By Michael Edwards | 22 May 2015 ORGANIC LIFESTYLE MAGAZINE — Detoxing from vaccines is a process without a definite timeline. Think of it as an ongoing journey. Toxin accumulation, especially heavy metals like mercury, can […]
By Laurence Kotlikoff | 14 May 2019 THE HILL — Social Security’s annual Trustees Report came out recently, and it showed Social Security ran a gigantic $9 trillion deficit between last year and this year. The system’s […]
Mental disorders are often portrayed in a bad light in media,1 resulting in negative stereotypes that have long been ingrained in American culture. However, just like physical ailments, mental disorders are an illness, and those who suffer from them need help and support.
There’s a large lack of understanding and education on how to cope with mental diseases, as many people typically focus on physical health.
It’s estimated that 54 million Americans are affected with a mental illness in a given year.2 The most common types that you may have heard about are depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is probably the most misunderstood.
Common Misconceptions About Schizophrenia
There are plenty of misconceptions that surround schizophrenia. The examples below are the most prominent ones, which you may already be aware of:3
• Schizophrenics have multiple personalities — It’s not clear how this idea came about, but schizophrenics do not have “split” or multiple personalities. The word “schizo” does mean split, but the word actually refers to a person’s ability to think and express emotions. People with multiple personalities are diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder.
• Schizophrenics have dangerous behavior — This myth stems from the negative portrayal of schizophrenics in films, where they’re often depicted as criminals with dangerous, paranoid behavior. In truth, only a very small number of schizophrenics commit crimes, with only 23% of this rooted directly in their symptoms.
• Schizophrenia can’t be treated — While it’s true that schizophrenia has no cure, that doesn’t mean schizophrenics can’t be helped. A combination of different treatment methods can work together to reduce your risk for a schizophrenia attack. In fact, many schizophrenics go on to have a successful recovery and excel in their chosen careers.
• Schizophrenia is caused by bad parenting or a bad childhood4 — People often speculate that the reason why a person gets schizophrenia is due to having a difficult childhood. This isn’t the case, as schizophrenia is caused by a complex interplay of genes and your environment. Your upbringing is just one part of the equation.
How Does Schizophrenia Affect You?
Schizophrenia is a disease that affects the way you perceive reality and can cause major behavioral changes. Defining symptoms include:5
- Cognitive problems, such as trouble thinking logically
- Having hallucinations or hearing voices
- Reduced speech
- Attention problems
- Lack of pleasure in daily activities/routines
- Odd beliefs that others do not agree with
- Lack of emotional expression during speech
- Agitated body movements
Researchers aren’t sure how schizophrenia develops, but evidence suggests that schizophrenia has a hereditary component. If you have a schizophrenic relative, you have an increased risk that you may get it as well.
Treating schizophrenia relies on a combination of different methods, all working together to help manage the symptoms. A healthy diet, exercise and supportive therapy are generally recommended to help lower your risk for an attack. Medication may be prescribed as well, but be aware that medications come with many side effects.
This guide aims to educate you about schizophrenia, such as its different subtypes, symptoms, treatment and factors that may increase your risk. You’ll also discover how to spot early signs of this mental disorder. But note that the information provided here isn’t enough to help you manage schizophrenia alone. It’s still important to consult with a trusted doctor, preferably one who has plenty of experience helping schizophrenics in the past.
With its impressive array of nutrients — fiber, antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthin, vitamins A, K and C, and omega-3 and -6 fats — it’s not surprising that kale is now dubbed a “superfood,” and has found its way into many recipes, such as salads and soups, and even as a healthy snack. Its exceptionally high amount of protein — 2 grams in every 100-gram serving — for a vegetable has caused it to earn the moniker “the new beef.”
But how do you cook kale properly to ensure that you get to enjoy its flavor? If cooking this vegetable is something new to you, don’t worry. This guide will help you learn to cook kale greens properly — whether you get them fresh or frozen, and whether you cook them in the oven or on the stovetop. You can also check out some healthy recipes featuring this one-of-a-kind superfood.
