Medicine and evolution, part 13: The fly in the ointment of personalized cancer therapy

About a year ago, I addressed what might seem to the average reader to be a very simple, albeit clichéd question: If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we cure cancer? As I pointed out at the time, it's a question that I sometimes even ask myself, particularly given that cancer has touched my life. Three years ago, my mother-in-law died of a particularly nasty form of breast cancer. Even though I am a breast cancer surgeon, I still wonder why there was nothing that could save her (and still is nothing that could have saved her if it existed then) from a decline over several months followed by an unpleasant death. Yet, as a cancer researcher, I do understand somewhat. A couple of years ago, I wrote in depth about the complexity of cancer from a science-based viewpoint, as compared, of course, to the incredibly simplistic view that many purveyors of alternative medicine quackery promote as being The One True Cause of Cancer. As I put it at the time, shamelessly stealing from Douglas Adams, to steal from Douglas Adams, cancer is complicated. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly complicated it is. I mean, you may think algebra is complicated, but that's just peanuts to cancer.

Part of the reason that the complexity of cancer goes far and away beyond the complexity of most other groups of diseases is due primarily to one thing: Evolution. Yes, evolution. Contrary to the black hole of ignorance regarding evolution in some quarters, such as that embarrassment to surgeons everywhere Dr. Michael Egnor, would say, if there's a second area in medicine besides the understanding of how antibiotic resistance develops that requires a firm grounding in evolution, it's understanding how cancer develops and how it develops resistance to therapy, be it targeted therapy or chemotherapy. In their eagerness to deny that evolution has any application whatsoever to medicine, they will make incredibly stupid arguments. Yet a firm understanding of evolution is necessary to make sense of the latest genomics data that is flowing fast and furious in the form of petabytes of sequencing data. Unfortunately, if there's one problem that must be overcome if we are ever to develop effective personalized therapy for cancer, it's evolution. In fact, two of my favorite quotes about evolution come from, of all places, the mouth of a character named Dr. Ian Malcolm in the movie Jurassic Park:

If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new territories, and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, ah, well, there it is.

Unfortunately, paraphrase a later quote from Dr. Malcolm, cancer always finds a way.

I saw more evidence of some of the things that allow cancer to find a way at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting last week. In fact, if there's anything I've learned, it's that developing personalized therapy for cancer is going to be a hell of a lot more difficult than we had ever suspected. Actually, it wasn't just the AACR meeting that taught me this, but it's as good a pretext as any to discuss some cool new science. I only wish it was science that pointed an obvious path forward to the development of personalized therapy. On the other hand, if it were easy then anyone could do the "personalized therapy for dummies" approach that, for example, Stanislaw Burzynski takes. Then there's the even more ridiculously simplistic approach that certain practitioners of "complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM) take.

So why haven't we cured cancer yet? Again? One reason that I discussed last time I discussed this topic was in relation to a study that used the latest next generation sequencing (NGS) techniques to sequence seven aggressive and advanced prostate cancers. I described the results as these genomes looking as though someone threw a miniature grenade into the nucleus of a prostate epithelial cell.

In fact, it's even more complicated than that.

The challenge

It turns out that cancer is a more difficult foe than even my introduction of the topic, designed to bring readers up to speed on the issue, indicates. Ever since the genomics revolution began in the 1990s and accelerated in the 2000s, the dream has been to use the gene expression profiling information and the genome sequences of individual cancers derived from next generation sequencing technology and the latest analytic techniques. It seemed like a perfectly reasonable dream early in the genomics revolution, so much so that the Cancer Genome Project, which has been sequencing cancer genomes furiously, seemed like the right way to lay the groundwork for personalized cancer therapy. Couple that with the rapid advances in sequencing technology that have allowed us to sequence both a genome and every single RNA produced by that genome, both coding and noncoding, with a rapidity previously thought completely impossible, and the rapid decline in price of sequencing a genome that might well bring the cost below $1,000 before too long, and it's easy to understand why scientists are sequencing every tumor in sight, and more of them.

The question, of course, is how to use this massive amount of information and whether it will actually help determine how to treat cancer. A hint at the difficulty that will be involved popped up just last week in the form of a study of 104 triple negative breast cancers. This was a study that was mentioned by several speakers at the AACR meeting but wasn't published in Nature until the day after the meeting ended. This one's so hot off the presses that it doesn't even show up in PubMed yet. It comes from Samuel Aparicio at the University of British Columbia, plus other groups from UCSF, Cambridge, the University of Alberta, and Simon Fraser University and is entitled The clonal and mutational evolution spectrum of primary triple-negative breast cancers. A news report describes the finding thusly:

The journal Nature has just published the team's findings online.

The study is the largest genetic analysis of what were thought to be triple negative breast cancer tumours.

The 59 scientists involved in this study expected to see similar gene profiles when they mapped on computer the genomes of 100 tumours.

But to their amazement they found no two genomes were similar, never mind the same. "Seeing these tumours at a molecular level has taught us we're dealing with a continuum of different types of breast cancer here, not just one," explains Steven Jones, co-author of this study.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a form of breast cancer that is characterized in the clinic by its lack of hormone receptors--i.e., estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR)--and its lack of amplification of HER2/neu, an oncogene that can be targeted with Herceptin (trastuzumab). In general, most (but not all) TNBCs belong to a category of breast cancer established 10 years ago by early gene expression profiling techniques known as basal-like. Worse, TNBC tends to be more aggressive than ER-positive cancers, metastasizing earlier and recurring earlier. Because TNBC doesn't express receptors that confer sensitivity to agents targeted against the estrogen receptor or HER2, the only systemic therapy that is currently effective against TNBC is cytotoxic chemotherapy, which is very effective initially. Unfortunately, that efficacy doesn't translate into better survival. TNBC, although making up only around 15% of breast cancer, accounts for a disproportionate share of breast cancer deaths. This study, which looked at newly diagnosed TNBC before any treatment was initiated, suggests one reason why. In this study of 104 TNBCs, which is the largest series of tumors subjected to NGS analyses to date, no two tumors were the same, and they were heterogeneous even before any treatment was initiated.

That reason is that TNBC is not a single disease. In fact, even an individual TNBC tumor is not a single disease. Tumor cells evolve as they proliferate, so that the cells in them are genetically heterogeneous. The cells growing in one area of a tumor can and often do harbor markedly different genetic mutations from the cells growing in another part of the tumor. Arapicio's group found evidence that this is going on in TNBC in spades. One finding in the study was that groups of mutations within individual cases have different clonal frequencies, indicative of distinct clonal genotypes. What this means is that analysis of the NGS data found evidence of different clones of cells with different frequencies of groups of mutations, suggesting that there are a number of different clones of cells with different genetic makeups in each tumor. They also found that p53 was the most frequently mutated gene and that tumors harboring p53 mutations tended to have the greatest number of overall mutations, consistent with the role of p53 as "guardian of the genome." Moreover, tumors varied wildly from each other in the number of mutations, with some tumors harboring just a handful of somatic mutations and others harboring hundreds. Finally, only around 36% of these mutations were expressed, which is consistent with other studies. Overall, this study shows:

The team found that each tumor displayed multiple "clonal genotypes," suggesting that the cancer would have to be treated as multiple diseases, rather than a single entity.

"Triple negative breast cancer is not just one uniform subtype of breast cancer," Sam Aparicio, professor of pathology and lab medicine at UBC and senior author of the study, said in a statement. "It's actually extremely complex, with each cancer at a different stage in the evolutionary process at the time of diagnosis." This finding could "help explain why patient responses to treatment differ greatly," he added.

If there's a place where evolution will inform medicine at least as much as it does in infectious disease and the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms, it's in cancer. The knowledge that tumors are heterogeneous and that they undergo evolution based on the selective pressures from the host, including characteristics of the organ and its microenvironment and other factors, is not new. Neither is the knowledge that cancer cells undergo evolution under the selection pressure of various therapies, thus developing resistance to those therapies. Indeed, it is the tumors that are less heterogeneous because they are driven by a single mutation, that tend to be actually curable or best controlled with single-agent targeted therapies. Just like the case in whole organisms undergoing evolution in response to selective pressures, genetic variability in cancer cells provides the raw material upon which evolutionary selection pressures can operate. The result is that tumors with more genetic heterogeneity tend to develop resistance to therapy sooner.

Personalized therapy versus cancer cell heterogeneity

Less than a month before the AACR meeting, yet another study was published that threw cold water on the idea that NGS sequencing of tumors will lead to personalized therapy of cancer any time soon. This study by Charles Swanton and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is yet more evidence at how heterogeneous cancer is and how it evolves as it progresses and metastasizes. Basically, what Swanton's group did was to examine four patients with metastastic renal cell carcinoma, but to analyze different locations within the primary tumor and metastases, subjecting the tissue from these various locations to NGS techniques and mutational analysis.

Data derived from the first patient is probably the best example to discuss. This is a patient who had a type of renal cell carcinoma known as clear cell carcinoma, with lung and chest wall metastases. He was treated for six weeks with everolimus and then underwent nephrectomy. He was started on everolimus again for six weeks and then underwent resection of his chest wall metastases. In both cases, the tumors did not shrink in response to the targeted treatment. Investigators then did the following:

For Patient 1, we performed exon-capture multiregion sequencing on DNA from pretreatment biopsy samples of the primary tumor (PreP) and chest-wall metastasis (PreM), nine primary-tumor regions of the nephrectomy specimen (R1 to R9), a metastasis in the perinephric fat of the nephrectomy specimen (M1), two regions of the excised chest-wall metastasis (M2a and M2b), and germline DNA19 (Figure 2A). This sequencing resulted in a median coverage of 74 reads (Table 1 in the Supplementary Appendix). Nonsynonymous somatic point mutations and insertions and deletions (indels) that change the protein amino acid sequence were filtered and manually reviewed to remove sequencing and alignment errors and to determine the regional distribution of mutations. Regions R6 and R7 were excluded from analyses since only one nonsynonymous variant passed filtering. We identified 101 nonsynonymous point mutations and 32 indels (Table 2 in the Supplementary Appendix) and mapped their regional distributions across the tumor (Figure 2B). Sanger sequencing was used to validate 42 mutations. Of these mutations, 37 (88%) were specifically validated in regions in which they were initially identified (Figure 2B, and Fig. 1 in the Supplementary Appendix), documenting genetic intratumor heterogeneity.

Don't worry so much about the gobbledy-gook. The point is that the investigators sequenced nine areas in the primary tumor, two regions of the chest wall metastasis, a metastasis in the fat around the kidney, and the patient's germline DNA for comparison. What they found was a pattern of mutations in the tumor regions consistent with branching evolution:

We inferred ancestral relationships and constructed a phylogenetic tree of the tumor regions by clonal ordering, as described by Merlo et al.20 (Figure 2C), which revealed branching rather than linear tumor evolution. One branch evolved into the clones present in metastatic sites, and the other diversified into primary tumor regions. R4 shared some, but not all, primary-tumor and metastatic mutations, which suggested the presence of at least two clonal populations in this region that arose from progenitor cells of the metastases and of other primary tumor sites.

And, since a picture is worth a thousand words, here is Figure 2:

i-11289df57003f8b5d031d4ea4f617774-Figure 2.jpg

Another key finding is that it really matters a lot from which part of a tumor a biopsy is taken from. It matters a lot. For instance, in this same tumor, a single biopsy only contained approximately 55% of all the mutations detected in the tumor and only 34% of all mutations that were detected by multiregion sequencing in the nephrectomy specimen were present in all regions. To me, it's a classic scientific-ese understatement when the authors state that these results indicate "that a single biopsy was not representative of the mutational landscape of the entire tumor bulk." Evolution strikes again.

This evolution-induced heterogeneity means something, too. More and more, oncologists are using tests that are gene expression signatures in order to guide therapy. In breast cancer, for instance, we use the Oncotype DX assay a lot in order to decide whether patients with ER-positive breast cancers and no lymph node metastases will benefit from chemotherapy. In renal cell carcinoma, apparently there is a 110-gene signature profile that is used to classify clear cell carcinoma. Swanton looked specifically at this profile in Patient #1:

We determined the intratumoral expression of a 110-gene signature shown to classify clear-cell carcinoma into two molecular subgroups: clear-cell A (associated with a good prognosis) and clear-cell B (associated with a poor prognosis).24 Consistent with the phylogenetic analysis, metastatic sites and the primary-tumor site R4 segregated together, enriched for genes in the clear-cell A subgroup, in contrast to the remaining tumor regions that were enriched for the clear-cell B subgroup (Figure 3C). Thus, prognostic gene-expression signatures may not correctly predict outcomes if they are assessed from a single region of a heterogeneous tumor.

To give you a visual picture, take a look at Figure 3C. You don't need to know how to interpret the gene signatures, other than that red means the gene is expressed at a higher level and blue means it's expressed at a lower level. Just look at the patterns in the different areas of the tumor assayed. Notice how different they are? That's what the authors are talking about. Once again, a picture is worth the proverbial thousand words (not that that stops me from writing a thousand words anyway).

i-d5ff52abdd73ac16a12893a43d1d490e-Figure 3c-thumb-500x145-73667.jpg

Given the difficulty we often have in obtaining anything more than a needle biopsy of tumors, one biopsy from one area of a tumor is almost always what oncologists base their treatment decisions on. At least in breast cancer, we usually have the whole primary tumor, but even so only a small portion is used to do the actual Oncotype DX test. What are the consequences of this tumor heterogeneity? Evolution rules. For instance, a few months ago, researchers at Washington University did NGS analyses on the genomes of primary and relapsed tumors in eight patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and found two main patterns in the relapsed tumors:

In addition to discovering novel, recurrently mutated genes (for example, WAC, SMC3, DIS3, DDX41 and DAXX) in AML, we also found two major clonal evolution patterns during AML relapse: (1) the founding clone in the primary tumour gained mutations and evolved into the relapse clone, or (2) a subclone of the founding clone survived initial therapy, gained additional mutations and expanded at relapse. In all cases, chemotherapy failed to eradicate the founding clone. The comparison of relapse-specific versus primary tumour mutations in all eight cases revealed an increase in transversions, probably due to DNA damage caused by cytotoxic chemotherapy. These data demonstrate that AML relapse is associated with the addition of new mutations and clonal evolution, which is shaped, in part, by the chemotherapy that the patients receive to establish and maintain remissions.

Inside Darwin's tumor, indeed. The tumor cells that survived chemotherapy acquired new mutations that allowed them to regrow even faster. The parallels between cancer biology and antibiotic resistance are both sobering and humbling, the attempts of evolution denialists to paint evolution as irrelevant to medicine notwithstanding.

Meanwhile, at the AACR meeting, there were a number of other abstracts and talks that were variations on the same theme. There is a large degree of inter-tumor variability in genetic makeup and a large degree of intra-tumor variability as well. One of these studies, which looked at tumors from the ACOSOG Z1031 trial comparing different aromatase inhibitors in ER-positive breast cancer, found that the complexity of genomic changes correlated with lack of response to therapy. Moreover, as was discussed in at least a couple of talks at the AACR meeting, an evolution-based analysis of tumors using the latest NGS techniques indicates that for most solid tumors the time from founder mutation to clinically detectable metastasis is between 20 and 30 years. For example, for pancreatic cancer it's a median of around 21 years, and for colon cancer it's around 30 years. That's decades of evolution that can occur in the tumor to result in heterogeneity. Worse, it means that, by the time we see a tumor clinically, it's already very late in the process. This is not new news, of course. We've always known that it's at least several years from initiation of cancer to clinical presentation, with the part of the process from detection of the tumor to death making up a relatively small part of the timeline of the history of a cancer. All that the new NGS sequencing techniques have shown us is that the process of carcinogenesis starts earlier than we had previously thought and results in more branches in the evolutionary tree of a tumor than we had previously thought, resulting in even more tumor heterogeneity than we had thought.

So what the new genomic analytical techniques have reemphasized to us in a quantitative manner that we couldn't use before is that not only is cancer not a single disease but that cancer types are not single diseases. Breast cancers, for instance, have been shown to harbor at least 1,700 different mutations, but only three of them showed up in at least 10% of patients, with the great majority of them being unique to each patient. The most recent study in Nature discussed above shows that even a single subtype of breast cancer that is generally treated clinically more or less the same, TNBC, varies wildly (and almost continuously) in the genomic changes and mutations each tumor has. Not only that, but each TNBC is in essence several diseases, because each TNBC is made up of many different clones that have evolved as the tumor itself grew, progressed, and evolved. All of this occurs even before the tumor has been subjected to any treatment at all. As if that's not bad enough, it would appear that tumors are a mosaic of groups of many different tumor cell types that develop through branching evolution such that metastases can be very different from the primary tumor and even different regions of the primary tumor can be very different from each other, so much so that finding a "favorable prognosis signature" on a core biopsy means only that that one area biopsied has that gene signature. Large areas elsewhere in the tumor could have the unfavorable prognosis signature.

In an accompanying editorial in the NEJM, Dan DeLongo sums it up thusly, puncturing the optimism at the heart of visions of personalized medicine for cancer using targeting agents:

This modicum of success (since none of the new agents produce cures in advanced cancers, although curative combinations may yet emerge) has led to a certain level of overoptimism in the field. A new world has been anticipated in which patients will undergo a needle biopsy of a tumor in the outpatient clinic, and a little while later, an active treatment will be devised for each patient on the basis of the distinctive genetic characteristics of the tumor. The path to that new world is already being cleared, with several companies now marketing genetic tests that measure the genetic signature of a tumor, with the expectation that this signature will direct the choice of treatment and predict treatment outcome.

However, as Albert Einstein noted, "things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." A serious flaw in the imagined future of oncology is its underestimation of tumor heterogeneity -- not just heterogeneity between tumors, which is a central feature of the new image of personalized medicine, but heterogeneity within an individual tumor.

Derek Lowe put it quite well in the title of a recent post, Personalized Medicine for Cancer? Try Every Cell. He's right. We're at the point where it is now possible to do NGS on single cells. If the rate of progress continues apace, a year or two from now such sequencing studies will become fairly routine. At least at the big genomics centers, it's becoming more common. As these studies go from sequencing 100 cells to sequencing 1,000 cells or 10,000 cells, or a million cells, it's likely that it will be discovered that intratumor heterogeneity is even greater than found in these two studies.

The future of personalized medicine

Does all of this mean that personalized cancer therapy is a pipe dream? If I thought that, I wouldn't be moving towards genomics in my research. It is, however, becoming clear that developing personalized therapies for cancer is going to be a lot more difficult than we had thought before. I asked the rhetorical question, "Why haven't we cured cancer yet?" The answer is, of course, that curing a single cancer, much less many cancers, is really, really hard. Scientists not only have to contend with basically a continuous spectrum of mutations between individual cancers that renders the concept of even single cancer subtypes horribly naive, but with a near continuous spectrum of mutations between groups of cells in a single tumor.

There is reason for hope, however. As was discussed at AACR, the vast majority of cancer-causing driver mutations can be divided into 12 key molecular signaling pathways, and, as was found in the NEJM paper, mutations at the "trunk" of the divergent branching evolution tend to remain as divergent evolution occurs, and targeting them is likely to be more effective than targeting mutations further out on the branches. It might be possible to hone in on these different pathways. In the meantime, as the cost of sequencing continues to fall, it might become feasible to sequence several parts of a tumor and its metastases and map out treatments that cover all of them. Personalized medicine is thus possible and still holds promise. It's just not going to be as simple as getting a biopsy of a tumor and picking a targeted agent or two to blast the tumor into oblivion. The point is not that personalized medicine is impossible or that it's impossible to develop cures for various cancers. The point is that biology is always way more complicated than we ever thought it was, and evolution almost always wins out.

That's right. The reason we haven't cured cancer yet is because we haven't figured out how to overcome the power of evolution. Right now, cancer seems almost always to find a way. Until we figure out a way how to block all the ways it can find, personalized therapy will be effective in only a small proportions of cases.


