleted of oxygen.

The induction portion of the Atkins diet is ketogenic. Check that out. Also, Dr. Klenner decades ago had success using vitamin C. http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/198x/smith-lh-clinical_guide_1988.htm


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Terri said:


> But the website apparently does. At the bottom of the page it says "Thank you! Your purchases help us support these charities and organizations"
> 
> I believe the purchases also support the website itself. The fact that the addy ends with .com would tend to support this.



The book has nothing to do with the website. It was written over twenty years ago. You can buy a copy off ebay cheap.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Can't be true, we all know the only cure is to poison and burn a person while charging a ton of money for it!


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Dr. Linus Pauling published a paper about liposomal vit. C and cancer. Not sure what his stance on sugar was. I think the combination of treatments, no sugat and vit. C, show great promise. 
I thought an oxygen environment would often trigger tumor growth i.e. a person is operated on and the tumor explodes??????


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

I have no idea what you mean about the connection between oxygen, surgery, and exploding tumors. The usual oxygen level in the blood stream is 98%-99%.

I WILL say that when a surgeon removes a tumor he tries hard to get all of it, because if there are cancerous cells traveling in the body it is bad, as the cells can reproduce and start more tumors where ever they end up.


----------



## sss3 (Jul 15, 2007)

Curious to what the rest of you think. If cancer were cured, what would happen to all the big cancer centers? Oncologists, other Professionals trained to treat this.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

sss3 said:


> Curious to what the rest of you think. If cancer were cured, what would happen to all the big cancer centers? Oncologists, other Professionals trained to treat this.


It's precisely the reason I believe a full cure for cancer would never be made public. Big pharmaceutical companies and doctors would lose billions


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> It's precisely the reason I believe a full cure for cancer would never be made public. Big pharmaceutical companies and doctors would lose billions


Yeah, heaven knows *ALL* those people could *KEEP* a secret! :shocked:

Mon


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Terri said:


> I have no idea what you mean about the connection between oxygen, surgery, and exploding tumors. The usual oxygen level in the blood stream is 98%-99%.
> 
> I WILL say that when a surgeon removes a tumor he tries hard to get all of it, because if there are cancerous cells traveling in the body it is bad, as the cells can reproduce and start more tumors where ever they end up.


Back when my father had cancer, a surgeon opened him up, did nothing and things went very quickly downhill. In various conversations, some with vets, some with non-medical, the thought has been expressed that cancer seems to exlode in a situation like that. Whether it is because it is "disturbed" or exposed or whatever. Not just my observation, others have expressed the same thought.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

NOW I understand! I thought you were talking about a tumor going "pop".

If a tumor is ignored, then pieces may break off and seat themselves elsewhere. Tumors need to be dealt with ASAP or they can seed themselves throughout the body. So instead of one tumor a person may have 3, more or less, and then if pieces of the new tumors break off there would be 9-odd, and then 27 tumors, and then 80-odd, and then.... etc. 

Also, if the tumor is damaged but not removed then it is more likely that cancer cells can break off and enter the blood stream. 

At least that is my understanding. If by "disturbed" you mean damaged, that is bad as cells are more likely to have been detached from the tumor


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

I believe that during a cancer surgery, if the surgeon opens up and sees that there is EXTENSIVE cancer, and they feel that there is likely nothing to be done to help the patient, they just close the person up. Faster recovery so the person (hopefully) can enjoy the remaining time. 

Likely the tumor seems to "explode" (grow like mad) because of the stress of surgery, both emotional and physical, encourages growth.

Mon


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Terri said:


> It was an interesting article until it said "Mitochondrial Function Determines Cancer Growth and Repression "
> 
> The thing is, your blood will always have some sugar in it because your body makes it in order to nourish every cell in your body. You cannot entirely starve the cancer cells because they can use this sugar themselves.
> 
> ...


I've seen plenty of cynics. If you were one, you'd be asking for studies left and right, and likely not be on this forum at all. 

You don't need to trust any one article really, but it is a good introduction to the remedy and some details surrounding it. Now you can use that information for further research and get a good comprehensive idea of the cure. I wouldn't recommend sticking to once source at all, unless you can sort out the information yourself. 

In any case, you seem to be doing very well on your analysis of the article so far. No matter if they're selling supplements or not, information can be accurate or inaccurate regardless. Half the time it can be due to common ignorance as well. Just stay cautious.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

.....


----------