How Long Should You Cook Kale?
The ideal cooking time for kale depends on your chosen method. Most of the time, kale is boiled because it makes it tender and chewy but not mushy, plus brings out its sweetness. BBC Good Food suggests these steps when cooking whole kale leaves:
- Rinse whole kale leaves before placing them in a pan. No need to shake off the water. Cover.
- Let the kale cook for two minutes or more until it’s wilted.
- Drain the excess water thoroughly.
If using shredded or chopped leaves, try this method:
- Place the kale in a pan with 1 centimeter (not quite a half-inch) of water.
- Add a pinch of salt and bring to a boil, then simmer up to five minutes or until wilted.
- Drain the kale thoroughly.
If pan-frying, the cooking time can take as much as 10 minutes. Remember that cooking kale to get the right texture may require a bit of patience. The key is to make sure that the kale is tender and soft after cooking. This will allow you to enjoy its flavor and versatility.
How to Cook Kale in Different Ways
Below are two methods on how to cook kale. Before you decide on a cooking method, though, you need to know what type of kale you’re cooking with. For example, Bon Appetit notes that curly kale, the most common variety, is great when sautéed or roasted alongside meats or other vegetables. Once exposed to dry heat, such as in the oven, the curly edges crisp up beautifully. These techniques are also good for red kale or scarlet kale.
On the other hand, Tuscan kale or dinosaur kale, which is slightly thinner and more tender than red kale and curly kale, has a shorter cooking time, but is more versatile. Use it raw in salads, or add it last to soups and pastas. Be careful not to overcook it, or you can lose the chewy texture.
You also need to choose whether you’re using frozen or fresh kale. Most people prefer to buy fresh kale and use it immediately, but did you know that freezing kale can actually have some benefits? Aside from extending the shelf life for up to a year, freezing kale also gives it a sweeter flavor compared to fresh kale.
If you’re wondering how to cook frozen kale versus fresh kale, here’s good news: You don’t need to wait for it to thaw. If you’re using this vegetable for soups, sauces, stews or raw juices, just add the frozen greens as you would fresh. However, Chef Rich LaMarita of Natural Gourmet Institute in New York notes that frozen kale will add moisture to whatever dish you’re preparing, so it may not be suitable for other types of recipes — you may need to choose fresh kale instead.
How to Boil Kale on the Stove
How to Boil Kale
Optional: Season the greens with a drizzle of lemon juice and a pinch of salt and pepper.
How to Bake Kale in the Oven: Making Kale Chips
If you want to make a healthy snack using kale, then I’d recommend making kale chips. Check out this easy kale chips recipe:
Simple and Crunchy Kale Chips Recipe
Tip: Spice these kale chips up with your favorite flavors, such as chili powder, garlic powder or onion powder.
How to Cook Kale Chips in a Skillet
Check Out These Other Delicious Kale Recipes
Kale is versatile — whether you want to use it for breakfast, lunch or dinner, mixed with other ingredients, or enjoyed by itself, you certainly wouldn’t be disappointed with the countless ways you can use this leafy green vegetable. To get you started, here are three scrumptious and healthy kale recipes you can make at home.
Kale Tortilla Recipe
(Recipe by Pete Evans)
Preparation time: 15 minutes
Ingredients for the salad:
(Recipe by Marisa Moon of My Longevity Kitchen)
(Recipe by Cynthia Machado)
Can I Eat Raw Kale?
Just like other leafy greens, kale can be enjoyed raw. One of the simplest ways to do so is to add it to smoothies, just like in this Avocado Super Smoothie Recipe. Adding raw kale to Caesar salad and other salads with heavy dressings is something that’s also being done by many restaurants today. MedicalNewsToday recommends “massaging” the leaves by briefly scrunching them in your hands. This breaks down the cellulose in the leaves so kale’s nutrients can be easily released and absorbed by the body.
