Transcription: The Shocking New Truth About CANCER! (Nobody Shares This)

Description generated by Skrybot

No description has been generated for this video.

Transcription generated by Skrybot

The definition of cancer, and I may have mentioned this before, is cell division out of control. So what happens to the first or group of cells that become dysregulated in their growth? Because ultimately, this is what the problem is. You have most of the cells in our body are in what we call a differentiated state, a quiescent state. They're all arranged in order in our various organs and tissues, and they all contribute together to the society of cells in the body, which ultimately is us. Whether it's in the brain, the liver, you know, you have liver dysfunction and your brain responds in a way, the brain would have a problem, the liver would respond in a way.

All of our systems are integrated through blood networks, through immune systems. So we are actually a very highly tuned, integrated machine. What happens, though, to a cell in, say, a breast or a bladder or a colon or lung that would make that cell become dysregulated in its growth? So well, there's been a lot of ways that cancer has been produced in cells and tissues of our body, and most of it has to do with a chronic disruption of the cellular microenvironment through irritation, through a viral infection, through a blood vessel that would cause a chronic or restricted hypoxic environment.

The problem is that, and I say chronic, because most acute damages to cells and tissues will lead to rapid death, and as Otto Werberg said, you can never get a dysregulated cancer cell from a dead cell. So there has to be some level, there has to be some timeframe when this regulated cell, this quiescent differentiated cell, has an opportunity to become dysregulated. And what's responsible for the quiescent regulated differentiated state is the function of the energy metabolism within that cell, and that's controlled by the organelle called the mitochondria, and it's kind of a spaghetti network that exists in the cytoplasm of the cell. That network interacts with the nucleus.

The nucleus and the mitochondria within a cell have a very intimate communication system from signaling pathways and such like this. But a chronic insult to a cell or a tissue leads to a gradual loss of energy through oxygen. So to prove that, I mean, you're breathing, I'm breathing, most living people, most animal, everything gets energy, they breathe oxygen, get oxygen in, either through the gills, through the lungs or whatever. And oxygen serves as an acceptor, a final electron acceptor for the electron transport chain in the mitochondria that generate large amounts of energy very efficiently.

However, if that energy efficiency is chronically interrupted, not to the point where you kill the cell, because there's no energy death, you can't be live with no energy. So what happens in the cancer process is that the energy is transferred from oxidative phosphorylation, breathing oxygen, to an ancient pathway of what we call fermentation. The technical term is substrate level phosphorylation, a type of energy mechanism that existed for all living organisms that were on our planet before oxygen came into the atmosphere, some 2. 5 billion years ago. So these heirlooms of energy metabolism exist in most of the cells of our body, these old ancient heirlooms, but they play a very, very minor role when we're breathing oxygen.

They have a very low production of energy. If these oxfos, energy through oxidative phosphorylation, is corrupted or deficient or anything like that, the ancient pathways are upregulated and the mitochondria send a message to the nucleus of the cell and the nucleus of the cell sends out a messenger that upregulates transporters for glucose and glutamine, the two fuels that are necessary for these ancient pathways to maintain viability. The problem with that is that that same organelle, the mitochondria, that's responsible for differentiation and quiescence also controls the cell cycle and the differentiated state. So when that organelle becomes corrupted and the cell falls back on the ancient fermentation pathways, the controller of the cell cycle is not there.

And what happens? The cell starts to divide. Only the way it did 2. 5 billion years ago, because all of the cells at that time were dysregulated in their growth. They just grew and grew and grew and grew until the fuels, fermentable fuels, disappeared in the environment and the cells would die. So this whole cancer thing is not a mystery. These cells are simply falling back, these cancer cells, and when you look at them in every major tissue of every major cancer, you look at the mitochondria in the human cells and you find them defective. You find them few in number, their morphology is abnormal, and their function is abnormal.

