top of page
Search
  • Doug Dix

Curing Incurable Cancer I

Updated: Oct 16, 2023

December 20, 2022




Some 600,000 Americans die each year of cancer, many in frantic, futile desperation from being labeled “incurable.” But one of the great lessons in the long history of medicine is that cancer is never incurable. Miraculous recoveries are well documented (Forbes.com/forbes/2009/0302/074_cancer_miracles.html?sh=20ebaabe5ad8). Oncologists ignore this fact, declaring patients incurable whenever a cure is unprecedented from what they consider conventional medicine. But that’s the height of arrogance, as if anything unconventional isn’t worth considering. Some terminal patients might agree. For them, there is hospice. Others, however, need to fight on no matter how slim the odds. Many of these desperate patients flock to Mexican clinics to die of quack cures (npr.org/2006/02/15/5213530/mexicos-alternative-clinics-in-the-spotlight). But there’s nothing quacky about biochemistry. After all, vaccines and antibiotics were unconventional until they became routine.

William Coley and other 19th century physicians noticed that some miraculous cancer cures occured in patients who had contracted bacterial infection (PMID 16789469), suggesting that fever and the immune response might be involved in the cure (doi:10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0118).

In the past, both physicians and patients viewed fever as an enemy. According to Osler, “Humanity has three enemies: Fever, famine, and war; but fever is by far the greatest” (doi:10.5409/wjcp.v1.14.29). Today, many physicians and patients recognize fever as an ally in fighting infection. It and hyperthermia may be allies also in fighting cancer. They’re harmless and cheap. We should use them for all they’re worth.

Today, physicians view cachexia as an enemy. But supplementary feeding programs have not benefited cancer patients with cachexia (doi:10.1200/JCO.20.00611). But, like fever, cachexia is the body’s natural response. It may hurt the cancer more than the host, particularly when combined with fever or hyperthermia. What follows is a plan to cure cancer by starving and heating it to death. It’s conventional biochemistry. Heat increases cancer’s need for glucose (doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-83260-4_2), while carbohydrate deprivation decreases glucose availability. You might wonder why this hasn’t been tried before.

Why would oncologists ignore conventional biochemistry with curative potential? First, biochemistry is not popular in medical school, so physicians tend not to remember much about it. Second, there’s a blatant conflict of interest. The global oncology market in 2022 is almost $300 billion, and will almost double by 2030 (precedenceresearch.com/oncology-market). Curing cancer would throw countless people out of work. And these would be important, rich people, doctors and scientists, not the poor riffraff that can be ignored. Research, therefore, is carefully guided away from a cure to forms of “progress” that alleviate symptoms but at continued health care costs. Then, everyone wins, or so it seems: Patients improve, and the oncology industry grows. What could be wrong with that?

Health care costs will climb, and that will restrain wages and salaries, reduce employment, curtail public service, and fuel economic disparity (Case & Deaton, Deaths of Despair, 2020, p. 187). And all the while, terminal patients will die unnecessarily. We all die eventually, but it’s nice to live awhile before dying. It gives us the opportunity to discover that truth’s more valuable than money. And here’s a bit of truth: No one can serve two masters (Matt 6:24). When we chase money, we flee from truth, but truth’s what sets us free (John 8:32). So, don’t die without it.

Although Veritas and Lux et Veritas remain the mottos at America’s oldest colleges, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone at either school who can define truth or cares one hoot about it. Both Harvard and Yale were founded as “Schools of the Prophets,” but they became “Schools of the Profits,” hoarding obscene tax-exempt endowments while more than half of all people struggle with poverty. Younger colleges have followed in Harvard and Yale’s wake. When colleges don’t care about the poor, don’t expect them to care about the sick. It’s the money they care about.

Am I my brother’s keeper (Gen 4:9)? Should I love others as self (Lev. 19:18-34)? The correct answers are obvious. But colleges ignore them in pursuit of ever greater wealth. That’s why they still sponsor football and other collision sports, tolerate alcohol and sexual abuse, serve junk food, and condone coercion as the reason to study. And that’s why cancer researchers ignore the obvious. They value grants, publications, promotions, and awards more than a cure. Consider the following facts:

1. To cure cancer, we must exploit some difference between cancer and normal tissue. Otto Warburg discovered such a difference in the 1930’s (Cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-central/blog/2021/vander-Heiden-Warburg-effect). Cancer metabolizes glucose to lactic acid with production of two molecules of ATP per molecule of glucose, while normal tissue metabolizes glucose to carbon dioxide with production of 36 molecules of ATP per molecule of glucose. Cancer, therefore, must eat 18X more glucose than normal tissue to make the same amount of energy. Conversely, cancer will suffer more than normal tissue from glucose deprivation.

2. Chemotherapy can cure acute lymphocytic leukemia, testicular cancer, Hodgkin’s disease, and choriocarcinoma, but is rather useless against the solid tumors that make cancer the second leading cause of death. Why is that? The principal answer is impaired access. Drugs are carried by blood, but blood only trickles into cancer relative to normal tissue (R.K. Jain, Scientific American, July 1994, p. 58-63). That’s why normal tissue suffers more from chemo than cancer does (Technologynetworks.com/cancer-research/news/restoring-blood-flow-to-enhance-chemos-access-to-cancer-cells-361774). The obvious answer is to turn the tables. Replace the cytotoxin with an essential nutrient. The blood will carry it preferentially to normal tissue while depriving the cancer. Folate, vitamin B12, and thiamin can become such nutrients. See below.

