Slashdot Mirror
Harvard Scientists Aim To Stop Cancer In Its Tracks
Shuntros writes "BBC News is reporting progress from scientists at Harvard Medical School towards strangling the growth of cancer cells. By starving cells of a certain type of enzyme, growth essentially ceases. 'The fact that proliferating cancer are able to consume glucose at a much higher rate than normal cells was first discovered by the German Nobel prize-winning chemist Otto Warburg more than 75 years ago. He also showed that the amount of glucose the cells needed to keep their vital signs ticking over was minimal, allowing them grow and divide at the prodigious rate usually associated with foetal cells.' Certainly not a cure by any stretch of the imagination, but putting the brakes on cancer growth in this way is very much akin to the revolution that was AZT."
The editors missed the most important fact. This is the enzyme which is actually inhibited by DiChloroAcetic Acid which was recently reported as the Wonder Drug by other groups of scientists. So this discovery already has a matching (though rather nasty) drug which has been shown to work in at least some studies. On top of all the drug is not patent encumbered and you can order it from any large chemical supplier. All that remains is to figure out the therapeutic doze and improve on the drug (DCA does have its side effects).
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I was going to go out and buy some nicorette, but now...
It was called "I Am Legend." I think they should probably stop.
Whew, now that we published that bluff, our jobs are safe until we can get tenure!
While this discovery is of great importance, we still need to find an inhibitor for this enzyme that will not also inhibit normal pyruvate kinases. BTW, if anyone is interested in reading more about the discovery, Harvard Medical School has a more detailed press release and the two related articles in Nature can be found here (protein structure) and here (relationship to cancer). We haven't gotten to AZT yet, but this is a pretty large step towards finding a sort of "magic bullet" for tumors. At the very least, it's a common weakness most cancerous cells share.
Apparently, the major problem with cancer is that it isnt't just one disease, it's a whole myriad of conditions with one common characteristic - uncontrolled cell division. Finding one factor that brakes or halts growth in all cancers is a bit of a holy grail for scientists, and this enzyme seems to have at least some of the hallmarks.
That's not Picasso, that's Kandinsky!
If glucose restriction impedes cancer growth, is it possible that extreme carb restriction (which forces the body to run off ketones instead) would imede cancer growth as well? There's still a small amount of glucose required for the brain, I believe, but perhaps the level would be low enough to slow things down, or help in conjunction with other treatments?
Just a thought.
I wonder if we can use the microRNAs of the zebrafish mentioned two articles ago to controll cancer growth.
Then we could see if there's a way for cancer cells to becone regenerative somehow.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
No real alternative to chemo yet = failure.
Antibody therapy = failure
Gene therapy = failure.
Nanodrugs = failure.
Our immune systems are interfering in these therapies. Why not put down the immune system and put the patient in a clean room free from germs and then try antibodies & gene therapy?
Not a chance. Fatty acids in the body are broken down by a process called beta-oxidation. The short carbon chains then enter the Krebs cycle (the same cycle used for ATP generation from glucose) and ATP (adenosine triphosphate - the energy currency of the cell) is released.
Since this is /., I can be nitpicky and say that the TCA releases very little ATP. Most ATP is generated via oxidative phosphorylation using NADH and FADH2 created in the TCA.
-- The Genesis project? What's that?
Gary Taubes sure thinks so. You should read his book "Good calories bad calories." He points out that cancer is one of a set of diseases that used to be called "diseases of civilization" (along with heart disease, obesity and a bunch of others) because they were extremely rare in tribal people from around the world until they became westernized.
One thing that always happens when people become westernized is that they eat more sugar and processed carbs. Gary claims that the sugar and cancer relationship has never been tested because it has been assumed that sugar is good while fat is bad. Yet if fat is the problem then why did Eskimos not get these diseases on their diet of largely whales and other animals until after they were westernized and started actually eating a lot less fat but tons of sugar and carbs?
This is a tad off-topic but I think you are confusing the TCA cycle with anerobic glycolysis which results in the release of small amounts of ATP. The TCA cycle results in major production of NADH and FADH which enter the electron transport chain where oxidative phosporylation occcurs. "Oxidative phosphorylation" wouldn't occur if the TCA cycle stalled for any reason. (No NADH & FADH production)
As a cancer patient for whom conventional treatments have been exhausted, a extreme sugar // carb restricted diet is the primary alternative treatment that I'm currently trying. There are a huge of alternative/homeopathic theories that work from this premise, and many different diets. Anecdotally, I have heard of people for whom carb restriction has worked wonders. Personally, I have a tumor under the skin on my back that literally seems to grow overnight if I eat sugar (esp processed) the previous day.
