I can't help but mention that there are two dominant schools of thought regarding cancer treatments:
1. The Somatic theory of cancer ('bad genes/out-of-control cellular replication')
2. The metabolic theory of cancer ('cancer cells ferment blood sugar for energy via an ancient emergency metabolic pathway')
Both have merit, but a complete occlusion of one would be bad.
I wrote an open letter, long ago, to a wealthy person who was on the board of a cancer research center, suggesting they read a book and fund the key research scientist:
https://josh.works/mike-clayville-can-have-a-huge-impact-on-...
I thought of the metabolic theory of cancer as I opened this page, because all cancers have a similar reliance upon certain energy generation pathways, which implies a corresponding vulnerability for treatment.
Some people find it interesting enough to click through, read the article, and to read the book.
1. The Somatic theory of cancer ('bad genes/out-of-control cellular replication')
2. The metabolic theory of cancer ('cancer cells ferment blood sugar for energy via an ancient emergency metabolic pathway')
Both have merit, but a complete occlusion of one would be bad.
I wrote an open letter, long ago, to a wealthy person who was on the board of a cancer research center, suggesting they read a book and fund the key research scientist:
https://josh.works/mike-clayville-can-have-a-huge-impact-on-...
I thought of the metabolic theory of cancer as I opened this page, because all cancers have a similar reliance upon certain energy generation pathways, which implies a corresponding vulnerability for treatment.
Some people find it interesting enough to click through, read the article, and to read the book.