Life in a small town, The Inner Struggle

World Views & Models That Work (part II) …

Mary Poplin

Further on the topic of world views and reality. Once again I am quoting from Mary Poplin, from her book “Is Reality Secular?” She does such a good job I am not going to muck about with a work of art …

so I just decided to stop with my own opinion and just strongly recommend that you go to Amazon.com and pick up the book, just 10 bucks for the Kindle version and worth every penny. Please read it and pass on the information, the “model”, to those you care about.

This is from Mary Poplin’s, “Is Reality Secular?: Testing the Assumptions of Four Global Worldviews” (Veritas Books) (on p. 76). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

*****

Old-earth special creation.

Old-earth creation proponents look at the seven-day story more in terms of geological epochs or as a narrative framework for interpreting the origins account as did many of the early church fathers.55

They accept the traditional dating of the universe and earth but do not accept evolution as an adequate explanation for the origins of life.56  Some point out that the fossil record does basically follow the same order as listed in the “generations of days of creation” in Genesis, while others will disregard the apparent chronology.

These scholars use scientific evidence to argue for the existence of God and believe that scientific ideas are evident in the Bible but that not all these biblical passages are to be interpreted literally. Old-earth creationist and Orthodox Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder is a physicist, earth scientist and theologian whose science degrees are from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

His early scientific work centered primarily on the control of radioactivity. He is a popular and prolific writer on the “confluence of modern science and ancient biblical commentary.”57 He was influential in the conversion of famous philosopher Antony Flew.58

Hugh Ross

The most prominent old-earth creationist, astrophysicist Hugh Ross, has pulled together scholars across the scientific disciplines to develop the Reasons to Believe Institute.59 RTB has a large number of scholars working to articulate the latest discoveries to a well-educated audience who may or may not be scientists.

Their mission is to equip Christians “by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature.”60

Ross was the youngest person (at seventeen) to serve as director of observations for Vancouver’s branch of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. He is a prolific writer articulating a biblical creation model that is testable, falsifiable and predictive.61

***************************************************************
God or Material Origins

John Lennox

John Lennox asks the ultimate question that theistic evolutionists, intelligent-design theorists and old- and young-earth creation theorists ask: given whatever the materials, processes and laws one believes caused the universe to exist, where did or do the basic building blocks of the material world come from, and, in particular, where did information (coded in DNA) come from?

Lennox asks, “How much more likely, then, is the existence of an intelligent creator behind human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion ‘letters’—the longest word yet discovered?”65 DNA’s storage density alone has been found to be six powers of ten denser than flash-drive technology.66

Anthony Flew

Once an apologist for atheism, Antony Flew advised us to follow the evidence where it leads. In science, as in all human endeavors, scientists cannot afford to hold on to a priori ideological commitments (secular or religious) that may become blinders for themselves or others. In all these theories, none is any more dependent on faith than any other.

Most important, none of these five perspectives on origins and agency inhibits scientific inquiry or discovery. Quite the opposite, they all encourage it. Proponents of nontheistic evolution, theistic evolution, intelligent design, old-earth creation and young-earth creation all use the same scientific methods when they conduct actual studies.

John Polkinghorne

These highly politicized metaphysical battles over five distinct scientific theories about the origin and agency of life on earth cannot be solved on one side or the other using the scientific method alone. Cambridge physicist, theologian and former chancellor John Polkinghorne, an esteemed scholar of both science and religion, reminds us that metaphysical claims need to be defended with metaphysical arguments.67

Evolutionary biologist Michael Ruse admits the naturalist’s Darwinian evolutionary bias has political intent: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.

biologist Michael Ruse

I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. . . . Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.68

Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne describes the theist logic: We find that the view that there is a God explains everything we observe, not just some narrow range of data.

philosopher Richard Swinburne

It explains the fact that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains conscious animals and humans with very complex, intricately organized bodies, that we have abundant opportunities for developing ourselves and the world, as well as the more particular data that humans report miracles and have religious experiences.