More like this

"Personalized medicine." You've probably heard the term. It's a bit of a buzzword these days and refers to a vision of future medicine in which therapies are much more tightly tailored to individual patients than they currently are. That's not to say that as physicians we haven't practiced…
I am fortunate to have become a physician in a time of great scientific progress. Back when I was in college and medical school, the thought that we would one day be able to sequence the human genome (and now sequence hundreds of cancer genomes), to measure the expression of every gene in the…
It's October again, which is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. As someone who takes care of breast cancer patients, I have a love-hate relationship with October. On the good side, I like seeing positive messages about what's going on in breast cancer research, advocacy, and clinical treatment. On the…
Last week, I inaugurated a new series on this blog entitled Medicine and Evolution. I even wrote what was to be the second post in the series, a post that (I hoped) would illustrate the utility of applying approaches used to study evolution to human disease. That post is essentially complete, other…

Ten different types of breast cancer really? Why not seven or fifteen? A different treatment for each one I suppose. Medical research loves these subdivisions. Why not, if they are all ductal cell carcinomas, are they simply in a different stage of progression of GOING BACKWARD. If you are old enough you'll remember when all the oncology textbooks (remember books) had this word all over the place called dedifferentiation the reverse of differentiation. Then a man came along who appointed himself a the Pope of biology, and who was enthusiastically anointed as such, who pronounced that such a word was blasphemy as it inferred both order and shudder, shudder, Larmarkism. If a cell could go backward just a little bit it might be able to go back all the way to the germ line and thus abrogate the immutable Weissman barrier. Weissman was a Larmarkist who chopped of the tails of 68 white mice and 5 succeeding generations and when none of the 700 odd progeny had shorter tails he declared the Larmarkism was dead. Genes from somatic cell CANNOT go back to and enter the germ line. That dear friends is the VERY FOUNDATION STONE upon which ALL of the biological sciences rests, including of course more so than any, the 'science' of cancer research. What nobody has taken into consideration is that the meeses still NEEDED tails.

Step by step backward goes the cancer cell using less oxygen at each step whilst progressively incorporating more saturated fats in it's membranes, therefore is less vulnerable to ROS damage, it's temperature gradually rising to maintain membrane permeability to offset the reduced permeability of the saturated fats. It expresses growth receptors of an earlier time in embryogenesis with each step, hence the disappearance of ER and PG i.e. a time when there was no endocrine system. Then HER2 amplification, and that disappears to be replaced by something like ILGF (?). The cell becomes more autonomous as it goes back i.e. the penthose phosphate shunt becomes increasingly active, indicting that it's making its own DNA. It's growth goes from endocrine stimulated to juxtocrine> paracrine> autocrine. Ion communication ports between cells close, the exoskeleton disappears to free itself from surrounding cells doing likewise. The endoskeleton changes so the cell can crawl amoeba like as it prepares to metastasise. Then there is the extraordinary complexity of metastasis which is NOT random in it's chosen site at all.
If the metabolism of the cells of a blastula before implantation can be assumed to be totally anaerobic, then it's totipotent cells cannot incur ROS mutations as there is no electron transport activity going on. Just ONE mutation in one cell would spread into all three germ lines of the gastrula then spread out into a wide range of cell types of the fully developed organism. Put mouse blastula cells into just about anywhere in its body and they form tumours. Finally, during embryogenesis in male birds and lizards their primordial germ cells do not arise inside the seminiferous tubules of their testis but in tissue distal to same. Instead at a certain time they crawl amoeba like to the nearest blood vessel, enter therein, migrate to the tubules, enter and proliferate. It IS metastasis at the OTHER end. This was in a 40 year old book on spermatogenesis so I dunno what happens in females. Just a few teasers to get the heretical ball rolling.

By paul hill (not verified) on 20 Apr 2012 #permalink

As I haven't been hit with an avalanche of ridicule or comment about my previous post I thought I might have another bash at jolting the memories of older researchers about one of the more basic aspects of cancer, hypoxia. Since the Pope of biology published his first epistle 'The Selfish Gene' genes have not just taken centre stage but chucked everything else off, silly stuff like biochemisty, endocrinology, haematology etc.

The first Cancer conference I attended about 16 years ago was a joint Lorne (Vic Aust) AACR (American Association of Cancer Research) conference. A lecture on the second day was about bowel cancer in which the number one tumour repressor p53 was mutated, presumably the reason for the tumour, and it secreted a prostaglandin PGF2. Now I knew that PGF2 constricted or narrowed blood vessels supplying the gastrointestinal tract and suddenly I had a different spin on the sequence of events. At question time I suggested that hypoxia or oxygen starvation was the cause of the bowel cancer, not the mutations in the p53 tumour repressor. I suggested that the mutations in the p53 were a RESULT of the hypoxia. As I said this tumour secreted a prostaglandin PGF2 which is a vasoconstrictor. Adrenalin activates PGF2 in the gastro-intestinal tract in response to 'fight or flight', stress in other words. My theory went like this. Stress>adrenalin>PGF2>vasoconstriction>HYP OXIA>p53 mutation>CANCER.
At the end of the symposium a chap approached me and suggested that this was a very interesting idea as he was working on the same cells. It turned out that he was the AACR convenor. I saw him later and explained to him what is called the RAS pathway by which adrenalin works. He said, "You must be a very good biochemist" I was nonplussed by this as I didn't thing my suggestion was anything extraordinary and I replied that "I'm not a biochemist, I'm an electronic technician, this is just a hobby for me. He looked dumbfounded as if I was taking the Mickey out of him and didn't say anything, then took off. I didn't run into him again for the rest of the Conference.
The following year when I went to pay the Conference secretary for everything, registration, all meals and accommodation she whispered as she handed me my bag, "Don't worry Noddy, it all been taken care off" ($750}. I was gobsmacked as there was no explanation as to why. The same thing happened for the following two years the gradually tapered off. I know now. You see my answer that day involved endocrinology, biochemistry, haematology, oncology, molecular biology etc. all of which I had studied BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I WASN'T SUPPOSED TO. All of the delegates were molecular biologist looking for GENES to blame, then design the appropriate drug. It is pure commerce and that blinds totally. These conferences would not be possible without large scale funding from lab suppliers, pharmaceutical companies etc. This, plus Dawkinist dogma, makes it IMPOSSIBLE to understand cancer, let alone find a cure. How could the delegates POSSIBLY admit that an amateur scientist had worked something out that the entire global community of cancer researchers couldn't.
At the last cancer conference that I attended about 5 years ago there were two lectures on the discovery of the HIF (hypoxia induction factor) genes that switched on proliferation of cells and angiogenesis (growth of blood vessels to allow cell growth), CANCER in other words and based on my suggestion all those years before, yet I got no recognition whatsoever. Hypoxia is probably the most important tumour inducer of all.

The Warburg effect refers to a characteristic in which cancer cells use less and less oxygen as they become more malignant. Cancer researchers use the term but it has fallen into misuse as cancer is seem more and more as simply a stuff up. I use a LOT as it is pivotal to my theories on cancer. The other night I decided to check the history of what Warburg did to arrive at his conclusion. I ALMOST FELL OFF THE CHAIR AT WHAT I READ. Fifty years ago Otto Warburg discovered that when normal cells in a Petri dish were deprived of oxygen they transformed into cancer cells. That's it, nothing else, just deprived of oxygen. So this has been known for FIFTY years yet all of those 500 delegates at my first Cancer conference, half from the biggest cancer research organisation in the world, didn't know about. If I had known that day I would NOT have suggested it and the genes might not have been found. But then it's not my job to know. HYPOXIA can be caused by a number of things, primarily vasoconstriction. Vasoconstriction to the gastro intestinal tract, resulting from persistent stress, means malabsorption of nutrients such as IRON needed for red blood cells to transport OXYGEN. Now add gunked up blood vessels due to glucose and cholesterol forming plaques and thus even worse hypoxia.

Blood vessels have carbon dioxide detector nodes along them, so that if CO2 builds up in the bloodstream, meaning reduced oxygen, then the heart increases its output, the result being higher blood pressure. Now gunked up blood vessels inhibit the flow of blood through them so the heart has to increase it's output to compensate, meaning higher blood pressure and risk of stroke. So you take blood pressure controls e.g. beta blockers and you lower your blood pressure but increase your RISK OF CANCER by definition, the Warburg effect.

By paul hill (not verified) on 22 Apr 2012 #permalink

Before I went to my first Cancer Conference I had decided that metastasis were not random but strictly controlled as to what tissues they targeted. It just needed a little bit of biochemistry to see a pattern emerge. I put out a little paper on the subject, just left them laying about on outdoor tables around the venue. Next year in appreciation of my work the tables had disappeared. I went to the front desks to complain and was told that the conveners had asked for the tables to be removed and that anyone who wanted to distribute written material had to have them put into delegates program bags, meaning being dependent on the conveners as to whether or not they were included. My first taste of scientific democracy.

Common in breast cancer and can cause severe osteoporosis, probably comprised of osteoclasts, the class of cell that breaks down bone (osteoblasts build bone). Ok, now that little bit of biochemistry tells us that ALL rapidly dividing cells need a lot of calcium. So the primary tumor metastasizes to bone to get itself enough calcium to grow. Bone metastasis or other mechanisms which do likewise can lead to fatal hypercalcaemia. It used to be thought that a prostaglandin released by some cancers caused bone to demineralize. Fetuses in the womb release a hormone to do likewise, cannibalize their mother's bones to get themselves proper bone structure. Many years after I put that little paper out it was discovered that tumors that released PTH or parathyroid hormone didn't metastasize to bone. They don't need to as PTH causes bone to demineralize. It is a slow acting hormone and according to my 'animal in the wild' model a winter hibernation hormone that provides an animal calcium for cellular functions as the calcium concentration in plants falls.
This is controlled by the plants exposure to sunlight and thus it's synthesis of vitamin D2 which obviously falls in winter and thus calcium's uptake from the soil. As the animal's exposure to sunlight diminishes it's vitamin D level falls as well. This is the calcium cycle in which an animal's bones get thinner in winter as it becomes less active and thicker in summer as it becomes more active. Putting ON bone is controlled by a bunch of cells located in the thyroid itself, which release. It is a fast acting hormone, therefore must be a 'fight or flight' hormone. This infers that each time an animal fights or flights it puts on a bit more bone and as the amount of 'fight or flight' increases with the longer days of summer it bones get progressively thicker. The hormone thyrocalcitonin acts by increasing the absorption of calcium from the GI tract and stopping it's excretion in the urine, whilst stimulating osteoblasts. This seasonal waxing and waning of bone thickness provides optimum repair of fractures and is essential to understanding osteoporosis. This seasonal model is one I put together and as far as I know is exclusive to understanding human disease states.

Another metastasis is small cell or oat cell carcinoma which is seeded by liver primary cancer into the lungs. Just random says dogma. However. Apply a bit of biochemistry and endocrinology and it's a different story. Oat cell carcinoma secretes (releases) the hormone ACTH or adrenocorticotrophic hormone normally secreted by the pituitary gland in the brain. ACTH triggers the release of cortisol by the adrenal glands. Cortisol triggers the release of amino acids, the building blocks of protein, from the muscles and fat from the fat cells, depresses immunity and dampens down inflammation. Thus the tumor is setting up it's own primitive endocrine system which overrides any diurnal rhythm of the brain, to get itself a good supply of tucker. Cortisol is synergistic with adrenalin so that adrenalin, released in response to stress (of diagnoses?) speeds up the breakdown of muscle and fat. Enter cachexia or wasting of the body associated with cancer. By cortisol suppressing immunity the tumor protects ITSELF. Neat eh and spooky, almost think the primary tumor had a mind of its own.

When a cancer has become malignant or dedifferentiated to a certain point it's cells undergo a range of changes in preparation for metastasis. Little pores in their membranes, by which they communicate with each other with the exchange of ions, close off. They are now autocrine in their regulation (regulate themselves) having begun when first transformed as endocrine e.g. estradiol from the ovary, then juxstacrine (nearby) paracrine (next door) then autocrine. The exoskeleton by which its cells are held together disappears so that they are physically freed from each other. The endo skeleton inside the cell, composed of filaments of of tubulin, undergoes change so that the cell, now completely freed from surrounding cells can crawl amoebae like through surrounding cells toward the nearest blood vessel. Once there it releases an enzyme which eats a hole in the blood vessel and then it squeezes through the hole and enters into the bloodstream. Once in the bloodstream it grows little feet called pseudopods (receptors essentially) which will match perfectly receptors on epithelial cells lining inside blood vessels somewhere in the body, and it's precise target. On arrival it docks onto these blood vessel receptors, digests a hole in the wall of the blood vessel, squeezes into the surrounding tissue, sets up shop and begins to multiply.
NOW GET THIS. ACCORDING TO DAWKINISTS ALL OF THESE EVENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A RESULT OF PURELY RANDOM or ACCIDENTAL MUTATIONS. Oh really. In a very old book on spermatogenesis in birds and lizards during embryogenesisis the primordial germ cells that give rise to sperm are not located where they end up, i.e. the seminiferous tubules of the testes but migrate there through a blood vessel from a site distal to (distant from) from them, then enter the tubule by a process so similar to metastasis that IT IS METASTASIS. In mammals they don't travel through blood vessels as they grow much closer to their target, but apart from that it's the same process.

If we can stretch the imagination to allow cells to begin as fully differentiated mature cells somewhere in the body, become transformed then come up with new genes (as with chemo drug resistance), lets say in response to a plant toxin by processes I'll explain later, then, by a series of metastasis, work their way right back to the germ plasma (sperm and egg precursors) then the so called Weissman Barrier, the very central cornerstone upon which Darwinist evolution rests, has been smashed. This is Larmarkist evolution and all of the mechanisms are in CANCER, gone totally awry in the concrete jungle for a range of reasons. The new genes come about by DIRECT INTERACTION with the toxin in cells that normally interact with same, eg. in the GI tract, or on the skin, are then transported back to the so called germ plasma of testes or ovary where they are passed on to progeny, and NOT by accidental mutations in the germ plasma as Dawkinists insist. The evidence is overwhelming yet DOGMA, and of course commercial interests, says that this is impossible.

By paul hill (not verified) on 19 Jun 2012 #permalink

What about this case in which the man who claims to have cured himself doesn't get any chance to state his case?

Many years ago I read Stephen Rosenberg's book, ,'The transformed Cell'. Rosenberg was a New York surgeon at the time. It was about a patient, a Mr D'Angelo who's been admitted to Rosenberg's hospital for a gall bladder removal. When Rosenberg checks his medical record he finds that he had been discharged from the hospital 12 years before with only a couple of weeks to live. He had had a huge stomach cancer removed simply to make him more comfortable and allow him to eat but was beyond any further treatment as he was riddled with metastasis including in his liver. Rosenberg states that he thought there'd been a mix up in the medical records as there was NO way that this bloke could still be alive, impossible! But no, it's the same bloke. How on Earth!!
Rosenberg opens him up and has a poke around inside, feeling for metastasis but NOTHING.. When questioned about his cancer Mr D'Angelo says 'I fixed it doc, you guys don't know everything, do you'. THAT REPLY IS THE SUM TOTAL OF WHAT WE GET TO FIND OUT ABOUT HOW HE 'FIXED IT' or anything else Mr D'Angelo has to say. Rosenberg has made up his (pre Dawkinist) Darwinist mind that 'once upon a time a cell in Mr D'Angelo's stomach transformed whilst at the same time his immune system was malfunctioning and this 'rogue' cell took off. It's progeny soon learned to outwit the now semi functioning immune system and in no time the cancer got the upper hand. Later on his immune system rebounded and overwhelmed the cancer and Mr D'Angelo had absolutely nothing to do with it.' Amazing! It is also very contemptuous of Mr D'Angelo and his credibility as someone who may have helped millions of cancer sufferers had not Rosenberg essentially suppress it.
Instead of Rosenberg pursuing Mr D'angelo's method he instead hit on an idea that came to be known as Immunotherapy, he being called the father of Immunotherapy. He set up a company to make interleukin-2 using bacteria with the human gene inserted into it's chromosome. Il-2 is a hormone made by T4 cells of our immune systems, the central cell. The idea was to take what he calls LAK, or natural killer cells from the patients body, boost their numbers dramatically in the lab, then inject the cells, along with the interleukin back into the patients body. The NCI would only allow patients who were beyond all other treatment and trials began. Now whilst Rosenberg tried to put a brave face on it in the book I'd hardly call it a success. Patients lungs filled up with fluid and had to be pumped out. There were a few who marginally improved. Today Rosenberg is combining conventional chemo with his Immunotherapy and he likes to imagine it's great.
My assessment is that if a patient is so full of cancer that they are beyond conventional treatment then they are in a shocking state of overall health, and that the cancer is symptomatic of that state. As Rosenberg claimed in this case the cancer 'just happened' then 'just happened to go away'. So as long as researchers and physicians persist over and over again with this absurd dogma, which of course suits commercial gain then understanding cancer so that it can be cured will NEVER happen. Five thousand delegates attend AACR conferences about 5 times a year and waffle on about this signal transduction pathway or that, with 5 symposiums running at once in posh expensive convention centres and they STILL don't get it.
I'm far more interested in Mr D'Angelo's story. Is he still alive? Where is he if he is? Why not ask Rosenberg? Email him and find out.

By paul hill (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

This theory is based on a lot of evidence that excess estradiol in the bloodstream caused by liver pathology preventing the organ from deactivating sufficient estradiol, when combined with hypoxia or oxygen starvation to breast ductal cells transforms these cells with the resulting tumour actually growing to take over the role of the liver ie deactivate and normalise what would otherwise be a toxic concentration.

ESTRADIOL (The most active form of estrogen, others being estrone and estriol).

In an old book of oncology I read that early ductal cell carcinomas, the most common form of breast cancer, had a 1,000 times more ER receptors than normal. This plus me being a Larmarkian was where a completely new approach to breast cancer started for me. It seemed to follow that 1,000 times more receptors meant 1,000 times more estradiol was being drawn into the cell and therefore there had to be 1,000 times more deactivation of the hormone to weakly active estriol which is disposed of via the urine and bile duct. Obviously estradiol can't just enter the cell and hang around. As a high concentration of estradiol is toxic in the body, this suggested that the tumour might be growing for a REASON, to remove this excess estradiol to PROTECT the body from this harmful effect.

New research papers seem to suggest that there are a number of metabolites resulting from deactivation beside estriol which I've yet to tease out but they all seem to suggest that a high concentration of estradiol ALONE is transforming. I'd suggest that the resulting mutations are NOT random but part of the process of converting ductal cells into an estradiol deactivation organ i.e. the tumour. AN ESTROGEN (ESTRADIOL) DEACTIVATION FACTORY. If there are many times more receptors multiplied by many times more cells, then there is a massive amplification of the tissues capability of deactivating estradiol. That's how it starts out, but from there on everything screws up because instead of it being seen as something helpful it is seen as TOTALLY ALIEN. The sheer terror at finding a lump begins this screw up, whilst a diagnosis of cancer further exacerbates the completely inappropriate response.. This anxiety along with other factors will actually drive the tumours growth so hard that it becomes ER negative and unresponsive to Tamoxifen and NO LONGER an estradiol deactivation factory. Now it becomes a garbage bag to hold waste products to prevent further damage to liver and kidneys. Now being ER negative the fear just grows and grows.


Fifty years ago Otto Warburg placed normal cells in petri dishes and simply deprived them of oxygen and they transformed to cancer cells. THAT'S IT, HE DID NOTHING ELSE and they transformed. This is the so called Warburg effect which researchers sprout all the time but don't understand. This is typical of collective amnesia by researchers of dozens of pivotal mechanisms in cancer. Today the phrase Warburg effect is used to indicate that cancer cells use less and less oxygen the more malignant they become and NOT that hypoxia is transforming in the first place. Stress constricts (narrows) all blood vessels not essential to fight or flight, i.e. those associated with digestion and assimilation of food, i.e. GI tract and associated organs including kidneys, but not liver. This vasocontriction must include breast tissue. ENTER HYPOXIA. Now add arteriosclerosis, not just due to the build up of LDL cholesterol, but glucose which binds to proteins on cells lining blood vessels. This glucose acts like a glue to trap the cholesterol thereby narrowing the blood vessels even more. Vastly too much sugar and big swings in blood sugar to high peaks caused be eating REFINED sugar (reactive hyoglycaemia). Looking at the metabolic pathways involve the only escape route for high blood concentration of glucose, beside conversion to fat in fat cells, is to CHOLESTEROL.

Up goes the blood pressure TO COMPENSATE for narrowed blood vessel in order to supply tissues enough oxygen and get rid of carbon dioxide at a sufficient rate so that excessive carbonic acid doesn't build up in the bloodstream, thereby presenting a pH buffering problem. Ok, so you take beta blockers, ACE inhibitors or any other blood pressure lowering drugs and whilst this might protect against having a stroke but YOU WORSEN THE HYPOXIA.