3. Methotrexate ranks among the oldest and most effective anti-cancer agents. It acts by depleting tetrahydrofolate, which is essential to DNA replication and cell division. Unfortunately, cancer cells quickly develop resistance. A diet deficient in folate would achieve the same result, but with the advantage of being irresistible. It’s textbook biochemistry. The side-effect of folate-deficiency is anemia. This can be tolerated when mild and treated with low-dose folate when serious. Blood will take the folate to the normal tissue more than the cancer. High-dose methotrexate therapy with folate rescue confirms this hypothesis (doi:10.1016/002-9343(80)90105-9). Asparaginase therapy is another example of the same concept (doi:4103/0976-500X.184769).

4. A diet deficient in vitamin B12 traps folate in an inactive form and might be effective, or even synergistic, in combination with folate-deficiency (doi: 10.1073/pnas.1619582114). It’s textbook biochemistry. The side effect, again, is anemia that can be tolerated or treated with low dose B12.

5. A diet deficient in thiamin impairs the cell’s ability to make ribose, which is essential to DNA replication and cell division (doi: 10.1207/S15327914NC3602_2). Again, it’s obvious. The side-effect is beriberi. This can be tolerated when mild and treated with low-dose thiamin when serious.

6. Alternating periods of folate-deficiency with periods of B12- deficiency and/or thiamin-deficiency will facilitate recovery of normal tissue while maintaining pressure on the cancer. The permutations available for using these three vitamins in combination are endless. And any one of these permutations might be the magic bullet for a given cancer in a given patient. It’s the obvious hope for curing “incurable” cancer.

7. Diets deficient in folate or thiamin are deficient in carbohydrates. Diets deficient in B12 are deficient in meat, fish, and dairy. Calories from both diets must derive from fats. But fats can only generate calories in the presence of oxygen, and cancer is deficient in oxygen relative to normal tissue. Ketogenic diets, therefore, will feed the normal, well-oxygenated, tissue while starving the cancer. It’s so obvious, that ketogenic diets have been tried, but with disappointing results. Anyone with an understanding of biochemistry, however, would not be surprised. As glucose declines in the blood from a carbohydrate-deficient diet, gluconeogenesis, the production of glucose from protein, is stimulated. Ketogenic diets can only be effective when gluconeogenesis is inhibited. But alcohol inhibits gluconeogenesis, so distilled spirit, e.g., vodka, but not wine or beer, along with a ketogenic diet should do the trick. It’s not rocket science.

8. What does a cancer-curing diet look like? It contains all vitamins and minerals in carbohydrate-free form other than folate, B12, or thiamin along with large amounts of tap water and adequate amounts of sugar-free, indigestible fiber (psyllium, gum arabic, or glucomannan). It contains adequate, but not much more than adequate, calories from fat, e.g., butter, olive oil, fish oil, roasted turkey skin, along with barely adequate amounts of carbohydrate-free, high-quality protein, e.g., poached egg whites. Salt and vinegar can be used for flavor. It’s not gourmet, but it beats the nausea of chemo and is potentially curative, inexpensive, and, risky but manageable. In small amounts, parmesan cheese and shredded, boiled coconut meat shouldn’t do much harm.

9. The cancer-curing diet is risky because it 1) has never been tried, 2) is atherogenic, 3) could trigger life-threatening hypoglycemia, and 4) could cause tumor-lysis syndrome, i.e., kill the cancer too quickly. Cellular debris from a quick kill could clog the kidney. It is essential, therefore, that patients trying this diet be under close supervision of a vigilante physician. What kind of physician is that? It’s one with an open mind, who cares more for patients than rewards. A statin might be warranted to protect against atherosclerosis. Oral and injectable glucose should always be on hand to protect against sudden, life-threatening hypoglycemia. And patients should stay hydrated at all times to protect against tumor lysis.

10. Keep the cancer hot by means of frequent exercise and warm baths. This will increase cancer’s need for glucose, and make the above carbohydrate-deficient diet more effective.

11. Continually visualize sticking to the diet and soaking in warm baths, and exercising, and “see” the cancer disintegrating as a result.

12. Live simply and thoroughly. Appreciate nature. Walk in the woods. Keep plants in your house. Help the needy. And notice how the shadows change with time. They change that way for all of us, and, eventually, we die. Don’t think of a cure as permanent, or death as tragic. Life is just a fleeting opportunity to appreciate that truth is all that lasts. But true self, like true gravity, and true everything, is eternal. Use time alive to find that true self, and then love it to death.

13. Be kind to all. Use animal products only from certified humane farms.

14. A different approach to curing incurable cancer is dietary depletion of one or more essential amino acids (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2021.03.003). The absence of even one essential amino acid stops protein synthesis, which is essential to cell division. Commercial diets are available lacking phenylalanine (PKU diet) (https://doi.org/10.2147/nds.5337135) and valine, leucine, and isoleucine (MSUD diet). These diets are risky because they can stop protein synthesis. Adopt them only under supervision of a vigilante physician. Essential amino acid depletion might synergize with the vitamin-deficient, alcohol-fortified, keto-diets described above. Such combinations will allow normal tissue to recover while keeping pressure on the cancer.


Critics call for animal studies before human trials, but animals don’t exhibit a placebo effect. And terminal patients need hope now. The above protocol offer hope, and that, not only makes life worth living and suffering worth enduring, but it fuels recovery. Nothing is more profound than the placebo effect, and the above protocol, at the very least, is the perfect placebo. With luck, it’s much more than that.

For cancer patients abandoned by conventional medicine, there is a choice: Hospice for those ready to die, or the above protocol for those wanting to fight on. Neither option offers financial reward. Both teach love of truth as more important.


Best Wishes,

Doug

Dix@hartford.edu

6 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page