However, consuming too much raw kale may lead to unpleasant effects. In a Washington Post article, Dr. Deirdre Orceyre, a naturopathic physician from the Center for Integrative Medicine at the George Washington University Medical Center, notes that raw kale can tax the digestive system and cause bloating, gas and other abdominal problems.
She also notes that kale “contains a compound that can suppress thyroid function in certain people.” These compounds are known as goitrogens, and are found in other raw leafy greens as well, such as broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and cabbage. Since cooking reduces the goitrogens in kale, Orceyre recommends limiting consumption of raw kale or kale juice to just one or two times a week, although she says you can enjoy as much of it as you like when it’s cooked.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Kale
Q. How long does it take to cook kale?
A. It depends on the cooking method. Boiling kale can take between two and five minutes, while pan-fried kale can take up to 10 minutes to cook. What’s crucial is that kale should be tender and soft when cooked, but not mushy. This brings out its naturally sweet flavor.
Q. What is kale good for?
A. One of the ways that kale can benefit you is through its lutein and zeaxanthin antioxidants, which are essential for optimal eye health. Sufficient intake of these antioxidants may help hinder macular degeneration and other retinal diseases that are linked to ultraviolet light-induced oxidative stress. For more about kale’s health benefits, read “What Is Kale Good For?”
Q. What is the best way to cook kale to make it tender?
A. You can pan-fry, steam or even bake kale, but the most ideal cooking method is to boil it. Boiling kale makes it tender and chewy but not mushy, and also brings out its sweetness.
Q. Can kale be bad for you?
A. Raw kale may contain goitrogens, which can affect thyroid function. To minimize these effects, limit your consumption of raw kale to once or twice a week, although you can consume as much cooked kale as you want.
Dr. Mercola Interviews the Experts
This article is part of a weekly series in which Dr. Mercola interviews various experts on a variety of health issues. To see more expert interviews, click here.
Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D., professor of biology at Boston College, is a leading expert and researcher in the field of cancer metabolism and nutritional ketosis. His book, “Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management and Prevention of Cancer” is a foundational textbook on this topic, and in August 2016, he received the Mercola.com Game Changer Award for his work.
Here, we discuss the mechanisms of cancer and the influence of mitochondrial function, which plays a crucial role in the development and treatment of this disease. His landmark cancer theory is available as a free PDF.
Many of his views are now encapsulated in his most recent paper,1 “Mitochondrial Substrate-Level Phosphorylation as Energy Source for Glioblastoma: Review and Hypothesis,” published online December 27, 2018. He’s also published a number of other papers2,3,4 on the metabolic underpinnings of cancer.
“The paper … is a review and hypothesis paper identifying the missing link in Otto Warburg’s central theory,” Seyfried explains. “[Warburg] defined the origin of cancer very accurately back in the 1920s, ’30s, ’40s and ’50s in his work in Germany. Basically, he argued and provided data showing that all cancer cells, regardless of tissue origin, were fermenters. They fermented lactic acid from glucose as a substrate.
Even in the presence of oxygen, these cells were fermenting. This is clearly a defect in oxidative phosphorylation. The problem is that for decades, people said Warburg was wrong — mainly because we see a lot of cancer cells take up oxygen and make adenosine triphosphate (ATP) from within the mitochondria … People began to question, ‘If cancer cells have normal respiration, why would they want to use glucose as a fermentable fuel?’
The whole concept became distorted … The cancer cells simply choose to ferment rather than respire. Now, of course, if you look under the electron microscope at majority of cancers, you’ll see that the mitochondria are defective in a number of different ways. Their structures are abnormal. The numbers are abnormal. There are many abnormalities of mitochondria seen directly under electron microscopy. Clearly, Warburg was not wrong.”
Why Biopsies Are Risky
Before we go delve into the meat of how cancer actually occurs it would be good to review a diagnostic strategy that nearly all of us are offered when confronted with a cancer diagnosis. It is vital to understand that this may not be your best strategy and that for many it would be wise to avoid the biopsy.