In so far as scientific causes and laws explain some of these things (and in part they do), these very causes and laws need explaining, and God’s action explains them. The very same criteria which scientists use to reach their own theories lead us to move beyond those theories to a creator God who sustains everything in existence.69

This above is excerpted from Mary Poplin’s, “Is Reality Secular?: Testing the Assumptions of Four Global Worldviews”(Veritas Books) (pp. 76-79). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

That’s all for now folks. My point in retelling all this is to point the finger at the inconvenient truth that any world view that doesn’t include GOD inevitably results in a murderous totalitarian self centered society however it is manifested. These last two posts have been an appeal to authority supporting my own world view, but unlike the secularists, I am in no way appealing to my own self image and my own intellectual authority, my vanity and narcissism.

Today’s modern culture in the west  denigrates and belittles any one who disagrees with the prevailing view regardless of their proven integrity and intelligence and regardless of the empirical proofs offered. Today’s “brights” care nothing for truth, but rather seek license and avoid responsibility, and this worship of self and love of self always and everywhere results in the death of the innocent and the helpless.

Cheers

Joe

 

Standard
Life in a small town, The Inner Struggle

World Views & Models that Work …

 

Ballad Of A Thin Man”, Bob Dylan, from the album “Highway 61 Revisited”, (1965)

Cancer as a Metabolic Disease, Thomas N. Seyfried, 2012

So, slogging along between bouts of accounting, and IT frustration, I am recreating in the evening by reading my copy of “Cancer as a Metabolic Disease …”. It is slow going and were I not so interested in the “model” I might not be reading this book, it is definitely not a page turner.

On the other hand It also works way better than sleeping pills, so you win some you lose some. It is heavy going but understandable with a couple of years of university biology and chemistry under my belt and a wife who studied organic chem to whom I direct questions on occasion.

It is both discouraging in its recounting of the past 50 years and very encouraging of my fasting Keto lifestyle. I have posted snippets here and there when I found stuff clearly relevant to fasting and Keto, but for starters, a revisit to the Forward (by Dr. Peter Pedersen, Professor of Biological Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD):

*****

Peter Pedersen, PhD

Cancer persists as a major disease of mortality and is afflicting more people today than ever before. Few families remain untouched by this insidious and vicious disease. In fact, cancer is predicted to overtake heart disease as the prime cause of death in industrialized societies during this century (21st). …

The Nobel laureate, Otto Warburg, was the first to provide evidence during the early part of the last century for the involvement of disturbed respiration with compensatory fermentation (glycolosis) as a common property of cancer, thus perceived to be related to its uncontrolled growth and progression. Few subjects have been as controversial in the cancer field as Otto Warburg and his theory of cancer. … “

*****

And now we are reading Chapter Four “Energetics of Normal Cells and Cancer Cells”, and we find the following:

“METABOLIC HOMEOSTASIS: Homeostasis is the tendency of biological systems to maintain relatively stable conditions in their internal environment” and “This is especially important for humans that follow a feast/fast schedule of nutrient supply. Metabolic homeostasis within cells is dependent … on the energy supply to the membrane pumps. Hormones such as Insulin and Glucagon can regulate global system energy homeostasis in order to maintain steady energy balance within the cells of each organ.”

That is just the simple introduction to the chapter explaining how the above “Energetics” process takes place, at the microscopic level, in every cell and organ of our body, every second of every day of our lives. And if even a bit of it goes wrong then we die … in this case by Cancer … but there are many other killers opportunistically waiting for us, “the self”, to deviate from the “Manufacturers Instructions” and set off into the empty blank part of the map where lie “Dragons”.

And the complexity about which I am reading intuitively leads me to reject the hypothesis that reality is all just accidental random chemical processes. In my primitive ignorance I simply can’t accept the Material Naturalist or Secular Humanist view reducing everything to chemical accidents. The machinery is far too precise and complex to be an accident of evolution. I find myself coming up against the idea of irreducible complexity.

