A New Theory of Cancer: "Conventional medicine has got it wrong"...
As he explains... "It might surprise you, but conventional medicine has no official theory or explanation for cancer". (No wonder they struggle to get significant success in most cases!) But...if they had an official stated theory, it might be in danger of being contradicted. While kept vague, they are on safer ground.
A top physicist recruited by the National Cancer Institute to crack cancer suggests current cancer theory and treatment is seriously misguided...
....And shockingly, his scientific analysis of cancer seems to have much more in common with the view of alternative cancer doctors!! (commonly called quacks!)
New Challenge: Can a top physicist crack cancer?World renowned British theoretical physicist Professor Paul Davies of Arizona State University (and a significant team) has been tasked with the job of rethinking the issue of CANCER....starting from scratch.... in terms of scientific logic, free from the hindrance of medical training or dogma. He has no medical qualifications or training whatsoever.
It must be conceded that physicists have cracked some staggering puzzles, so why not give them a go at cracking cancer? This is the thinking behind this new initiative. One major aim is to review all the significant data and facts related to cancer and 'connect the dots' in a new and different way, to form a new conceptual landscape.
When the National Cancer Institute asked if he would conduct this work, Paul Davies admitted knowing nothing about cancer. "Perfect" they replied!
Thus he started with a blank canvas. It also seems likely he knew nothing about alternative cancer approaches or theories either. In short, he is being hired to think outside the box.
He is undoubtedly a superb communicator of scientific knowledge and this is a very interesting talk, possibly of great significance in the history of medical thought, regarding the way we view cancer and tackle it in the future.
What's astounding about his theory, is that conventional medicine has many things wrong, and although not saying so, many of his conclusions are far closer to the paradigm associated with alternative cancer doctors and writers in that field. Perhaps he's never studied alternative cancer theories, but ironically there is little contradiction between his general theory and that of many alternative doctors.
In fact, amazingly, his current conclusions seem to largely disagree with conventional medical dogma on cancer, and (coincidentally) have much more in common with the views of most alternative cancer doctors! (You know, - the ones often referred to as quacks!!!)
Shockingly honest revelations!Furthermore, it's shocking to see someone of such status in the science world, expose the failings of cancer treatment, along with statistics! Bravely, he strongly suggests that both cancer treatment and research are deeply flawed in their thinking. Here are some of his findings:
"Cancer cells are not invincible, they are quitevulnerable. Cancer loves sugar, and hates oxygen, so we have to deprive them of sugar, give them plenty of oxygen, and restore pH". (Dr Paul Davies).
This exact same analysis, - and suggested rational solution, is the basis of most alternative cancer treatments.
On conventional cancer treatment:* Regarding cases where cancer has spread, he states that...when it comes to the main categories of cancer, breast, colon, lung, and prostate, that have spread, then survival rates have not improved for several decades.
* Conventional cancer treatments... "mostly don't work", or add just a month or two to a patients life.
* Conventional medicine has no official theory or explanation for cancer.
* Most tumours never cause a problem. Even cancer cells floating around the body rarely cause a problem. But they are all treated much the same.
On cause and treatment:* "I'm not a fan of beam weapons or toxins or surgery".
* "Cancer loves sugar, hates oxygen, and likes acid. Cancer results in a by-product called lactic acid...which lowers the pH of the region around the cancer".
* Cancer cells are not invincible, they are quite vulnerable. Cancer loves sugar, hates oxygen, so we have to deprive them of sugar, give them plenty of oxygen, and restore pH.
* On gene expression: "If you take a cancer cell and put it in a normal healthy cell tissue environment, it reverts back to a normal cell.....and if you put a healthy cell into a cancer cell environment, it "joins the enemy" and switches to being a cancer cell!!!" So there is a lot about the tissue micro-environment that determines whether cells are healthy or malignant.
* It follows that cancer is a disease of the tissue micro-environment. And if you have a biologically stressed unhealthy micro-environment it may trigger and promote cancer, Likewise if you restore the tissue micro-environment, you can then control cancer.(Conventional cancer treatment does nothing to address this micro-environment issue).
At the heart of his thinking is a theory whereby cancer is related to embryo-genesis, and acts akin to embryonic cells. This idea is very similar to the Trophoblast Thesis of Cancer, (as covered in a recent post) though not identical, and with different explanation as to purpose.
So, all in all, this leading physicist, with the mind of a supremely logical scientist, free from medical dogma or constraint, has come to conclusions that have much more in common with alternative doctors, than orthodox medicine. Why? Because there is a fundamental logic to the alternative approach to cancer, as explained in these pages.
1/ Cancer is a disease of the cellular environment
2/ Healing cancer is achieved by addressing the cellular environment
3/ You must deprive cancer of sugar, boost oxygen, and attain alkaline pH state.
(All things known and understood by alternative cancer practitioners, whom the system outlaws, in favour of so-called advanced technology regarding radiotherapy and chemo drugs.)
He also reveals.... that, according to the National Cancer Institute, there have been about ONE MILLION papers written on cancer, of which, 80 PERCENT of them are actually WRONG! Errr...that's 800,000 scientific papers on cancer that could not be replicated or validated! (i.e.worthless) $Billions wasted.
As he states... "the field is in a mess!"
His theory is that cancer is possibly a very ancient biological program, that has evolutionary significance and purpose. The fact that it has so many trademark survival capabilities, suggests it is a built-in default program, but you will need to view the video for further explanation.
This is quite a long talk, with some questions taken at the end, but I hope you take a look at this video, it may open your eyes to the truth about conventional cancer treatment.
Conclusion:The objective scientific assessment by professor Davies is clear:
"Cancer cells are not invincible, they are quite vulnerable. Cancer loves sugar, and hates oxygen, so we have to deprive them of sugar, give them plenty of oxygen, and restore pH". (Dr Paul Davies).
And it is strongly implied that cancer treatment should be along those lines. Secondly he provides an explanation for cancer that is still only theory, suggesting that cancer is an ancient billion year old throwback. However, irrespective of that proposed theory, we should largely focus on the above highlighted assertion, which is not theory, but biological fact.
This physics professor has studied the evidence with an objective mind, unswayed by conventional medical dogma. His critical scientific eye has spotted some major faultlines running through standard cancer undrestanding, strategy, and treatment concepts. He has confirmed his belief that cancer is a disease of the system, i.e. tissue micro-environment, and that factor is flatly ignored by conventional medicine. In fact toxic treatments tend to add massive harm to the micro-environment....and all parts of the body. Alternative wisdom seems to hold water after all! (No surprise to me) It clearly has strong logical foundations ignored by standard medicine.
There is clearly still much to learn, and Professor Paul Davies and is team will probably have a lot more to follow. Their theories will evolve over time. However, unfortunately, no matter what their endeavours might reveal, it is the nature of all things medical, that new officially endorsed treatments (requiring years of testing and trials) will still be a long way down the road.
Paul Davies is director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University. For more details, see http://cancer-insights.asu.edu/
Although hugely important, the actual theory of cancer and its biological origins or purpose, are less important than understanding how to successfully treat and reverse cancer. But if you fundimentally understand the root cause and nature of cancer, then you have a far better chance of eliminating it, not just for a while, but for good.