Given the broad, although not clinically verified evidence, I find it extremely discouraging that none of my half-dozen oncologists has EVER mentioned this as an option. In fact they have never mentioned anything about diet. Doctors are often blind and/or dismissive of options that are not within their training/experience.
This article is encouraging, if simply for the fact that it shows people are exploring avenues outside of the typical chemo/radiation/surgery modalities.
(Personally, though, my attitude was "I'm going through fucking chemotherapy, I feel like shit, I will eat whatever the hell I want." Maybe not the most health-conscious approach, but sometimes you have to cling to the little things in life, especially when steroids are making you ravenous.)
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
And he would be wrong. The link between a high carbohydrate diet and cancer is tenuous at best. Not only that but high-fat diets have been implicated in raising the risk of some cancers. (Specifically prostate cancer) You could try reading these research studies. Long story short, cancer is a bunch of incredibly heterogenuous disorders and tumour growth is driven by totally different set of chemicals and enzymes depending on the type of cancer a patient has.
E. Giovannucci, E.B. Rimm and G.A. Colditz et al., A prospective study of dietary fat and risk of prostate cancer, J Natl Cancer Inst 85 (1993), pp. 1571-1579.
P.H. Gann, C.H. Hennekens and F.M. Sacks et al., Prospective study of plasma fatty acids and risk of prostate cancer, J Natl Cancer Inst 86 (1994), pp. 281-286
D.A. Snowdon, R.L. Phillips and W. Choi, Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer, Am J Epidemiol 120 (1984), pp. 244-250
A.W. Hsing, L. Tsao and S.S. Devesa, International trends and patterns of prostate cancer incidence and mortality, Int J Cancer 85 (2000), pp. 60-67
Your comments on beta-oxidation are confusing. Can you fill us in a bit more?
Personally, I find the idea of a low-carb diet for cancer makes some sense. After all, if cancer cells consume glucose at a prodigious rate, then bringing down the level of glucose in the bloodstream would be a good idea. I do know that lowcarb diets do indeed keep blood glucose levels constant.
Of course, this is "common sense", and the body doesn't always follow common sense. For example, exercise doesn't lead to weight loss, eating fat doesn't make you fat, etc.
One test for the low-carb-slows-cancer hypothesis would be if the growth rate of cancer were higher in people with high blood sugars. Do untreated diabetics tend to die of cancer faster?
Did they compare the average lifespans as well? :)
Because if I'm gonna die of a heart attack at 50 instead of living to get cancer at 70, I'd rather stick with sugars than change to fats.
that once the cancer reaches the brain, there's not much more that can be done.
As has been said before to vanquish an enemy one must truly know the enemy. This is a point that the U.S. government fails to understand time after time.
Anyhow we're learning more and more about the various cancers out there, and it seems that many have common features that will enable us to knock them out. I see a brighter future for mankind coming, but the transitional period will be a struggle. It is interesting to be alive during this transition.
He points out that cancer is one of a set of diseases that used to be called "diseases of civilization" (along with heart disease, obesity and a bunch of others) because they were extremely rare in tribal people from around the world until they became westernized.
Purely out of curiosity, how frequently were these non-westernised tribal people examined by doctors for cancer using conventional technology when they developed an illness? And how many accurate records of death (and particularly cause of death, determined via an autopsy rather than via a witch doctor) were kept?
There might be correlation, but blood glucose levels are regulated rather tightly. If you have a low input, it is first released from stored glycogen and then synthesized from fatty acids. If I remember correctly, the brain adapts after a while and uses ketons, but the heart still requires glucose, which is why the blood level should never fall lower than a certain level. You'd also get the same problems as you get from an insulin overdose, so there's probably no way to reduce glucose levels enough without killing youself in the process.
Fleur de Sel
Cancer is primarily a desease of civilization because only civilized people live long enough to die from it. If there's a strong relation between sugars and cancer, we should find it in the data from different countries with different eating habits, i. e. the US and Japan. As far as I remember, the US has a higher rate of cancer in the digestive tract (thought to be related to fats), but other cancers don't vary much.