It seems that “Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”  Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy. Darwinism is just another mutation, a religion by any other name. Even Darwin didn’t believe what modern materialists and humanists believe.

**********

Further on topic the following is a direct quote from Mary Poplin, from her book “Is Reality Secular?” She does such a good job I am not going to muck about with a work of art …

” …  More recently, evolutionists point to genetic similarities between species to bolster Darwinian views of evolution. It has been widely reported that the human genome and that of the chimpanzee share about 95-98 percent similar DNA. This is used by material naturalists to bolster their arguments against the exceptionality of human beings in nature.

But why would we not expect God to use the same material for many different things? We use metal for children’s toys, skyscrapers, mechanical limbs and bombs. Rather, the more obvious question is how much then can the physical genome actually explain? While there are some obvious physical similarities between apes and humans, there are vast differences in our behaviors, histories and abilities.

This argument seems only to suggest that DNA studies may not be sufficient to describe the radical differences between the species. Why if there are such similarities at a molecular level are there so many differences in nature? No chimpanzee, ape or similar animal has ever set up complex societies, built houses, produced works of art and music, developed an oral or written language, or studied itself.

Where do these tremendous differences come from? Perhaps, as salmon scientist Ernie Brannon suggests, there is something more to the biblical explanation that God breathed his spirit into man and made him in his image than is thus far evident in the gene pool.

Intelligent design. On sabbatical in 1993, Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson began reading about the theory of evolution. From his position as a lawyer, he reasoned that the theory lacked evidence. He later wrote asking some troubling questions about Darwin’s theory.

From this beginning, Johnson attracted other scientists with similar concerns. These now form a group of scientists and philosophers who collectively refer to themselves as intelligent design theorists and scientists.

Biochemist Michael Behe, famous for the study of the bacterial flagellum, argues that certain biological systems would have to have been assembled in one fell swoop in order to function. His argument on “irreducible complexity” dovetails with the argument of philosopher William Dembski’s notion of “specified complexity,” revealing the impossibility of particular complex systems to have emerged in the manner described in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Stephen Meyer’s work suggests that the complexity of the DNA genetic code is evidence alone of a designing intelligence. Other ID advocates include both religious and agnostic scholars Antony Flew, Michael Denton, Jonathan Wells, Caroline Crocker, Richard Steinberger, Robert Marks, Jeff Schwartz, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Richards, David Berlinski and Phillip Johnson.

ID proponents scientifically analyze systems in astronomy, biology, physics and chemistry to determine whether the observed structures are most likely products of unguided natural selection, intelligent design or some combination. Like other scientists, they advance their propositions by inference to the best possible explanation and conduct experiments that arise from these hypotheses.

They have discovered new planets and worked on the finely tuned nature of the universe and earth, the initial conditions necessary to support life, the origin of irreducibly complex life including DNA transcription, the origin of major body plans in the Cambrian explosion, biological disparity and species diversity, and the processes of mutation, such as those involved in bacterial drug resistance.

EXPELLED

Intelligent design advocates hold prestigious degrees and have considerable scientific accomplishments but are often marginalized and sometimes even excluded from the scientific establishment in elite universities and other institutions. For example, in August 2013 a university president announced that the theory of intelligent design could not be taught in science classrooms.

Thus proponents who remain in universities work largely under the radar and keep their skepticism of Darwinian evolution and their metaphysical commitments hidden. Ben Stein’s popular film Expelled, though hotly criticized (by all the usual suspects), revealed a reality that ID proponents face often from the same people who paradoxically accuse the early Roman Catholic Church of persecuting Galileo for his doubts. (the coverage of and reaction to the movie “Expelled” are defacto proof of what Mary Poplin is writing about in her book. The Wiki article is a perfect example of media bias pretending to be impartial when reporting sources that disagree with their beliefs).

In an attempt to discount the academic rigor of intelligent-design theorists and their work, material naturalists often label its advocates creationists. The term creationist has suffered so much derision in the media that it makes it easy to dismiss ID out of hand without engaging the advocates’ scientific research and theory.

