It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Potential 'universal' blood test for cancer discovered

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese
I only try and make people think and hopefully they will go and then educate themselves, If people can't go and learn stuff themselves then whats the point,

www.google.com.au...:en-AU:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&gfe_rd=cr&ei=rjrYU63eHKaN8Qez44H4CQ&gws_rd=ss l




The Prime Cause and Prevention of Cancer
Dr. Otto Warburg
Lecture delivered to Nobel Laureates on June 30, 1966
at Lindau, Lake Constance, Germany



There are prime and secondary causes of diseases. For example, the prime cause of the plague is the plague bacillus, but secondary causes of the plague are filth, rats, and the fleas that transfer the plague bacillus from rats to man. By the prime cause of a disease, I mean one that is found in every case of the disease.

Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. Almost anything can cause cancer. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. The prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen (oxidation of sugar) in normal body cells by fermentation of sugar.

All normal body cells meet their energy needs by respiration of oxygen, whereas cancer cells meet their energy needs in great part by fermentation. All normal body cells are thus obligate aerobes, whereas all cancer cells are partial anaerobes. From the standpoint of the physics and chemistry of life this difference between normal and cancer cells is so great that one can scarcely picture a greater difference. Oxygen gas, the donor of energy in plants and animals, is dethroned in the cancer cells and replaced by the energy yielding reaction of the lowest living forms, namely the fermentation of sugar.

In every case, during the cancer development, the oxygen respiration always falls, fermentation appears, and the highly differentiated cells are transformed into fermenting anaerobes, which have lost all their body functions and retain only the now useless property of growth and replication. Thus, when respiration disappears, life does not disappear, but the meaning of life disappears, and what remains are growing machines that destroy the body in which they grow.

All carcinogens impair respiration directly or indirectly by deranging capillary circulation, a statement that is proven by the fact that no cancer cell exists without exhibiting impaired respiration. Of course, respiration cannot be repaired if it is impaired at the same time by a carcinogen.

To prevent cancer it is therefore proposed first to keep the speed of the blood stream so high that the venous blood still contains sufficient oxygen; second, to keep high the concentration of hemoglobin in the blood; third, to add always to the food, even of healthy people, the active groups of the respiratory enzymes; and to increase the doses of these groups, if a precancerous state has already developed. If at the same time exogenous carcinogens are excluded rigorously, then much of the endogenous cancer may be prevented today.

These proposals are in no way utopian. On the contrary, they may be realized by everybody, everywhere, at any hour. Unlike the prevention of many other diseases, the prevention of cancer requires no government help, and not much money.

Many experts agree that one could prevent about 80% of all cancers in man, if one could keep away the known carcinogens from the normal body cells. But how can the remaining 20%, the so-called spontaneous cancers, be prevented? It is indisputable that all cancer could be prevented if the respiration of body cells were kept intact.

Nobody today can say that one does not know what the prime cause of cancer is. On the contrary, there is no disease whose prime cause is better known, so that today ignorance is no longer an excuse for avoiding measures for prevention. That the prevention of cancer will come there is no doubt. But how long prevention will be avoided depends on how long the prophets of agnosticism will succeed in inhibiting the application of scientific knowledge in the cancer field. In the meantime, millions of men and women must die of cancer unnecessarily.

if you have got cancer there are 2 things I would look into

first is sulphur when you remove a carcinogen or toxin from a cell sulphur always donates an electron therefore if you are not getting enough sulphur or the right sulphur (organo sulphur coarse crystal flakes is the only brand being sold today on this planet that I know works all other forms of sulphur have additives in them and this restricts there activity to gastro intestinal only.) you are not doing any good

the next is a schlenz bath


edit on 29-7-2014 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: jinni73
a reply to: pl3bscheese
All normal body cells meet their energy needs by respiration of oxygen, whereas cancer cells meet their energy needs in great part by fermentation. All normal body cells are thus obligate aerobes, whereas all cancer cells are partial anaerobes. From the standpoint of the physics and chemistry of life this difference between normal and cancer cells is so great that one can scarcely picture a greater difference. Oxygen gas, the donor of energy in plants and animals, is dethroned in the cancer cells and replaced by the energy yielding reaction of the lowest living forms, namely the fermentation of sugar.

In every case, during the cancer development, the oxygen respiration always falls, fermentation appears, and the highly differentiated cells are transformed into fermenting anaerobes, which have lost all their body functions and retain only the now useless property of growth and replication. Thus, when respiration disappears, life does not disappear, but the meaning of life disappears, and what remains are growing machines that destroy the body in which they grow.

All carcinogens impair respiration directly or indirectly by deranging capillary circulation, a statement that is proven by the fact that no cancer cell exists without exhibiting impaired respiration. Of course, respiration cannot be repaired if it is impaired at the same time by a carcinogen.


The guy had a partial understanding of what is going on, but completely neglects the role of carcinogens leading to DNA damage, instead speaking of cacinogens affecting capillaries. He perhaps just didn't have the equipment to further focus on on the true primary cause. This is the 1960s... the same decade we had the discovery of the shape and some of the properties of DNA. Just completely in it's infancy at the time. We know so much more half a century later.



