Aug
11
2016

Excerpt on “Cancer” from New Book by Ken Hutchins

5 comments written by Kristina

I have a new book being published this year. I am not ready to disclose the title or the theme, but here is a section from one of the Appendices that I want everyone to read now and to distribute widely and without concern for copyrights. I give it freely.

For many years, I have considered people who fast (diet) as kooks. For the reasons stated in the following section, I have changed my tune.

Cancer

book cover

I only briefly mentioned that doctors know nothing about cancer in the previous appendix. There are a few exceptions, but they are rarely oncologists and they are exceedingly rare and difficult to find. Once you read this you will know far more than almost anyone presently walking the halls of MD Anderson, Sloan-Kettering, or other cancer centers. Most of the following information is from Tripping Over the Truth by Travis Christofferson. It is imperative that we all read and study this book!

In Chapter XVI, I lightly touched upon fasting for cancer. Herein, you will come to know why this works. Before now, there have been many fringe individuals and groups promoting various extreme diet approaches for cancer—oftentimes with successful cure. I don’t believe that many of these promoters knew or know why the approach works, but now we know exactly the mechanism.

Cancers—all forms—are curable. Regardless of where they reside—liver, pancreas, ovary, uterus, brain, breast, prostate, blood, lung, colon, etc,—they all have a common cause and a common cure. This has been suspected and well researched since 1924, but suppressed by the AMA, the FDA, the NCI, the ACI, big pharma and the medical schools. This is the pinnacle of scandal.

And what’s more, most cancers are curable with either fasting or a ketogenic-plant-based diet though the patient is well beyond fourth stage and on the death bed, so-to-speak.

The medical delivery system profits obscenely from any one unlucky enough to suffer and die of cancer. And this profit mill is fiercely defended. Of course, a good dose of stupidity among the doctors helps to foster this along. Evidence for the glaring foolishness is the number of victims who are the doctors themselves and close family of the doctors. And there remain megabucks in NOT finding the cure for cancer.

Note that, at least as far I as I know, oncologists are the highest paid of all the medical professionals and often receive handsome kickbacks for prescribing cancer drugs, especially chemotherapy.

I am in a unique position—a position that most of you can be in by studying. I own a lot of information about the travesties of the cancer industry. And I can talk and write about it.

But you say, “You and I are not doctors. What gives us the right to talk about such things?” This is precisely the point, just that it’s the other way around.

Most doctors are extremely careful not to buck the oncologists for fear of professional and legal retaliation. I don’t have that problem, exactly because I am not a doctor.

And if I take money for giving advice regarding cancer, I might be hauled in for practicing medicine without a license. But since I don’t take money for my advice, I don’t have a legal problem either.

Besides, if your doctor can’t speak the truth, and I am inclined to keep my pen and mouth silent about the matter, who can talk about it? Nonsense! Try and stop me!

As it exists now, the cancer industry is corrupt. And this evilness can be dashed quickly if all of you arm yourselves with the information.

If we could snap our fingers and instantly change all the cancer hospitals into nutrition counseling centers, the monetary savings just in the United States would be more than enough to fund all of the medical insurance for the indigent population of our country.

Cancer—contrary to what has been promulgated for the past 100 years—is not an immediate genetic disorder. It is an immediate metabolic disorder with epigenetic consequences. And, hence, its cure is not gene therapy, is not chemotherapy, is not radiation, is not immunotherapy, is not surgery, is not tamoxifen therapy, but instead metabolic therapy in the form of a diet that avoids sugar and animal products.

So here is a brief outline of cancer research history. It will provide you a time-line and background on what is truly known. Books by Christofferson and Seyfried greatly elaborate on my brevity:

In 1775, a British doctor—Percivall Pott—identified the first carcinogen. Since Pott originated the concept of carcinogens before the understanding of genetics, the idea that cancer was a genetic disorder was not involved.

In the mid-1800s, Rudolf Virchow, the father of modern pathology, recognized the fundamental pathology of cancer: uncontrolled growth.

In 1890, a German—David Paul Hansemann—discovered that all cancer cells have a common trait. Their chromosomes do not line up for pairing during mitosis as normal cells do. They are in disarray.

Thus began the somatic mutation theory (SMT) of cancer. Almost every researcher since Hansemann has been captivated with the association between cancer and genetic aberration. The inherent assumption is that this association is a direct cause and effect.

In 1909, Peyton Rous proved that a virus could cause a solid cancer. This deeply conflicted and continued to conflict the SMT theory.

In 1924, a German—Otto von Warburg—noted that all cancer cells have another common trait: they produce elevated levels of lactic acid. And he showed that when healthy cells are deprived of oxygen for brief periods of time (a few hours) they turn cancerous. This led Warburg to contend,

…that once damaged by a lack of oxygen, the cell’s respiratory machinery [later found to be mitochondria] became permanently broken and could not  be rescued by returning the cells to an oxygen-rich environment….