The constriction of the blood vessels to the GI tract caused by persistent stress causes malabsorption of a variety of nutrients, including IRON needed for haemoglobin synthesis. This anaemia is made worse by the stress related constriction of blood vessels to the kidneys as they detect oxygen level in the blood supply and release erythropoietin which boosts red blood cell production in the bone marrow. Kidney pathology also results from this persistent constriction long term thereby exacerbating the problem. CHEMO CAUSES ANEMIA!!!!!! Thus collective amnesia by cancer researchers and oncologists causes anaemia.


Now with the hypoxia there is an INDUCER of cancer, and with high circulating concentration of estradiol there is a PROMOTER of cancer the perfect combination.

The liver is the primary site of estradiol deactivation. Of all organs in the body it probably cops the greatest hiding. Pesticides, herbicides, booze, chlorinated water, trihalomethanes (chloroform) in chlorinated water, the list goes on and on. With the exception of the booze most of these compounds are halogenated, i.e. have chlorine and fluorine tightly (covalently) bound to them. That's what makes them poisons, because when the liver tries to pull them apart, free radicals escape the reaction to cause damage to cell membranes and induce mutations in DNA. DDT is a polychlorinatedbiphenol, i.e. has four chlorine atoms whilst also being a pseudo estrogen. So it's both a mutagen/carcinogen as well as a cancer promoter in liver AND breast. Almost all drugs are halogenated, not to make them poisons, but to give the drug molecules the required shape and increase their persistence in the bloodstream, BECAUSE the halogens make them so hard to break down. The antidepressant Prozac and the antipsychotic Stelazine have THREE FLUORINE atoms all tightly clustered together in a so called methyl like grouping. Fluorine is the most reactive element in the Universe so that this combination has to be one of the most toxic of all in producing dangerous free radicals of both fluorine and oxygen when breaking the drug down. The data from the drug companies suggests that the drug molecule plus the active metabolite of the drug are conjugated i.e. have a sulphur containing molecule bound to them to make them water soluble for disposal in the urine and through the bile duct. This suggests that the halogen group remains intact and thus harmless when these two molecules pass out of the body. However, reality suggests that so much of this type of drug doesn't get conjugated and disposed off. Instead they get progressively broken down to smaller and smaller fragments each time they pass through the liver, going round and round in the circulation, building up in numbers and willy nilly binding to all manner of cell receptors, blocking metabolic pathways, so wreaking all manner of havoc and negative side effects. Taking an ever increasing number of drugs to counter each other's side effects, adversely cross reacting with each other, competing for the same metabolic pathway in the liver and thus it cops an ever worsening hiding. Self medicate with booze and have a copper deficiency and the very poisonous acetaldehyde that causes the hangover builds up in the bloodstream and is very damaging to liver cell mitochondria. The enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase needs copper to activate it, so that it can convert poisonous acetaldehyde to harmless acetate (ionised vinegar). So in conclusion it is this liver pathology that limits it's ability to break down ESTRADIOL so that a tumour has to grow in an estradiol target organ to take over the role of the liver until it can recover. But it doesn't get a chance to recover. Once cancer is diagnosed it really gets a belting, a thrashing more like it.


So why the increased malignancy in the clinical setting? Well, for a start, all of the treatment is hepatoxic, i.e. damaging to the liver, the analgesics, the anaesthetics, common cytotoxic chemo drugs. So many of these drugs and all anaesthetics are halogenated. So instead of the liver bouncing back it is hit with a blitzkrieg. Common cytotoxic drugs destroy all rapidly dividing cells and that includes liver and microvilli cells lining the gastrointestinal tract so that nutrients essential to recovery, anti oxidants, vitamins, enzyme cofactors, etc. CANNOT BE ABSORBED. Hence the nausea. Just when the liver needs TLC it is mangled. Just when improved nutrition is needed for recovery of the liver it becomes impossible. Osteoporosis combined with bone metastasis and broken bones. No healthy exercise laying in bed with a broken hip. Hair falling out, libido gone

By paul hill (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

That's a whole 'lotta canned spam there, Paul. Too bad it doesn't really say much of anything, because 2/3rds of it is bunk.

Only 2/3? That's a bit condescending isn't it. I'll have to try a lot harder i n future. Being a masochist I thrive on ridicule. What about selecting the more obvious verbal vomit for robust discourse? What about some ideas on how Mr D'Angelo cured his cancer? In my next post I'll examine some of the more obvious mechanisms that support the idea of 'wild type' cancer, REAL heresy, worthy of the stake except that nobody can be bothered and it's a waste of good firewood.

By paul hill (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill, get your own blog.

Mr. Hill, get your own blog.

He'd need fresh material for that.

I think this is the same Paul Hill, Victoria, Australia, listed on Linked In:

(Chris, you're going to love this guy's work history)

retired electonic tecnician, later abalone diver
awa stc

February 1956 – 2012 (56 years)

I cannot fill this profile out as nothing fits. I began to study neural circuits compared to electronic circuits. This morphed into building biofeedback equipment, then adding this equipment to the 5 hour Glucose Tolerance Test. There was a natural progression from this to endocrinology, biochemistry, toxicology, microbiology and on and on. I didn't know that this multidiscipinary approach was the wrong thing to do until I began to go to the Lorne Cancer and Genome Conferences 20 years ago where everybody was a molecular biologist who didn't even know high school chemistry. In cancer the usual focus is one binding site on one protein. Reductionism gone beserk.
abalone diver

1967 – 1984 (17 years)
randwick high school nsw
intermediate certicicate

BTW, he posts the same crap on a breast cancer board (alternative medicine/treatments) and he's been told repeatedly that his posts are gibberish .

Oh, good grief. I bet most of his post high school education is through "teh internets." I really hope he is harvesting abalone legally.

Perhaps that's a typo and should read "a baloney diver".

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

What about some ideas on how Mr D’Angelo's cured his cancer?

I think you need to word this more carefully--as it stands it implies that D'Angelo did something deliberately to cause the cancer's disappearance (equivalent to asking "Why not talk about how he mended his broken leg?")

Rosenberg 's hypothesis is that D'Angelo's immune system recognized the cancerous cells as 'other' and eradicated them. He's been trying to develop techniques to promote similar immune response and eradication of tumors in other patients since 1968, with much of his focus on IL-2.

As Dr. Rosenberg has access to all D'Angelo's test results, medical history, etc. while we do not, and has been acively researching since 1968, I'm don't really see the value in third-hand speculatons re: possible other mechanisms.

What a load of elitist crap, very good on the ridicule, but nothing constructive whatsoever. As to getting my own blog orac was gracious enough to get rid of all of the rubbish that was ahead of my post, just leaving the comment about there being ten different types of breast cancer, then my posts. Despite my stuff being contrary to his own interests, he was democratic enough to leave my posts and I appreciate that VERY much. it's called being open to new ideas Al to my qualifications it gets a lot better. Meningitis when I was just 9 months old, very bad dose of the bends with cerebral complications at 28, gobbled huge amounts of LSD, magic mushrooms, mescalin, nutmeg, daytura, Avil tablets, snorted nitrous oxide, dry cleaning fluid, smoked huge amounts of pot, hash and a bit of coke. Been in the bin twice, jail twice, only for civil disobedience unfortunately. Was a Christian fundamentalist for many years, Billy Graham convert no less, hence ending up in the bin. If I went to uni to do a course in biology it would have been ONE discipline, eg molecular biology drowning in Dawkinist dogma which is on a par with Noah's Ark. As to my stay on I don't recall anything being called gibberish and I don't know that anyone on a forum like that, a front for drug companies, is the least qualified to make such a comment. As for Mr. D'Angelo, it would have been nice to his side of the story, out of common courtesy, and not treating him like a brain dead moron. All cases of total remission purely spontaneous are they, absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle whatsoever? If you lot are incapable of any sort of intelligent comment, why not just butt out and make room for those with more than sausage mince between their ears. Eh?

By paul hill (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

Word Salad, anyone?

Paul Hill - besides your concern about tone (which you promptly contradict with your gratuitous insults), did you have a point?

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill:

Despite my stuff being contrary to his own interests, he was democratic enough to leave my posts and I appreciate that VERY much. it’s called being open to new ideas

You must have mistaken this place for the CureZone, unless the posts are sockpuppets, spam or just plain evil they are not removed. They are all left here for all to see the abject silliness.

From here on in I will not be responding to any more ridicule as it's a waste of my time and fill this thread up with so many irrelevant comments that I imagine that it will have to be closed. That is NOT in my interests nor is it in the interest of those suffering from cancer. I'm not the least concerned about the ridicule undermining any credibility I might have as I quite enjoy playing the Kurt Vonnegut. However I just want to get on with relevant stuff, the first one being the discovery years ago that p53, when mutated at certain loci becomes a tumor INDUCER with as many roles as an inducer as it has as a repressor. This is something which has been totally overlooked by the cancer research industry. I asked Sir David Lane, the discoverer of p53, about this at question time and he admitted it but didn't elaborate. In the Bio Essay that I read about this it also suggested that the p53 protein folded differently with a change in redox potential, (eg hypoxia) so that it became an inducer, making it and adjunct in some sort of way to the HIF proteins when exposed to hypoxia. I tried to question Sir David Lane about this but he evaded me as it involved biochemistry. On the subject of biochemistry, I was told by several delegates at both Genome and Cancer conferences that biochemists no longer studied metabolism, one reason I stopped going to the conferences as there was noone to talk to. As endocrinology is vital to to just this particular aspect of biology one year I asked the convener if he could get an endocrinologist to the following conference. He agreed, however, the next year, no endocrinologist. I'd have to add at least one hematologist to the list of of mandatory researchers to a Cancer conference, however that would be asking just a bit too much. A toxicologist, who I became pretty friendly with, admitted after a few wines that he hadn't done chemistry. Yet toxicology is inorganic and organic chemistry, biochemistry and pharmaceutical chemistry An oncologist who I tried to question about the chemistry of a new chemo drug told me that he left that to the chemists. Is THIS cancer research?. Skeptics should just check the list of delegates at the next or previous AACR conference, then probe a bit deeper.

By paul hill (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill, why should we care about what you write? Unless you post actual scientifically verifiable evidence there is really no reason to believe you and your anecdotes.

@ Paul Hill:
"..... gobbled huge amounts of LSD, magic mushrooms, mescalin, nutmeg, daytura, Avil tablets, snorted nitrous oxide, dry cleaning fluid, smoked huge amounts of pot, hash and a bit of coke. Been in the bin twice, jail twice, only for civil disobedience unfortunately. Was a Christian fundamentalist for many years, Billy Graham convert no less, hence ending up in the bin. If I went to uni to do a course in biology it would have been ONE discipline, eg molecular biology drowning in Dawkinist dogma which is on a par with Noah’s Ark."

That would explain your utterly deranged ramblings, then, Mr. Hill.

"As to my stay on I don’t recall anything being called gibberish and I don’t know that anyone on a forum like that, a front for drug companies, is the least qualified to make such a comment."


Mr. Hill. There's this great invention that can drastically improve the readability of your writings. It's called a "paragraph," and it's been around for quite some time. You might try using one some time.

Of course, that would require that you organize your thoughts into coherent groupings and that might be a bit much for you. Your stream-of-consciousness ramblings remind me of trying to talk to my college roommates when they were high. Are you sure your use of "... huge amounts of LSD, magic mushrooms, mescalin, nutmeg, dayture, Avil tablets.." was all in the past?

Mr. Hill

If I went to uni to do a course in biology it would have been ONE discipline, eg molecular biology drowning in Dawkinist dogma which is on a par with Noah’s Ark.



Are you sure your use of “… huge amounts of LSD, magic mushrooms, mescalin, nutmeg, dayture, Avil tablets..” was all in the past?

I'm guessing Mr. Hill has moved on to amphetamines....any and all formulations of course.

By Sauceress (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

Nutmeg? What, real drugs weren't enough? No wonder you read like Ozzy Osborne sounds. You're probably just as messed up as he is. And even he stuck to LSD.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

paul hill, just to be clear. No-one here is treating D'Angelo as a brain dead moron.

That position on this thread is reserved for yourself, as you have plainly demonstrated.

My posts are no coming up. Ocra, surely YOU are not locking me out, leaving the impression that I can't answer the criticism and am running away, tail between legs. This has happened before. I am being completely up front as to who I am, my address and the circumstances of my life AND posting comments relevant to CANCER, whereas my detractors are doing the opposite. Jesus mate, surely you didn't organize this.

By paul hill (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

Before getting into mechanisms in cancer that point to there being a 'wild type' I am posting all of the links on to save space. Nutmeg is thought to contain a monoamine oxidase inhibitor which blocks the breakdown of adrenalin. Because adrenalin then piles up in the bloodstream it is oxidized to the hallucinogenic neurotransmitter adrenochrome. Two ounces of nutmeg is a bloody horrible trip. That and nitrous oxide, daytura, drycleaning fluid, ect were what I gobbled to try to cope with the Hellfire of religion. LSD and magic mushrooms were what I used to see THROUGH the insanity of religion. The anti psychiatrists used LSD to understand schizophrenia. Nobel prize winning neurologist Sir John Eccles used LSD in his.research into brain function. It is gratifying to see all of my lampooners clearly identifying themselves and THEIR qualifications and not cowardly hiding behind pseudonyms. As to speculation, if there was none, there would be no science. Not having a lab I can't verify my speculations and NO lab is going to do research that might put them out of business as I have tried. I do use paragraphs and they normally show as gaps, as indents don't show, but not on this blog. Haven't even drunk booze now for about six years. Now where was me?

By paul hill (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill:

My posts are no coming up. Ocra, surely YOU are not locking me out, leaving the impression that I can’t answer the criticism and am running away, tail between legs.

Darling, it is Orac. He is not a whale, nor is he a vacuum cleaner.

If you post too many links your posts go into moderation, but since that post has posted it seems you are not blocked. By the way, I already knew about the narcotic effects of nutmeg, but it is the dose that matters. We fear for your mental health on so much natural neurochemical influences.

Now answer my question: Why should we care about what you say?

The above post was rejected twice when I included all the links to so that ALL my stuff is accessible for ridicule, then accepted when I removed them. Hence the paranoia above same. Tried posting the links separately. No dice. Help?

By paul hill (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

If you post more than two links your posts automatically go into moderation. Do not be paranoid, it happens to everyone.

Also, do not try posting the links to too many consecutive posts, because that will be flagged. Since it is past midnight for our host, Orac, you will have to wait until he wakes up and gets your URL heavy comments out of moderation. So be patient. It is just one price you pay by living on the opposite of this planet.

Nutmeg is thought to contain a monoamine oxidase inhibitor which blocks the breakdown of adrenalin. Because adrenalin then piles up in the bloodstream it is oxidized to the hallucinogenic neurotransmitter adrenochrome.

Jesus, I don't think I've heard this one since Fear and Loathing.

Bloody hell Chris, you must care being on the ball like that. Seems there must be dozens of detractors just sitting around 24/7 waiting to pounce.. That is VERY gratifying and feeds my nutmeg soaked ego no end. It was about 45 years ago I got into the nasties, hallucinogens finished around 20 years ago. Mind you the damage may have been permanent. But if it was how would I know.
When is this crap going to stop.

By paul hill (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

Narad. Jesus, I don’t think I’ve heard this one since Fear and Loathing.

Try the 'Book of Grass' by orthomolecular biologist Abbie Hoffman. Anyway what's wrong with Hunter Thompson's brain. After all he gobbled slabs of amyl nitrate. Just 'cause he sat around with a loaded shotgun 24/7 doesn't make him paranoid. I'm gonna have to cut out the crap myself now.

By paul hill (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

Mind you the damage may have been permanent. But if it was how would I know.

Try reading your posts. We all know.

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

Try the ‘Book of Grass’ by orthomolecular biologist Abbie Hoffman.

Ah, you are confusing a number of things here. Abbie Hoffman isn't Abram Hoffer. And I have a copy of The Book of Grass. I'm not going to dig it out, as I doubt that stuff I found sophomoric 25 years ago will have improved with age. The mover in this volume is George Extraterrestrials among Us Andrews.

Anyway what’s wrong with Hunter Thompson’s brain.

Aside from having been left on the kitchen wall?

After all he gobbled slabs of amyl nitrate.

Amyl and butyl nitrate are not consumed recreationally in "slabs," unless this is some colloquialism that I'm unaware of. Nor is there any reason to surmise that the work in question should be taken as straight nonfiction.

Mr. Hill:

Bloody hell Chris, you must care being on the ball like that.

Excuse me? I explained that I already knew about the brain effects from nutmeg, but it depended on the dose. Then I tried to explain patiently that this site has a policy of putting URL heavy comments into moderation, and because our host is most likely asleep that you will have to be patient and wait.

Why should we care about what you think when you treat us like this? Seriously? I was trying to be nice, but you are turning on me like a rabid dog.

Dude, the "crap is going to stop" when you stop ingesting mind altering substances and return to the real world. It is not our fault that you can't see straight, it is the stuff you have decided to use to self-medicate. Here is a word of advice: STOP!

Do not stop at "Go" but do stop at your local mental health care outpatient center. You need help, and you will not get it from random people on the Internet, nor from the chemicals you ingest: go visit some psychiatric professionals.

Dude, the “crap is going to stop” when you stop ingesting mind altering substances and return to the real world.

The dated references rather strongly indicate that he's making more than a little bit of it up.

As the abuse is become increasingly irrational and thus proving to be an attempt to provoke me into becoming abusive, thereby providing an excuse to have me kicked off, from now on I AM going to ignore it. One comment first. It's amazing how my earlier posts were completely ignored until the one on Rosenberg. This has happened before with the very same post on being removed just hours after posting. Isn't that an amazing coincidence. My stuff must be VERY important for so much trouble to be taken to suppress it, and a recognition that the status quo is looking very rocky indeed. Here's the link.

Link removed to try to get post to work.

Before talking about the 'wild type' mechanisms in cancer which suggest something other than dogma would have it, I thought I'd like to start at the beginning with the mechanism that is supposed to make such an assertion absurd.

Many times I've heard lecturers cite the Weissman barrier. Yet I've often wondered how many of them are aware of the experiment done that is supposed to prove that genes arising in somatic cells or non germ line cells can be transferred to said germ line, male sperm or female egg, just as how many of these lecfturers are aware of the experiment Warburg did that gave rise to the term 'the Warburg effect'.

Weismann conducted the experiment of removing the tails of 68 white mice, repeatedly over 5 generations, and reporting that no mice were born in consequence without a tail or even with a shorter tail. He stated that "901 young were produced by five generations of artificially mutilated parents and yet there was not a single example of a rudimentary tail or any other abnormality of the organ. Now as Larmarkism is supposed to be about use and misuse, eg the giraffe growing a longer neck as a result of stretching higher and higher to reach leaves further up the trees it eats, then cutting the tails off mice doesn't take away their NEED (use) for a tail. Thus for the 'Weissman barrier' to be the very foundation stone of Dawkinism in ALL of the biological sciences is patently absurd. It is a fairy tale probably politically motivated to discredit Fabian Socialists in Britain who had adopted social Larmarkism as a raison d'etre..

I say Dawkinism because another thing most biologist have overlooked is that in his last book Darwin becomes more Larmarkist than Larmark. He talks about a blacksmith's son being born with muscularly arms as a result of the blacksmith pounding away on the anvil, the offspring of the racing mare being born with a speed advantage. Then he goes the full step and talks about little 'gemmules' released by cells right through the body, carrying information on the experience of those cells back to germ plasma. That is PURE Larmarkism.

Now I don't go along with this idea but probably the world's most well known Larmarkist, immunologist Ted Steele of Wollongong University NSW Australia, fixes on the idea of retroviruses migrating from somatic cells to primordial germ cells doing likewise. For me it is the mechanisms of cancer that carry this information backward, eg dedifferientiation with increased malignancy. Next p53.

By paul hill (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

The tumor repressor p53 is the number one, at the top of the heirachy of repressors, right throughout the mammalian kingdom. It is a transcription factor tetramer.