So if that's all abnormal and structure determines function, then these cells are dividing and dysregulated because the very organelle that's controlling this process is dysfunctional. And these cells then are growing based on the availability of the sugar glucose and the amino acid glutamine in the microenvironment of those cells. And as long as those two fuels are present in sufficient quantities, those cells will be growing in a dysregulated way and they become worse and worse and worse until you get the spread, which we now know what underlies that. That's another story that would require some level of explanation.

But we know basically, I understand basically what causes cancer, how it develops, how it metastasizes, and basically what we need to do to stop it in a non-toxic way. Dr. Seyfried, correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it, we all get cancer at different points throughout our life, but the body typically fights that off and destroys it before it becomes a problem. Is that how you understand it? Is that true? Maybe it is to some extent. If you don't get cancer, what do you say? We all have cancer. I don't know. Maybe we do, maybe we don't.

If we all have cancer and never get cancer, what does that mean? The issue here is that if the cells, you can have a benign tumor that kind of grows a little bit. I can skin things here. Is that cancer? I don't know. It's maybe a small dysregulated cell growth. As you get older, you get more of these little things all over your body. You can just take some liquid nitrogen and burn it off, or you can go to the doctor or do something like that. I mean, it's not going to kill you for sure.

But if you get a lesion in a cell that has the capacity to grow dysregulated, especially in one of your internal organs or in melanoma or a brain tumor or something like this, you got a problem. The answer to your question is, do we all have cancer? People say that. Maybe they do. I'm not really worried about things that aren't going to kill you. Once those cells lose their growth regulatory properties, which is part of this mitochondria, that's what we do know. We do know that that dysregulated growth is driven by a fermentation metabolism. We do know that as long as those fermentable fuels are in the microenvironment, it's going to be hard to kill that cell.

Well, why I'm so curious or part of the reason about what I brought up there, the fact that we all have different small, quote unquote, cancers at different points in our life and the body destroys them and then we're cancer free again. It gets me thinking about the fact why is the body or the immune system detecting certain cancers and taking care of them versus others? I'm just curious on why that divide. Yeah. I think there's some people who never get cancer, right? Our bodies have a surveillance system. You're absolutely correct. But here's the situation. Those little growths and things like that are in fact detected by our immune system.

Cancer has been described by some well knowledgeable people as a wound that does not heal. We have immune cells that go in. Now I'm coming to the metastasis part of the understanding is that you have a small growth of cells and you say like, well, your immune system should come in and take care of them. In many times it does and sometimes it doesn't. What happens is that the body's immune system looks at this growth and they try to manage the cells. But the cells send off signals that look like a wound. Our body looks at that and then throws out cytokines and growth factors to try to heal the wound.

The problem is if you have cells that are already slowly growing, those cytokines and growth factors could actually make those cells grow even faster. The very system in our body that's designed to try to put out the fire is like throwing gasoline on a fire. If you have these cells, our immune systems don't recognize, oh, this is cancer, oh, this is a stab wound or some kind of a contusion or whatever. They are fibroblasts and macrophages can heal that. But when it comes to an incipient cancer, the very program structures, the programs of those cells is in the wrong context because what they're doing now is inappropriate and can actually foster that small growth to become worse.

And then there's this fusion hybridization. We have cells in our body, macrophages, and when they heal wounds and the wound doesn't heal fast enough, the macrophages fuse together and they form these multinucleated giant cells. And we often see them in cancers. And you'd say, oh, wow, look at our immune system is being overwhelmed by all these dysregulated cancer cells. The problem is the mitochondria in the tumor cell is abnormal, leading to a fermentation and a dysregulated growth. So our normal cells see that and they throw out the growth factors in cytokines, which is like throwing gasoline on this fire, making it even worse.

And they think these cells are also programmed to fuse and to try to do a better job. It's like a four-alarm fire. You get more fire departments in there and they're fusing together all to try to put out this fire. What happens is the cytoplasm of the cancer cell and the immune cell in this fusion process dilutes the normal mitochondria in the immune cell. That cell is the cell that goes through the bloodstream, enters and exit tissues, and inhibits the immune system because it is the immune system. That is the cell that is metastatic. That is the cell that spreads all around your body. They call, oh, I got cancer in my liver.