—from Tripping Over the Truth

by Travis Christofferson

This became known as the Warburg Effect and, although Warburg was a Nobel Prize Laureate in biochemistry and the mentor of the Hans Krebs (the famous biochemist of Citric-Acid-Cycle fame studied by all medical students), Warburg was considered a kook due to his relentless arguments pushing a metabolic origin of cancer. His theory was questioned as early as 1928 by a lecturer and surgeon at King’s College Hospital in London although he won a Nobel Prize in 1931 for his work describing how cells used oxygen to create energy and was nominated for the Nobel Prize three separate times for three separate achievements.

Warburg discovered the Warburg Effect, but could never explain why or how the cancer cells exhibited the Effect. Warburg had been thoroughly discredited by 1976—greatly due to the cellular origin of viral oncogenes by Harold Varmus and Michael Bishop.

Among other giants in cancer research field who were hell bent on proving a cure within the genetic basis of cancer (SMT) Hans Krebs wrote:

…Warburg neglected the fundamental biochemical aspect of the cancer problem, that of the mechanisms which are responsible for the controlled growth of normal cells and which are lost or disturbed in the cancer cell. No doubt, the differences in energy metabolism discovered by Warburg are important, but however important; they are at the level of the biochemical organization of the cell, not deep enough to touch the heart of the cancer problem, the uncontrolled growth. Warburg’s “primary cause of cancer’—may be a symptom of the primary cause, but is not the primary cause itself…

—from Tripping Over the Truth

by Travis Christofferson

 

As I see it, in making Warburg out to have made the one biggest mistake of his career, it is, instead, Krebs that made the biggest mistake of his—Kreb’s—career.

Due to Kreb’s influence and respect throughout the medical community, this mistake unnecessarily has cost millions of people their health, lives and loved ones.

Krebs was the student and friend of Warburg. He probably knew Albert Lehninger, Pedersen’s (discussed later) boss. How could Krebs get things so wrong when he had such giants—other great biochemists like himself, not a geneticist who would naturally be inclined to go down the SMT track—influencing him toward a metabolic mindset? What was the distraction for Krebs. Was it big Pharma’s sway? I doubt if we will ever know.

In 1948, Cyril Darlington found that with a dose of X ray just strong enough to damage the chromosomes, cancer did not occur, but with a dose high enough to damage both the chromosomes and the mitochondria, cancer resulted. The SMT theorists ignored this.

In 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the structure of DNA. This discovery put biology at the forefront of medical research and captivated the minds of researchers and public alike. It linked up the original seed planted by Hansemann and drew upon the celebrated heritage of Mendel. According to James Watson, this momentous occasion, like flipping a switch (my expression), swung the emphasis in biology away from the biochemists studying metabolism and toward a dominance of  the molecular biologists studying how DNA was used to make nucleic acids.

In 1964, Pete Pedersen started working for the famous biochemist, Albert Lehninger, at John Hopkins School of Medicine. In 1978, he published his thorough review of the cancer cell’s defective metabolism. Among many insights, Pedersen found with rat tumors the relationship that

 …the faster a tumor grew, and the more aggressive it was—the lower the overall number of mitochondria, and the more it fermented glucose…

—from Tripping Over the Truth

by Travis Christofferson

 

Pedersen also showed that viruses use the mitochondrial machinery for replication and live within the mitochondria. This can damage the mitochondria.

In the late 1980s a loose connection between Pedersen and people with the early positron-emission tomography (PET) prototype led to the now-ubiquitous PET scan, the only way to detect active cancer in an organism.

Ironically, the methodology of its application—detecting glucose metabolism by cancer cells via consumed glucose with a Trojan Horse fluorine isotope—proves and demonstrates the exact metabolic defect a la Pedersen’s and Warburg’s assertions. The SMT industry stares at thousands of these corroborating scans every day without any hint of insight to the real origin of cancer.

Note that although the PET does not detect the elevated lactic acid end-production specific to the Warburg Effect, it highlights the commencement of the same process.

In 1990, the Human Genome Project (HGP) began with James Watson appointed head of the NIH faction. Its objective was to map out the entire genetic code of the human species.

Around 2000, Thomas Seyfried  began to dig into the history of metabolic research. After considering Warburg’s and Pedersen’s work as well as that of many others’ leading up to the advent and the end of the TCGA (next dateline topic) he concluded,

When I looked at the data, I made up my mind right away mutations had little to do with the origin of cancer.—from Tripping Over the Truth

by Travis Christofferson

In 2005, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project was commissioned by the United States government. Its purpose was to extend the Human Genome Project (HGP) to cancer cells. Watson was again appointed to head the NIH faction of this project with the private faction headed by Bert Vogelstein at Johns Hopkins University.  Its great hope was to map out the genetic code of individual cancers, so that each code could be available to pharmaceutical companies that would develop precisely targeted drugs to kill the cancers.

By 2009, Watson, the so-called father of DNA began to noticeably drift away from the SMT of cancer to reconsider metabolism.