As I have already stated it was discovered that when mutated at certain loci on the gene the protein derived was a tumor inducer with as many roles as an inducer as it has as a repressor (around 8 or 9 all up). As an repressor acting when a mistake is made in DNA replication, cell division is turned off, DNA repair is turned on, helicase is deactivated, consensus sites on the chromosomes are blocked etc. If DNA repair cannot be effected, then apoptosis is switched on and the cell commits suicide.

With certain mutations in the gene, however, this process is reversed and it becomes an inducer. This is completely unlike other repressors such as BRAC 1 and 2 or RB (retinoblastoma) which are only permissive of tumorogenesis when mutated. Double p53 knockout mice will grow to adulthood but are very susceptible to cancer.

Some mutations in p53 also render it inactive but this is a concrete jungle effect, ie a stuff up resulting from poor nutrition, stress, toxins, antioxidant deficiencies, enzyme cofactor deficiencies etc.

An example given in the Bio Essay of p53 becoming an inducer was that in lung cancers a pyrobenzene found in cigarette smoke induced a mutation (from memory) always in base 187. Nothing amazing about this as it is simply steric chemistry, ie he shape of the pyrobenzene matching that of a base sequence centered around base 187. Let's assume then that, as seems to be the case, that the mutated p53 protein not only becomes a tumor inducer by acting as a transcription factor for a different set of genes or a gene that induce cancer rather than repress it, but is also able to somehow turn on expression of a gene that gives rise to an enzyme which is the closest match to that required to deactivate the pyrobenzyne.

This matching of the mutagen to a specific DNA sequence explains the variability in the the second and third base of the DNA triplet, ie the specific ones are 'chosen' by (Larmarkian) evolution to match the shape of the pyrobenzyne. (Another advantage of this variability is in viral genomes which can be read in all 3 frames by frameshifting. Thus the second base in the first frame is chosen to be the required first base with the first frame shift etc.)

Whilst the mutagen is mutating the cell it is in a state of genetic instability and it is the DEGREE of instability that MODULATES this whole process. If the expressed enzyme matches the pyrobenzyne and is thus able to fully deactivate it completely then the cell returns to stability. If it is not a perfect match and if the cell is overwhelmed by the quantity of mutagen then two things are switched on, retrotransposons (reverse transcription jumping genes) and with this amplification of the gene giving rise to an episome, ie a baby chromosome which may have up to 1,000 copies of the gene. In the next I'll talk about the process whereby retrotransposons make multiple mutated copies of an INAPPROPRIATE gene until the required one is derived and integrated into the genome via reverse transcriptase and integrase.

By paul hill (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill, again, why should we care about what you say?

And please get some real psychiatric help.

Holy crap. I prefer the Thing Dong's pithy idiocy.

Paul Hill - I don't know enough about cancer research to understand the significance of what you've written, but I have two questions:
1. You make a big point that the people in the field you've talked to don't have sufficient breadth (in your view) to fully understand the mechanisms of cancer. Why?

2. You throw around the terms Lamarckian and Darwinian in a context that does not appear appropriate, at least to me. Protein and DNA shapes are clearly not what Larmarck referred to as inheritable acquired characteristics. What is the significance of that?

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill: You don't need drugs/druglike substances to deprogram from religion. Just go out and camp under the stars; it becomes very obvious that a petty, panty-sniffing God couldn't have created something as vast as the Universe.
Secondly, if you're going to leave your brain droppings around, don't be surprised if people feel obliged to correct them. (As a rule, the more people fling five dollar words around, the less they actually understand whatever they're blithering on about.)

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill, I would like a light vinaigrette with mine, please.

(reverse transcription jumping genes)

Ya no puede caminar.

Mephistopheles O'Brien.
I've already explained the point about cancer researchers several times in the links I'm unable to post. Most cancer researchers are molecular biologist ONLY with no training even in basic inorganic chemistry. Even adding biochemistry is nowhere near enough to get a handle on understanding cancer. It's all about genes, genes, genes and of course their protein products. To a large extent this results from the pernicious effects of Richard Dawkins books, beginning with 'The Selfish Gene' in which he goes out of his way to see everything inside a cell as coming about by completely random processes, then talks about genes as if they had minds of their own, slugging it out with each other for expression. Competition run amok. God is dead but now found in a gene. Dawkinism is a secular religion.

Same with viruses, sneaking up on the cell, incredibly deceptive in tricking it into letting it in, then taking over the machinery of the cell to it's own selfish end. Yet a virus is NOT an organism. If the assumption is that cancer is just something random on one hand but competing with the host on the other, then all that can be done is to find ways of killing it by blocking signal transduction protein pathways, blocking gene expression etc. using drugs. So a researcher will, not just be a molecular biologist only, he or she will focus on just one binding site on one protein, to the exclusion of even another site on the same protein, with the idea of blocking signalling at that point with a drug. To find out about that other site I have to ask another researcher that is specializing in that one.

It is very rare to find even a cell biologist, ie one who studies whole cells, let alone anyone who studies an entire organism. With this idea of what cancer is these people don't see any need to be any more than molecular biology and of course this suits the pharmaceutical manufacturers who are able to manipulate research to their end.

As to protein and DNA shapes I wasn't suggesting Larmark said anything about that as obviously they were not known about till the 1950's. What I was saying is that because cancer researchers are molecular biologists only, shape rarely comes into the picture. That is supposed to be the function of biochemists or protein biologists. However there is very little collaboration between these disciplines, ALL disciplines for that matter, despite what they like to believe. Now having to seek private funding for research makes researchers a lot more secretive with each other, competing to win prizes, such as an Eppendorf or Sigma for prestige and of course the money.

At the same time disciplines spit into further sub disciplines, the language used by each, eg protein names, drifting further and further apart making communication between them increasingly difficult. World wide, near bankrupt universities are dumbing down courses to attract foreign student's money. This just touches on the problems with understanding and it is getting worse not better.

By paul hill (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill, why should we care about your opinions?

Mr. Hill, why should we care about your opinions?

Because Chis, one day you are most likely to get cancer yourself, probably prostate cancer if Chris is Christopher or breast cancer if Chis is Christine. You will be faced with 3 choices. 1. Conventional so called evidence based treatment, ie chemo, surgery and/radiation. 2. Alternatively, so called alternative treatment, involving the use of herbs, detox treatment, an emphasis on lifestyle changes etc. Ratbaggery on both sides, with the exception that naturopathy emphasizes that the symptom is not the disease and to suppress the symptom only makes the underlying problem worse. In the case of cancer the predominant underlying problem is poor overall health with emphasis on liver and kidney malfunction. Conventional treatment only makes that worse.

When diagnosed you will be put under a lot of pressure from both sides, including family members, friends etc. If stress has anything to do with causing cancer, this schizophrenic double bind will just increases the stress.

The oncologist will tell you that if you listen to the naturopath ratbag for long enough the primary will metastasize right through your body and you'll be beyond treatment. He'll also say that any remission you experience will have absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with any lifestyle changes you make, thereby totally demoralizing you so much that relapse is assured if these changes DO have something to do with the remission.

Alternatively the naturopath will tell you that general chemo and radiation are themselves mutagenic, whilst surgery is mutilating. If the tumor is recycling toxins such as abnormally high blood concentrations of phosphoric and sulphuric acid then removing it will only impose more load, on kidneys in this case, and create an adverse pH buffering problem, ie metabolic acidosis.

3. The third option is to try to do both, with things like herbal treatments and conventional treatment adversely cross reacting with each other, more stress from getting attacked by BOTH lobbyists etc.

If there is a completely different way of understanding cancer and treating it as such you are going to have to have ABSOLUTE faith in it before even thinking about it. The only way that you can do that is for animal experiments to be conducted first. That is what I have been trying to do as I have contacts in two Research labs. But no go as there is no funding for a treatment that would put the entire cancer research and treatment industries into receivership and of course dogma doesn't permit.

My approach is a phased dietary change along with appropriate exercise, eliminating intake of toxins such as chlorinated water, DDT, pesticides etc, culminating in a full properly done ketone diet.

All this stuff is on my links when I can post them. So far no go.

By paul hill (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

No, you do not understand me, Mr. Hill. Why should we care about what you say? Why should we believe you?

Justify yourself.

(both of your guesses to my full name is wrong)

Just what the world needs...a self-taught, self-proclaimed breast cancer expert, with a high school diploma whose former occupation was as a tech and abalone diver.

Get your own blog Paul...this one is already taken by a breast cancer surgeon/breast cancer researcher

Grammar policing myself: Both of your guesses to my full name are wrong.

Paul Hill: I can see at least two things wrong with your statement. First of all DDT has been banned for ages. Can't really eliminate it if it's not around in the first place. Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't ketonic diets eventually poison people?

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

paul hill

Most cancer researchers are molecular biologist ONLY with no training even in basic inorganic chemistry.

Goodness! My how the Nat Geo format change has screwed things up. There’s no more easily found “About” link.

paul hill, read here about our host (it's from the blue text linked via our host's name)

Since I’ve been reading this blog for a while, I’ve learned that he and I share some educational background – and I’ll give you as to what that involves: it’s the first part of my ‘nym. You know, that part of science that your think cancer researchers don’t know much about.

And, after you’ve read that link above, paul hill from apollo bay vic Australia, tell me why I should find your opinions on cancer more credible than Orac’s.

First off, there is no pleasing those who have nothing better to do than sit around rubbishing those who try to create something worthwhile, whilst simultaneously cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Second the reason that I am so up front about my lack of Uni training is that I don't think it is important and can actually be a negative as I've already stated. I don't need clinical training as my approach is NOT clinical. I have a lump of meat between my ears, just like everyone else. As to trivia, like what someone's actually name is, this really is banal and just groping for something to rubbish and is symptomatic of a profound psychopathology. My justification is the amount of detail I go to to try to explain my hypothesis NOT letters after my name. I you are just skimming over the stuff desperate to find something to ridicule then you can't even get to first base in comprehending it. As to why you should or shouldn't care, I couldn't give a rat's arse.

By paul hill (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

Still, I want to know why we should care about what you say. A hypothesis is fine, but it is nothing without data. Where is your data.

I'm only going on my experience with the Lorne Cancer conferences, which included a joint AACR/Lorne conference about 16 years ago. I stopped attending about 5 years ago. If things have changed since then please fill me in. At my first Genome conference break up meeting I suggested having biochemists at the next conference and a convener retorted 'There'll be NO biochemists at the Genome Conference' as if I'd blasphemed.
I suggested that Protein and Genome conferences be combined with speakers alternating. .
Another convener retorted' "If we were trying to work out the origin of life, that would be fine, but we're not. This is applied science." I mean, I'm only going on what THEY tell me. Look, I'm not rubbishing these researchers as most of them had no problem with only being molecular biologists.

I regard many of them as my friends, especially ex Cancer Conference convener Ashley Dunn who was a mentor to me for some years. I remarked about Dawkinist fundamentalists and he grinned and said 'I'm one of those.' as if he was proud to be one'. Hence my frustration. There was NEVER any acrimony between me and other delegates, I just couldn't find anyone to talk to on a holistic level, especially endocrinology which I love (when combined with biochemistry of course).

As to the difference between me and orac, I see the very mechanisms of (Larmarkian) biological evolution in cancer eg dedifferientation, but which stuffs up completely in the concrete jungle, as I'm currently explaining. I know how difficult it must be to see order in clinical cancers which can be pure anarchy, chromosomes missing in some cells, extra ones in others, big cells, little cells, giant multinucleated cells, necrotic zones etc. but there is a zillion reasons for this.

Viruses are not pathogens in pristine wilderness but agents of horizontal gene transfer..

DDT is banned in developing countries but not in undeveloped, whilst being present right through the global environment, mostly in the fat cells of animals. No, ketone diets are not poisonous as every animal in the wild goes in and out of ketosis all the time.

By paul hill (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill, why should we care about what you say? Where is your data?

Paul, weren't you going to expound on the potent hallucinogenic properties of adrenochrome? Or about how myristicin "blocks the breakdown of adrenalin"?

Surely you're not sitting up till 1.49 am just waiting to pounce on me. Haven't you got anything better to do, like get pissed. You MUST care, even if it's just to rubbish me. What data? What are you talking about, data? I'm writing it. You don't imagine that there are urns full of scrolls on this stuff do you. I'm the only person on Earth that can see the mechanisms of biological evolution in cancer. That's because I suffer a very rare and virulent form of schizophrenia called MENS (Messianic Egomaniacal Narcissistic Syndrome.) and I'm the only one who has it, as you'd expect. There is medication, but I won't take it, called thallium. (rat poison.)

Actually my data was simply a huge range of textbooks on every subject in biology, now stuff online. You just jam it all into you're skull and it rearranges itself so that this throws light on that and so on. It has to be in your skull and not online so that when a problem comes up things whiz around and bingo, the answer. Bibliography? Heretics don't have bibliographies as they get bashed around by society so much they end up so poverty stricken, that all their textbooks get dumped into a tip by a grateful society. No access to university libraries as they are to far away and without a car no way of getting there. I've put huge amounts of my stuff on but am waiting to be able to post them. I've tried about ten times but I'll have another go.

By paul hill (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

Are you up early or haven't yet gone to bed. You're more obsessive than Chris. No I wasn't about to expound anything of the kind. I 'd expect that myristicin is a rough analogue of the amines adrenalin, noradrenalin and dopamine, perhaps binding to the first enzyme in the MAO pathway and acting as an antagonist, thus preventing these amines from being metabolised. So they build up in the bloodstream and remain for so long they undergo a variety of changes, eg adrenalin oxidized to adrenochrome, an open ring on the molecule becoming closed. With liver pathology, eg cirrhosis with alcoholism, acetaldehyde builds up and destroys liver cell mitochondria. As MAO is located in the mitachondria, the effect is the same as taking a MAO inhibitor antidepressant drug. The liver pathology also prevents it taking up dietary amino acids for storage so they too build up in the bloodstream too. One of these, methionine, is the major methyl donor in all manner of reactions, eg methylation of DNA. Methylation is another modification of amines, eg of dopamine to what I thought was orthomethyldopa, but can't find evidence online yet, to which you can add adrenochrome caused by cirrhosis. Then there are another couple whose names I can't remember that form from intermediates in the MAO pathway combining by condensing reactions. This is when MAO is blocked at the exit, not entry, and suggest the MAO has no feedback mechanism from exit to entrance to inhibit it when blocked at the exit as do most enzyme pathways. This stuff comes from a book called 'The Metabolism of Alcohol' and is about the causes of DT's associated with cirrhosis. However, it could also explain many of the hallucinations of schizophrenia as heavy drinking is common with the disorder.

By paul hill (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

Can we give Paul Hill and the ThingDong their own echo-chamber? Honestly, Orac, the psych wards must be empty this weekend.

I’m the only person on Earth that can see the mechanisms of biological evolution in cancer.

No you're not.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill:

Surely you’re not sitting up till 1.49 am just waiting to pounce on me.

I live three time zones away from where the Scienceblogs clock is set. And I went to bed at 11pm my time. It is presently about fifteen minutes before 10am where I live.

So if the concept of time zones confuses you, why should we care about what you say?

Mr. Hill:

That’s because I suffer a very rare and virulent form of schizophrenia called MENS (Messianic Egomaniacal Narcissistic Syndrome.) and I’m the only one who has it, as you’d expect. There is medication, but I won’t take it, called thallium. (rat poison.)

Well, that is exactly a reason to not care about what you say.

paul hill @5:14

MENS (Messianic Egomaniacal Narcissistic Syndrome

Credit where credit is due: you gave me a good laugh.

Thallium (rat poison)? If you’re already bald, would the side effects matter?

I thought most rat poison was either a cyanide salt (K or Na) or warfarin. In fact, now that I’ve checked: Wikipedia notes that Tl is no longer used because it’s too toxic.

Paul Hill: every animal in the wild goes in and out of ketosis all the time.
Yet more evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. It is impossible for a herbivore to go through ketosis. Unless you're suggesting that there aren't any wild herbivores anywhere, which is just more nonsense. As is the notion that someone can go through college and medical school without ever taking a chemistry course.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

"Second the reason that I am so up front about my lack of Uni training is that I don’t think it is important and can actually be a negative as I’ve already stated. I don’t need clinical training as my approach is NOT clinical. I have a lump of meat between my ears, just like everyone else. As to trivia, like what someone’s actually name is, this really is banal and just groping for something to rubbish and is symptomatic of a profound psychopathology. My justification is the amount of detail I go to to try to explain my hypothesis NOT letters after my name."

I call bullshit on that statement...

Just after Paul started posting his inane brain droppings...I alerted other posters here to his "credentials" from Linked In:

June 28, 12:32 am

I think this is the same Paul Hill, Victoria, Australia, listed on Linked In:

(Chris, you’re going to love this guy’s work history)

retired electronic tecnician, later abalone diver
awa stc

February 1956 – 2012 (56 years)

I cannot fill this profile out as nothing fits. I began to study neural circuits compared to electronic circuits. This morphed into building biofeedback equipment, then adding this equipment to the 5 hour Glucose Tolerance Test. There was a natural progression from this to endocrinology, biochemistry, toxicology, microbiology and on and on. I didn’t know that this multidiscipinary approach was the wrong thing to do until I began to go to the Lorne Cancer and Genome Conferences 20 years ago where everybody was a molecular biologist who didn’t even know high school chemistry. In cancer the usual focus is one binding site on one protein. Reductionism gone beserk.
abalone diver

1967 – 1984 (17 years)
randwick high school nsw
intermediate certicicate

BTW, he posts the same crap on a breast cancer board (alternative medicine/treatments) and he’s been told repeatedly that his posts are gibberish ."

(At The Salad Bar)

I'll take bleu cheese dressing, with a sprinkling of fresh dill.

Narad: What type of dressing do you prefer...perhaps something with tarragon?

Narad: What type of dressing do you prefer…perhaps something with tarragon?

Oh, no. This would seem to call for something like a lingonberry vinaigrette.

Apparently sheep are carnivores.

Susceptible thin ewes develop ketosis due to a chronically inadequate ration being offered and, in the face of increasingly insufficient energy to meet increasing fetal demands, the ewe mobilizes more body fat with resultant ketone body production and hepatic lipidosis.

I didn't say that college and medical students didn't do inorganic chemistry. I did it myself. I said they didn't KNOW any as I saw no evidence of it talking to delegates at both Genome and Cancer conferences and during lectures. So I assume they'd forgotten most of it as it wasn't seen as relevant to molecular biology AS INDEED IT IS NOT.

That's answers about the sum total of any reasonably intelligent comments. Pity a relatively courteous cancer researcher who knows something about this subject doesn't lob so we can have any intelligent conversation without point scoring.

By paul hill (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

Apparently sheep are carnivores.

You're using pregnancy ketosis to support the proposition that "No, ketone diets are not poisonous as every animal in the wild goes in and out of ketosis all the time"? Shall we check on the prognosis?

The treatment of pregnancy toxemia is usually unsuccessful. Providing energy in the form of molasses or syrup generally does not suffice. Treatment with propylene glycol at 60 to 90 ml (2 to 3 oz) twice daily may help. Cesarean section to deliver the kids or lambs early will
sometimes save the doe or ewe and the kids or lambs if they are near term. Corticosteroids may be used to abort the doe or ewe to prevent the loss of the dam. Kids or lambs will die shortly following the diagnosis of pregnancy toxemia due to lack of nutritional transfer from the doe or ewe to them. The sooner the kids or lambs are born, the less likely the doe or ewe will die.

Answer to Lilady re my credibility.

