What makes this information different? Doesn’t everyone say
they have “The Answer?”
I will tell you the hidden story of cancer. In telling this story, you will discover how
cancer is contracted and how to avoid contracting cancer by making simple dietary
modifications. If you already have cancer or are in remission you will learn about
scientifically based recommendations to survive this heartless killer. Questions at
the top of your list should be: a) What is the science behind this discovery? b) Are
renowned physicians around-the-world impressed? and c) Do real-life results
overwhelmingly confirm success (an 80+% success rate)? What you are about to
discover uniquely satisfies all of these anticancer requirements.
America under siege
Cancer was once an uncommon disease affecting a small percentage of Americans.
In 1900 only 3% of the population died of cancer. But now, cancer has become so
common that virtually everyone knows someone afflicted with this terrible disease.
In fact for the average American, contraction of cancer isn’t the exception; instead,
it has become the rule. We’ve come to accept cancer as unstoppable, incurable,
and even a natural part of life. This perception is a tragedy since cancer is not a
natural disease for man and is preventable.
Everyone’s looking in the wrong place for the cure
Shocking to most people is the scientific fact that cancer is genetically recessive,
not dominant. The human body is highly resistant to cancer. An amazing professor
at Oxford proved previous scientist’s theories wrong and shook the cancer research
community to its core. Professor Henry Harris took normal tissue cells and fused
three types of cancer cells to them. Surely, he thought, the cancer cells would take
over the normal cells and “convert” them into cancer. Surprisingly, they grew normally.
In fact, contrary to popular opinion, in man, cancer takes several decades to develop.
Given this long incubation period, science can show us the way to destroy any initial
pre-cancerous cells and keep the cancerous ones from causing widespread damage.
If you think cancer has a genetic basis, then think again. Regarding the huge effort to
explain cancer with genetics, Dr. Robert A. Weinberg of M.I.T., discoverer of the so-
called oncogene (cancer-causing genes), and one of the world’s leading cancer
researchers, reversed his conclusions after discovering that, “[F]ewer than one DNA
base in a million appears to have been miscopied.” It’s not enough of a defect! His
exact words, “…Something was very wrong. The notion that a cancer developed
through the successive activation of a series of oncogenes [cancer-causing genes]
had lost its link to reality.” Dr. Weinberg reversed his opinion; calling the genetic
discoveries made thus far, “sterile”—the prime cause of cancer is therefore not
“genetic.” This was in 1998. Did you hear it? Probably not.
In 2006, the heads of the world’s largest cancer research center in Houston, Texas (USA) know cancer’s prime cause isn’t genetic: “‘If it could have happened [solving cancer with genetics], it would have already happened with genetic mutations,’ said William Brinkley, a senior vice-president at Baylor who says other research should take precedence over the cancer genome project…. Dr. John Mendelsohn [president of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center] states, ‘Any claims that this [genetic research] is going to be the key to curing cancer are not appropriate.’” Thus, the prime cause of cancer is not a genetic mutation.
Even if cancer “runs in your family,” there is real hope. Unfortunately, the geneticists have it backwards, attempting to force the facts to fit their genetically-based theories when they don’t fit the facts, because as Professor Harris demonstrated many years ago, cancer isn’t genetically dominant. Perhaps because everyone is looking in the wrong area explains why M.D. Anderson Cancer Center has a department of structural engineers. Why would a hospital require this? In short, because they have to build so many more spaces for additional cancer beds that it is more cost effective than using outside builders as would be expected. “Winning the war on cancer” really means pitifully, to build more beds for the increasing number of cancer victims. Where does this leave us? Where can we look for solutions? What about the popular nutritional solutions to fighting cancer?
The popular anticancer “solutions” don’t work
We are all diligently following the expert’s recommendations in the hopes of winning the war on cancer. Unfortunately, virtually none of what we have been told is based on science. Next is a list of supposed “solutions” along with the date of their published failures in the world’s leading medical journals. Many of us never hear of the retractions and consequently keep following methods that don’t protect us from contracting cancer. How many of these outdated, ineffective anticancer “solutions” are you still following?
(a) Fruits and vegetables, even the green leafy ones don’t protect against contracting breast cancer (2001).
