Show notes
So, on one hand, as per our last +1, science shows that genes play a surprisingly small role in the cause of cancer. Yet… Guess where nearly all of that $100 billion of research money has has been spent? Yep. We've spent $100 billion dollars on research and we spend $100 billion dollars on cancer medications every year operating under the assumption that cancer is, primarily, a genetic issue. To put it directly, that appears to be the essence of why we've failed to win the war on cancer. We've been looking at it from the wrong perspective. Result: No improvements in the real death rates since the 1950s. Here's the short story on the two conflicting theories regarding the origin of cancer: The dominant theoretical orientation within Western medicine is something called the "somatic mutation theory" (or "SMT") of cancer. It basically says that cancer is CAUSED by genetic mutations. Now, there's no question that cancer cells are pretty wacky genetically. In fact, the sheer complexity of mutations that exist even within one individual with cancer (let alone across individuals with various types of cancers) is why it's so hard to treat cancer from this paradigm. But the question we need to ask is: Is cancer CAUSED by genetic mutations, or are those mutations a downstream EFFECT of some other cause? Thankfully, researchers have been asking this question. Enter: The metabolic theory of cancer. The METABOLIC theory of cancer (vs. the genetic theory of cancer) says it's dysfunctional ENERGY METABOLISM that precedes the genetic instability (and all the other hallmarks of cancer). And, guess what? That's a HUGE distinction. Why? Because your theory drives your therapy. Get the theory wrong and you get the therapy wrong. You just might spend an awful lot of money on research and treatment and get no real improvements. To put it directly: When a loved one's life is on the line, that's no longer an abstract statistic. It's a matter of life and death. P.S. Did you know that some cancer medications cost $100,000 for a year's worth of treatment that only extends life by three months? That's (shockingly) true. There has to be a better way, eh? Yes. And… The good news: There is a better way. P.P.S. Thomas Seyfried is one of the world's leading researchers who is persuasively arguing for the metabolic theory of cancer. His 15-page (+ 7 pages of references) peer-reviewed article in the scientific journal Nutrition & Metabolism called "Cancer as a metabolic disease" is a MUST READ. Print it out, read it. Bring a copy with you to your next appointment with your oncologist and team, etc. This is the scientific foundation for the theoretical framework we will be using to inform our metabolic approach to therapy. P.P.P.S. It's essential that we understand the fact that what we're talking about here is not a "cleanse" or a "detox" or anything along those lines. Although many inspiring anecdotal stories exist out there on the Internet about various juicing/cleansing/detoxing protocols, that's NOT what we're talking about here and, with blessings to all those who have benefited from and swear by them, I would never bet my life (or my brother's life or your life) on those approaches. What we're talking about here is a scientifically-grounded look at an alternative theory of cancer supported by a growing body of peer-reviewed, empirically sound data. There's a BIG difference between that and the "cancer cures" we can find on the Internet. And, that's one of the reasons why most primary care physicians and oncologists freak out when they hear you're doing something other than traditional approaches. We've shared all this research with our traditional team. And, we've gotten smart about how to communicate our approach. Which (along with the astonishing (!) therapeutic benefits my brother has experienced thus far) has led our oncologist to say to my brother, "If I were diagnosed with what you have (stage IIB pancreatic cancer), I'd do what you're doing." Why would he say that? Because, pancreatic cancer is notoriously hard to treat from a traditional (read: genetic origin!) perspective. And, you know when he said that? It wasn't in our first meeting. In that initial meeting when he delivered the prognosis he literally didn't look at my brother once. He had the very difficult job of communicating a very heavy prognosis and all my brother could see from the table was the side of his doctor's face as he described what was going on to Rick's wife, Kristin. It wasn't a good day to say the least. He changed his tone after he looked at my brother's PET scan that showed NO SIGNS of cancer—after 5 weeks of SUPER intense nutritional and lifestyle therapeutic intervention that we'll discuss. (Although we didn't have a "before" PET scan to compare it to, that's not supposed to happen with stage IIB pancreatic.) He and the other doctor who reviewed the PET + CT scans said, "If we didn't know you had cancer, we wouldn't know you had cancer after looking at those scans." Now, there are a lot of variables at play and, again, we didn't have a baseline to compare it to, and this is a sample size of one and we have a long way to go in our Optimizing journey, etc. etc. etc. but I am extremely confident that our metabolic approach to my brother's cancer helped halt his cancer's growth. And, I know we're not alone as there are so many exemplars with similar results following a similar approach out there. I'm excited to share some of the practical steps we've taken in line with the metabolic approach to cancer. But, first, I want to spend a little more time establishing the theoretical framework as it's important we get it on a high level. Which we'll do in our next +1…