As an electronic technician acid freak I wanted to trip without the boogie woogies sometimes associated with the trip. I went catatonic many times despite trying to avoid it. So I began to design and build bio-feedback equipment and study neurology. No Ph.D's in that dual field as I'm aware. I'm also not aware of neurologists who compare brain circuits to electronic circuits. A Ph.D. in neurology, an electronic engineer to design and a tech to build wouldn't even get started on this in this country. That's NOT the way most inventions happen here despite all the elitist crap coming out of universities. A farmer with sheds full of junk, a bit of skill in welding, turning etc. and a NEED for whatever. Then I cottoned onto the idea of a galvanic skin response monitor (GSR) coupled to a bed lamp via an optocoupler for safety, for treating migraine. A couple of electrodes on fingers, the GSR measured skin conductance which went down as one relaxed, turning down the bed lamp until the room was dark which is the way a migrainer wants it.
Later I began to do 5 hr blood glucose tests gradually adding a range of electronic gizmos, heart rate monitor and blood pressure gauge, skin conductance multimeter, skin TEMPERATURE meter, (an electromyogram and electroencephelogram on the way but not yet completed). Skin temperature drops uo to 3 degrees C when having a panic attack I discovered, triggered by the release of NORADRENALIN. Then there was Multistix to do a whole range of urine tests. This setup was unique world wide as a 5hr GTT, as done by a path lab, ONLY tests blood glucose and for urine glucose. All of the data was to be fed into a computer and burned onto a DVD. The most comprehensive range of biological tests done DYNAMICALLY in time for the duration of a 5 hr GTT. All to be mounted in a rack with a big plug and socket to connect to the test individual so that he or she could unplug to go to the loo/provide urine for testing. The idea was that the subject SEES and Hears everything that is going on, all explained and with a DVD to take home.
Now I wanted to integrate the 5hr GTT equipment with the biofeedback equipment. A light flashing at around 9.5 hz or at the Alpha frequency can induce a state of 'no mind' and bodily homoeostasis, the healing state. It can also induce an epileptic fit in someone susceptible. There are other ways of telling when one is in the Alpha state such as a computer screen turning red. Red induces alpha waves. These are all gimmicky and with no aesthetic appeal . So I looked for a better way
Then I invented one, an EEG (electroencephalogram) with a filter to adjustably remove all signals except those around the Alpha range of 9.5 Hz, use this to trigger a uniform square waveform or stepped (pseudo sine) then multiply the signal so the 9.5 Hz (adjustable to fine tune Alpha) became 50 Hz, (Australian mains frequency) which would then be used to drive an Elmo sync pulse super 8 mm movie projector. The idea was that only when one was in the Alpha state of no mind would everything look and sound right and gobsmackingly beautiful, the scenery, the music, speech. Get a bit drowsy/depressed and drift down toward theta, everything slows down and lip sync would get out, voices get more bassy, the lamp dim (connected to an EMG (electromyogram) though an optocoupler amplifier device). Depressive and very ugly. An EMG measures signals from the brain to the muscles, a frequency of around 100 hz when relaxed up to 600 hz when frightened.
Get a bit uptight and move toward the beta range and the opposite would happen, everything speed up, lamp get over bright, voices become high pitched. Frightening and equally ugly. Both sides of Alpha would be symptomatic with the accompanying mood. The sensitivity of the setup was to have become adjustable so that over time it could be increased as one UNLEARNED trying to get into sync with Alpha. Fifteen years work went into this and all the associated test equipment EEG, EMG, GSR, all connectible to a storage scope, one day to put into a rack and integrated with blood glucose testing gear. World wide this was unique
The sound equivalent of Alpha is music with a beat of around 120 bpm, the so called dance rhythm. So music having that beat would be used as an accompaniment the beat going up and down accordingly. Then I was forcibly bankrupted and the whole lot was flogged off as junk. Good on you Oz. A nation of thieves and plagiarisers. Pity it couldn't have been used in the mining industry which is all this country is going to have left soon. Now having lost my home, abalone licence and boat, all tools, car, stripped bare ILLEGALLY I had to get credibility to get everything back so I kept studying, the only alternative being a horrific act of violence to get publicity. I'm not violent and I know violence doesn't get credibility. McVey thought it did, thought he might even get elected President. Got executed instead. This was 1988. I'm still at it as if my life depends on it, as it does. I've been illegally camped in a national park now for a total of 15 bloody years. I get one visitor, an organic chemist, for a couple of hours a week. Sometimes I go up to 6 weeks without seeing another person. Solitary confinement for being a whistle blower, blasphemer and heretic.

By paul hill (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

READ MY LIPS. I used that quote to support the fact that herbivores CAN go into ketosis, which you denied. I don't have the time or the motivation to respond to any more sniping, so from here on in I'm gonna talk about Cancer.

By paul hill (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill, you need professional help. Get it. Please.

paul hill

Actually my data was simply a huge range of textbooks on every subject in biology, now stuff online. You just jam it all into you’re skull and it rearranges itself so that this throws light on that and so on. It has to be in your skull and not online so that when a problem comes up things whiz around and bingo, the answer.

On your own admission, you make it up as you go along. Why then should anyone take any notice of your theories?

I note with particular enjoyment that the support you bring to your claim that "every animal in the wild goes in and out of ketosis all the time" is pregnancy ketosis. Somehow, I can't see this applying to the males of the species and those females not pregnant.

I used that quote to support the fact that herbivores CAN go into ketosis, which you denied.

I didn't do any such thing, you dunderhead. There are a few more points: Your example, it appears, is more properly referred to as "pregnancy toxemia." You would have done better to choose dairy cattle, in which ketosis per se produces "inappetence, signs of nervous dysfunction, including pica, abnormal licking, incoordination and abnormal gait, bellowing, and aggression." Furthermore, all of this applies to animals domestically raised for food production.

Paul Hill: It's GUINEA PIG, with a g. Then again, you get so much else wrong that I really shouldn't be surprised.
Just out of curiousity, why do you believe ketosis to be beneficial?

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

As an electronic technician acid freak I wanted to trip without the boogie woogies sometimes associated with the trip.

The "boogie woogies"? Kid, trust me, I've taken plenty of LSD. I gave away my last hundred hits of liquid here and there thanks to general loss of interest. Never, ever, have I heard this term. And just to repeat myself, not only do I think your "psychonaut" posturing is largely fiction. what you've actually come up with is really unimpressive.

I’ve been illegally camped in a national park now for a total of 15 bloody years. I get one visitor, an organic chemist, for a couple of hours a week.

And, apparently, electricity and an Internet connection.

Perhaps national park is a euphemism for the Clink?

Look, I have to admit it. Everything I've written is bullshit. I'm not Paul Hill at all, nor am I an electronic technician. I mean, would I stick my neck out saying I'd never gone to Uni. I can't reveal my true identity as my life would be threatened if I did.
In actual fact I'm a qualified virologist that was working for the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) in Atlanta. I got caught mucking around with little nasties that I wasn't supposed to be and got kicked out. Because of security implications this was covered up and I was given false papers and the cost of migrating to Australia.
Both countries intelligence agencies colluded to keep the lid on my identity and whereabouts, actually thinking that my research findings might be valuable one day.
However, I got so lonely in hiding I just had to communicate with someone or I'd end up hanging myself. I hope you don't feel too embarrest having been decieved

By paul hill (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

Look, I have to admit it. Everything I've written is bullshit. I'm not Paul Hill at all, nor am I an electronic technician. I mean, would I stick my neck out saying I'd never gone to Uni if it was true. I can't reveal my true identity as my life would be threatened if I did.
In actual fact I'm a qualified virologist that was working for the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) in Atlanta. I got caught mucking around with little nasties that I wasn't supposed to be and got kicked out. Because of security implications this was covered up and I was given false papers and the cost of migrating to Australia.
Both countries intelligence agencies colluded to keep the lid on my identity and whereabouts, actually thinking that my research findings might be very valuable one day.
However, I got so lonely in hiding I just had to communicate with someone or I'd end up hanging myself. I hope you don't feel too embarrassed having been deceived into behaving like rabid dogs. I've got a lot more revelations yet so please stick around, as it's cathartic for me to confess all. I just couldn't go on any longer living an incredible lie.

By paul hill (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

Oh cripes, Thingy has reproduced (somehow), and given the world Paul Hill.

Didn't Thingy tell you how to game the system? It is presently in custodial care for a respite from the cardboard box It lives in...or the sewer it inhabits.

Get some help, Son of Thingy!!

The plot thickens...
becoming very thick indeed.

( I'm away and we get THIS!)

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

Look, I have to admit it.

Too bad you can't even acknowledge simple errors. Tell me again how "orthomolecular biologist Abbie Hoffman" put together The Book of Grass.

paul hill @ July 1, 11:55 pm

Everything I’ve written is bullshit.

This may be the most correct statement you’ve posted here.

Mr. Hill, get some real psychiatric help. You are really lost in some kind of fantasy world.

Why use lingonberries in a vinaigrette…

It's traditional for word salad made from cabbage.

No sense of derring-do, to break with tradition?

Jesus, you lot are so bloody gullible. You'd swallow any shit. I'm sitting here pissing myself laughing at all your deranged drivel whilst you are getting up a full head of steam, blood pressure going through the roof. That's why I came in here, to tip a whole lot of cyber bullies over the edge and it's working a treat. Who want's to rave on about cancer when one can have this much fun bully baiting. Lilady, what's wrong with living in a sewer, plenty of turds to keep one company, maggots and rats to eat. Yumeee!

By paul hill (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

Whenever I want a piece of rope out here, all I have to do is talk about hanging myself and I'm inundated. Even God drops a dirty big coil down. Speaking of God, rumor has it that he is writing the 'Dawkin's Delusion'. Meanwhile Dawkins is terrified of roasting in Heaven. The Holy Ghost was known to boast that he often burned the toast, or a roast. But it's we humans he did boast that he loves to roast the most. Isn't that brilliant, Bard eat your heart out.

By paul hill (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

'Tell me again how “orthomolecular biologist Abbie Hoffman” put together The Book of Grass'.
I imagine he used glue.

Ketosis is just another name for fasting, ie stopping eating. Carnivores can't catch enough prey to eat continuously and might go a couple of days without in between binges and go easily into ketosis as the associated genes are in an up-regulated state (because it's happening so frequently.)
Do herbivores in the wild stop grazing periodically.. I dunno. You can't use domestic animals as a model as they are being fed continuously so their genes associated with ketosis are NOT upregulated and take several days to be upregulated once they stop eating. If they ingest a lot of fat soluble toxins such as herbicides and pesticides, these are taken up into their fat cells. Thus when they stop eating fat is released from these cells for fuel along with these toxins which hit their liver and kidneys.. Hence toxemia. As to the aggression etc. in cows, that is caused by adrenalin released to break down said fat and muscle cell glycogen to lactic acid.. Stops eating too fast, too much adrenalin released, aggression. Humans with liver pathology can have grand mal epileptic convulsions if they go into ketosis too fast. Done properly a ketone diet can have enormous benefits. I'll try posting my links to again as one of my threads is 'Would a Ketone Diet Kill Cancer'.

By paul hill (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

Why am I unable to post just one web link. Is there a problem with the cyber bullies being able to ridicule my stuff on It would save me some much time writing stuff when it's on there.

By paul hill (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

Please do not feed ignorant insane troll.

Cmon, lilady please, just a little feeding. I haven't laughed so hard in weeks.

It is not as if anybody coming across this stuff is going to confuse it for reality.

I am going to save the quote below for posterity. Just to demonstrate the pure brilliance of the idiocy.

If they ingest a lot of fat soluble toxins such as herbicides and pesticides, these are taken up into their fat cells. Thus when they stop eating fat is released from these cells for fuel along with these toxins which hit their liver and kidneys.. Hence toxemia.

When I came onto this blog I actually thought I might encounter some sophisticated science. Never once did I think that Science Blogs would host such abusive drivel from a pack of meat heads who all hide behind pseudonyms so that nobody has any idea if they even graduated from kindergarten. I get abused because I didn't go beyond intermediate grade at school as if that's something to be ashamed of, but you lot, no names, no addresses, no profile of any kind, just a great outpouring of vomit. What's your goal, to try to get someone to commit suicide and score points that. way. How do you know who finished the poor bastard off. No decent scientist would come within cooee of these blogs. Orac, you set the tone mate. What about raising it, as I'm wasting my time here. So far, maybe a couple of mediocre comments. I thought BC org was bad enough. It's civilized compared to this.

By paul hill (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

Paul Hill: I'll get back to you once I look up ketosis, because I really don't think that's how it works. I believe predators have a slower digestive system than herbivores, so they can go longer between meals. Also, I believe ketosis is, at some point, terminal. So, yeah, it would cure cancer, just not in the intended way. And dude, just go write fiction. You're a bit better than Stephenie Mayer, so by this time next year, you could have a best seller.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

I've been studying it for 40 years. To get a handle on it you have to study molecular biology, biochemistry, endocrinology, hematology, general physiology and a bit of physics at least. That should keep you preoccupied for a few years of looking it up If I could get my web links to show you could read my stuff. Off course ketosis is terminal at some point. It is called starving to death. Nothing to do with the digestive system as everything is gone from it in a couple of days. Then the animal lives off its own tissues. It's the amount of fat and muscle on the animal that determines how long it can last as both provide substrate for both ketosis and gluconeogenesis, (glucose made in the liver.) The more malignant cancer cells become the more dependent they are on glucose (anaerobic metabolism) and glucose in the bloodstream is almost zero in ketosis. I'm writing a bestseller. It's a comedy about cancer research and treatment. It's gonna be a smash hit.

By paul hill (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

I was reading a post a while ago and the reference to cancer cells operating anaerobically, therefore needing more glucose for fuel than normal cells and it suddenly hit me like a ton of bricks, a ketone diet to kill cancer. Ketones can only be used for fuel aerobically. When you fast you go into ketosis but you don't have to fast to go into ketosis. You can eat lots but have to virtually eliminate carbohydrate including starch. Trouble is cells have to be fairly malignant before becoming anaerobic enough for this to work, although that must include all metastasis. As cancer cells become more and more malignant they use less oxygen, the so called Warburg effect and increasingly use glucose for fuel and less fat. A fully anaerobic cell uses 16 times more glucose than a fully aerobic cell, and excretes lactic acid instead of carbon dioxide and water. The liver and heart can use lactic acid for fuel.

Then I thought if one went on a ketone diet there is very little glucose in the bloodstream at all and as ketones require aerobic metabolism which is fine for all non tumour cells in the body except, from memory, the adrenal or kidney cortex, then TUMOUR CELLS MUST STARVE. To get into ketosis you have to cut back your carb intake to around 10 grammes average or nothing if you just eat meat, eggs, cheese and fish, though this is much too nutritionally deficient and constipating. Better to eat more carb as starch in anti cancer veges and do a lot of exercise to compensate by burning off the excess carb. It takes about 3 days for your body's cells to adapt to ketones and what's called gluconeogenesis where the body makes glucose from the body's own tissues when fasting or protein and glycerol when on ketone diet. You know you are in ketosis when they appear in your urine using Ames Ketostix to detect them and you smell acetone on your breath.
Ketones are made in your liver from fatty acids from the diet or fat cells. You cannot lay down fat in ketosis as fat cells need glucose to make glycerol to estrify the dietary fatty acids to triglycerides. The is the sneak mechanism of ketosis. Theoretically you can eat as much fat as you like as you pee it out as ketones, lose weight and don't get hungry. Actually you shouldn't as you'd go into ketoacidosis and put a strain on your kidneys. The Ketostix tell you how much ketone you are expelling.

I reckon this must work and is a DIY, so costs nothing. Your diet would have to be very nutritious and you'd have to do a lot of exercise, lots of vege but no fruit to start off with. I've done a ketone diet myself, lost all the excess weight but have put it and more back on again. Just being slack as you DO NOT get hungry on a ketone diet. Animals in the wild are in and out of ketosis all the time as they can't eat continuously like we can.
paul hill

I have just been online to check to see if anyone else has thought of a ketone diet to kill cancer and find to my dismay that it's an old idea. So I read all the papers on it and to my delight find the concept riddled with misconceptions. Now none of the papers on the ketone diet hypothesis went far enough in lowering blood sugar, almost all were trying to achieve it in a sedentary clinical setting and some used ketosis as an adjunct to chemotherapy. NONE talked about restoring liver and kidney function as the tumour gradually broke down and NONE understood the complete biochemistry of ketosis. However each one provided clues.

Probably the biggest problem in getting patient compliance in these studies seems to be a sugar craving, thus jumping straight from a diet full of refined sugar to almost NO sugar and natural sugar at that might seem a near impossible task. So the logical thing to do is cut out all refined sugar as the first stage. So much pathology is associated with consuming refined sugar, especially when associated with liver malfunction, which is, to a large part, caused by consuming refined sugar. Migraines, moodswing, depression, panic attacks, epilepsy, non allergenic asthma, diabetes, arteriosclerosis, hypertension, cramps, tremors etc. etc. Then there are all the meds that are taken to treat these problems, ALL making the underlying pathologies worse and creating new pathologies of their own plus cross reactivity problems.

Thus giving up refined sugar TOTALLY will mean that all of those meds can go into an incinerator. Some drugs, those that cause an increase in cell receptor numbers such as antipsychotics, SSRI's, will need to be tapered off gradually. By giving up refined sugar and cutting back on meat a lot of the gunk in blood vessels will begin to dissolve and, as anxiety disappears as well, your blood pressure will come down so you can taper off those meds, eg beta blockers and ACE inhibitors. Eating a lot of polyunsaturated fats, plus taking EPA and DHA oils will help here. Buy a blood pressure gauge and a blood glucose monitor while you are at it as they are pretty cheap these days. Why not also get a good book of basic physiology?

Someone has been diagnosed with cancer. By this time they will be anxious or depressed or both, tired or even exhausted through lack of sleep, relationships with other people are terrible, there is a heap of debt, things around the house don't work, mess. They have gone down into a black hole so deep that it seems impossible to ever find one's way out. How does someone get exercise when it might be extremely dangerous out there, especially for a woman going for a walk at night, something most men don't ever even have to think about. But he or she HAS TO GET EXERCISE to prevent or get rid of existing cancer without 'cut, poison, burn' or to just simply be healthy full stop. Well, there is one way that will kill two birds with one stone IF one has a backyard, ie start a comprehensive VEGE GARDEN and plant some FRUIT TREES including some on the nature strip. That way you get FRESH veges and fruit, free of spays and you can control the composition of your soil. Start a compost heap. Soil iodine deficient? Then get to a nearby beach if there is one and pick up kelp washed up onto the beach and add that to the compost.

Then there are community activities that might be able to get started, e.g. building bush tracks IF there's bush nearby. Out in the forest, sweating like a pig, taking photos, great stuff. Then get a community action group together to pressure the local water authority to get rid of the water chlorination treatment plant and replace it with an ozone plant. These are just a few ideas to get the ball rolling. One thing is for certain. YOU HAVE TO TAKE YOUR OWN LIFE INTO YOUR OWN HANDS and wave goodbye to to the doc and the psychiatrist, but keep on good terms in case you break a leg.

MIGRAINE Breaking the Sugar Addiction. I wrote this for migraine but is perfectly applicable for everything else.
Now it's all very well to say cut out the sugar but if the migraineur is addicted, which he or she is almost certain to be. Saturday morning migraines are common for the obvious reason that many people lay in on Saturday so their blood sugar has had longer to fall. If you get out of bed a bit shaky and sweaty your are more likely to be in ketosis, a certain indicator of reactive hypoglycaemia, and depending when and what you snacked on before going to bed So its a very good idea to get some Ames Ketostix to test your urine, better still Diastix which also test for glucose although they can't coincide. If you ARE in ketosis this is a sure indicator of poor liver storage of glucose (as glycogen.).

The addictive cycle goes like this. Gets out of bed hanging out for a cuppa with a fair bit of sugar in it, more likely coffee than tea. Blood sugar shoots up, feeling great for a little while then craving starts again as it plunges back down. Another cuppa and so on all day. So first off you've got to cut down the rest period and have a late snack of wholemeal toast with say avocado on it. Now get out of bed early and toast once again, For a sweetener in cuppa cyclemates I suppose although I hate the taste of those things. You could try glycerine as it is very sweet but doesn't trigger an insulin release. Now your blood sugar will rise much more slowly and fall slowly with a much longer cycle. YOU SHOULD HAVE BROKEN THE CYCLE AND NOW BE TOTALLY MIGRAINE FREE (as long as you don't backslide)

OKAY NOW SUGARS. Fruit is okay but if you are very sensitive cut out very sweet fruit like pineapple for a coupla weeks. Fruit juices are out as there is no fibre with them and it's just too much sugar. As much as it's very good for you honey is out for a coupla months as the sucrose in it has been split by the bees digestive system to fructose glucose and there is no fibre in it. Now for the processed food. Chocolate and cola drinks are deadly as they contain sugar, caffeine and threobromine. Now add a cigarete and you have the very worst combination of all. Especially if you are very sensitive you've got to weed out sugars in all other processed food root and branch, Look for SUCROSE (TABLE SUGAR glucose, fructose), GLUCOSE, DEXTROSE (another name for glucose), FRUCTOSE, (although it's supposed not elicit an insulin response), just be on the safe side, CORN SYRUP and MALTOSE (glucose, glucose). As to the lactose in milk bear in mind that humans are the only animal that drinks milk after being weaned. Just see how you go. Once your liver bounces back you could put things back on the diet like milk but not the refined sugars. Anyway, once you've broken the addiction you'll hate the taste of it.