It's in my brain, lung all over the place. Those are macrophages. Those are our normal, former, formerly normal cells that have now become corrupted. And they live on the same fuels, glucose and glutamine. And in order to kill these cancer cells, whether it's a singular location, a stem cell tumor that grows like crazy but can't spread, and then you have the normal cells come into the stem cell tumor fusing and then you get spread. And sometimes the spread can happen very early. They have cancer, what we call cancer of unknown primary, CUP. A lot of times, oh, I got cancer. It's all over my body. And they can't find the primary tissue.

They can't find the primary or cancer of unknown primary. It represents 5% to 7% of cancer deaths. I don't know where it came from. But all the cells in that CUP, they're all macrophages. They're all part of the immune system, gonorrhea. So our very cells that are designed to protect us are the very cells that are killing us. And you need to know the biology of this. And it took me 30 years of constant research on some of the best animal models, the best. . . And then you just go to the human literature and you see whether or not what I'm saying is corroborated by pathological reports from the human literature.

And it all is. So we know precisely. It's just that the field, for whatever reason, they don't either read the literature, they don't understand the literature, or they come in with a mindset that prevents them from recognizing what I just told you. What's becoming really clear early in the conversation here is that cancer is us. I think a lot of times when people think about cancer, the lay person, they want to fight cancer, destroy cancer. What you're making clear throughout the first 15, 20 minutes here is the fact that these are our own cells that are in the first part when you're describing, they're going back to a more primitive form.

And then you describe with the metastasis, the fact these macrophages are starting to behave while they're converting over to cancer cells. So it's our own body that is changing. So when we talk about fighting cancer, essentially we're talking about fighting our own body. As long as you keep that body full of sugar and glutamine, well, the sugar and the high fructose foods that we eat, I mean, you're just letting that thing go crazy. So that's clear what's happened. Now, why did our ancestors and some of the primitive aboriginal tribes have such a low level of cancer? Because of their environment.

If you're in an environment where highly processed carbohydrate foods are in minimal supply, you have a lot of exercise. We have a surveillance system in our body. And if we have a cell where the mitochondria may slowly become corrupted, that cell is consumed for the good of the whole. Our macrophages come in, see that cell, it's not performing, it's not living up to the society requirements. It's eaten. And then the molecules from that cell that was eaten are now distributed throughout the body for the rest of the cell. So you say, well, why did cancer become so prevalent over the last 50 or 60? I mean, we've had cancer since Neolithic times, but it was very rare.

It was extremely rare. And now it's overtaking heart disease as the number one killer in Western societies. So what's going on? And we're allowing our cells to become lazy and fat, and we're not surveilling the body the way we should. It's hard to ferret out weak cells if there's always a surfeit of carbohydrate glucose in the bloodstream. Because the rest of the cells become, they're less proficient in weeding out the weak, the lame, the unfit, when everybody is fat and happy with all the sugar in our system. So there's no need to ferret out these dysregulated cells.

And then all of a sudden, you find yourself with it spread all over your body, or you really have a big problem. And you can go back and look at the way most, cancer is very rare in organisms that live in their natural environments. All right? Wolves rarely had cancer. Very few of our primate relatives, the chimps, the gorillas, the orangutans, cancer is very rare in these animal species. Just like our aboriginal past, cancer is extremely rare. It's only within the last 50 or 60 years, especially within the last 30 or 40 years, that we see this. Why is this? What is going on? It's not genetic. This whole nonsense about cancer being genetic is crazy. It's environmental. Wake up, people.

It's an environmental situation. As soon as the Food and Drug Administration unleashed high fructose corn syrup, and as soon as our society became more dependent on technology, we lack our exercise. We're filling our bodies with glucose and sugar is not a carcinogen, but it creates systemic inflammation. Systemic inflammation will damage oxidative phosphorylation. Systemic inflammation allows you to be infected by viruses, oncogenic viruses. Your body simply becomes weaker when you're in these kinds of states. As I said before, we have an obesity epidemic. This propels people for type 2 diabetes, dementia, cancer, cardiovascular disease. All of these diseases together are called chronic diseases from our diet and lifestyle. Diet and lifestyle are responsible for this problem.