Seyfried warns against doing biopsies, as this procedure may actually cause the cancer to spread. A tumor is basically a group of proliferating cells in a particular part of your body. For purposes of diagnosis, a small biopsy sample will often be taken to ascertain whether the tumor is benign or malignant.
The problem is that when you stab into the cancer microenvironment to remove a part of the tissue, it creates a wound in that microenvironment that in turn elicits the invasion by macrophages and other immune cells.
If you already have an acidic microenvironment, you run the risk of causing a fusion hybridization event in that microenvironment between your macrophages and cancer stem cells (as discussed below). This could turn a potentially benign situation into a malignant one, and if the tumor is malignant, stabbing into it could make a bad situation worse.
“The question is, what is the value of doing a biopsy in the first place? We take biopsies of breast tissue to get a genomic readout of the different kinds of mutations that might be in the cells. Now, if cancer is not a genetic disease and the mutations are largely irrelevant, then it makes no sense to do that in the first place. If the tumor is benign, why would you want to stab it? If the tumor is malignant, why would you ever want to stab it?
I came to this view by reading so many articles in the literature based on brain cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, liver cancer showing how needle biopsies have led to the dissemination of these tumor cells, putting these people at risk for metastatic cancer and death,” Seyfried says.
In metabolic therapy, you would not touch the tumor; you would not disturb the microenvironment. By leaving it alone, you allow the tumor to shrink and go away.
“When you start to look at this as a biological problem, many of the things that we do in cancer make no sense. We have, in brain cancer, people say, ‘You have a very low-grade tumor. Let’s go in and get it out.’ What happens is you go in and get it out, and then the following year it turns into a glioblastoma.
How did that happen? Well, you disturbed the microenvironment. You allowed these cells that are marginally aggressive to become highly aggressive. Then you lead to the demise of the patient,” Seyfried says.
“That happens significantly because it’s called secondary glioblastoma arising from therapeutic attempt to manage a low-grade tumor. The same thing can happen with all these different organs. You stab breast tumors, you stab colon tumors, you run the risk of spreading the cells …
My argument is the following: If the patient has a lump, whether it’s in the breast, in the colon, lung or wherever or a lesion of some sort, that should be the cue to do metabolic therapy.
Do metabolic therapy first. In all likelihood, it will shrink down and become less aggressive. Then the option becomes, ‘Should we debulk completely rather than doing some sort of a biopsy?’ We want to reduce the risk, because if we can catch the whole tumor completely, then we don’t run the risk of spreading it …
In our procedure, you bring the body back into a very high state of metabolic balance, and then you strategically go and degrade the tumors slowly without harming the rest of the body.
Radiation, chemo and the strategies that we’re using today don’t do this. They’re based on the gene theory of cancer that genetic mutations are causing the cell cycle to grow out of control. Well, this is not the case. Again, a lot of these toxic procedures need to be rethought, reanalyzed in my mind.”
Solving the Warburg Theory’s Dilemma
In biology, structure determines function. This is an evolutionarily conserved concept. So, how can mitochondria be structurally abnormal in tissue, yet have normal respiration? As Seyfried notes, this doesn’t make sense. Confusion has arisen in part because many study cancer in culture, and “make profound statements and comments regarding what happens in culture,” Seyfried says.
“If you look at cancer cells in culture, many of them do take in oxygen and make ATP, but at the same time, they’re fermenting. This was the conundrum. They called it the Warburg Effect. They’re fermenting, but many people at the same time thought their respiration was normal.
This was the main problem with Warburg’s theory. But Warburg clearly said in his papers [that] it’s not the fact that they take in oxygen; it’s how much ATP they can generate from oxidative phosphorylation, which is the normal respiratory capacity of the mitochondria.”
As explained by Seyfried, if you measure ATP and look at oxygen consumption in tumor cells, it appears they’re making ATP and taking in oxygen, therefore, their respiration is assumed to be normal. However, when you look at the tissues in cancer patients, the mitochondria are abnormal.