BOOZE. Unfortunately ALL out. Meaning no parties, no pub. However, once your mood stabilises and your stress level drops as your liver comes good you won't feel like a drink.

EXERCISE. A lot of migraineurs do nothing one day then go at it like a bull at a gate the next and get a migraine. Obviously exercise is great and NECESSARY but it also gobbles up blood sugar, so just go easy to start off with and increase it a bit at a time.
TYRAMINE. A substance in a lot of foods which triggers the release of NORADRENALIN. I'll deal with that later in a separate post.
{PS When I say blood sugar I mean blood glucose, same thing)

By paul hill (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

Hey, where's all my mates? You're not all sulking are you. Look I didn't mean to pile it on too thick. Whadami gonna do with no one to take the piss outa? Now, don't go hangin' yourselves will you. I'd feel bloody dreadful if that happened. Cheer up lads. You've done a superb job. I'm gonna make you in to movie stars, a musical comedy, maybe. Haven't worked out a title yet for the book or the movie. I'm gonna have to bugger off for a coupla days as I've found a forum that pays CASH prizes far great advice. Reckon I'll be a mega star. Shit all over Edna Everage. But I'll pop in from time to time to see if someone drops in with some brains. Meanwhile avoid rope like the plague.

By paul hill (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

Apparently, you've given yourself just enough rope.

Then I thought if one went on a ketone diet there is very little glucose in the bloodstream at all

Yes, it's not as if the amount of glucose in the bloodstream is maintained at a constant value by the combined action of the pancreas, the liver and a few others organs.
Oh, wait. Neogluogenesis.

By Heliantus (not verified) on 03 Jul 2012 #permalink

it should have been "neoglucogenesis"

By Heliantus (not verified) on 03 Jul 2012 #permalink

Paul Hill,
I'll let the more knowledgeable members take on your long post (it seems dodgy to me, but I'm a software engineer, not a doctor or a biochemist -- after all, if zero glucose were survivable, why would anybody worry about diabetes?), but I do have one thing to contribute:

Do herbivores in the wild stop grazing periodically.. I dunno.

Depends on the herbivore. Some have feast/famine cycles; some eat meals the way we do, others graze continuously. Wild horses, rabbits/hares, bison, manatees, pandas, koalas, etc are grazers, and must eat continuously. Gorillas are a rare example of a grazing primate; despite their close relationship to humans, they must also eat continuously. (This is also why they have such big bellies; it's to accommodate their enlarged hindgut to process the calorie-poor plants they eat.) They can go a period without eating, of course. But their default state is "look for food, eat food".

You can’t use domestic animals as a model as they are being fed continuously so their genes associated with ketosis are NOT upregulated and take several days to be upregulated once they stop eating.

Actually, domestic animals which are fed continuously are generally grazers by nature, such as cattle and sheep. Their wild kindred graze continuously as well. Bison will even graze through the winter; their heads are specially adapted to act as snowplows, giving them access to the grass below the snow. Continuous access to food is supplied for other livestock, but this is more about convenience than anything else; contrary to widespread opinion, non-grazers will seldom gorge themselves. Poultry, in particular -- usually, the only way to get a fat bird is through selective breeding or force-feeding (as is done to produce fois gras). (Though note that castration also can do the trick. Capons are rather labor-intensive to produce, though, and the advent of the turkey has rendered them a niche market at best. Given the extremity of the procedure for an animal with internal gonads, that may be just as well.)

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 03 Jul 2012 #permalink

I am re-reading paul hill's last rant and I cannot help wondering; at which point of it did the topic shift from starving cancer cells (existing cancer cells, mind you, it's not exactly about prevention) into advice for diet and stopping migraines?
He did mention neoglucogenesis, but failed to explain how the newly generated glucose, which will be released into the bloodstream and made available to all, will not be feeding the cancer cells. Or why the cancer cells will themselves fail to make glucose out of other sources, like aminoacids.
If you starve yourself, your cancer cells are not going to wait their turn to be feed - all you body is going to suffer, including your immune system.

I would also point out the relations between cigarette, caffeine withdrawal, or too much exercise and migraine are well-known - headaches are a sign of the dependence or, in the case of heavy exercising, of the loss of water and induced hypoglycemia. There is nothing news here.
Same for alcohol, really.

Kudos on recognizing that fruit juices are heavy with sugar and poor on fibers. That could indeed be said more often. Although fruit juices are for some people their main sources of vitamin C and other nutrients, so there is some reason in promoting them. As every other food, in reasonable amounts.
But again, mainstream medicine is not the one advising you drink fruit/vegetable juices all day long.

By Heliantus (not verified) on 03 Jul 2012 #permalink

No scientist here, either - I'm *just* a breast cancer patient, and quite familiar with "Paul Hill," aka "nodules" on breastcancerorg

Only a few things to say to you, Paul Hill:
1. You're one sick F**K.
2. You know less than nothing about cancer.
3. You need some serious help.
4. I'm glad you're here now, where your word salad bullshit isn't specifically targeted to patients, like your brain-dead advice to breast cancer patients on BCO, where you were promoting your "ditch-the-oncologist-and-do-it-yourself Ketone diet cure." How dare you.

@ thenewme:

Because I survey woo, I often notice how prevarication targets people who are already SUFFERING: either they have learned that they have a serious illness ( cancer HIV/AIDS, MS, CV, SMI etc). or are afraid of that possibility occuring somewhere down the road.

Most alt med dissemblers present scurrilous information that causes fear, doubt and worry about patients' chances with SBM: doctors are called liars and money hungry- their ethics are questioned; SB therapies are discouraged- usually, negative outcomes and risks are emphasised without mention of the positive results and true merit of the treatment. These manipulations of data cause people who need to make informed choices fear what might be a life-saving treatment. AND the best hope they have Even if they do make the most informed choice, I wonder if ,when they are feeling ill or perhaps if they relapse, do they feel as if they were wrong, second-guessing?. Worry, doubt and fear about SBM cause additional suffering to patients who are already ill, may face difficult treatments and pain from the illness itself.

The psychological campaign against SBM in the service of selling products or alt med ideas is a disservice because it misrepresnts data and provokes emotional distress. Alternative treatments are presented as ALL gain, no loss, no side effects, no problems. We are then usually told that the real doctors are the heartless ones.

Have they no shame**?
I guess not.

** as says PALMD

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 03 Jul 2012 #permalink

Paul Hill: So do you make it a hobby to be wrong about everything? Aside from your nonsense that ketosis is healthy ('cause diabetic comas are totally good for everyone), the blithering about migraines is really offensive. I'll concede that caffiene and nicotine might be triggers, but you seem to forget that migraines are usually hormone based. Most women who have migraines usually start experiencing them in the teen years- and I know a girl who was cured of her migraines by puberty.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 03 Jul 2012 #permalink

@Denice Walter,
Yeah, that pretty much sums up a huge number of posts on the breast cancer forum I was on. Somehow they made *me* out to be the bad guy, assuming I was one of the big pharma shills, every time I questioned their information or posted anything remotely anti-quackery.

Do you survey woo as a hobby or an occupation? How do you maintain sanity through it?


You know less than nothing about cancer.

I am definitely stealing that. It is such a great description of those whose ignorance goes beyond a mere lack of knowledge into being actively wrong.

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 03 Jul 2012 #permalink

@Militant Agnostic,
It's truly frightening how much of that "actively wrong" breast cancer information is promoted on BCO. I started out my personal cancer journey knowing absolutely nothing about breast cancer. The more I've learned about it, the more I've moved from skeptical to cynical about alternative treatment, and it bugs the crap out of me to see morons like Paul Hill and others peddling this BS on so-called "credible" sites for cancer patients. Is there anything lower than that? Not much, in my book.

@ newme: Well...that's *telling him* what we all think about him...good on you.

About that ketogenic diet for breast cancer. I suspect that Dopey read something about ongoing research on using a ketogenic diet as adjuvant therapy for treatment of gliomas:

Note in the abstract that a strict ketogenic diet has been used with some success, in the hospital setting for treatment of refractory epilepsy; NOT something to try at home, NOT in lieu of surgery/treatment by an oncologist... and NOT for breast cancer.

I have never used the name neogluconeogenesis. Can't see the name on the link to Wikipedia. ALL cells of the body adapt to ketones in ketosis, except some that operate anaerobically. So the blood glucose leve in ketosis is too low to feed cancer cells. Malignant cancer cells use 16 times more glucose than normal cell operating aerobically, so they must starve. Cancer cells can't make their own glucose as the only organs in which gluconeogenesis takes place are the liver, kidneys and blood platelet cells. If you bothered to read the post on ketosis properly you see that I took the advice on eliminating sugar from a paper I did on migraine, that it is perfectly relevant here. As to stopping migraine headaches by eliminating sugar being crap, you'd better tell that to all the people who bought the little booklet I wrote 18 years ago, followed it's advice and stopped having migraines. As to a ketone diet being so dangerous, what do you think an Aitkins diet is. I went on one myself for over a year with only positive effects.
I don't see any point in going any further as you are all so filled with malice you are beyond reason. You only discredit yourselves by carrying on like that, without doing me any harm whatsoever. All trying to outdo each other with bullying and insults. If there was one shred of honesty in any of you you wouldn't be hiding behind pseudonyms I don't have to justify myself as I now have all of the evidence I need and you lot have simply added to that evidence. This is a blog in which there has been absolutely no moderation in stopping me being abused whatsoever. ALL of the blogs are the same. I was set up to totally discredit me and it has backfired completely and I am now perfectly satisfied. Good by.

By paul hill (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

Calli Arcale.
I didn't mean to include you in my above tirade and found your post very informative. I just hope the others don't set upon you for not attacking me. On the subject of diabetes, it's hyperglycaemia or HIGH blood sugar that's the problem. Very low blood sugar if the diabetic injects too much insulin and can have convulsions and even die from cerebral hypoglycemia (insulin coma). However, this cant happen if one goes into ketosis SLOWLY so the brain doesn't need glucose because by then it has adapted to ketones.

By paul hill (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

I was set up to totally discredit me and it has backfired completely and I am now perfectly satisfied. Good by.

Ten quatloos says it doesn't stick the flounce.

@ Narad

I don't take sucker bets.

@ paul hill

I have never used the name neogluconeogenesis.

Never did I. Ok, I know I could be dyslexic, but apparently not here.
I used neoglucogenesis.
And so did you. I quote your post on July 2, 8:42

It takes about 3 days for your body’s cells to adapt to ketones and what’s called gluconeogenesis where the body makes glucose from the body’s own tissues when fasting or protein and glycerol when on ketone diet.

OK, it was gluconeogenesis you used, I'm sorry.
In my education, the two terms were used interchangeably by my teachers. Maybe wrongly, I don't know. The wikipedia article I linked to is actually redirecting one to the other.
BTW, [citation needed] for the brain shifting to ketones without any issue.

Sugar cause for migraine being crap? Where did I say this? At worse, I said it's not news. I was questioning the relevance of you advice for migraines when the topic was cancer.

what do you think an Aitkins diet is

You keep missing my point. Whatever diet you are following, you body is going to maintain the concentration of glucose in blood at around 1 g/l. So there is no way to eliminate glucose from your bloodstream. Well, no healthy way.
I could be wrong. Any citation?

If there was one shred of honesty in any of you you wouldn’t be hiding behind pseudonyms

So you can sue us into silence? No thanks.

I don’t have to justify myself as I now have all of the evidence I need and you lot have simply added to that evidence.

Oh yeah, we are mean, we don't want to believe you on your word alone.
You may want to read articles on self-entitlement. I personally found them very humbling.

This is a blog in which there has been absolutely no moderation in stopping me being abused whatsoever.

You think you have been abused here? I am regularly reading stories on other blogs from victims of real emotional or physical abuse.
Also, read again Re: freedom of speech. It's not freedom from criticism.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

By Heliantus (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

If hypoglycemia cured cancer, insulinomas would cure themselves.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

@ thenewme:

Oh, I survey woo as a hobby- it's cheaper than tennis. I actually counsel people and follow the markets because I manage my own investments and advise a few relatives - a job I inherited from my father.

Remaining sane is relatively easy for me- perhaps becauseI am descended from a long line of savvy business folk and probably have genes for tolerating huge amounts of nonsense. I'm sure that studying both clinical and cognitive psych didn't hurt either. Similarly, economics.

However, I hear/ read so much pure balderdash I felt that my somewhat odd skill set might be useful in combatting idiocy on the internet. Hey, somebody's got to do it.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

I don't know how low the BG could go on a ketone diet, but it certainly must go low enough to kill the more malignant cells. As cancer cells becoming increasingly malignant there is a progression in the amount of Warburg effect as they DEDIFFERIANTATE. (go backward to become more blastula like.) Less and less consumption of oxygen more and more dependance on glucose and the reduced ability to oxidize fatty acids.
As to criticism. I don't care how much criticism I get. Pile it on. If I don't know something I have no trouble whatsoever in saying so. It the tone of the criticism, the hostility, the ridicule, a tidal wave of it. Go right back to the beginning of this blog and read through and ask yourself how you'd like to cop. You even do it yourself as if you can't help yourself having a swipe at the end of your comment. How much hurt can one person take. Jesus, be reasonable. I have no intention in trying to sue anybody. I am an anarchist with no use for any law. You will notice that thus ridicule did not begin until after my post on Rosenberg and the one below which were put in simultaneously and ask yourself why. My posts above this sat there for weeks with no comment.

By paul hill (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

@ Lilady

ongoing research on using a ketogenic diet as adjuvant therapy for treatment of gliomas:

Thanks for the link, it was an interesting article.

It seems I was partly wrong, a ketogenic diet (KG) do seem to lower the blood glucose by about 20-25%, by comparison to the mice on standard diet (SD), according to the results in this study.
However, this was by day 6 after the tumor implantation in the mice, i.e. 9 days after starting the KG diet. The same graph shows that by day 13, the glucose levels between the mice on KG and on SD are getting closer, or are even equals in the case of the irradiated mice.
(which is the opposite of what Mr Hill promised us - that the KG diet will make the blood glucose drops indefinitely)

The authors themselves admit that this lowering of the glucose concentration doesn't seem to influence much the tumor growth, in one way or another.
So until further evidence to the contrary, I think I will stand by my point, that even under a KG diet, the body will maintain the level of blood glucose around normal values, and thus, the diet will not starve cancer cells out of sugar.

Now, the authors of the article may be onto something else: the combination of KG diet and irradiation seems to do better than irradiation alone. I didn't do a full review of the article, and it's a bit out of my field, so I cannot really judge.

Although, if I wanted to be full of malice, I would pull out a pharma chill gambit on them, since the research was done by the company selling the KG diet.
But frankly, I'm willing to wait and see for more data.

By Heliantus (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

Good point.. However an insulinoma inducing constant grand mal fits won't induce them when in ketosis as the brain no longer needs glucose, having switched to ketones. So the hypoglycemia of a normal carb diet is different in origin to that of the hypoglycemia of ketosis. Thus the transformed beta cells of the pancreas need dietary glucose to synthesis insulin. I don't reckon that normal beta cells could have insulin receptors on them and thus be able to store glucose as glycogen, whilst still being responsive to BG fluctuations. But then transformed beta cells don't seem to be responsive to BG or autonomic nervous control. A ketone diet would stop the fits for a start.

By paul hill (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

Why not go out and buy a good glucose monitor an a bottle of Ketostix and GO ON a ketone diet yourself and MEASURE your own BG. I'm going on a ketone diret myself soon and that's what I'll be testing for. Mice experiments are not all that relevant using an implanted tumor, a made up food, the amount of carb in it we are not told. Was the mouse urine tested to see how much ketone it was excreting. I know this sounds very cynical, but ask yourselves just how determined any researcher is gonna be to get an experiment to work that will put him or her out of a job and the entire research and treatment industry at the same time. Remember McBride.

By paul hill (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

paul hill

This is a blog in which there has been absolutely no moderation in stopping me being abused whatsoever.

Yes. And that lack of moderation is exactly why you’ve been allowed to post your long, rambling rants here.

Had a few fresh ideas. Gluconeogenesis can use 3 substrates 1 Lactic acid from skeletal muscles. Muscle cells cannot release glucose from their glycogen stores as they don't express the enzyme glucose-6-phosphatase. So they have to FERMENT it to lactic acid. This requires adrenal and noradrenalin. Muscle storage of glycogen must first run out before this source is gone. 2 Amino acids from both diet and the breakdown of skeletal muscle protein. How much PROTEIN is in the mouse diet. Alternatively muscle cell protein breakdown requires the so called 'stress' hormone cortisol. If the mice are stressed out by the lab environment then the level of cortisol secretion by their adrenals will be much higher, therefore more amino acids will be available as substrate for gluconeogenesis. 3 Glycerol. One glycerol molecule for each molecule of triglyceride (3 fatty acids). Length of fatty acid determines how much ketone is available from it. Ie glucose from gluconeogenesis to ketone body ratio. So, measure mouse cortisol level. Get it down by giving meeses a happy time. Measure lactic acid level which should be zero once skeletal muscle glycogen is exhausted.

By paul hill (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

Exercise. Another flash. How much exercise are the lab meeses getting. When I went on my ketone diet I did a huge amount of exercise as I have to anyway, cutting firewood by hand (bowsaw) and track building. This allowed me to go into ketosis at a much higher carb intake than if I was sedentary and have to start on a zeo carb meat, eggs, cheese, and fish diet. My diet was mostly vegetarian but could include tomatoes and veg with a fair bit of starch etc. Most days the Ketostix showed dark purple which was probably way overdone. With 20 20 hindsite I just wish I had been using a BG monitor now . However this was about 16 years ago.

By paul hill (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

Yes. And that lack of moderation is exactly why you’ve been allowed to post your long, rambling rants here.

Yeah, and look at how these long rants have enlightened and entertained everybody, and without charge. Just gotta have a shot eh? Ah well without shots I'd have nothing to take the piss out of and I'd get bored shitless.

By paul hill (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

Mr. Hill, entertained: yes. Enlightened: no.

Get professional psychiatric help.

Yeah, and look at how these long rants have enlightened and entertained everybody, and without charge.

"Well, that covers a lot of ground.... Say, you cover a lot of ground yourself. You'd better beat it. I hear they're going to tear you down and put up an office building where you're standing. You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi, you can leave in a huff. If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff."

I don't need PROFESSIONAL psychiatric help as I've got an amateur on the job, me! I just plug myself into the wall socket each day and do my own ECT. I do creosote enemas on myself as well.

Eh! You haven't been on the paint stripper have you. They cant tear me down as I'm invincible. Hey, I'm getting depressed with no one abusing me. Is this the latest tactic to tip me over the edge. Gee, I hope no one actually starts getting nice to me. I have no experience whatsoever in being able to handle that.

By paul hill (not verified) on 05 Jul 2012 #permalink

I have a feeling I may regret this but here goes anyway.

However an insulinoma inducing constant grand mal fits won’t induce them when in ketosis as the brain no longer needs glucose, having switched to ketones.

The problem is that even in ketosis the brain still requires some glucose. Ketosis reduces the need for glucose, it doesn't eliminate it. Seizures due to hypoglycemia are only one symptom; so are unconsciousness and death. As Heliantus noted, even in prolonged starvation, blood glucose levels are maintained. I know this from measuring blood glucose on people who have suffered prolonged starvation, usually elderly people who have had a fall or a stroke and haven't been found for several days. Their glucose is low, but not as low as you see in insulinoma parients.

So the hypoglycemia of a normal carb diet is different in origin to that of the hypoglycemia of ketosis.

I don't see why the origin of the hypoglycemia is relevant. However it arose it should kill off any tumors, according to your hypothesis.

Thus the transformed beta cells of the pancreas need dietary glucose to synthesis insulin.

That's an unusual use of the word "thus". Frankly, I don't follow your logic. It is true that not all cancer cells are anerobic, which is another problem with your hypothesis.

I don’t reckon that normal beta cells could have insulin receptors on them and thus be able to store glucose as glycogen, whilst still being responsive to BG fluctuations.