Now you try to figure out, okay, what are we going to do to manage the system? You could do prevention. As you know, most people don't care about prevention. Some do. Most people don't. Then when you have cancer, people want some sort of a rapid cure, and you get all these toxic things that you're given when you do standard of care. You have a bad problem. You make it worse. But you're right, Jesse. It's ourselves. It's our body. It's the way we live in our society that's contributing to a lot of this problem. There's some really interesting research with cells, and this is where they took different organelles.

Actually, it was the cytoplasm and the nucleus, and then they put different tumors into the cytoplasm and the nucleus. Talk about how that worked and what they found out from that. Yeah, well, that's the nuclear transfer experiments. I summarized all those. As I mentioned in the last, maybe I did. I don't remember. But those nuclear transfer experiments were a backbreaker to this whole view that cancer is a genetic disease. These studies were done by Dr. Kinnell. He was down at Louisiana. He since went to the Minnesota. He passed away a couple of years ago. Kinnell's work on the frogs. Then there was Jim Morgan's group at St.

Jude's, and there was Rudy Anish's group down here at MIT, Beatrice Mintz's group, the Israel and Schaeffer's group from the University of Vermont, Shane Wimberland from University of Texas. All of these groups had done these kinds of experiments where they would take the nucleus of a tumor cell and put it into the cytoplasm. Correct, they took the nucleus of a tumor cell, put it into a normal cytoplasm, and you would get no dysregulated growth. On the other hand, if you took the normal nucleus and put it into the tumor cytoplasm, you got dysregulated growth. I documented how these studies were done over and over again, repeated time and time again.

All different types of cancers, all different types of protocols. As I said, what were they doing? They were simply asking whether or not a tumor nucleus could direct normal development or not. The answer was the tumor nucleus was suppressed in its abnormal growth. The cytoplasm was controlling the regulation of growth. That's exactly what I said because in the cytoplasm are the mitochondria. The mitochondria control the cell cycle. If the mitochondria are damaged, you have all these nuclear gene mutations and you put it in a normal cytoplasm and you get normal regulated growth. I have a picture of it around here somewhere. I should have had it. The picture says a thousand words. You can follow the picture.

I published it in this paper here. Folks can read all the details of these experiments. If you go and read the detailed documentation of these with all the references, I even have it in my book. I have a whole chapter on the nuclear mitochondrial transfer experiments. Also, if you have a cell that's dysregulated in growth and you say, well, we're going to clean out the bad mitochondria and put new mitochondria in, the cell becomes regulated in its growth. Then if I have a slow growing or a normal cell and I put abnormal mitochondria in there, it becomes dysregulated in its growth. It's just everything is controlled by the mitochondria in the cytoplasm, not by the genes in the nucleus.

This is the key that tells us that cancer cannot be a nuclear driven genetic mutation disease and that is a mitochondrial metabolic disease. That changes the whole playing field about how cancer should be treated, managed, and viewed. Once that comes around, the whole system will change to a more rational way to treat the cysts without toxicity. Until that becomes more widely known, we're going to suffer through what we're currently having. Where this can become confusing for people is the fact that with the new theory you're proposing, there still is genetic changes as cancer develops. The difference is with the conventional wisdom and theory, they're saying the cause of cancer is genetic.

In your case, you're just saying that genetic changes happen as cancer develops. Yeah. I mean, they come down. So, the cancer cells are throwing out what we call reactive oxygen species. So, if the mitochondria are abnormal, oxygen comes in and instead of serving as an acceptor for electrons to generate ATP, they form these ROS, reactive oxygen species, which are like metabolic bombs. They destroy the proteins. They destroy the DNA. They cause mutations in the DNA. They cause abnormalities in the lipids. They kind of just destroy, disrupt everything. Right? So, the ROS, so the mitochondria become damaged. They produce ROS. ROS are carcinogenic and mutagenic.

