"The current idea that cancer is a genetic disease is based on ideology, not on the science any longer,"
— Grace Price🧬 (@travelingenes) March 8, 2024
- Dr. Thomas Seyfried in Cancer: A Food-Borne Illness pic.twitter.com/htzZiTX2su
Thank you to Wejolyn for the above tweet.
So cancer is not the result of genetic mutations but about metabolic disease. Sounds promising to me. If it's metabolic, changing one's metabolism and diet seems the best route.
A New Way to Fight Cancer: Stave It!!! He says that we don't always have to CURE cancer, but we have to learn how to live with it.
Here he talks about "Cancer as a METABOLIC DISEASE: How to Prevent and MANAGE CANCER."
3:58. And that has to do largely with the misunderstanding of what the nature underlying mechanism is for the disease. And as I said, it's a metabolic disease that's driven by two fuels: the sugar glucose and the amino acid, glutamine. And these two fuels are the ones that drive the dysregulated cell growth, which is ultimately the definition of cancer. So when people say, "What is cancer?" It's dysregulated cell growth, cell division out of control.
What is it driven by? It's driven by a form of energy that doesn't require oxygen. Oh yeah, well, what doesn't require oxygen? Fermentation mechanisms don't require oxygen. What are these fuels? These fuels are the sugar glucose, glutamine. Well, that seems simple. How come nobody's targeting these fuels to manage cancer? Because they think it's a genetic disease not a metabolic disease.
Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management and Prevention of Cancer. Student Edition https://t.co/443HG8EE84 via @amazon
— St. Michael, the Archangel (@aveng_angel) March 9, 2024