Unlike young-earth creationism, ID draws its metaphysics not from arguments about the age of the earth or man but from empirical scientific data revealing the design components that would be unlikely to have formed as a result of a slow process of evolution. Intelligent design advocates define themselves as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars seeking to understand the “prodigious evidence of design in nature.”

The Discovery Institute serves as the primary gathering place and think tank for intelligent-design advocates. They believe that the operations of the universe and the intricacies of living things are best explained by an intelligent, purposive design and reject theoretical propositions that solely material phenomena acting according to unguided processes brought the universe and nature into being.

toppling the religion of evolution …

Since 2001, over seven hundred scientists have signed Discovery’s Statement of Dissent from Darwinism, which reads, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The reason that ID refers to an intelligent designer rather than God is that some members of its community of scholars are agnostics, Muslims or Buddhists in addition to Jews and Christians. Even atheists like Nagel support their work as a viable theory. Nevertheless, one of the criticisms is that most intelligent-design theorists, in fact, do believe in God or at least that God is probable.

Philosopher of science and self-described “ex-Christian” Michael Ruse quips that their use of the words “intelligent designer” rather than God is “a terminological inexactitude.” Mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski, who calls himself a secular Jew, says of intelligent design theory, “I do not know whether any of this (intelligent design) is true. (but) I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.

Mary Poplin, “Is Reality Secular?: Testing the Assumptions of Four Global Worldviews” (Veritas Books) (pp. 73-76). InterVarsity Press.

The point of this is that believing and using the wrong models is dangerous. Dangerous behaviour based on faulty models kills people. We find that in every field from Engineering, to Aerodynamics, to Social Sciences, bad models invariably get people killed either by engineering system failures, or biochemical system failures.

The Material Naturalists, and Secular Humanists pushing these failed models are not the ones dying, and they don’t care as long as their models are not questioned.  Meanwhile, the ones doing the dying are us, the little guys in the street, the victims of guidelines and regulations and policies based on “an unproven theory” for the ego gratification and fat remuneration of policy makers and department heads and ministers? Yes Minister!

More to follow in the next post.

Cheers

Joe

 

 

Standard
Life in a small town

More on Cancer and Glucose … cancer and respiration …

Kojo No Tsuki” (Rentaro Taki), performed by Yo-Yo Ma, Michio Mamiya, & Patricia Zander, from the album “Japanese Melodies” (1990)

My interest in following up on “Cancer as a Metabolic Disease” is the preponderance of evidence suggesting that Cancer flourishes in a glucose rich bodily environment. Our modern western culture’s generally accepted wisdom on diet and medical care inevitably produces a glucose rich bodily environment.

Coincidentally, we seem to be experiencing an epidemic of cancer of all types with very little success in treating same with conventional treatment models. This nutritional, and medical model and the academic research interests related to these  models appear to have produced the highest disease rates for certain deadly diseases, and the lowest cure rates for those same diseases, in history. (IMAO, opinion only, not validated by research)

At the same time we have witnessed the development and proliferation of the most prestigious, prosperous and profitable sectors of health care, nutrition, government, and academia in Western history. These sectors’ prosperity is underlain by government’s ability to fund, through the use of “public” moneys, their preferred directions and interests in research, health care delivery, and manufacturing, ostensibly in the interest of “public” health, the largest sector by far of all government spending outside of compensation and benefits for government workers and management.

In nations lacking a prosperous “private” economy there is significantly less budget, less personnel at all levels, and significantly less staff and management compensation directed at these sorts of policy targets. This Western tapestry of interrelated sectors and interests is simply too large to be seriously considered as any sort of conspiracy of players, at least too large to be a human conspiracy.

Dr. Thomas N Seyfried,

Dr. Thomas N Seyfried,

However, it is hard to deny that fundamental to these developments is the modern religion of self, our modern culture of narcissism and self worship, our propensity to pursue personal prosperity and to exhibit “Me First” behaviour.