In 2012, Seyfried released his book. In his book he recounted many studies, two from the late 1980s where a research team headed by Warren Schaeffer at the University of Vermont and another team led by Jerry Shay at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas both independently of each other and without any apparent prior reference to or knowledge of the Warburg Effect, transplanted the nuclei of cancer cells into non-cancerous, anuclear cells showing conclusively that cancer is driven from the cytoplasm. The transplantings were also performed in reverse to show that the cytoplasm of a cancerous cell does, indeed corrupt the nucleus of a noncancerous cell. Schaeffer claimed,

Here we present the data which, for the first time, provide unambiguous evidence indicating a role for cytoplasm in the expression of the malignant phenotype.

—from Tripping Over the Truth

by Travis Christofferson

This was ignored by the oncologists and the SMT theorists.

 In 2013, Vogelstein coined the phase, “dark matter” to represent his exasperation with TCGA’s inability to draw useful conclusions from the data. SMT was seen to be a useless endeavor.

Approximately 2013, both Watson and Vogelstein deserted the TCGA in search of other possibilities to cure cancers.

Why Control Dietary Intake to Cure Cancer?

So we know that the Warburg Effect is evidence of cancer.

And we know that the Warburg Effect is due to a crippled respiration.

And we know that the crippled respiration is due to defective mitochondria.

And we know—thinking backwards—that the irreversibly-crippled mitochondria and respiration panic the cell to survive via fermentation. The cancer cell has no other options.

Fermentation is extremely inefficient compared to respiration. It produces 2 molecules of ATP per molecule of glucose while respiration produces 23 from that same loan molecule of glucose.

And we know that the cancer cell is desperate to feed this inefficient process. It is characterized as a “crazed fermenter.” Therefore, the cancer cell has no other options and its only option—not really an option since there is no other choice—is  poor.

If I have cancer, it’s natural for me to consider my life to be on the edge. I could die. And it’s natural for me to consider that the all-powerful cancer is in charge of my mortal destiny. My confidence is shaken because I perceive the cancer as omnipotent.

But actually, it’s the other way around. The cancer cell reacts because of its lost confidence. It is the one on the edge. And it is very vulnerable. It is easy to push it over the edge.

To kill the cancer cell all we have to do is deny it what it needs: glucose. And fortunately,—in a sense—it is unable to resurrect the respiration system (mitochondria). It dies.

There are other nuances to this. A ketogenic diet is one that results in ketones. Ketones are not useful to the fermentation process. They are metabolized only in cells with healthy mitochondria.

Also, the ketogenic diet is enhanced by the avoidance of meats which contribute pyruvates to feed into the fermentation process also known as the anaerobic  process (already mentioned) as well as known as the pyruvic acid-lactic-acid cycle.

Another factor in the restriction of meats is the avoidance of methionine. Cancer cells thrive on methionine which are in highest concentration with poultry and fish according to Michael Greger, MD of the NutritionFacts.org website.

[I have mentioned Greger before. His information is solid as long as we avoid the subject of exercise. Like most authorities in health information, he mentions it as though it’s acceptable to assume that it is an understood subject. And let’s not forget that he is often merely parroting the sources he references.]

More on the Origin of Cancer

So what turns a normal cell to the dark side?

If the avoidance of glucose is the big part of the cure, was it also the cause? As Travis Christofferson reports, a strong argument exists for the notion that the mitochondria, in effect, “rust.” They, themselves, oxidize. They, the Grand Oxidizers become oxidized themselves. (Those who play with fire tend to get burned.) Hence, being oxidized, they deform and slowly decline in number as they are treated as waste products by the lysosomes perhaps.

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar Ken Hutchins August 16, 2016 at 8:07 am

For those in need of help with cancer go to singlecausesinglecure.org.

Also, try True North. I hear that they are all about fasting and have some good doctors there.

Also, you might look into any facility doing 3BP (3-bromophosphate) therapy. This is a metabolic therapy discussed at length in Tripping Over the Truth with regard to a very-late-stage cancer patient.

Regrettably, the present printing of Tripping Over the Truth does not have an index. So I constructed one. If any of you want it, please email me at khutchins@consolidated.net. It’s yours for the asking.

Reply

avatar Michael Davis August 20, 2016 at 2:17 pm

Fascinating read! Thank you, Ken.

Reply

avatar david klein October 27, 2016 at 2:12 pm

Great Read! Have you ever come across the book “An End To Cancer” I forget the author’s name?

Reply

avatar Russ Wakefield November 9, 2016 at 4:46 pm

Keep me posted Ken——Dr. Tullio Simonicci has expressed the Candida Connection.

Reply

avatar Bradlry June 7, 2017 at 6:19 pm

Hello Ken,
may I ask since writing this article have you tried much of the plant based ketogenic diet? If so how has it affected your muscle size and strength? Also how has the diet made you or others feel when they’ve tried it out…if you know of any examples… thanks a lot,
Bradley

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: