Even conventional medicine now recognizes the value of oxygen against cancer.
(but they STILL argue it’s wrong to give oxygen!)
Over 60 years ago, Otto Warburg published critical cancer information that has been ignored ever since. He showed that cancer cells don’t like oxygen: they use a different metabolic pathway, called glycolysis. It utilizes less oxygen and it requires more glucose to keep the process going.
In reverse, that means sugar helps cancer and oxygen holds it back.
What should you do? Avoid sugar at all costs and get your oxygen metabolism up. The minimum is exercize more and take co-enzyme Q10. If you already have cancer, adding oxygen therapies, such as peroxide or direct O2 (via tubes and insufflation) is a good option.
Of course it’s considered quackery and fought with fury by the industry that poisons and kills with impunity under the guise of “treatment”. They earn around $300,000 for every patient they kill or cure, it’s all the same to them.
However, there are some decent scientists out there, trying to tell the true story from the lies, bigotry and greed.
Last year I reported that Otto Warburg’s theory had been given a boost from modern science.
This week an interesting new study published has shown us that scientists are close to developing a simple way to measure oxygen levels in tumors, giving doctors a heads-up about what kind of treatment is best for individual patients.
It’s about time.
The new trend has surprising allies. Dr. Mark Dewhirst, a professor of radiation oncology at Duke University Medical Center, who co-wrote a commentary accompanying the new study, is all for it.
"One would think at first that lack of oxygen would make tumors unhealthy and easy to kill," Dr. Dewhirst said. "But actually, the opposite happens — tumor cells that lack oxygen become more aggressive and more difficult to kill."
“Tumors with lower oxygen levels even spread more easily through the body”, he said.
Conventional medical science has never bothered to ask why chemo works for some patients and fails dismally on others. It’s a question a child would readily ask but not these guys! Well, at least one answer seems to be that successfully treated patients had higher oxygen levels.
Basically, oxygen renders cancer cells more susceptible to radiation damage. Same for chemotherapy: the more oxygen present, the more damaging the chemo, ergo the less is really needed on an individual patient basis.
So wouldn’t it make sense to add in oxygen to the therapy, like we alternative doctors have been teaching for decades? Duh! But don’t hold your breath. That much progress will take another 20 years or more, if history is anything to go by.
But at least scientists are now looking forwards to investigating individual patients for their oxygen status. In the new study, the researchers tested a scanning technique called pulsed electron paramagnetic resonance imaging and used it in tandem with magnetic resonance imaging. The study authors said they were able to successfully measure oxygen levels in tumors in mice.
"The imaging that is described in this study provides all of the information necessary to evaluate oxygen levels in tumors as well as to examine underlying causes for the lack of oxygen," Dewhirst said.
"The fact that all of the imaging is completely non-invasive provides the ability to perform this measurement more than once, (meaning) this could be used to monitor the effectiveness of cancer therapy."
It’s not ready for humans yet. "Scaling up the method to make it suitable for use in humans will be a significant challenge, but not impossible," Dewhirst said.
[SOURCE: April 22, 2008, Journal of Clinical Investigation]
return to cancer section
index page |