This critical conjunction of “self interest” makes it hard to imagine a better way of anonymously destroying humanity than what we are seeing taking place all around us at this time in our history.

Going along with this behaviour is a sense of: “let the “masses” look after themselves, unless there is a prospect of making revenue off them … what’s in it for me?”. Then self interest takes over as authority systems direct others … “for their own good”.

Stay on track, Joe! I have to remind myself that this is not about what is wrong and how “I” have to fix it. I have to remember that the inner struggle is about turning the sword of the imagination inward, to cut out the inner faults and bad habits, and not to turn outward to destroy the obvious evils without. Why is the default still to point out what is wrong “out there” when there is so much wrong “in here”?

So, what have I understood after getting through the first two chapters of “Cancer as a Metabolic Disease“? Well, … first of all I am always a sucker for detailed bibliographies and cited references. Here are the references pages for just Chapter 2. You can click on the images to get a larger version in another window if these are too small to read. The snippets follow …

So what have I gleaned from Chapter 1 and 2, well, here goes …

First, it became clear to me that the therapeutic action of some anticancer drugs operated largely through reduced caloric intake. Second, that reduced caloric intake could target the majority of cancer hallmarks. Third, that ketone bodies can serve as an alternative fuel to glucose in most cells with normal respiratory function. …” (Cancer as a Metabolic Disease, pp XV)

So my takeaway from this snippet is that following a carbohydrate reduced (and thus a glucose reduced), ketogenic, fat based diet, reduces the presence of glucose and increases the presence of ketone bodies, and that is good for overall health, but especially in reducing the propensity for development of cancer.

Many of the current cancer treatments exacerbate tumor cell energy metabolism, thus allowing the disease to progress and eventually become unmanageable. … The view of cancer as a genetic disease has confounded the problem and is largely responsible for the failure to develop effective therapies. The view of cancer as a genetic disease is based on the flawed notion that somatic mutations (gene mutations) cause cancer. Substantial evidence indicates that genomic instability is linked to protracted respiratory insufficiency. (ie. caused by damage to the metabolic process of cell respiration) (Cancer as a Metabolic Disease, pp XV).

In addition to the six recognized hallmarks of cancer, aerobic fermentation, or the Warburg effect is also a robust metabolic hallmark of most tumors whether they are solid or blood born. Aerobic fermentation involves elevated glucose uptake with lactic acid production in the presence of oxygen.  Elevated glucose uptake with lactic acid production is a defining characteristic of most tumors and is the basis of tumor imaging using labeled glucose analogs. … nearly all tumors depend heavily on glucose for survival.

Again, my takeaway from this is the necessity of a glucose rich environment for cancer to flourish. A ketogenic diet limits glucose levels in the body and effectively limits the possibility of cancer developing through controlling the production of glucose. Also, it is common knowledge in research circles that gene mutation is quite rare amongst healthy cells and certainly not even remotely prevalent enough to account for all the different cancers we are witnessing in the general population these days.

On the other hand, gene mutation as a result of damage to the metabolic process of cell respiration easily accounts for the frequency of cancer in all populations. It appears that the current model has the cart before the horse. It seems that there must be some other mechanism at work to support the cancer industry’s fascination with gene mutation as the primary cause of cancer.

Cancer Statistics ...

Cancer Statistics … from Cancer as a Metabolic Disease, pp 12 Chapter 1

“… Just as there are many causes of plague — heat, insects, rats, — but only one common cause, the plague bacillus, (so) there are many causes of cancer — tar, rays, arsenic, pressure, urethane, — but there is only one common cause into which all other causes of cancer merge, the irreversible injuring of respiration. An increased dependence on energy through glucose fermentation (glycolysis) was viewed as an essential compensatory mechanism of energy production for cell vitality following damage to respiration. … Warburg proposed with insight and certainty that irreversible damage to (cell) respiration was the prime cause of cancer.”

