Cancer Loves Sugar

[Guest guest]

Hi Cherie,

 

The best alternatives are then raw organic honey or organic maple syrup.

I had a look at the wheylow website, and the contents are still sugar, so doesn't sound like a good alternative!

 

love

Lisa

 

-

Soyasee

herbal remedies

Saturday, August 13, 2005 3:20 PM

Herbal Remedies - Re: Cancer Loves Sugar

Hi Flo,This was a good article thanks for sharing it. I've wondered if sugar was the culpret to Cancer myself. But what real true alternatives are there to sugar? We certainly don't need aspartame, which is another poison in its own right. I'm not comfortable with Splenda nor Stevia.I have tryed Whey low sugar before; you can read their information and purchase from www.wheylow.com . It may be the way to go They claim (An Amazing 70-80% lower Glycemic Index and a Whopping 75% fewer Carbs and Calories than sugar).

[Guest guest]

Stevia is a naturally occurring plant. Much more potent than sugar. Splenda is super heated chlorinated sugar (sucralose). I think there is a world of difference between them. My sister gets raging migraines from splenda. No such side effects from stevia. My mom also uses stevia with abandon. She has experienced no side effects.

-Shelby

 

herbal remedies [herbal remedies ]On Behalf Of ByrneBunchSent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:57 PMherbal remedies Subject: Re: Herbal Remedies - Re: Cancer Loves Sugar

 

In a message dated 8/13/2005 2:10:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, soyasee writes:

I'm not comfortable with Splenda nor Stevia.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll check out that site, Cherie, thanks for posting it. I was just wondering what you don't like about stevia?

 

TIA,

 

[Guest guest]

Cancer Loves Sugar

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/nutrition/sugar.htm

 

 

Every doctor learned back in medical school all about Otto Warburg's

discovery; a discovery of humongous proportions, because way back in the

thirties Otto

discovered the main biochemical cause of cancer, or what differentiates a

cancer cell from a normal, healthy cell. So big a discovery was this, that Otto

Warburg was awarded the Nobel Prize.

 

Cancer has only one prime cause. It is the replacement of normal oxygen

respiration of the body's cells by an anaerobic [i.e., oxygen-deficient] cell

respiration. -Dr. Otto Warburg

 

 

But what else does Warburg's discovery tell us. First off, it tells us that

cancer metabolizes much differently than normal cells. Normal cells need

oxygen. Cancer cells despise oxygen. In fact, oxygen therapy is a favorite among

many of the alternative clinics we've researched.

 

Another thing this tells us is that cancer metabolizes through a process of

fermentation.

 

If you've ever made wine, you'll know that fermentation requires sugar.

 

The metabolism of cancer is approximately 8 times greater than the metabolism

of normal cells.

 

Okay, so here is what we can put together knowing the above: The body is

constantly overworked trying to feed this cancer. The cancer is constantly on

the

verge starvation and thus constantly asking the body to feed it. When the food

supply is cut off, the cancer begins to starve unless it can make the body

produce sugar to feed itself.

 

The wasting syndrome, cachexia, is the body producing sugar from proteins

(you heard it right, not from carbohydrates or fats, but from proteins) in a

process called glycogenesis. This sugar feeds the cancer. The body finally dies

of

starvation, trying to feed the cancer.

 

Now, knowing that one's cancer needs sugar, does it make sense to feed it

sugar? Does it make sense to have a high carbohydrate diet?

 

The reason Food Therapies for cancer even exist today (beyond the fact that

they work) is because someone once saw the connection between sugar and cancer.

There are many food therapies, but not a single one allows many foods high in

carbohydrates and not a single one allows sugars, BECAUSE SUGAR FEEDS CANCER.

 

Why doesn't your physician tell you this? Hard to tell. Maybe your doctor

feels it is his job to cure your cancer, not yours. Maybe because your doctor

learned about Warburg, but never put the rest together, never placed nutrition

into the equation. Maybe because your physician didn't study nutrition. Heck, as

late as 1978, the AMA's official position (found in the Congressional Record)

was that nutrition had nothing to do with disease.

 

However, those who've paid attention to this sugar craving cancer stuff have

come up with some remarkable therapies for cancer. Laetrile

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/cancer1/altthrpy2.htm#Laetrile is just one.

Hydrazine Sulfate

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/cancer1/altthrpy2.htm#HydrazineSulfate , which

stops the process of glycogenesis in greater than 50% of all patients with

cachexia is another.

 

Today, at the University of Minnesota, they are experimenting with a

chemotherapy delivered in a " smartbomb. " Here's the scoop: the drug is wrapped

in a

coating that stays intact as it travels through the body, that is until it

reaches a location of no oxygen. When it reaches this " no oxygen " location, the

coating falls apart releasing the chemotherapy to destroy the cancer, because

the

only place in your body where there is no oxygen is the cancer site.

 

Then there are the food therapies: aimed at starving cancer. Knowing what

cancer loves, the cancer patient avoids them. Cancers likes cooked foods over

raw

(cooking destroys enzymes and heat sensitive vitamins), so check out our

article on the cancer diet http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/nutrition/diet.htm

And,

do not forget, cancer loves sugar. If you dislike your cancer, then don't

feed it.

 

 

International Wellness Directory Home Page

1995, 1998, 1999, 2000

International Wellness Directory

 

Contact us

 

You may copy, print, reprint, and/or transfer this entire article, if and

only if it is unmodified and in its complete state with this copyright notice

attached and all the links work properly.