(b) Fiber worsens colon cancer rather than helping prevent it (2000). The type of fiber found worthless to protect against colon cancer was the highly promoted soluble fiber. A high-fiber diet actually promotes cancer because it irritates your delicate colon. We don’t have the four stomachs required, like cows do, to digest cellulose.
(c) In 2001, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. (Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition), Rosalie Bertell, and Barbara Seaman published an article exposing truths about mammography that most women have never been told:10 “Contrary to popular belief and assurances by the U.S. media … mammography is not a technique for early diagnosis. In fact, a breast cancer has usually been present for about eight (8) years before it can finally be detected.…”
(d) Fish oil recommendations are worthless in preventing cancer and may be hazardous to your health. The International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL) 4th Congress, which met on June 4-9, 2000 in Tsukuba, Japan, reported the following:11 “…[S]tudies indicate that at the levels used, fish oil [comprised of omega-3 derivatives] decrease a wide range of immune cell responses (natural killer cell, cytotoxic T lymphocyte activities, lymphocyte proliferation and production of IL-2 and IFN-y (1,2))…”, “…Recent studies have indicated that relatively low levels of the long chain omega-3 fatty acids (EPA or DHA)…are sufficient to bring about some of the suppressive effects …”, “… This decrease (of inhibited lymphocyte proliferation and natural killer cell activity) causes increased cellular bacteria [infection] and impaired tumor cell killing.” Any substance causing impaired tumor cell killing ability is cancer-causing — the opposite of what we desire. With so many of us consuming fish oil, could this be another reason that cancer contraction rates are increasing instead of decreasing? Fish oil is worthless in preventing heart disease, too, and Harvard Medical School warned us years ago, but too few Americans listened.12 Consuming whole fish instead of fish oil failed, too.13 That’s why the Japanese have greater cancer rates and greater heart disease rates than Americans. Cancer has been Japan’s #1 cause of death since 1981.14 The popular press doesn’t often disclose these startling facts. We are misled again. In 2006 the omega-3 anticancer fallacy was exposed:15 “A large body of literature spanning numerous cohorts from many countries and with different demographic characteristics does not provide evidence to suggest a significant association between omega-3 fatty acids and lack of cancer incidence. Dietary supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids are unlikely to prevent cancer.” In the most comprehensive review to date, published in British Medical Journal, reviewing 96 trials, including 44 trials with supplements and 5 trials consisting of mainly ALA (parent omega-3) from plants like flax with the remainder being fish oil, confirms anticancer failure:16 “We found no evidence that omega 3 fats had an effect on the incidence of cancer and there was no inconsistency.” , “This systematic review assessed the health effects of using omega 3 fats (together or separately) on total mortality, cardiovascular events, cancer, and strokes in a wide variety of participants and found no evidence of a clear benefit of omega 3 fats on health.” Unfortunately, in spite of these facts, most physicians around-the-world still recommend fish oil to prevent both cancer and heart disease.