A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that is an agent directly involved in causing cancer. This may be due to the ability to damage the genome or to the disruption of cellular metabolic processes. Several radioactive substances are considered carcinogens, but their carcinogenic activity is attributed to the radiation, for example gamma rays and alpha particles, which they emit. Common examples of non-radioactive carcinogens are inhaled asbestos, certain dioxins, and tobacco smoke.


It actually plays out a bit differently that he thought. You have to repair DNA, the parts of DNA that repair damaged DNA, and the parts of the DNA to effectely execute apoptosis, while still retaining the ability to divide and grow.




Cancer is any disease in which normal cells are damaged and do not undergo programmed cell death as fast as they divide via mitosis. Carcinogens may increase the risk of cancer by altering cellular metabolism or damaging DNA directly in cells, which interferes with biological processes, and induces the uncontrolled, malignant division, ultimately leading to the formation of tumors. Usually, severe DNA damage leads to apoptosis, but if the programmed cell death pathway is damaged, then the cell cannot prevent itself from becoming a cancer cell.
Link

Oxygen levels in the body are closely regulated, and the cell will seek out it's optimum level for funtion. If parts of the cell are damaged, and can't be repaired (due to DNA damage), then it may seek an alternative means of obtaining energy (fermentation). There is no indcation that this alteration always leads to cancer, rather that's it's a less efficient means of surviving/functioning. It's like saying all blups are zups, so all zups are blups. No. Just not logical.

edit on 29-7-2014 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   
All I know is that we are getting smashed from all directions. we know when the biggest jumps in cancer were, after WW2 they started adding in substitutions to our food, then in 1954 fertiliser was made compulsory by every government in the world (so much for all the countries being separate) disease apparently went up 4000% between 1954 -1959, then around 1980s iodine was taken out of bread and replaced with bromine this doubled the cancer rate over the next couple of years in the relevant countries.

So this leaves us being deficient in Boron (boric acid is the naturally occurring compound made by cosmic ray spallation that is found on this planet) Sulphur and Iodine.

Fertiliser stops the uptake of sulphur and boron, you used to get 20mg of boric acid in a naturally grown apple that's now down to 1mg, we now only get 4% of the sulphur compared to pre 1954

so really our bodies are unable to defend against these extra chemicals and toxins due to an overwhelming assault by the criminal families that are controlling our governments.

The thing is if you educate yourself you should not really be affected by these disease's, but people have been so brainwashed that people are basically committing suicide by trusting a doctor. the official rate of surviving cancer and using pharmaceutical drugs is 2% after 5 years.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
The guys from the '60's had it right. All the stuff about oxygen in normal cells and fermentation in cancer cells is true. There are all kinds of "cures" out there based on these ideas alone. Such as fooling cancerous cells into thinking they're getting sugar by drinking molasses. I did this myself for a while. All the stuff with DNA is also true but the thing is it comes after the fact. It's sort of like having dyslexia. Instead of focusing on the root of the problem everyone's focusing on the branches... I've been a survivor of brain cancer for 16 years now and while my doctors think a tumor might have started to come back a few years ago.. When they told me my life expectancy was 5 years to my face and I got to deal with my 60 year old parents telling me to start writing my own will... I just sat back and laughed at them. My real problems these days have to do with all the damn side effects of the various drug cocktail the docs have experimented on me while I'm still their guinea pig... Sorry for the run on sentences but I'm sure you can get over it



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: jinni73

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
I don't really undersand this, either, but what do I know? I thought cancer was what happened after a cell could:



Not get enough Oxygen.

A guy called Otto Warburg won the noble peace prize in 1931 after discovering that a lack of oxygen causes cancer

so if you oxygenate the body this should clear most cancers up.



In oncology, the Warburg effect is the observation that most cancer cells predominantly produce energy by a high rate of glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation in the cytosol, rather than by a comparatively low rate of glycolysis followed by oxidation of pyruvate in mitochondria as in most normal cells. The latter process is aerobic (uses oxygen). Malignant, rapidly growing tumor cells typically have glycolytic rates up to 200 times higher than those of their normal tissues of origin; this occurs even if oxygen is plentiful.

Otto Warburg postulated this change in metabolism is the fundamental cause of cancer, a claim now known as the Warburg hypothesis. Today, mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes are known to be responsible for malignant transformation (are they - see links), and the Warburg effect is considered to be a result of these mutations rather than a cause. robbwolf.com... www.singlecausesinglecure.org... www.amazon.co.uk... videocast.nih.gov... www.digivisionmedia.com... vimeo.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Time2Think
The side effects are the most difficult to deal with when trying to heal people with genuine methods (natural) not coal tar or crude oil based products.

you could research Mark Squibb and his liver detox to try and get the poisons out of your system once and for all

also try and find someone in your area who has bought a Lahkovsky machine or if you've got some cash buy one this will reenergise your cells back up to their correct voltage,
you can also charge people to use this machine as you can only use 15 minutes a day and this cures all sorts of disease you even use it to restructure water so you could run an entire business off of this purchase with the added bonus of helping others.

do the research on it



new topics

top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join