“What I and Dr. Christos Chinopoulos from Semmelweis University in Budapest, Hungary, who is the world-leading expert on mitochondrial physiology and biochemistry … realized [was] that the mitochondria of tumor cells are actually fermenting amino acids, glutamine in particular. They’re not respiring. They’re fermenting an alternative fuel, which is glutamine,” Seyfried says.
Warburg’s Cancer Theory Proves Correct
With this understanding, Warburg’s theory can be proven correct — cancer arises from damage to the mitochondria’s ability to produce energy through respiration in their electron transport chain.
The compensatory fermentation involves not only lactic acid fermentation, but also succinic acid fermentation using glutamine as a fermentable fuel. It’s been known for decades that glutamine is a main fuel for many different kinds of cancers, but most people thought it was being respired, not fermented.
Seyfried and Chinopoulos’ discovery confirms that cancer cells in fact have damaged respiration, and to survive, the cancer cells must use fermentation. The two most available fermentable fuels in the cancer microenvironment are glucose and glutamine. Hence, targeting glucose and glutamine is a crucial component of cancer treatment.
Without glucose and glutamine, the cancer cells will starve, as they cannot use ketones. The simplest approach to cancer then is to bring patients into therapeutic ketosis, and then strategically target the availability of glucose and glutamine.
“Basically, what we’re saying [is] that mitochondrial substrate-level phosphorylation is a non-oxidative metabolism mechanism inside the mitochondria that would generate significant amounts of energy without oxidative phosphorylation,” Seyfried says.
Genetic Mutations Are Not the Cause of Cancer
According to Seyfried, mitochondrial dysfunction is at the heart of nearly every type of cancer. Unfortunately, few oncologists have this understanding and many still believe cancer is the result of genetic defects. However, nuclear transfer experiments clearly show cancer cannot be a genetic disease.
“There’s been no rational scientific argument that I have seen, to discredit the multitude of evidence showing that the [genetic] mutations are not the drivers but the effects [of mitochondrial dysfunction],” Seyfried says.
“As a matter of fact, there’s new information now where people are finding so-called genetic drivers of cancer expressed and present in normal cells, normal skin and also esophagus … This is another [issue] — how you get these so-called driver mutations in normal tissues. We’re also finding some cancers that have no mutations, yet, they’re fermenting and growing out of control.
There are a number of new observations coming out that challenge the concept that cancer is a genetic disease. And once you realize that it’s not a genetic disease, then you have to seriously question the majority of therapies being used to manage the disease. This [helps] explain [why] we have 1,600 people a day dying from cancer in the United States.
Why do we have such an epidemic of suffering and death when we have been studying this disease for decades? Well, if you look at the massive amounts of scientific papers being written on cancer, you’ll often find that they’re structured around gene defects.
What I’m saying is that if cancer is not a genetic disease and the mutations are downstream epiphenomena, why would the field continue to focus on things that are mostly irrelevant to the nature of the disease? What I’m saying is very devastating, because I’m telling the majority of the people in the field that they’re basically wasting their time …
I think we can drop the death rate of this disease by about 50% in 10 years if cancer is treated as a mitochondrial metabolic disease, targeting fermentable fuels rather than using toxic therapies that are focused on downstream effects.
Radiation is designed to stop DNA replication. DNA replication requires energy. If you pull the plug on their fermentable fuels, they’re not going to be able to replicate anyway … All of the things that we’re doing to treat cancer is basically approaching the disease from a misunderstanding of the biology …
We know viruses can cause cancer. We know radiation causes cancer. We know carcinogens cause cancer. We know intermittent hypoxia causes cancer. We know systemic inflammation causes cancer. We know just getting older puts you at risk for more cancer.
We know there are inherited mutations in the genome that can cause cancer. But how are all these things linked through a common pathophysiological mechanism? The common pathophysiological mechanism is damaged through the structure and function of the mitochondria.
Every one of the issues … including inherited mutations, damage the respiration of a particular population of cells in a tissue. You look at the breast cancer gene (BRCA 1), for example. People will say, ‘Cancer must be a genetic disease because you inherit a mutation that causes the disease.’