” … James Watson, who co-discovered DNA as genetic material with Francis Crick in 1953, recently suggested that more attention be paid to the metabolism of cancer. Watson also believes that the direction of cancer research in the United States is largely offtrack and misdirected at the highest levels. The absence of major clinical breakthroughs in the cancer war over the last 40 years and the death statistics … support Watson’s contention.

… the Warburg effect can be linked to impaired respiration and energy metabolism … respiratory insufficiency precedes and underlies the genome instability that accompanies tumor development. Once established, genome instability contributes to further respiratory impairment, genome mutability, and tumor progression.”

” I contend that most of the gene defects in natural cancers arise as downstream effects of damages mitochondrial function. (mitochondria are the cell organelles which enable cellular respiration). My hypothesis (Seyfried’s hypothesis) is based on evidence that genome integrity is largely dependent on the cell having sufficient mitochondrial respiration, and that all cells require regulated energy homeostasis to maintain their differentiated state.”

And thus endeth chapter the second. … more to follow as I dig deeper into this dense book.

Cheers

Joe

Rise Up

Rise Up

One of the things life has shown me is that whenever the majority of the chattering classes and the media and the academics and the government wonks are busy saying something is so, that is an almost certain indicator that it is NOT so — being on the wrong side of history is THE defining characteristic of all those opinion makers.

Standard
Life in a small town

Cancer as a Metabolic Disease …

In between bouts of accounting, and IT frustration, I am recreating by reading “Cancer as a Metabolic Disease …”.

It is heavy going but understandable, and both discouraging in its recounting of the past 50 years and very encouraging of the fasting Keto lifestyle. I will post snippets here and there when I find stuff clearly relevant to fasting and Keto, but for starters, from the Forward (by Dr. Peter Pedersen, Professor of Biological Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD):

Cancer persists as a major disease of mortality and is afflicting more people today than ever before. Few families remain untouched by this insidious and vicious disease. In fact, cancer is predicted to overtake heart disease as the prime cause of death in industrialized societies during this century (21st). … The Nobel laureate, Otto Warburg, was the first to provide evidence during the early part of the last century for the involvement of disturbed respiration with compensatory fermentation (glycolosis) as a common property of cancer, thus perceived to be related to its uncontrolled growth and progression. Few subjects have been as controversial in the cancer field as Otto Warburg and his theory of cancer. … “

and

The cancer field went seriously off course during the mid-1970s when many investigators began considering cancer as primarily a genetic disease rather than a metabolic disease. The metabolic defects in cancer cells were thought to arise as secondary consequences of genomic instability. Seyfried provides substantial evidence documenting the inconsistencies of the gene “only” theory.”

So this is way more enjoyable than following the daily news about Justin’s latest faux pas. I am just an opinion writer, a punter, a speculator, I have no hard evidence of malfeasance or malice. I have not done any actual research myself, I am simply reading about the work of others. But this is not my first rodeo, and a thorough knowledge of secular human nature based on 30 years experience in the Military, Corrections, and Government Health Care, has taught me that, absent genuine concern (aka Charity, or Love Agape) for the well-being of other people, we as humans often go to a dark, self centered place.

My cynical “opinion” (just an opinion piece, folks)  is that the scientific and pharmaceutical community have had the solid evidence about cancer as a metabolic disease right in front of them for a hundred years now and have chosen intentionaly to ignore that evidence and go down the rabbit hole of genetic causes and pharmaceutical solutions. Why?

Could it be that there are orders of magnitude of more rewards and resources to be had in genetic research and pharmaceuticals than in treating metabolic disease with inexpensive and effective dietary solutions? I have witnessed the path of cancer research as being a mighty gift that keeps on giving for my entire adult life, but none of that gift gravy train has accrued to the patients, the actual victims of cancer.

All of the billions in this gravy train disappear into the voracious mouths and pockets of academic researchers, pharmaceutical companies and government health departments. Again, who knows about motives and intentions? No one but God can know that stuff.  I don’t  believe this thought as a provable, “admissible in a courtroom” fact, it just looks like this might be one explanation which accounts for all the observed actions and results. Judgements about intentions and direction are outside our realm of knowledge.