You don't reckon? All cells have insulin receptors, and cancer cells have far more insulin receptors than normal cells.

But then transformed beta cells don’t seem to be responsive to BG or autonomic nervous control.

A ketone diet would stop the fits for a start.I very much doubt that, as in rats it makes things worse. As I mentioned blood glucose in insulinoma falls much lower than in ketosis due to starvation, and even when it has adapted to metabolizing ketones, the brain does still require some glucose.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 05 Jul 2012 #permalink

@ Narad

Is it from Groucho Marx? Nice.

By Heliantus (not verified) on 05 Jul 2012 #permalink

Oh how I miss preview. Still, I hope my meaning is clear anyway despite screwing up the link.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 05 Jul 2012 #permalink

Errata: in a previous post on the article cited by Lilady, I wrote that the ketogenic diet started 3 days before the implantation of a tumor in the brain of the mice. I misread, it was 3 days after.

@ paul hill

a made up food

A commercially available ketogenic diet, you fool. For someone who recommends the Atkins diet...

the amount of carb in it we are not told

I admit it could be easy to miss. Read the end of discussion again. They provide the proportion of fat:protein:carbohydrate. I quote:

KetoCal® was obtained directly from the manufacturer and is a nutritionally complete diet providing a 4:1 ratio of fats to carbohydrates plus protein (72% fat, 15% protein, and 3% carbohydrate; for complete nutritional information see

Was the mouse urine tested to see how much ketone it was excreting.

For what purpose?
They did follow the blood concentration of ketones. Which, without surprise, was constantly significantly higher in the mice following the ketone diet, even after their blood glucose level went back to normal.

I know this sounds very cynical [...]

Bingo, Pharma chill gambit.
Which is a potential issue with the article I alluded of. No need to tell me.

The role reversal is funny to watch. Lilady provided an article which, by the way, gives some support to the use of a ketogenic diet to fight cancer, and suddenly you are the one going all skeptical over it.

Although, frankly, you are grasping at straws. The mice were stressed, not doing enough exercise, and the brain tumor was interfering? And I guess a patient with breast cancer is neither stressed nor is lacking of exercise?
It's what we are talking about, let me remind you: use of a ketogenic diet to alleviate/cure cancer.

By Heliantus (not verified) on 05 Jul 2012 #permalink

As I am flat out responding to polite comments I have no intention whatsoever of responding to abusive ones even if they do make good points I am currently putting together a response to Krebiozen in which I want to get right into metabolic pathways in depth, in a word processor. There is only one of me whereas there are many of you. I have a very poor internet connection, no textbooks any more as they are in a chook shed miles away. I don't think any reasonable person would reckon I'm being deliberately evasive by ignoring nit picking abuse.

By paul hill (not verified) on 05 Jul 2012 #permalink

Soon this blog is going to be so full it will be unusable. For such a so called prestigious blog Science Blog is hopeless. Unlike almost every other forum and blog I have used, there are no reply buttons so a reply can be directly below a comment and a reply to a reply. There are no edit buttons so you can cleanup/clarify a previous post. There is only one page. It is by invitation only, a very convenient way of keeping a dissenting voice like mine from setting up their own blog, no way that I know of sending an email to complain or suggest or apply for registration.
I am very close to the end of my tether. I'm 71 and getting on average about 5 hours sleep a night. I'm spending 8 hours a day online, 3 hours in the morning when I should be building something decent to live in as what I am in now is close to collapsing as it is rotted away. I have to charge batteries twice a day with a petrol generator. I have to use a mobile phone as a modem because a phone doesn't drop out a very low speeds. A good signal is 48 kb/s and sometimes it drops as low as 335 BYTES. I get a lot of broken links.
Almost all of what I write is from memory., hence not checking links provided because sometimes a page might take minutes to open, often not at all. Hence not checking the mouse chow makeup and just assuming that it wasn't shown, wrong of me I know. Sometimes I'm so bloody tired from lack of sleep I blackout repeatedly in front of the computer.
I am loath to ask that all these difficulties be taken into consideration, knowing from what has happened so far I will be swamped with howls of derision claiming that I'm desperately looking for a face saving way out. I am a victim of horrific social abuse, the details of which would take another page the size of this one and nobody would believe me anyway, say I'm making it up.
I have gone close to suicide on several occasions when I could see no way out, eg when my last camp was smashed up by around 20 park rangers, accompanied by two cops and a psyche nurse. Now the state has backed off as it is concerned that I have deterrents in place, and has realized that it has MORE THAN provoked any such a move on my part. I haven't, but when one is a mile inside very dense undulating rainforest, how does anybody know. I have exploited this paranoia just to stay alive and am perfectly justified in doing so. After my camp was smashed up last time I was threatened with a 6 month custodial sentence if I reoffended.
I have been fined a total of around $3,000 over the last 15 odd years, but nobody has EVER tried to collect the money because the state doesn't want to make a martyr of me. I am sure that many people in and out of authority would love to see me dead. But that would leave a huge enigma of just what I have left behind. Obviously this situation has to come to a resolution but is stalemated at the moment. It is not in my interest, your interest or that of the state for me to be dead.
It is for this reason that I am on this blog, desperate to get credibility for something I believe in totally anyway, Larmakian evolution, to which Cancer is central. When I said that I am probably the only person on Earth than can see the mechanisms of biological evolution in Cancer, unfortunately I did not qualify that statement by saying LARMARKIAN evolution as Dawkinist evolution is a fairy story as it is so incredibly simplistic. If the mechanisms of Cancer are that of Larmarkian evolution then there have to be mechanisms of TOTAL REMISSION. Not a fluke at all, just a matter of believing in it and creating the right conditions for it. A ketone diet is just one part of this and NOT essential to it.
If I get a chance I will describe in detail a case of a girl I knew who developed a fast growing stomach cancer. It was caused by the drug Cimetidene used to treat peptic ulcer. Under alkaline conditions caused by using sodium bicarb to neutralize stomach acidity, bacteria grow which convert the drug to a carcinogenic nitrousamine. I sent her the information on Cimetidine as well as advice on cutting out sugar to fix the big moodswings she was experiencing. She went of the drug, cut out the sugar and the tumor disappeared. An oncologist used endoscopy to see the tumor and after it's disappearance. This is completely anecdotal. However the case of Mr D'Angelo is NOT and is apparently a huge thorn in the side of the status quo. I identify completely with Mr D'Angelo, with his appalling treatment by Rosenberg in not getting a chance to tell HIS story. That's all I'm going to post today as I am exhausted and might go back to bed for a couple of hours.

By paul hill (not verified) on 05 Jul 2012 #permalink

Our self-styled "breast cancer expert" is still clueless about medical terminology, including "adjuvant" therapy, as in the article I linked to...

The Ketogenic Diet Is an Effective Adjuvant to Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Malignant Glioma

I also located several PubMed cites, for research using ketogenic diets for adjuvant treatment of malignant astrocytomas...using murine models...but no PubMed cites for ketogenic diets as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in humans or murine models.

Here's a short history of using the ketogenic diet for treatment of refractory epilepsy:…

paul hill,
Now I feel sorry for you.

On the other hand, you already told us earlier on this thread (July 1, 11:55 pm)

Everything I’ve written is bullshit.

Please follow Chris's advice: you need help.

It is for this reason that I am on this blog

I thought you left in a huff, never to return. Now you're complaining instead that National Geographic won't give you your own platform? Go start your own blog, it's free.

Given the astronomical cost of medical care in the US, the enormous difficulty Obama has of getting Medicaid up and running because religious lunatics see socialized medicine as of the Devil, plus the obscene level of inequality, I don't give a shit about Adjuvants to anything, especially radiation. I am looking for a DIY cure that ANYBODY can afford. Do you get my drift.

By paul hill (not verified) on 06 Jul 2012 #permalink

It says in that appalling paper on treating epilepsy with ketone diet that it is not know by doctors why a ketone diet works with some seizures. Well, I'm happy to announce that it is NOW.


There is a very common misconception that certain individuals have some sort of endemically low blood glucose, ie persistent hypoglycaemia. Normal regulation but set to a low average. There CAN be long periods of low blood glucose but primarily in response to a sharp peak, due to consumption of refined sugar, monosaccharides etc., followed by a deep low. This low is because the pancreas overreacts, thereby pushing BG (blood glucose) way down below the fasting level followed by a VERY SLOW RECOVERY. When a BG reading is taken during that period the assumption is that it is like that all the time.

Hence the doctor prescribing a migraineur I met TWELVE CUPS OF COFFEE A DAY WITH SIX HEAPED TEASPOONS OF SUGAR IN EACH CUP. Get it up and keep it up. Now I know that's very difficult to believe, but he got shitty when I said 'you're kidding'. When his BG slipped through the sugar net he copped migraines so excruciating he would have to inject morphine and they would last up to 4 days. Being so nauseas during the attack he couldn't just scoff more sugar. So that's the prolonged period of hypoglycaemia that creates the confusion and it's a product of both impaired liver storage AND the livers inability to MAKE glucose via gluconeogenesis, ie OVERALL liver pathology. In his case he was prescribed beta blockers to limit the blood pressure rise associated with the migraine. However these are a major factor in prolonging the migraine as they don't just block the effect of adrenalin on myocardium but also on fat and skeletal muscle cells, thereby blocking gluconeogenesis because glycerol from fat cells and lactic acid from skeletal muscle cells is needed .

This is the theory of what is taking place in the body and brain leading up to and during a panic attack.. Assume that the dietary sugar has gone into the bloodstream too quickly and glucose shoots up to be followed by a big fall to a very low level because too much insulin has been released. Insulin release is BIPHASIC, two peaks, one immediately and one around 20 minutes later. Beta cells of the pancreas normally retain some insulin from their previous release, whereas de novo synthesis takes around 20 minutes, ie transcription, splicing, translation, folding, adding di-sulphide links and zinc binding.

The first immediate insulin peak nips in the bud any BG rise from the quick entry of glucose into the bloodstream AND IS LOST with reactive hypoglycaemia due to the pancreas releasing ALL stored insulin each time. So without the first immediate release there is the 20 minute delay combined with the premature flood of glucose into the bloodstream. So the entry of glucose and the release of insulin are hopelessly OUT OF PHASE with each other. Thus the pancreas produces TOO MUCH insulin, probably because of impaired GIP axis detection and BG is driven down to an abnormal low as it is taken up and stored. The bigger the peak the lower the low.

Because the liver is not storing much glucose as glycogen, most of it has gone into the skeletal muscles instead, so muscles have to take over the role of the disordered liver. But muscles were not 'designed' for this role. Hence the very convoluted reaction that follows. Normally GLUCAGON is released by the pancreas in response to a fall in BG to bring it back up by acting on liver glycogen, so that the glycogen is hydrolysed to glucose and this is released into the bloodstream. But because of impaired liver storage glucagon release is ineffectual. Glucagon also has a mild effect on the heart to slightly raise blood pressure.

With a sudden 'fight or flight' adrenalin is released by the adrenals and it too acts on the liver to raise BG, as well as acting on the heart to increase it's output, constricting blood vessels supplying the GI tract and associated organs and kidneys, whilst dilating those to liver, skeletal muscles, heart, lungs and brain. In other words reducing blood flow from organs not essential to 'fight or flight' whilst increasing it to those that are

The following, as far as I know, is is exclusive to me and the result of 42 years of research. It is hypothetical based on an arrangement of the known bits and pieces. If there is ONE mechanism central to understanding schizophrenia, migraine, epilepsy etc. it is THIS. Muscle cells cannot release glucose back into the bloodstream as they do not express the enzyme Glucose-6-phosphatase, whereas the liver does. With impaired liver storage of glycogen, the muscles have to take over the role of glucose storage but because they cannot release it as glucose have to ferment it to lactic acid instead for conversion in the liver to glucose. Adrenalin is required to increase the metabolic rate of the muscles and dilate the blood vessels to wash the lactic acid out, however, the dilated blood vessels supply oxygen which stops fermentation. Alternatively noradrenalin does constrict the blood vessel, but has no metabolic effect on muscle cells and of course restricts blood flow. Enter muscle spasm, hot and cold flushes as the two hormones alternate. It seems to be hot first followed by cold.

NORADRENALIN is associated with extreme fear, but here it's not fear in response to an external perceived threat. The threat is internal and NOT understood by the person experiencing it thus aggravating the attack. The crisis is life threatening cerebral hypoglycaemia (low blood glucose in the brain) which can only be alleviated by increased lactic acid synthesis by the muscles. Liver pathology means not just impaired liver glycogen storage but also impaired gluconeogenesis (the liver making glucose from lactic acid) thereby necessitating even more secretion (release) of adrenalin and noradrenalin by the adrenal glands and in the brain 'Panic attack' exacerbated (made worse) by the individual not understanding what on Earth is going on. "I must be going mad". (and all that entails).

The brain metabolises 40% of the body's glucose. The more neural activity (thought), the more glucose consumption. The more glucose consumption, the worse the cerebral hypoglycaemia and with it the greater the secretion of adrenalin and noradrenalin. 'Jesus, I'm going to die, right now when I am least prepared for it'

Enter HYPERSUGGESTABILITY plus religion, almost universal in schizophrenia. The more frightened you become the greater the imagination for possibilities. 'I'm going to burn in Hell. I might lose my mind and go berserk!!! People are coming to get me, try me, and burn me at the stake. They can read my mind. God can read my mind and I can't stop blasphemies pouring into my mind. Every atom in the Universe is conspiring to get me. Everything looks, sounds, smells and feels sinister and threatening. (Visual contrast is altered making shadows much deeper and sinister, eg in Cyprus pines.) Hell. I AM IN HELL. (More glucose more noradrenalin) TERROR and it is forever and ever. Thousands of volts of electricity are pouring through me (hypersensitivity to greatly elevated sympathetic nervous transmission).

Now frozen stiff in a catatonic trance. Noradrenalin now predominates to constrict the blood supply to skeletal muscles persistently, along with immobility of the body to conserve energy. Catatonia is the worst case scenario and can go for DAYS ON END in a psyche hospital. However it doesn't happen these days with the advent of the antipsychotics in 1950. This state is the most enigmatic of all as the schizophrenic catatonic appears to be totally non compost (joke), not even blinking, whereas the precise opposite is the reality, he or she is HYPER aware.

Thus when one intern jokes to another after waving his hand over the patients eyes and seeing no response whatsoever, 'Vegetable, maybe a lobotomy might be in order', he does not show a great deal of sensitivity. This is the very thing the patient is terrified of, ie LOSING HIS MIND. Mind you, how CAN the intern know without having been through it himself. He could by taking a big dose of LSD in paranoid circumstances as I did, many times, although each time I tried to avoid it. However, each time it happened I experienced the most indescribable nirvana as I came out of the catatonia and it seemed that I had to go down into hell to ascend into heaven.

It was trying to have nirvana without hell that I began to design and build a range of biofeedback equipment. But I had to study neurology to know how the 'trip' worked. That was futile without endocrinology and biochemistry and haematology and general physiology and on and on. In the back of my mind over all of these years was to try to understand the catatonic coma. Having been a Christian it became obvious that Lazarus was not dead but catatonic. Indeed Jesus said, 'He is not dead but sleepeth.' Then a few months ago the last pieces fell into place.

So how does the the individual pull out of the attack? Going into ketosis? Part of the process of gluconeogenesis is ketosis where fatty acids from fat cells are broken down in the liver to ketones, three different kinds. Two of these, betahydroxybutyric acid and diacetate, when in excess, come out in the urine and can be tested for using Ames Ketostix, a good idea straight after a panic attack. One, acetone, comes out in the breath as the “smell of rotting apples”. Most body cells adapt to using ketones but like ketosis itself this takes time especially with liver pathology.

Gluconeogenesis is also impaired thus delaying restoration of BG to normal. It is a complex process, requiring 3 substrates, lactic acid and amino acids from the muscles and glycerol from fat cells. Fatty acids are also released from the adipose fat cells, not as substrate for gluconeogenesis, but to provide the energy to drive the process, as gluconeogenesis is an energy negative process unlike glycolysis in the opposite direction which has a net production of 2 ATP's. Fatty acids are first beta oxidised to ketones in liver cells, then to acetylCoA which enters the TCA (tricarboxalic acid, Kreb, citric acid) cycle to produce the ATP needed to drive gluconeogenesis. Carbon skeletons from some skeletal muscle derived amino acids, after deammination, also enter the TCA cycle as intermediates and are also metabolised to produce ATP..

Glycerol from adipose fat cell triglycerides and other skeletal muscle derived amino acid carbon skeletons, enter the gluconeogenesis pathway as substrate for the synthesis of glucose. Ketone production by the liver by far exceeds that needed to drive gluconeogenesis and excess ketones poor into the bloodstream for use by most body cells ONCE THEY ADAPT by up regulating the associated genes. However that adaption is also delayed so body cells continue to require glucose for days. Obviously transcription, splicing, translation ect. of the associated genes requires energy but as the BG is so low there is not enough fuel for these processes.

The two main endocrine hormones required for the process of ketosis and gluconeogenesis are cortisol and adrenalin. Cotisol acts on the skeletal muscles to get them to release amino acids whilst adrenalin acts on adipose fat cell to get them to break down triglycerides to fatty acids and glycerol for release into the bloodstream. Whilst not necessary for fat catabolism, cortisol also acts in synergism with adrenalin in this task and greatly increases the supply of fatty acids and glycerol to the liver.

I always ask myself what do symptoms do. Now add a black out and convulsions, ie a grand mal epileptic fit, as an alternative to the above runaway cascade. The unconsciousness of blackout shuts off the panic cascade thereby conserving glucose and the CONVULSIONS PUMP LACTIC ACID OUT OF THE SKELETAL MUSCLES. Veins have non return valves along them so that by the convulsions stretching and contracting them they act as a series of pumps to speed up the delivery of lactic acid back to the liver. I've had a few fits myself years ago and with one massive fit I was fully conscious during the entire fit. That was very enlightening. I was extremely paranoid, with the very obvious visual distortions mentioned above which got increasing more obvious. Then projectile vomiting followed by the very violent convulsions, which changed in pattern from the last. Now a period of calm in which the visuals distortions were minimal but gradually built up to another round of vomiting and convulsions. This confirmed what was known that when schizophrenics who also suffer epilepsy have a fit it dramatically reduces the symptoms. It was this that inspired ECT to induce convulsions.

Brain tumours don't directly trigger seizures. They use a lot of glucose the more malignant they become (what's called the Warburg effect)and so exacerbate (make worse) the cerebral hypoglycaemia. I believe that the majority of these tumours are caused by the severe hypoxia in the brain associated with the vasoconstriction phase of migraine or simply severe reactive hypoglycaemia

By paul hill (not verified) on 06 Jul 2012 #permalink

Avoiding Gluconeogenesis
Plenty about it in the above post with a more in depth analysis to come. Lucky you. Grovel enough and you may bathe in my light and smell my farts.

paul hill,
Now I feel sorry for you.
Then why do you pick on me

On the other hand, you already told us earlier on this thread
Everything I’ve written is bullshit.
I was only bullshiting when I said that

Please follow Chris’s advice: you need help.
I am giving myself creosote enemas. Sort of internal tarring and feathering but having trouble with the feathers.

By paul hill (not verified) on 06 Jul 2012 #permalink

And I'm looking for a billion dollars to fall out of my rear.

Just because you want something, doesn't mean it exists.

@ Paul Hill:

No matter what difficultiues you encounter because of your beliefs and ideas, isn't it more important that you take care of your physical situation first? You need a decent place to stay, adequate food and perhaps medical care: age 71 is not ancient but you may need to have checks done, maybe blood pressure, blood chemistry,, fluids etc.

You live in a civilised country that has assistance for those in need. If you have worked, you may be entitled to a pension .. I think that you deserve to find out what is available. No one should have to live out in the wild alone. Get your living situation and physical needs taken care of so that you may live well to fight your other battles another day.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 06 Jul 2012 #permalink

Paul Hill: You don't get how anything works, do you? The page is not full, it can handle a lot more comments. Yes, we don't have a reply button; that's just because the platform doesn't like it, not an attack on you. The train's gonna keep rollin' until Orac stops it.
Regarding Lamarckian evolution vs. Darwin evolution: I thought Lamarck was disproven a long time ago. And, sometimes, in science, the simplest explanation is the one with the most proof behind it.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 06 Jul 2012 #permalink

Also, you're in Australia. What do you care about what Obama does or does not do? And how do you expect to use US medical care IN AUSTRALIA?
You do know about the existence of Word, right? Or this marvelous technology called paper and pen? Why don't you just stick to that and publish the next bestseller? Then you could have all the money you want.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 06 Jul 2012 #permalink

@PG - I don't think Paul can keep his stories straight. He originally posted he was in Australia, but all of his recent rants seem to point to him living in a US National Park.