Fleur de Sel
Taubes based his observation on the accounts of western trained doctors who set up hospitals to treat the members of these tribes. So according to his book the answer is: quiet frequently and quiet a lot of records.
However, many of those accounts were from doctors practicing in the late 1800's and early 1900's which explains why other people may ignore these accounts. It is likely though that even those old doctors would know some forms of cancer when they saw them and yet there are accounts of doctors spending years at hospitals servicing thousands of tribal members and yet the doctors would only see one or two cases of cancer (or in some cases none at all) during the entire time they were there, or until the tribes got more money and became westernized or switched to a more western diet. They would then go to a hospital in Philadelphia (as one example he mentioned) and see hundreds or thousands of cases of cancer from people of all races (discounting the idea that these tribes are genetically predisposed to not get cancer or that doctors at the time didn't know many forms of cancer when they saw it.)
All I can say is, even if you are skeptical you should read the book.
Warburg got two Nobels (IIRC, 1928 and 1931), in part by studying the role of oxygen in cell metabolism. Cancer cells use an anaerobic mechanism for metabolism. Flooding them with oxygen disrupts this anaerobic activity. This may account for at least some of the glucose effect in TFA. This can be accomplished using hyperbaric oxygen (high O2 content greater than 1 atmosphere's partial pressure).
It can also be done using superoxides (ozone, which produces hydrogen peroxide in the body, or H2O2 itself). Superoxide production is a normal part of the immune system, and cancer cells don't increase their SOD production proportionally with their growth rate. This is because the superoxides work on mitochondria, where metabolism occurs. The main cell is what's cancerous, not the mitochondria.
Another way to increase H2O2 in the body is to inhibit the enzyme that protects cells from high levels of H2O2, superoxide dismutase (SOD), allowing natural or infused levels of the substance to increase. Penicillin is one such SOD inhibitor, and other antibiotics are being tried. The effects are variable but generally positive. This can be facilitated by including manganese, selenium or zinc, around which the SOD builds itself, explaining the role of minerals containing these to be helpful in fighting infections.
Yes, the increased H2O2 levels can be harmful to cells, or else the body wouldn't have a mechanism to keep it in check. This is the role antioxidants play. Excessive H2O2 is an earmark of autoimmune diseases. There is an optimum level for normal cells. But cancer cells are much more sensitive, and a little damage due to superoxides is preferred over a lot of damage due to cancer.
I found some of the above information while researching my dissertation. It was based on inhibiting another oxygen scavenger, monoamine oxidase (MAO). The MAO inhibitor I looked at is trimethyl naphthoquinone (TMN), and this substance can protect the body from at least one autoimmune disease, Parkinson's. It is ironic then that one common source of TMN is in smoking tobacco. An anti-carcinogen effect isn't seen in smoking (though it may in fact occur) because of the other chemicals in smoking which are carcinogenic to an extent orders of magnitude greater than TMN's. Its MAO inhibition plateaus at low doses whereas the carcinogens don't, so getting TMN is better accomplished other ways. This, and other MAO inhibitors might be helpful in fighting cancer. These are not being widely tested, but the little research so far (mostly in other natural products) is showing some anti-carcinogen effect. SOD inhibition is probably much more effective than MAO inhibition, however the MAO inhibitor effect supports the hypothesized role of oxygen via a second if less effective mechanism.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Well Taubes claims to have took into account all of the major (and many of the minor) studies that seem to agree or disagree with his thesis. His bibliography alone is over 60 pages long. In the text he discusses why he disagrees with studies that seem to show a link between cancer and fat. If you can point to studies that weren't in the bibliography it is likely because his publisher insisted that he cut the size of the book considerably (I think he cut it in half.)
Like I keep saying, agree or disagree the book is worth a read. I could come up with a long list of references that don't show any link between cancer and fat but I guess you could always argue that even though there might be no link between fat and cancers a-x there may be a link between fat and cancers y-z.
The fact is that over the last several decades we have been beaten over the head with the idea that fat is this big evil that is the cause of countless diseases. It just doesn't seem that this issue is as black and white as we have been told it is.
Maybe it is time we spent more time checking that tenuous relationship between sugar and cancer because we sure as hell spent and huge amount of time and money studying fat and cancer with surprising little results. Otto Warburg did win a Nobel prize for proving that cancer cells get their energy from sugar.
Good question and in fact it appears that diabetics have a lower incidence of prostate cancers in epidemiological studies. A note about carbohydrate and fat metabolism.