What does that mean? It means that the abnormal metabolites, these ROS coming out of the mitochondria, are causing the mutations as downstream effects in the nucleus, as downstream. So yes, when you look under big gene sequencing, it's like they do down here at the Broad Center or wherever these big gene sequencing, they find thousands and millions of genetic defects in the nucleus of tumor cells. Precision medicine says we need to focus on those unique kinds of mutations to try to manage cancer. That's crazy. They're all downstream stuff. You can see why we have 1,600 people a day.

They're not dying from cancer because these therapies, precision medicine, all this kind of stuff you hear about, it's not working because it's based on a flawed theory. In this paper here, Dr. Christos Shinopoulos, world leader in mitochondrial energy metabolism and I, compared and contrast the view of cancer as a genetic disease or cancer as a mitochondrial metabolic disease. It becomes clear to everyone within a reasonable level of education and functional brain cells that cancer cannot be a genetic disease, period. Okay? Period. It's not a genetic disease.

Yet people would say, how is it possible you can say that when I go down to all the top cancer centers and they're all telling me that it's because they don't read the scientific literature. Either they don't read it or they don't understand it or they don't want to know about it. So what am I supposed to do about that? I'm telling you what's going on. People can listen and they can make up their own minds. They can read the papers themselves and come to their own conclusion. The beautiful thing about your theory and we're going to get to treatment here.

The beautiful thing about that as well is the fact that this is very non-toxic and it applies to cancers across the board. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's really important, Jesse, because you know, and that's another thing that is holding us back massively. That you think brain cancer is different from breast cancer, different from lung cancer, different from colon cancer, different from bladder cancer, different from melanoma, different from leukemias, different from all these. I have a leukemia, breast cancer. They're all very, very similar. I did. I showed all that evidence. We went back and looked at every one of the major cancers and they all have defects in the number structure and function of their mitochondria.

That means every one of these major cancers is dependent on glucose and glutamine. Right? I mean, this is scary. It's very scary. You're telling me that all these cancers, yeah, unite the tribes. Bring all these breast cancer, bring all the colon, the brain, bring them all together in one table and sit around and saying, what do we all have in common, folks? You know? Okay. You think your brain cancer is different from my breast cancer, from my colon cancer? They're all fermenters. They all have damaged respiration and they're all fermenting. So are you telling me a similar kind of therapy could be effective in managing all these kinds of cancers? My answer is absolutely. How do you know? Because I've done it.

I've tested it in the lab. We can't find any cancer that can live without glucose and glutamine. So what does that say? I mean, it's not like, oh, they're so sophisticated. They're so tough. Oh, they're so wily. That's all bullshit. You know, they're just not reading the literature on what you should know to know about the biology of the cell. So yeah. Are there any therapies anywhere in any major clinic on the planet that is reducing glucose and glutamine while transitioning the body over to ketones? Because ketones cannot be fermented. And the answer is no. It's not being done anywhere. Are there clinical trials thinking about this? Yes.

What does that mean? Well, we're going to use standard of care and then maybe throw in some sort of a diet. That's going to have a minor effect. You got to do what I say. You have to do the way we're working and we're developing the global therapy for cancer because we understand the biology of the problem. We know how to tackle this. Will it be successful in every human being that would come in that would have cancer? Probably not. But I can tell you it's going to do a hell of a lot better than everything that we have currently as a standard of care. And I know this because I've tested it.

I've been spending many, many years looking at these kinds of things. And we're shocked by the fact that it cannot be adapted in clinics. Why don't you figure it out? Why? Ask the people, what's going on here? Why is this not being done? If you enjoyed that clip, press here for the full episode. I'll see you over there. And I have the science to say what you should do, but it's up to you to determine whether or not you want to do that. The body will turn on the tumor and dissolve it and eat it together with the diet drug combination. .

Jesse Chappus

The Shocking New Truth About CANCER! (Nobody Shares This) | Dr. Thomas Seyfried

Description generated by Skrybot

Transcription generated by Skrybot

S K R Y B O T

Skrybot. 2023, Video transcriptions from YouTube