@ Lawrence:

I think that there is a park in that area- it's a seaside area- resorts, sporting- near lush forest- I'm familiar with it because it's near where my tennis instructor visited his friend a few years ago and a saw a few photos.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 06 Jul 2012 #permalink

"Given the astronomical cost of medical care in the US, the enormous difficulty Obama has of getting Medicaid up and running because religious lunatics see socialized medicine as of the Devil, plus the obscene level of inequality,..."

I think Mr. Hill is mistaken...for a *change*...about the Medicaid program/law which was enacted in 1965:

"...I don’t give a shit about Adjuvants to anything, especially radiation. I am looking for a DIY cure that ANYBODY can afford. Do you get my drift."

And, the posters here don't give a shit about your rants and your DIY *cures* for cancer. Do you get our drift?

Didn't you post any number of times that you were leaving? Didn't I, and Narad, *suggest* that you get your own blog...because this blog is already a breast cancer surgeon/breast cancer researcher?

Great Otway National Park, near Apollo Bay Australia?
Paul Hill,
Get a grip. Stop wasting your time and ours with your sick attempts at entertainment at the expense of real people suffering real physical illnesses. Step out of your fantasy world and get yourself back into the world. Seek assistance for your own life, for cripes sake.

What a load of self-righteous vomit. I have just given the world the very first explanation of the core mechanisms of a range of very serious pathologies, so that you and your children no longer have to suffer them because they are curable without resort to medical 'science'. You don't understand my stuff because you don't WANT to understand it. It is primarily about LIVER pathology combined with consumption of refined sugar. Then add the sort of bigotry that you are showing me and you have the entire picture in the case of something like schizophenia.
I can't go live anywhere else because there is nowhere for me to go, due so a sea of social prejudice. SIX deckhands who worked for me are dead. Three died in boat accidents, two when I lost two boats in 1970, the third on another boat years later. Three committed suicide, two that were on the only other boat out on the day I lost my boats and one here in Apollo Bay who shot himself. Yet despite this I have never been unable to get a police inquiry. I had myself put in the bin to try to get one IN THE BIN. I was suicidal anyway given the prejudice. I have been thrown out of nine different places, my life threatened twice if I didn't leave INSTANTLY. I am a whistle blower twice. I first blew the whistle on abalone divers not having safety equipment on board after I lost my first boat. Because of this I was DELIBERATELY abandoned to die when I could not start my motor 4 months later and my boat was wiped out in an 85 mph gale with the death of my deckhand. The second time was when I blew the whistle on the huge range of abuses in the abalone industry, including by the Fisheries and Wildlife dept.. As a consequence of this I lost my abalone license in 1984, my boat in '85 when I went back fishing.
in 1988 I was illegally bankrupted and was stripped bare.
Beside my bankruptcy I have lost 5 lots of property after being thrown out of rented accommodation, including all of my thousands of medical textbooks and my MAC Computer with my life's work in it. My books ended up in the tip where I rescued them but half of them were water damaged.
The first time I was put in the bin was to get me out of the National Park without a court case that would have attracted media attention. I was asked to leave a week later because there was nothing wrong with me. That stay did me a power of good, I must say, prejudice wise.
I HAVE been through BOTH forms of major psychosis years before, alcoholism with manic depression followed by LSD induced schizophrenia, self diagnosed.
NOT ONCE with all of this abuse has ANYONE lifted a finger to stop it, no telephone call, no letter NOTHING. Now you lot are doing the precise same thing. Jesus wept!!!! I have devoted 40 years of my life trying to understand ALL forms of psycho/physiological pathology as they are all interconnected, hence the multidisciplinary approach as any other approach is stupid. And this is what I cop. Does venting your spleens full of malice give you warm inner glows. Even if I could live in society I wouldn't as I trust NOBODY. As to wasting your time, you don't HAVE to read my stuff, do you. Go take a look at yourselves in the mirror and see if you like what you see.

By paul hill (not verified) on 06 Jul 2012 #permalink

It is also something like this that I have been trying to head off, a consequence of the sort of monumental abuse that I have experienced myself.

I would like to point out a very serious anomaly in Australia's anti terrorist legislation which would almost make a bioterrorist attack a certainty in Australia should some apocalyptic cult develop a deadly virus with the intention of wiping out the entire human race. Let's hypothesise that some individual with a very good understanding of the genetics, molecular biology etc. of viruses decides to, say, modify an existing virus to make it both far more infectious and virulent. I was thinking of HIV, as developing a vaccine for it seems to be impossible. The fatty acid coat on the virus would be a problem as it's vulnerable to oxidation. Now lets say that because he doesn't have any lab experience, he goes to conferences to enlist researchers to make a “vaccine” in a secret laboratory hidden away in dense forest. The laboratory is protected by dozens of extremely well hidden bushfire bombs that have timers on them that have to reset every fortnight to STOP them going off, so protecting members from arrest or torture. They also have ground moisture and air temperature sensors on them so that they will not explode until conditions are right. Each one is GPS mapped and the booklet of maps is placed next to a bomb which is set to explode first thereby destroying the location of the rest thereby making a holocaust inevitable.
He targets Christian fundamentalist researchers (amazingly they do exist) with the idea of eventually winning them over to his genocidal plan, and it works. He is able to persuade them that the world economy is going to collapse and their only hope of survival is to wipe everyone else out. Then he has some sort of rebirth and realises that he couldn't live with himself if he went ahead. So he decides to secretly get in touch with ASIO and confess all, believing that he will be treated the same as a super-grass, even a bomber, in Northern Ireland, protective custody, money, false passport and identity to live in another country etc.. Then all of a sudden Jack Roach in WA gets arrested, tried and convicted for membership of a proscribed terrorist organisation JI, with alleged links to Al Qieda. He gets 12 years, but the sentence is reduced to three, when ex head of ASIO Richardson intervenes, arguing that Roach, has been cooperative, repentant, etc. Richardson obviously can see the danger of the punitive approach but can't say so
However, Roach had already contacted ASIO a couple of years before his arrest with the idea of turning super-grass and they tell him to go away. Naturally he goes back working for JI as he'd be terrified that they would be suspicious of him if didn't. He'd be terrified after committing himself then rejected that he'd been followed, phone tapped etc. Yet he committed NO terrorist act, was just filming the Israeli Embassy in Canberra when he was arrested, dobbed in by his own brother. So there is no room for REPENTANCE, a change of heart in this country. Prime Minister Howard gets involved, wants to make an example of Roach. SOME EXAMPLE. I just could not believe the vindictiveness and stupidity of the whole thing.
So our anti-hero doesn't contact ASIO fearful he'll be in jail when and if the virus is released. He finally decides to tell other members of the cult, to try to persuade them to give up the idea, even go forward to ASIO as there'd be safety in numbers. Horrified of the idea, and knowing that they can't kill him without arousing suspicion, and knowing he won't go to the police they set out to drive him to suicide, something he has talked about many times, by isolating him as much as humanly possible.

By paul hill (not verified) on 06 Jul 2012 #permalink


Around 17 years ago I got myself put in the bin, being very depressed at not being able to get a police inquiry into two abalone boat accidents in which my deckhand died on each occasion. There have been 3 connected suicides since plus another ex deckhand killed in a boat accident, falling off the back of the boat and having his head torn open by the propeller. All up 6 dead deckhands. I have also blown the whistle twice, once after my first boat accident, telling the Sun newspaper that no abalone boats were carrying safety equipment as I had not, and believed that I would be respected for same. Ha!!! Then years later I blew the whistle on all of the abuses of the abalone beds by the divers but did not mention any names. The divers were deliberately wiping out my grounds in an attempt to force me to cheat on my taxation as my returns highlighted their evasion.. I just wanted the industry cleaned up so I had a future. There was very aggressive backlash for which I ended up losing my license, boat, home workshops car, everything.

Close 'friends' went to my bankruptcy auction to help clean me out. There was no coroners inquest after losing the second boat. Plenty of reason for a police inquiry you'd think and plenty of reason to be very depressed. I actually thought I'd be able to persuade the shrinks to get an enquiry set up in the bin and was told that this was not a forum for such a thing. When I asked just where was such a place they admitted that there was none and suggested I go live in another town. I've only just started to describe all of the abuses and not ONCE has ANYONE EVER done anything to help stop them. Not one single phone call or letter on my behalf, nothing ever.

Anyway, I shared a room in the bin with a chap I'll call Hans (not his real name), Hans was a schizophrenic whose mother had hanged herself in the kitchen when he was a little kid. There was a lot more horror but I can't remember just what. His wife had also been a schizophrenic and died of a heart attack a couple of years before. Hans was almost comatose with depression, hardly leaving the room, not going to meals. He started having showers about 5 times a day and I twigged. About 2 am he just got out of the shower and I asked him, 'Are you trying to wash the sin off Hans' I hit the nail right on the head and he told me that he was a really bad person. He had sexually abused his daughter and that both he and his wife had tried to have her adopted out. I told him that no matter what he'd done there was one person who didn't condemn him, me.

He was due to have ECT in a couple of days, No coercion of course! To me this was criminal as the cause of his depression was obvious, the alienation of his daughter, and I've read autopsies of patients that had been electrocuted and they were not nice. So I asked him for her phone number and I said I'd try to persuade her to come visit him. I did and I told her that he was going to get shocko in a couple of days. Nope, she went on about what a bastard he was and why should she visit him. So I told her that hating him would only eat her own guts out. She calmed down and said that she might come.

So I told Hans that she might come. Has anyone ever seen a miracle? He just snapped out of his depression immediately, started going to meals, a big smile on his dial. It was amazing. That afternoon I was interviewed by 3 shrinks. They were interested in my ideas on RD LAING and the anti-psychiatry movement. I told them that I had rung Hans's daughter and why. One of them said 'You shouldn't go interfering with the running of this hospital'. I didn't quite see it like that and replied 'Hang on I'm just trying to help a friend and I'm just doing what you guys should be doing'. Then another pipes up and says sarcasticly 'Bit of a champion of the underdog are we' implying I suppose that I was some sort of malcontent pinko. Then another said, 'Okay smarty, what if she doesn't turn up.'

She didn't turn up and Hans went back down into hell and copped his shocko. So Hans had a very poor outcome. The shrinks could have visited the daughter and been a bit more persuasive, convinced her of the common sense of not having a belly full of hate instead of just sitting on their backsides all day in their offices interviewing patients just to work out how much poison to give them. There are 3 arms to State psychiatric treatment, drugs, drugs oh and volts.
End of Part One
The next day I spent a couple of hours in a room with a social worker in front of a blackboard who tried every angle possible to convince me to go live in another town. There was no questioning that I'd been horrifically abused and it was obvious that I was causing the staff a lot of angst in that the State had no solution to my perfectly legitimate depression. What if I committed suicide, how would that look for them if it was publicized. This was the only solution they could come up with, move. I tried to get through to her that only the truth coming out about my boat accidents and the suicides would free me of stigma and was only the fair and proper thing to do. “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set ye free.” I intoned. She didn't appear to have any comprehension of what I was talking about. So I suggested that she write down on the blackboard 'Capital T capital R capital U and so on'. 'Yeah, Noddy but......'

She said that if I was child that was being abused I would be removed from the abusing home. Therefore it was logical that I should go and live in another town, get away from the abuse to which I retorted, 'Hang on, it is my town, why should I leave.' 'Anyway I have to keep close to where the boat accidents occurred to keep the pressure on for an inquiry.' She had no comprehension of what I was talking about, that it might be important to somebody not to be seen as a SERIAL KILLER and be vilified as such. She was and is not the only one.

I once read in one of RD Laing's books about a case history of a young German schizophrenic who moved to another town where nobody knew him, got a job in pub and he was fine, asymptomatic. Then one day someone came into the pub from his previous town who knew him and took it upon himself to inform the pub that they had a dangerous nutter in their midst. Fear all round, symptomatic, had to get out and find another town, then another and so on.

I told this to the social worker who had tried to convince me not to tell anyone about my past if I moved, keep a low profile. Very enlightened, be deceptive and get really paranoid by isolating myself. Couldn't get through. NO COMPREHENSION. Get the bloody bin and the State off the hook by sacrificing myself. Perhaps they were hoping I'd commit suicide. THIS IS THE TRUE FACE OF PSYCHIATRY, anything BUT the truth. Truth, what's that? Never heard of it!

Come time to be discharged with no home to go to, I was told that the hospital had arranged and paid for a week's holiday for me, at a town called Queenscliff, by the sea. They'd contacted my mother and brother, who'd kicked in for another week's stay. Don't rock the frigging boat Paul, be compliant Paul, grovel like a mongrel dog Paul. You'll change your mind about that silly truth stuff Paul once you get away from all of the self induced trauma. Anyway I decided to enjoy myself at their expense and then head home to find some more windmills.

Hans lived in a nursing home in Queenscliff and I went to visit him. He was pretty miserable, told me that he handed all of his pension over each week and didn't even have enough money for cigarettes. So he botted them from fellow boarders which demeaned him. He didn't have any money to visit his sister, just a 20 mile bus trip, so he was pretty much isolated, just the treatment for a schizophrenic on an antipsychotic, a dead wife and a daughter who hated him.

The social worker had told me that she was an epileptic so I wrote a paper for her, in my rented caravan, on my idea as to the cause. I also wrote to the head shrink of the whore's piddle and asked him to do a comprehensive 5 hr GTT on me on my way back home as they had suggested I drop in. I dropped in and asked the head shrink about the 5 hr GTT to which he replied that they couldn't commit all those resources to one patient. I gave my paper on epilepsy to the social worker and she suggested that she give it to my shrink to read as he was a physiologist. Oh really what sort? She handed him the paper and I suggested to him that I believed that the convulsions were to pump lactic acid out of the muscles. He replied very therapeutically, 'Bull Shit'. I said to her later, 'No doubt about Dr Callali, he really knows how to elevate a person's self esteem'. I put a helluva lot of time into that paper.

Before I left to go home I saw the doctor again, and now alone together. he tried to persuade me to go onto Clozapine. Why? Obviously to shut me up as he knew that I'd be writing a little booklet on my latest encounter with the psychiatric industry. I refused, just as well.

It's now about 15 years later and I'm writing this in a home built shack which has rotted away. I'm illegally camped in the Otway National Park and have been here this time for 12 years. I am a refugee in my own land. Still no resolution. I have been thrown out of 9 places, my life threatened on a couple of occasions if I didn't get out immediately, had 5 lots of property stolen including my Macintosh computer containing my life's work, all of my medical books thrown into the local tip, been put in jail twice, once for refusing to pay a fine and once for contempt of court when I refused to leave MY home when I was bankrupted. With nowhere on Earth to live other than in the forest I built a health farm camp in this same Park about 17 years ago. The rangers found it and one morning about 20 rangers, 2 cops and a psyche nurse turned up and the rangers proceeded to pulverize everything leaving me homeless once again. Actually the nurse, who I knew well and the cops, who I also knew well were quite sympathetic, thought that it was obscene smashing up something that I built for everyone.

I am not violent and I am not abusive. This is a story about blind, totally irrational stigma and prejudice. On one hand I am told that I cannot live IN ANY forest, on the beach, in the gutter, on Crown land, squatting in a public building, on private land with breaking local, state or federal law. NOWHERE is it legal for me to live except by renting a place which no one will give me.

On the other hand the State REFUSES to give me an inquiry to clear my name because it would open up the greatest can of worms on Earth, all of the anomalies and contradictions that create crime AND psychiatric disorders, the root of which is the MASSIVE social and economic INEQUALITY which is criminal, unjust and absurd. This applies to every society on Earth.

So, in shear desperation I go online to present my ideas, including the toxicity of almost all drugs. First I get kicked off Whirlpool, then ResearchGate, then Now I'm a VIRTUAL refugee as well. Jesus wept!!! I have a Facebook page but no friends to link to, so I'm hiding in here behind the Wall, sheltering under Peter's 'nuclear umbrella'. Trouble is how to let people know I'm here if they can't read this. I thought I might try a short comment out the front about the toxicity of refined sugar if I can find an appropriate niche and refer people to this spot to find out how to break the sugar addiction.
“All of the darkness in the world CANNOT put out the light of one tiny candle.”
NODDY the irrepressible black sheep.

Since writing this my Facebook account has now been locked and all my posts on the Facebook Peter Breggins Psychiatrist site have been deleted. Looks as if Breggins the great antidrug campaigner has colluded with Joel Lamour, drug peddler to shut me up. Joel is a Minister of a fundamentalist church in London Ontario, practicing psychiatrist, lecturer in psychiatry at Uni of Western Ontario, Uni of Toronto and a PHARMACIST who also lectures in pharmacy. I'm not joking. Go online and check this-------out. There is a helluva story in this. Not interested, then maybe the NYT or Wash Post might be.

By paul hill (not verified) on 06 Jul 2012 #permalink

They were interested in my ideas on RD LAING and the anti-psychiatry movement.

Gee, there's a surprise.

The saddest thing in this litany is that you seem to sympathize more with a pedophile then his victim. Newsflash: pedophiles and rapists need to be ended, not encouraged.
Also, you might want to have a think about a few things. In diving, a tiny little error, a moment's unthinking act can end a life. Many judges dislike taking frivolous cases-which yours seems to be. Finally, your irrational beliefs are not a substitute for medical care. I'm sure everyone has certain irrational beliefs about medicine. The difference is that most of us keep quiet about it, except regarding minor conditions.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 07 Jul 2012 #permalink

So I'm a pedophiles now and that why I'm so ostracized. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to discredit me. I suppose Hans should have been electrocuted. Doubtless you support capital punishment. He was being given ECT which is barbaric for anybody. I suppose it would be better for him to remain suicidal and his daughter killing herself with hatred.
You make judgement about my boat accidents without having a single clue what happened. I tiny little error? When I lost the first boat, my deckie and I ended up in a volcanic hole with waves breaking over us. He died at 11.30pm. I wasn't picked up until 8am. THIRTEEN hours being pulverized by waves. Nobody came looking for us because nobody gave a shit. You call SIX dead shellers frivolous. Jesus wept, FRIVILOUS!! This is about police cover up, diver cover up, local, state and Federal govt. cover up because ALL have broken the law in an attempt to shut me up. When I lost the second boat, there was NO coroners inquest. I could go on but I can't be bothered as you've made up your mind. You'll find that any ideas to have me institutionalized will backfire badly as the bin will not have me and I am very firmly ensconced.
As to my 'irrational' beliefs about medicine, well see what the world's media has to think about that as they should be having a good look by now. You see I have NOTHING to hide, but you lot obviously have everything to hide as is perfectly obvious by the steam of unremitting abuse I've copped here and precisely WHERE it began. You are all so naive it is truly pathetic. I feel sorry for YOU now. Well I'm trying to. Go have a creosote enema.

By paul hill (not verified) on 07 Jul 2012 #permalink

Paul Hill - I fail to see any reasonable interpretation of Politicalguineapig's comments that calls you a pedophile or which states that is why you are ostracized.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 07 Jul 2012 #permalink

I would note that Paul, despite having dropped Laing's name, seems to have utterly missed the point underlying The Divided Self, etc., and transactionalism in general, which is about communication. You're White in this game, Paul.

@Paul Hill - w/Mephistopheles here - you were not called a pedophile. You were criticized for attempting to get a pedophile's victim to come see him. Perhaps you've never been in a relationship where that kind of abuse and control have occurred, but it would have been incredibly difficult for the victim to go there for what? To comfort and/or risk being emotionally manipulated or worse by their previous abuser?

Can't blame him for that kind of criticism.

Strangely - you hate the monniker being applied to you, but you had sympathy with the pedophile to the point where you were willing to call his victim and tell her that she was the reason he was falling apart in mental hospital.

I have to wonder if they didn't bother investigating those accidents because they didn't see any reason because there was nothing to prosecute? Wasting hours and hours of government employees' time for no purpose than exoneration of a survivor can be considered bad stewardship of taxpayer funds.

Mr Hill, you really appear to need mental health help.