We went to the moon, from zero to landing, in one decade. Where are the miracle cures and happy endings that these 5 decades of work and  billions of dollars should produce? We have been lavishing the lion’s share of our health resources on silos of executive remuneration and cancer research for nearly 50 years now and where are the results that all this effort should have been producing?

None! Nada! No cures or happy endings. Just toxic drugs and cruel surgery, whole libraries of distracting publicity and propaganda, and millions of dieing patients who are bankrupted in the course of their hopeless quest for a cure. Every run for cancer, every yellow daffodil, every Terry Fox clone, every publicity and media event are all about “MORE MONEY” for the “War on Cancer”.

All of these resources just disappear every year now for 50 years with no clear and open accounting and no results. It is all the secrecy and cover-up that provokes the curiosity about Who, What, When, Where, and Why, but you will never see anything about this in the mainstream media even though this is touted as their main job and responsibility, nah they would much rather go after The Donald on social media, than do real journalism. Can one even conceive of our national propaganda ministry, the Holy CBC, ever biting the hands that feed it? Are there bears in the forest? Is the Pope Catholic?  No, no, wait a minute, that’s for another post.

There have been chillingly few victories in this never ending war, a war that we are provably loosing every day. But the big winners in this tawdry melodrama are never the victims, the dieing patients and suffering families.

Think about it …

Cheers

Joe

 

Standard
Life in a small town

Diet, Micro-nutrients, and Health … Part Five Cancer & Ageing & other stuff …

Snow”, by Kobudo, from the album “Ototabi”  (2013)

Continuing in my series of posts, an overview of what I have found about nutrition and diet over the last 15 months or so, information sources which I have found helpful. As mentioned, your mileage may vary but my goal is to stay healthy, happy, and maybe get wise if I live long enough.  Anyway …

2 Keto Dudes

2 Keto Dudes

Well, life is interesting. I am excited by what I have been reading about the work of Dr. Thomas N. Seyfried at Boston College. First  we take a listen to one of the “2 Keto Dudes” podcasts featuring Dr. Seyfried. It is found at  http://2ketodudes.com/show.aspx?episode=113

This got me so excited that I immediately followed up on Thomas N. Seyfried at Boston College, found at:

https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/schools/mcas/departments/biology/people/faculty-directory/thomas-seyfried.html

Thomas N. Seyfried

Thomas N. Seyfried

Dr. Seyfried’s research program focuses on mechanisms by which metabolic therapy manages chronic diseases such as epilepsy, neurodegenerative lipid storage diseases, and cancer. The metabolic therapies include caloric restriction, fasting, and ketogenic diets.

Dr. Seyfried’s approach is based on the idea that compensatory metabolic pathways are capable of modifying the pathogenesis of complex diseases. Global shifts in metabolic environment can neutralize molecular pathology. In the case of cancer, these therapies target and kill tumor cells while enhancing the physiological health of normal cells.

The neurochemical and genetic mechanisms of these phenomena are under investigation in novel animal models and include the processes of inflammation, cellular physiology, angiogenesis, and lipid biochemistry.

Dr. Seyfried published a groundbreaking treatise entitled, Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer (Wiley, 1st ed., 2012). The treatise provides extensive information showing that cancer can be best defined as a mitochondrial metabolic disease rather than as a genetic disease.

This new concept has implications for the development of new non-toxic cancer therapies including the ketogenic diet. Experts in the cancer research field have praised this comprehensive study as one of science’s hottest topics. Amazon customer reviews.

Of the 10 pages of reviews, about 75% are 5 Stars. *****. That is extremely good for a high end medical book which requires significant neurons firing to make headway.

I have to say a little to the negative reviewers. First of all, it is well known that one can’t please everyone and no matter how good the message there are some humans who will find something to bitch about no matter who you are or what you are saying. Look what happened to Jesus Christ, the most perfect Man who ever lived.