Carb metabolism = glycolysis >> TCA cycle / Krebs cycle >> Electron transport chain
Lipid (Fat) metabolism = beta oxidation >> Krebs cycle >> Electron transport chain
Since the lipid molecules have longer carbon chains, the by-products of beta-oxidation can enter the Krebs cycle several times over which gives fat the ATP advantage.
If Taubes was right and carboydrates were all that they were cracked up to be then most of the South Asian world would be in deep trouble since the major macronutrient in their diet is carbohydrate. (their cancer rates incidentally are much lower than most of the world) It doesn't matter if his bibliography is 60 pages long.. all you have to do is search on Pubmed or Medline for yourself and you'll see that a majority of the studies would state otherwise.
That being said, there is an interesting relationship between sugar and cancer cells and it appears that certain kinds of tumours (Ex. an astrocytoma - a type of brain tumour) appear to be sensitive to a ketogenic diet; but you have to keep in mind though that brain tissue is almost totally reliant on carbohydrates for it's energy needs. There were some interesting results when ketogenic diets were used on 2 kids with astrocytomas but that sort of evidence is anecdotal at best and needs careful scrutiny followed by a double blind trial to confirm the benefits.
Cancer typically kills older people. In large swathes of the developing world, as life expectancy increases, cancer starts to become a major issue. But that doesn't in itself mean that the diet caused it. Just that people are now living long enough to get the disease. Correlation does NOT equal causation.
It appears that DCA screws up nerve cells permanently. Even though most cells aren't affected by the drug, if you damage cells that can't replicate, it's bad. Neurons cannot replicate. If they can stop that it might be viable. Until then, stick with your old chemo drugs, that screw up hair, skin, and marrow stem cells, stuff that is rapid growing and replaceable.
My mother is pre-diabetic (type 2). All the professional suggestions were to eat low fat, low sugar, high complex carb, and get on some medications. Since it wasn't at a life-critical point, we instead tried going low carb and staying off the drugs. We have been successful in keeping her blood sugar well below the dangerous 140 point 24/7 for the past year. This is better than any of the doctors expected, better than many drug taking patients. I've found many reports of people online having similar results. The home blood sugar testing kits have made hacking your own diabetic diet through continuous testing possible. Still, it's not considered a serious option.
Doctors are people. Health is complex. As much respect as I have for their work the medical community very often falls short.
Best of luck with your cancer.
Cheers.
Technically the TCA does not include the ETC. At least, not according to Stryer's Biochemistry
From Stryer's:
The function of the citric acid cycle is the harvesting of high-energy electrons from carbon fuels. Note that the citric acid cycle itself neither generates a large amount of ATP nor includes oxygen as a reactant.
Again, nitpicky, but many points have been lost on tests on that technicality :)
-- The Genesis project? What's that?
You guys all assume that none of people, not in developing countries, but in tribes living as they had for thousands of years, down't live very long at all. For some strange reason you also assume that Taubes and the doctors whose accounts he cited were too stupid to figure that one out on their own. The fact is that in these tribes there still were at least some people living long enough that you would expect them to start getting cancer and heart disease had they lived in the western world. And yet many of these doctors would work for years in these areas see plenty of elder tribes people and not see one case of cancer or heart disease or obesity or type 2 diabetes. Not one.
People in Japan do have lower rates of heart disease than people in the US and western world. However people in Japan DO have higher rates of colon cancer. While we have been spending all of our time trying to lower our cholesterol the Japanese at some point figured out that if they raise their cholesterol then their colon cancer rates will go down. Now the Japanese are trying to eat more fat than ever before. I understand that mayo is like a 5th food group over there now (note though that unlike what you have been told the link between eating fat and your cholesterol level isn't as strong as you have been told! In fact except for trans fats most fats will actually raise your good cholesterol and many will lower your bad -- even saturated fat will raise you good cholesterol even if it does raise your bad somewhat.) With this change of diet the Japanese have been able to lower their colon cancer risk without raising their heart disease risk.
Also note that we tend to eat Uncle Ben's converted heavily processed so it doesn't stick together rice. While people in Asia tend to eat less processed rice. More processing equals higher GI index which would make the carbs more potent.
Anyway this Asia versus the US thing is where the entire low fat idea got started, right? Japan low heart disease rates high carb diet while the US has a higher fat diet and higher heart disease. So it must be the fat that is causing the heart disease (and you guys are accusing ME of not knowing that correlation doesn't equal causality.) Of course if they looked at the US versus the French or the US versus the Eskimos they may have come to the opposite conclusion.