You only get the disease if that mutation disrupts the function of the mitochondria. Fifty percent of women who carry the mutation never get cancer or breast cancer because the mutation, for some reason, did not damage the mitochondria in that person.”
So, to summarize, the true origin of cancer is damage to the respiratory function of the mitochondria, triggering compensatory fermentation, which is run by oncogenes. Oncogenes play a role by facilitating the entry of glucose and glutamine into the cell to replace oxidative phosphorylation.
Why and How Cancer Spreads
Seyfried also has a very different view on the biology of metastasis (the spread of cancer). He explains:
“We’ve looked at cancer stem cells in a number of our preclinical models … These guys grow like crazy in place. The tumor just keeps expanding, but it doesn’t spread. It doesn’t spread into the bloodstream or metastasize to various organs.
We discovered a very unusual cancer 20 years ago. It took us 10 to 15 years to figure out what it was. You can put a few of these cells anywhere in the mouse’s body and within three to four weeks, this mouse is full of metastatic cancer. It made the cover of the International Journal of Cancer, when we published this back in 2008, but we had worked on the problem for years.
We couldn’t figure out what it was that made these cells so incredibly metastatic. We found out that once we identified the biology of the cell, it turned out [it has] many characteristics in common with the macrophage, which is one of the most powerful immune cells in our body.
We said, ‘Wow. Is this unique only to this kind of cell or do metastatic cancers in humans also express characteristics of macrophages?’ We looked and we found that almost every major cancer that metastasizes has characteristics of macrophages. Then we said, ‘Well, how could this possibly happen? Is it coming from the macrophage?’
A number of scientists … have all clearly shown that there is some fusion hybridization character going on. In other words, macrophages, our wound-healing cells, they come into a microenvironment where you might find many proliferating neoplastic stem cells, but they don’t have the capacity to metastasize.
It’s only when the macrophages fuse with these stem cells that you have a dysregulated energy metabolism coming in this hybrid cell. This hybrid cell now has characteristics of both stem cells and macrophages.
The stem cell is not genetically equipped to enter and exit tissue. The macrophage, as a normal cell of your body, is genetically equipped to enter and exit tissue and live in the bloodstream. They’re very strongly immunosuppressive. These are all characteristics of metastatic cancer.”
Metastatic Cancer Is a Hybrid Cell Combination
According to Seyfried, metastatic cancer cells are essentially a hybrid, a mix of an immune system cell and a dysregulated stem cell, the latter of which could originate from a disorganized epithelial cell or something similar. In short, it’s a hybrid cell with macrophage characteristics.
Macrophages are essential for wound healing and part of our primary defense system against bacterial infections. They live both in the bloodstream and in tissues, and can go anywhere in the body. When an injury or infection occurs, they immediately move in to protect the tissue.
“The metastatic cancer cell has many of those same properties,” Seyfried explains, “But the energy and the function of the cell is completely dysregulated, so it proliferates like crazy but has the capacity to move and spread through the body, so it’s a corrupted macrophage. We call it a rogue macrophage.”
Like macrophages, metastatic cancer cells can also survive in hypoxic environments, which is why most angiogenic therapies are ineffective against metastatic cancer.
So, what do these metastatic hybrid cells need to survive? Both macrophages and immune cells are major glutamine consumers, and according to Seyfried, you can effectively kill metastatic cells by targeting glutamine.
Conventional Cancer Treatments Are Unnecessarily Deadly
However, it must be done in such a way so as to not harm the normal macrophages and the normal immune cells. In other words, it must be strategic. For this reason, Seyfried developed a “press-pulse therapy” for cancer, which allows the patient to maintain normal immune system function, while at the same time targeting the corrupted immune cells — the macrophage fusion hybrid metastatic cells — as well as inflammation.
“The therapies we are using to attempt to kill these [metastatic] cells put us at risk for having the cells survive and kill us. You can control these cells for a short period of time, but they can hunker down and enter into some sort of a slightly dormant state, but they reappear.