As usual, there are always a few panning the book for all the usual reasons – like “It’s too expensive“,, “He is just pushing his diet“, “I didn’t think of this first, Oh Wah!” and so on. In this case I suspect that virtually all the negative reviews are from people who were looking for an authority which agreed with them, or were looking for a quick and easy fix for their particular problem.

For all those reviewers you have the whole established medical paradigm to fall back on. Hope that works for you. I would bet a good Keto meal that most of these nay-sayers never actually read the book all the way through but gave up as soon as the going got tough.

But death is a tough route … cancer sucks BIG TIME … so go with your feelings and see if the genetic cancer model, and radiation, and chemo works for you … who knows, you might get lucky and be cured without having to change your thinking.

I quote just one review here:

*****

“Cancer is an illness that directly or indirectly affects most people at one time or another. Thus, my interest in this book was motivated by a desire to learn more about recent advances in the treatment of the disease and the success that has been achieved especially in recent years with the well chronicled revolution in “precision medicine” and its underlying application of gene therapy.

However, I was stunned and somewhat disheartened to learn of the slow rate of progress in the treatment of cancer in spite of the monumental financial investment and the efforts of so many scientists and other professionals in universities, medical schools, and in the pharmaceutical industry.

As so powerfully and effectively described by the author of this book, slow progress in the “war on cancer” lies not only in the complexity of the disease itself, but also, and perhaps more importantly, on the non-universal recognition of some of the most basic and fundamental aspects of the cause of cancer.

The author takes the position that cancer is a metabolic disease, following up on the pioneering research of Nobel laureate, Dr. Otto Warburg. Seyfried’s review of the Warburg’s work is clear and compelling, even to a non-specialist, although a web search from time to time is helpful to fully grasp some of the more sophisticated concepts in biology.

The presentation and review of the author’s research as well as that of many other leading scientists provides a logical and clearly written account of the impressive body of data that continue to give validity to the “Warburg theory”. Accordingly, metabolic processes in normal and abnormal (cancerous) cells are compared with an emphasis on realistic models based largely on animal studies.

Supporting data are illustrated by figures and images that convincingly implicate metabolic dysfunction and respiratory insufficiency as the essential cause of cancer. Importantly, Seyfried then makes the strong case that it is the metabolic dysfunction that induces gene modification, now commonly recognized in virtually all cancers.

The important take home message, however, is that it is the metabolic dysfunction of the cell that drives genetic modifications-not the other way around. This is profoundly important with far reaching implications, especially for the management and prevention of cancer.

Indeed, in light of these results, it is a mystery to this reviewer why there is presently such universal focus on the genome in the development of drugs to treat what appears to be a metabolic disease. This seems to be a case of the tail wagging the dog, which would be OK, if the stakes were not so high for so many.

The last four to five chapters of the book emphasize the broader aspects of metabolic dysfunction in cancer and how an appreciation of this can lead to more humane treatments than presently is the case. The so-called “standard of care” overwhelmingly used at present emphasizes the application of poisonous drugs and toxic doses of radiation, which, as noted by the author, often engenders in patients a fear that rivals that of the disease itself.

In chapter 20 the author details the beneficial and therapeutic effects in cancer treatment of the ketogenic diet that takes full advantage of strategies logically linked to the scientific principals developed throughout the book.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in the origin and treatment of cancer. It is a challenging book, but one that rewards the reader with knowledge and contemplation about one of the great plagues in modern society with every turn of the page.

*****

Well, I am interested, and I went ahead and bought the book … yes, $120.00 Canadian might seem to some to be a little steep but often in life one gets what one has paid for. I have spent at least that much and more on a good night out on the town so in the big picture it is really chump change.

I will keep you posted on how I feel about this area of research after I have read the book,  or maybe sooner if it goes slower than I expect.

Cheers

Joe

You can always find an upside even in a bad situation. Never Give Up, Never Give Up, Never Give Up!

 

Standard