(e) Soy won’t protect you against contracting cancer, either. Everyday the properties of soy are touted by nutritionists, physicians, and popular health and beauty publications. The health magazines continue to extol its virtues. None of this is based on science. There is another, hazardous side to soy, based strictly on scientific research that you need to know (warnings published 1960 onwards). For example, The New England Journal of Medicine article, “Soybean Goiter: Report of Three Cases,”17 details three cases of infants developing goiter when they were consuming soybean “formula.” The condition was rapidly eliminated in two of the infants when the soy “formula” was terminated. The third child was cured when iodine was added to the diet. What did soy formula have to do with thyroid (goiter) problems? Soybeans are a source of isoflavonoids, including genistein and daidzein. Contrary to popular belief and what is often reported in the media, they are both hazardous to your health. The following comes from Biochemical Pharmacology, Vol. 54, 1087-1096, 1997: “Soybeans contain compounds (genistein and daidzein –the ‘active ingredients’) that inhibit [interfere with] thyroid peroxidase (TPO) which is essential to thyroid hormone synthesis [production].” Soybeans are NOT good for the thyroid! The popular so-called phytoestrogens genistein and daidzein are actually endocrine disruptors. Women around-the-world have been misled. What does soy “formula” have to do with the iodine deficiency? Soy contains phytates which “magnetize out” essential nutrients like iodine. Today, the FDA, America’s Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, lists over 270 records of soy in a database at “FDA PLUS Plant Database” (November 2004 Revision). Their website will shock you as you discover that soy is anything but a health food.18 This data base contains references to the scientific literature describing studies of the toxic properties and effects of plants and plant parts. They clearly know the potential soy-cancer connection concerning goiter [enlargement of the thyroid] from soy by their statement: “Feeding of soybean products and development of goiter.” I thank the excellent book published in 2005 titled, The Whole Soy Story, The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, by Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, CCN, for furnishing this website, and other exceptional harmful facts about soy.19 You need to know that infants fed “soy formula” consistently experience thyroid problems. There is an 18% higher incidence of autoimmune thyroid disease in infants who are fed soy formula.20 Soy harms your immune system, too. Back in 1975, the Canadian Journal of Biochemistry reported that soybeans actually weaken your immune system:21 “Soybean trypsin inhibitor was found to inhibit transformation of human lymphocytes….” Here’s why this happens. Trypsin is an enzyme produced by your pancreas used in digesting protein, and is critical for antibody production. An inhibitor is something that disables. Think of it like having one foot on the gas and another on the brake of your automobile at the same time. Your car’s engine would blow-up. So a trypsin inhibitor will irritate your pancreas, stressing it to produce hormones when it can’t, leading to decreased oxygenation from the irritation. Soy prevents the protein you eat from being fully utilized and digested. Your immune system can’t get fueled with proper antibodies and lymphocytes — a double whammy. Therefore, soy is cancer-causing to your pancreas and cancer of the pancreas is typically a death sentence. Because of bad advice, many women, especially, have decreased the amount of cancerfighting animal-based protein they consume in favor of soy. Resist this incorrect advice and minimize your chances of contracting both thyroid and pancreatic cancer.
Physicians are often out of date concerning the latest anticancer research
Many of my physician colleagues were shocked to discover these truths. How many of us saw these important medical journal findings reported in the popular press? Unfortunately, not enough of us. Don’t despair because there is an anticancer answer; it was discovered back in 1925 by Nobel Prize-winner Otto Warburg, M.D., Ph.D.
A genius to the rescue
Otto Warburg has been referred to as the greatest biochemist of the 20th century; the sheer number and magnitude of his discoveries qualify him as the most accomplished biochemist of all time.22 Dr. Warburg ranks with Galileo, Newton, Pauling, Feynman, and Einstein in terms of the importance of his discoveries. Dr. Warburg earned his Doctor of Chemistry at Berlin University in 1906, after initially studying under the great German chemist, Emil Fischer. Warburg then studied medicine and earned his Doctor of Medicine at Heidelberg University in 1911.23 His father was a famous physicist and university professor, and highly influenced young Warburg’s analytical ability. The famous biologist (and Nobel Prize-winner), Hans Krebs, tells us in his 1981 book,24 that Warburg had formed his life’s ambition to cure cancer (Dr. Warburg’s mother died of cancer) prior to his graduation from the university, and that, “…[It] became his ambition to make a major contribution to research into cancer and especially to find a cure. Although he did not begin to work specifically on cancer until 1922, much of his earlier work appears in retrospect to have been a preparation for his fundamental attack on cancer.”25 In 1918, the year World War I ended, Warburg was appointed Professor at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology in Berlin-Dahlem.26 In the 1920s, he carried on the research on respiratory enzymes, certain vitamins and minerals that the body requires for the utilization of oxygen in the cells, which eventually earned him the Nobel Prize in 1931. Today, these vitamins and minerals are termed “coenzymes.” In or about 1930, a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation was used to establish the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Cell Physiology in Dahlem, a suburb of Berlin. Dr. Warburg was appointed its director in 1931, and he remained there for the rest of his career.