But no, somehow we got convinced that it is the fat and not the sugar that is bad. So now we have to constantly come up with new ways of killing off the evidence that shows that we might be wrong about that. So we come up with new theories. Maybe the French don't get fat because they use garlic, maybe it is the wine, or that they don't cook their veggies as long. Could be the Eskimos are getting so much omega-3 from the fish that this is what is stopping them from getting heart disease as we think they should. Each time we try to protect our theory then our theory gets more and more complicated. Of course one simple answer may be that we have been wrong all along. Maybe fat isn't bad for you, maybe it is the sugar? There has always been a minority of scientists that have said that and now their ranks are growing. And if you are on the low fat side of the debate then you should be happy that there is this challenge coming. Show downs like these in the end strengthen the theory that eventually wins.
As Harvard is likely treading in Dr Holt's footsteps, they might want to examine his published papers. Note that whilst practising, he only took on patients that other doctors had given up on. His *cure* rate was around 98%. All cases documented.
Holt, JA 1979, "The cause of cancer: biochemical defects in the cancer cell demonstrated by the effects of electromagnetic radiation, glucose and oxygen", Med Hypotheses, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 109-143.
Holt, J 1983, "Cancer, a disease of defective glucose metabolism: the energy for mitosis appears to come from a gluathione mediated glycolysis", Med Hypotheses, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 133-150. [Holt83]
The rest are at: http://www.the-institute.com.au/reference_pubs.html
Regarding the rice thing, in my experience Asians eat white rice almost exclusively, and it is heavily processed. If you go to Thailand or China, you'll see that they have fairly carby diets overall, a lot of rice and gluten-based foods.
Actually, virtually only the brain requires glucose to function, about 150 grams per day. The heart and other organs requires none. If dietary glucose is low enough, organs other than the brain can switch to fat and/or ketones for energy requirement.
So in theory, if all the glucose you ingest/produce is used by your brain, there is none left to nourish tumors.
The rice might be white but is it polished with glucose like in the US? Do they add sugar and high fructose corn syrup to the rice or what they eat with the rice like we would in the US during our "obesity epidemic?" I am guessing that if this is their main staple and they aren't getting Beri-Beri then it probably isn't what we would call polished white rice. Also note that while Asians don't get heart disease as much as we do, they do get cancer.
Some of these tribes I mentioned before did get a lot of their calories from carbs. It was unprocessed carbs that also came with loads of fiber. This lead to the theory that fiber somehow protects you from fat and we should all eat so much fiber that we have to poop every ten minutes. Another theory is that the fiber does help because it lessens the impact of the carbs by lower the GI index. So I guess if the second theory is right then if you are eating lots of sugar then maybe you should eat enough fiber that your insides feel like they are glued together? Constipation is another "disease of civilization" that didn't show up in the tribal communities.
Yeah, I really don't know. Speaking only for myself here, I'm sort of an amateur athlete, and I eat a lot of protein, and I get nearly all my carbs from vegetables, brown rice, and a little bread (1 slice per day). And I don't skimp on the fat. But I'm very lean regardless. My point is you are probably right - the real culprit is sugar, which I avoid almost completely - but carbs themselves aren't necessarily bad, nor does eating well require a whole lot of rocket science. Eat more or less how we evolved to eat, and you'll be okay. Avoid sugar and heavily processed foods, and eat lots of protein.
No cure for cancer, but at least a partial cure for unfounded optimism about finding a cure for cancer can be found in this talk by Lee Hartwell, Nobel prize winner and head of the Fred Hutchinson cancer center in Seattle:
http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=2669
Not only is it wrong to view all cancers as a single disease, it may be wrong to view the cancer in a single patient as a single disease. Cancer is genetically unstable, and it may turn out that the nature of the stability is plausibly modelled by assuming the cancer is using genetic (oh the irony) algorithms. IOW, past a certain point (e.g., metastasis), the cancer cells (at least a small minority of them), may be constantly spitting out all manner of genetic mutations at a high rate. This would help explain the extreme adaptability of most forms of cancer metastasis to whatever treatment you care to throw at them. As Judah Folkman said, every time a patient's cancer returns, it seems to have learned about new growth factors.
If you're worried about cancer, focus on prevention, not on the hope of a cure.