People say, ‘Oh, these tumor cells are so nifty and smart they can come back at you.’ The problem is you’ve never really challenged them on their very existence, which is they depend on fermentation to survive. If you don’t target their fermentation, they’re going to continue to survive and come back at you.
Many of the therapies that we use — radiation, chemo and some of these other procedures — are not really going after the heart of the problem. That oftentimes put you at risk for the recurrence of the disease. Your body is already seriously weakened by the toxic treatments. And in the battle, you lose. If you are fortunate enough to survive … your body is still beat up.
You have now put your [body] at risk for other kinds of maladies … Why are we using such toxic therapies to kill a cell when we know what its weaknesses are? These are the paradigm changes that will have to occur as we move into the new era of managing cancer in a logical way.”
A Strategic Approach to Killing Cancer Cells
To properly address cancer, then, you need to clean up the microenvironment, because the microenvironment will strategically kill cells that are dependent on fermentation while enhancing cells that aren’t. At the same time, the microenvironment will also reduce inflammation.
“You also have to be very careful not to kill your normal and healthy immune cells, because they need glutamine too,” Seyfried says. “What we find is that when we strategically attack the tumor this way, it turns out that our immune cells are paralyzed.
The cancer cells are killed, but the normal immune cells are paralyzed. They’re not dying, they’re just not doing their job. What we do is we back off the therapy a little; allow the normal immune cells to regain their biological capacity, pick up dead corpses, heal the microenvironment, and then we go after the cancer cells again.
It’s a graded response, knowing the biology of the normal cells and the abnormal biology of the tumor cells. This is a beautiful strategy. Once people know how you can play one group of cells off another, and how you can strategically kill one group of cells without harming the other cells, it really becomes a precision mechanism for eliminating tumor cells without harming the rest of the body.
You don’t need to be poisoned and irradiated. You just have to know how to use these procedures to strategically kill the cells. Protecting normal macrophages is part of the strategic process. Killing the corrupted ones is part of the strategic process. Again, you have to put all of these together in a very logical path. Otherwise, you’re not going to get the level of success that we should be getting.”
The Press-Pulse Strategy
This strategy is what Seyfried calls “press-pulse treatment,” and essentially involves restricting the fermentable fuels — glucose and glutamine — in a cyclical fashion to avoid causing damage to normal cells and tissues. Glucose is effectively restricted through a ketogenic diet. Restricting glutamine is slightly trickier.
The press-pulse strategy was developed from the concept of press-pulse in the field of the paleobiology. A “press” was some chronic stress on populations, killing off large numbers, but not everything, because some organisms can adapt to stress. The “pulse” refers to some catastrophic event.
The simultaneous occurrence of these two unlikely events led to the mass extinction of almost all organisms that existed on the planet. This was a cyclic event over many hundreds of millions of years. The geological records show evidence for this press-pulse extinction phenomenon.
“What we simply did was take that concept and say, ‘Let’s chronically stress the tumor cells.’ They need glucose. You can probably kill a significant number of tumor cells by just stressing their glucose. That’s the press. The press is different ways to lower blood sugar. You put that chronic stress on top of the population either by restricted ketogenic diets [or] therapeutic fasting. There are a lot of ways that you can do this.
Also, emotional stress reduction. People are freaked out because they have cancer, therefore their corticoid steroids are elevated, which elevates blood sugar. Using various forms of stress management, moderate exercise — all of these will lower blood sugar and contribute to a chronic press and stress on the cancer cells.
However, you’re not going to kill all cancer cells if you just take away glucose. Because the other fuel that’s keeping the beast alive is the glutamine. We have to pulse, because we can’t use a press for glutamine targeting, because then you’re going to kill your normal immune cells or impair them, and they are needed for the eventual resolution of the disease.
What we’re going to do is we’re going to pulse various drugs. We don’t have a diet system that will target glutamine. Glutamine is everywhere. It’s the most abundant amino acid in your body … But you have to use [the drugs] very strategically; otherwise they can harm our normal immune system and then be counterproductive …
I think that once we understand how we can target effectively glutamine without harming our normal immune cells … this is the strategy that will make most of these other therapies obsolete … It’s cost-effective and non-toxic and it will work very well.