Recognition of the Promise of Warburg’s Discoveries
In his 1931 presentation speech for Dr. Warburg’s Nobel Prize, Professor E. Hammarsten of the Royal Caroline Institute, member of the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, made clear what he believed to be the groundbreaking nature of Dr. Warburg’s anticancer discoveries: “….The medical world expects great things from your experiments on cancer and other tumors, experiments which seem already to be sufficiently far advanced to be able to furnish an explanation for at least one cause of the destructive and unlimited growth of these tumors.”
The Nobel Committee clearly expected the medical world to benefit through Otto Warburg’s vital discoveries about cancer. Unfortunately, politics intervened and cancer wasn’t eradicated.
Dr. Warburg Fostered Other Nobel Prize Winners
It is also worth noting that three of the scientists who studied and worked under Dr. Warburg’s tutelage—Otto Fritz Meyerhof, Hans Adolf Krebs and Axel Hugo Theodor Theorell—went on to win Nobel Prizes for their own discoveries—an unprecedented accomplishment. Dr. Warburg was one of the first cancer researchers and his insights and discoveries were incredible. Despite his early successes and honors, Dr. Warburg continued to make major fundamental discoveries throughout his later years as well, capping off an amazingly fruitful 60-year career in research. In addition, Dr. Warburg often created new tools for his research. For example, he discovered how to measure the pressure of oxygen in a living cell by developing a special manometer to measure the partial pressure of oxygen (pressure attributed to oxygen only)—a very important development that led to his discovery that low oxygen concentration and pressure always presaged the development of cancer. His insight in the area of experimental biochemical technique was singular. Dr. Warburg never lectured students, never served on committees, and never performed administrative work. He preferred to be regarded as an artisan―a highly skilled technician—and selected his staff on their technical ability only.
Dr. Warburg’s training influenced by physics—not medicine
Dr. Warburg’s father was a noted physicist and Warburg learned to solve medical problems in the manner of a physicist. His training and background were very different than his contemporaries or today’s cancer researchers. Maybe this deficiency of training is the root cause of today’s cancer researcher’s failures.
Opposition to Warburg’s Research and Arbitrary Rejection by the Scientific Community
One might assume that Warburg would be required study for all medical students, especially cancer physicians. But this turns out not to be true. In spite of his accomplishments, no important biochemist or scientist has met with so much controversy and resistance, nor has acceptance of his work been so long delayed. Their jealousy of him got in the way of stopping cancer cold. As any internet search will show, Otto Warburg’s results in anticancer science aren’t well publicized and are rarely even mentioned. Even after half a century, Dr. Warburg’s discoveries haven’t been utilized in any significant way by today’s medical researchers. The majority of medical researchers and scientists simply haven’t heard of him or of his startling experimental results. As incredible as it may sound to someone outside the scientific and medical worlds, even the American National Cancer Institute has failed to pursue Dr. Warburg’s work to its practical implementation.
The importance of Dr. Warburg’s achievement was that he isolated the functional prime cause of cancer. Rather than working on a theoretical level too far removed from the physiological realities of cancer to be able to provide practical therapies and preventive programs, he described the actual conditions in the cells that set up and cause cancer, and by doing this, made it possible for others to later develop functional, practical ways to inhibit the development of cancer. Dr. Warburg spent the last 50 years of his life placing a significant emphasis on cancer research. It is appalling that no significant principle out of his numerous discoveries has been utilized by the U.S. medical research community for cancer prevention, treatment and remission retention. Despite the expression of opinions disputing the direction and validity of Warburg’s work, no scientist or researcher has ever disproved the validity, correctness or applicability of these important discoveries to the prevention and cure of cancer. Even today, medical consensus often has little to do with science. Politics has squandered the efforts of many cancer researchers. Let me reiterate:
No scientist or researcher has ever disproved the validity, correctness or applicability of Warburg’s discoveries to the prevention and cure of cancer.
Dr. Warburg’s Staunchest Supporter – The American National Cancer Institute
One important cancer scientist never wavered in his support for Dr. Warburg’s discoveries about the prime cause of cancer. In 1937, Dean Burk became a co-founder of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the United States. He headed its Cytochemistry department for over three decades. From 1950 until 1969, Burk spent most of his summers in Berlin, translating Warburg’s works into English. Burk himself wrote more than 250 scientific articles, and he won the American Chemical Society’s Hillebrand Prize in 1953 and the Gerhard Domagk Prize in 1965 “for distinguishing the differences between a normal cell and the one damaged by cancer.” Dean Burk co-authored with Hans Lineweaver the most frequently cited paper in biochemistry, “The determination of enzyme disassociation constants” (Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1934(9). At the National Cancer Institute since 1939, Dr. Burk retired as head of cytochemistry there in 1974. Dean Burke’s work was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.27 While other scientists became increasingly focused on aberrant genes and viruses as the supposed source of cancer in man, Burk continued to give full credit and credibility to Dr. Warburg’s discoveries about the formation of cancer cells. Burk never agreed with those who had replaced the search for truth with the more fashionable and fund-generating genetics research. Dr. Burk supported Dr. Warburg throughout his career and lifetime. Many universities, like Harvard, Oxford, and Heidelberg have awarded Dr. Warburg honorary degrees in recognition of his accomplishments. Unfortunately, a practical anticancer solution wasn’t available in Warburg’s time, like it is today.
The Prime Cause of Cancer as Discovered by Otto Warburg, M.D., Ph.D.
Brace yourself. We have become so accustomed to being told that “someday” we might discover what causes cancer, and that cancer is the major medical mystery of our modern time, that you might find it hard to believe the following. Otto Warburg discovered, and clearly stated, the prime, most basic cause of cancer:
TOO LITTLE OXYGEN TO THE CELL
“We find by experiment about 35% inhibition of oxygen respiration already suffices to bring about such a transformation during cell growth.”28
That’s it! It sounds very simple, doesn’t it? Just 1/3 less oxygen than normal and you contract cancer. Based on meticulous experiments that he and many others verified numerous times, Dr. Warburg discovered and stated that the prime, number one cause of cancer is simply too little oxygen in the cell (hypoxia). It gets worse because once a cell becomes cancerous, it can’t return to normal, it must be destroyed.29 When I first encountered this information, I didn’t believe it. Even now, there is still no one who is more shocked than I am! Educated in highly complex mathematics, engineering and physics, along with probability and statistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I have also studied biochemistry and physiology. I doubted that the anticancer solution could be so simple. So I spent the next three years trying to prove it wrong. The more I researched the more solid this finding appeared to be. Instead of finding evidence to prove Dr. Warburg wrong, the opposite occurred; everything I found published at the Houston Academy of Medicine’s library and even M.D. Anderson Cancer Center’s Medical Library lent more support and proof that Dr. Warburg was correct. No one believes it at first glance and I don’t expect you to believe it, either. That is, not until you see all the evidence. Then you will. Uniquely, Dr. Warburg’s discovery gives us the most powerful anticancer answer ever.
Today’s cancer researchers know this yet can’t solve the problem.
To my amazement, this cancer/oxygen connection information was published numerous times in current cancer journals. For example, in 1993, it was stated that “…[T]hat tumor oxygenation as determined with this standardized procedure appears to be a new independent prognostic factor influencing survival in advanced cancer of the uterine cervix, and, “The Cox proportional hazards model revealed that the median pO2 and the clinical stage according to the FIGO are independent, highly significant predictors of survival and recurrence-free survival, and in 1999, “Tumor oxygenation affects the prognosis of head and neck cancer independently of other known prognostic variables.”30 Obviously, today’s cancer researchers know lack of oxygen is related to cancer and its spread independently of any other cause, but they have no idea where to start to solve the cellular oxygenation problem. Even television producers understand the oxygen/cancer connection. The 2006 television series, “House, M.D” on Fox featured a cancerous child and specifically chose to tell of her low levels of oxygen – just 94% in the blood. Normal blood oxygen levels are 98-99% oxygen. At 94% oxygen there is much less oxygen that can be transported into the cell. Once the oxygen reaches the cell it needs to enter it and impeded tissue transfer is another potential problem, too.