The thing that is very frustrating to me about all of these efforts to find a cure for cancer is that they fixate on drugs that can be patented and sold at high prices, or replicating exotic substances from exotic locations. A cure for cancer that is inexpensive and very effective is already known: Curcumin.
Curcumin is the active component of turmeric, the spice that gives curry and old-fashioned mustards that yellow color. And turmeric is not only rather cheap, but the process for extracting and concentrating curcumin has been around for a long time, and cannot be patented and monopolized.
Curcumin induces apoptosis in cancerous cells without harming the healthy cells around them. (Not that Wikipedia is a medical authority, but apparently, this observation has been noted there as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curcumin ) This is something many chemotherapy drugs can't even claim. The mother of a friend of mine was slowly dying from both a metastasized cancer and the chemotherapy she was receiving, which, in theory, was supposed to kill the cancer before it killed her. She then gave up on chemotherapy, and went onto curcumin therapy, taking large doses of concentrated curcumin with piperine (the spice from pepper) to boost absorption (since curcumin doesn't absorb well through the intestines without it). What happened after that was that her health improved, and the cancer was less and less present every time her doctor examined her, and she is still alive today.
One woman's experience with curcumin therapy is described in her cancer blog: Life with Myeloma
Here's her account of going onto curcumin therapy.
Right now, the problem for sponsors of cancer research isn't that we don't have any medicines that kill cancer cells without harming healthy cells; their problem is that the medicine that does this won't make them the kind of money they want. Our problem is that without corporate sponsorship, nobody knows about the cures.
The other pair of cancer cures is the combination of inositol hexaphosphate (usually abbreviated as IP6) taken along with inositol; both of these substances are naturally produced by our cells, and cannot be patented. However, the margins of this comment are too small for me to expound on this amazing cure. Google it. ^_~
I'm sorry to piss on your parade but DCA inhibits pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase NOT pyruvate kinase. A big difference. Besides, the Cell paper on DCA was confusing at best - they observed an effect of DCA on a cancer cell line and then tried to explain it based on mitochondrial metabolism - without actually understanding much about mitochondria...
Warburg most certainly got only one Nobel prize - 1931. There are no superoxides - just superoxide, O2-. SOD most definitely does not protect against hydrogen peroxide - as a matter of fact it PRODUCES it! (by dismutating superoxide). Not sure why cancer cells should be more sensitive to SOD inhibition considering they usually don't use their mitochondria and that's where most superoxide is produced. MAO is not an `oxygen scavenger' whatever that means, it's been shown to PRODUCE superoxide. There are MUCH better MAO inhibitors than your TMN, which judging from its chemical structure would produce a ton of superoxide itself (c.f. menadione). I strongly suggest you study a bit more before submitting your dissertation.
My experience is much the same. When I stopped eating sugar, but ate a lot of fat (mostly in the form of clarified butter, olive oil, and grapeseed oil), vegetables, brown basmati rice, and protein (fish and lentils), I could barely keep weight on. Mostly from a lot of calorie burning exercise I guess. I could eat as much as I wanted though and not gain weight. Now I am about 40 pounds heavier and have been eating a lot more sugar and processed foods. I exercise less, but still a lot, and have to really watch how much I eat or I'll gain weight. For me, the diet is the culprit, and now that I'm done with my Master's degree I can start having more time to do the simple things that matter, namely cooking and eating unprocessed foods every day, every meal. I'm hoping that one year from now I have dropped 30 lbs and am on my way back to the great health that I experienced previously.
It does follow common sense. Both glucose and fatty acids metabolize into acetyl CoA (which is just plain acetic acid in a more suitable form) before they are "burned" in the citric acid cycle. You'll get acetate whatever you eat.
Giving dichloroacetate instead of acetate is a throwing the monkeywrench (DCA) into the works of Krebs cycle. Instead of hydrogen atoms on the methyl carbon, you have nasty electrophilic chlorines. Metabolism gives poisons like oxalic acid.
I cure my friends and relatives of cancer, and other incurables (my expense).
So I decided to make a website to teach people how to cure cancer themselves.
There is no catch. I'm a Pro-life volunteer and this is just an extension of my charity.
Please read and view the videos, tell me how I can improve on it in terms of relaying information to you so that more people will understand that cancer cures exist, right here, right now.
http://www.curemanual.com/diseases-and-tweaks/cancer
Hobby Healing, Curing the incurables is fun! http://www.curemanual.com