It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ken Burns PBS 3 part special on cancer. What they didn't say.

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:56 AM
I like Ken Burn's documentaries, but this one spoke the party line.

What it didn't say is the following.

Big Pharma spends millions of dollars encouraging the use of their rather ineffective cancer treatment drugs.

The success rate of these drugs is so low that the damage they do doesn't justify their use.

The majority of doctors would refuse to use chemo and radiation if they had cancer. I wonder why?

Alkaline emphasized diet can prevent body tissues from becoming acidic, which prevents cells from using sugar for energy rather than oxygen. Once the cells are forced to switch because they are oxygen starved, they open the door to cancer. Diet is the key.

There are several non-pharma approaches to cancer treatment that are more likely to work than chemo and radiation.

But most of all, a plant based diet can prevent cancer, and in many cases back away from cancer. With a little meat, but with a big emphasis on vegetables and some fruit, you will probably be protected fairly well.

I love PBS, but they can do better. (And they allow the Koch brothers to fund science shows. SHAME.)

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:29 AM
a reply to: droid56

I bet they didnt say that smoking weed helps with cancer eh?
I bet they didnt say Canada found a drug to help and or kill cancer eh?
I bet they didnt say most of the crap that is in our food including veggies are part of the reason we are getting cancer eh?
And I bet they didnt say most of the crap in our environment gives us cancer eh?

Ever wonder why they had a documentary in the 1st place.. You know.. not being at all factual and all..

But hey.. they still have a cancer awareness month right? Send money for research to find a cure in Canada... eh?

edit on 4/2/2015 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:59 AM
a reply to: droid56

In a cancerous cell, the mitochondria are inoperative (either defective or shutdown by cancer process). This cause the accumulation of pyruvate (the output of the metabolism of glucose known as glycolysis) in the cytosol and force the cell to do fermentation and create lactate. Rapidly growing tumor cells typically have glycolytic rates up to 200 times higher than those of their normal tissues of origin, thus meaning a lot of pyruvate created.

Citing Wikipedia on Anoxic regeneration of NADH (fermentation):

Anoxic regeneration of NADH is only an effective means of energy production during short, intense exercise, providing energy for a period ranging from 10 seconds to 2 minutes and is dominant from about 10–30 seconds during a maximal effort. It replenishes very quickly over this period and produces 2 ATP molecules per glucose molecule, or about 5% of glucose's energy potential (38 ATP molecules in bacteria). The speed at which ATP is produced is about 100 times that of oxidative phosphorylation. The pH in the cytoplasm quickly drops when hydrogen ions accumulate in the muscle, eventually inhibiting enzymes involved in glycolysis.

It is my opinion that cancer create the acidic condition and not the inverse.

Then what to do to fight cancer?

1- Starve the cancerous cells to death by eliminating its main source of fuel for glycolysis, principaly glucose.

2- Nourish all the other normal cells of your body using ketones bodies and fatty acid, anything that depend on a functioning mitochondrion (ketogenic diet).

Of course, our usual Pharma bought and paid documentaries won't say a things about this...

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:20 AM
I found this discussion fascinating. It goes into the history of Cancer, and how the Monkey Virus is a huge cause of cancer today. Which was used in making Polio Vaccinations, in the 50's and early 60's. Now the virus is transmittable from mother to child and sexual contact. Im very glad that my mom was a fanatical religious nut that didnt believe in Vaccines, otherwise, I fall into the age group that would have received the Monkey virus in the polio Vac.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 09:15 AM
a reply to: droid56

I won't take you to task for your generalities but merely offer a couple of my own, actually a specific one.
I'm here, typing these words, because of being in remission from lymphoma from over ten year ago. Chemo worked for me.

I lost my wife to breast cancer. In no way did she contribute to it by diet or lifestyle. --Perhaps that unknown factor of stress? At any rate, chemo and surgery gave her additional time... perhaps helped by a bunch of alternative "meds" that we poured into her.

There is absolutely no doubt that the so-called War on Cancer, very much like the so-called War on Drugs, has been an absolute failure. And, yes, the big pharms are only interested in the bottom line. After all, they are not in the business because of the goodness of their hearts, but to make money just as any manufacturer of a actual product or insurance company.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 11:53 AM
a reply to: Aliensun

You do know what I stated above particularly the 1st 2 lines are not very far off from the truth...

Search my name and cancer I am sure something comes up on how valid those 2 claims are.

new topics

top topics

log in