Just 1/3rd less cellular oxygen = cancer
Just by decreasing a cell’s oxygen content by about one-third, cancer is automatically induced. Nothing more is required for cancer to develop. Surprisingly, you won’t feel anything is wrong. This is why so many people develop cancer and are shocked because aside from having low energy, they didn’t feel sick. Few modern researchers have fully understood Dr. Warburg’s discovery, and none of them have discovered the practical solution to solving the oxygen deficiency – probably because they don’t know where to start. Ingesting hydrogen peroxide, calcium supplements, fish oil supplements, massive amounts of omega-3, ozone, or so-called “oxygenated water” won’t solve the cellular oxygen deficiency. No one has been able to advance Dr. Warburg’s discovery until now. This lack of understanding explains many of the misunderstood biochemical activities related to cancer that waste precious time and lead virtually nowhere. Only Dr. Warburg’s anti-cancer discovery predicts so many never-before-explained real-life results.31 We shall return to these discoveries later. First, let’s proceed with cancer/lack of oxygen experiments. Since this cause isn’t publicized outside of the medical journals, I want you to be aware of it: Dr. Warburg’s discovery was verified numerous times both in turning normal cells cancerous and showing that cancer doesn’t develop in highly oxygenated areas. Suprisingly, it was American physicians that conclusively proved it in 1953 and confirmed it in 1955!
They also noted, on page 535 of their publication that once damage is too great to the cell, then no amount of oxygen will return the cell’s respiration back to normal—it is forever doomed to a cancerous life. This is why prevention is the ultimate solution to never contracting cancer.32
** This is Wonderful News—Finally There is Real Hope ** In 1953 American physicians confirmed it was possible to prevent a “respiration impacted” precancerous cell from becoming permanently cancerous tissue IF oxygen deficiency was stopped early enough & in 1955 American Physicians and scientists confirmed that intermittent cellular oxygen deficiency leads to cancer, utilizing a brilliant experiment with tetanus spores.
Secondary cancer causes
Virtually every supposed cause of cancer mentioned today in the health and nutritional press is a secondary cause. Secondary causes include things such as environment, chemical carcinogens, environmental and medical radiation, transfats, food additives, the chemicals in cigarette smoke, viruses, and even genetic mutations. There are innumerable secondary causes of cancer, and minimizing them and their harmful effects can be helpful in preventing cancer. But endlessly pursuing new secondary causes, like smoking, without explaining specifically what common effect they have on the cells has never, and will never, lead researchers to a real cancer cure. Dr. Warburg cautioned us again and again about wasting precious time pursuing secondary causes. Make no mistake about this, the thing every secondary cause of cancer has in common with every other one is that it leads, directly or indirectly, to insufficient oxygen in the cells. Therefore, if we directly address the question of how to get sufficient oxygen to the cells, we will have minimized the danger from every type of secondary cause.
Great news! We can keep the tumor benign, not cancerous
While researching the cancer-oxygen connection, I was bothered by the fact that I could never get a clear definition from pathologists about what differentiates a cancerous tumor from a noncancerous
(benign) tumor. The cells of both tumors demonstrate essentially the same “mindlessness”—lost structure. Years ago, I had hypothesized that a benign tumor stays above the critical threshold of oxygen deficiency needed to become cancerous—a relationship parallel to that of a normal cell remaining normal by staying in a highly oxygenated environment. It’s all a matter of degree of respiration impairment.
I was right: Dr. Warburg had already verified and published this fact in 1925 in, The Journal of Cancer Research; I simply had not seen it yet. Here’s the important point:33 “[T]here has again arisen the tumor type—benign or malignant, depending upon the duration of the oxygen deficit.” What an opportunity to remain cancer-free! Dr. Warburg’s genius was unprecedented in making these seminal discoveries regarding the metabolism of cancer.
The differences between malignant and benign tumors are differences in degree [of compromised respiration – DURATION of lack of oxygen] rather than kind.
To summarize: Just 1/3 less oxygen than normal and you contract cancer.
The next question: How Do We Guarantee Maximum Cellular Oxygenation?
The educational portion of this section along with references is gratefully provided by: Prof. Brian Scott Peskin, B.S.E.E., M.I.T., Founder: Life-Systems Engineering Science with Amid Habib, M.D., F.A.A.P., F.A.C.E., Clinical Researcher © 2006 Brian Scott Peskin and Pinnacle Press.