But we’re still at the very beginning of this. We need to continue to develop the doses, timing and scheduling of those drugs that are most effective in targeting glutamine that can be done without harming the rest of the cells in our body.”
If you would like to support Dr. Seyfried’s research, please consider making a donation to the “Foundation For Metabolic Cancer Therapies.” The donation tag is on the top row of the of the foundation site. This Foundation is dedicated to supporting Dr. Seyfried’s studies using metabolic therapy for cancer management with 100% of the donated funds going directly to research on metabolic therapy for cancer.
|Greek bronze caldron contain 1000 liters of wine found in Celtic grave. The Celts had trade with many far away places.|
This is a quite interesting video of some archeological sites in central Europe which correlates what the Sphere Alliance Data Collectors told us about the Celtic origins of Europe.
The video has some fantastic archeological finds about the nature of Celtic societies and the equal status women held prior to the Roman Empire. The Celts were known as “Gaul” in Rome, and encompassed much of what is Spain and France, prior to Rome conquering it, Gaul is a romanization of the word “Gael” from which the word Gaelic springs. Gael means “joy”.
The Andromedans and Pleiadians consider themselves to be Celts as the Andromedans originate from Atlantis 1 (which was a success, while Atlantis 2 was destroyed by the Draco invasion and its own hubris). Andromedans are one of the ET races, along with Lyrans and others that contributed to the genome of the Pleiadians. So both their languages have ancient roots in a prior civilization on Earth and it is closely related to Gaelic. Later in Scotish history the tribe known as the “Picts” were a colonization by a certain group of Andromedans, they were absorbed into the later Caledonian Celtic tribes that moved out of Europe and the Black Sea seeking a refuge in Scotland, The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath outlines the Scottish record of their migration into Scotland.
“…we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia [Northern Black Sea] by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea [the sea between Italy, Sicily and Sardinia] and the Pillars of Hercules [modern Gibraltar and Ceuta], and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons [another indigenous celtic tribe] they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed [actually they intermarried] , and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner. “
Much of Celtic history has been erased from memory by successive conquerors such as Rome, Maghreb (in Spain) and the Roman Church when Rome went corporate. Records of the Celts in Europe likely exist in the Vatican library.
The Enigma of the Celtic Tomb
Video Summary: 2500 Years ago, a dynasty of Celtic Princes founded the first towns in Northern Europe. They constructed harbours along rivers and traded goods with people from all over Europe. This film presents new insights into Celtic history and culture thanks to exclusive access to the Celtic Tomb in Lavau (France) and the exceptionally rich and well-preserved collection of objects found on the gravesite.
Also an interesting article here: https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/examining-rich-tomb-mysterious-celtic-princess-005388
This month, George Orwell’s legendary novel Nineteen Eighty-Four turns 70 years old, and the warnings contained within the story are now more relevant than ever.
Orwell’s predictions were so spot on that it almost seems like it was used as some type of accidental instruction manual for would-be tyrants.
In the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, there is an all-encompassing surveillance state that keeps a watchful eye on everyone, in search of possible rebels and points of resistance.
Censorship is the norm in this world, and is so extreme that individuals can become “unpersons” who are essentially deleted from society because their ideas were considered dangerous by the establishment.
The Latest Deep State Smear Victim is a 14-Year-Old Girl | The Soph Shut Down — 1791
Did you know that the technology for getting 1,000 MPG in your car has existed since the 1970’s?
An amazing video proves Shell Oil scientists, working at a lab in Modesto, California, figured out how to get over 1,000 miles per gallon (mpg) in the late 1970s!
The son of one of the members of this team was excited about telling the story of his father but suddenly stopped returning phone calls from the producer. I’m sure he was threatened.
Oh, and don’t think this 1,000 MPG was made using a modified bicycle with a tiny engine or something, these were in fairly stock automobiles.