TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker discusses glioblastoma and related pediatric pineoblastomas, stating they are devastating and among the worst cancers. He notes that, based on long-term research and Otto Warburg’s observations, neoplastic cells inside a glioblastoma predominantly use a fermentation metabolism to generate energy, meaning they generate energy without the use of oxygen. He says glioblastoma multiforme was a term used because the cells are highly dysmorphic, but according to his metabolic hypothesis, the origin of the disease arises from damage to cellular respiration, causing all cells to ferment regardless of appearance. All neoplastic cells in glioblastoma are said to use energy without oxygen, derived from two fuels: glucose and glutamine. The speaker highlights stalled survival statistics for glioblastoma, remarking that despite modern scientific advances, there has been no major improvement in keeping people alive. He argues that cancer is not a genetic disease but a metabolic one, and criticizes continued irradiation of the brain in patients with these tumors. He claims published evidence shows that irradiating the brain frees up metabolic fuels glucose and glutamine, driving tumor growth, and that treating glioblastoma with radiation worsens outcomes. He asserts that the brain’s radiation raises blood sugar, stimulates the head to warm, and, along with high-dose steroids that further raise sugar, disrupts neural-glial connections and frees glutamine, leading to rapid demise of many patients. He says the death from glioblastoma is highly reproducible across major medical schools worldwide, and questions why such treatment is used. The speaker cites Pablo Kelly in England, who chose no radiation, no chemotherapy, and no conventional treatment after surgery, suggesting surgery is an essential tool for debulking. He emphasizes that surgical debulking combined with metabolic therapy can shrink the tumor and that metabolic therapy restricts the availability of glucose and glutamine without disturbing the tumor microenvironment. He claims this approach allows patients to live far longer with better quality of life, proposing a shift away from targeting mutations toward a metabolic theory. he outlines a management strategy: surgery to remove much of the tumor, then metabolic therapy to reduce glucose and glutamine, followed by drugs and procedures to further target these fuels. He argues for transitioning patients to nutritional ketosis, lowering blood sugar, elevating ketone bodies (which tumor cells cannot use), thereby marginalizing the tumor, and using additional interventions to target glucose and glutamine. The speaker concludes by asking why such an approach is not implemented, inviting readers to review survival statistics and cancer metabolism to understand why current treatments fail.

This is a particularly interesting one; 'X rays are known to cause look at that. Not solve it.' They also claim, 'Also, they weaken the patient, and the patient often dies from the X-ray damage rather than from the statistics show that the patient who no longer receives the treatments live just as long or longer than those who subject themselves to all of this.' The approach proposed is to 'Treat the symptom of the tumor rather than the actual addressing the root cause.' The speaker concludes: 'This is a very powerful book that I highly recommend everybody look into.'

Cancer is not a disease but a survival mechanism to house toxins. The tumor is created to protect the body by containing toxins. Biopsies are unnecessary as treatment remains the same whether the tumor is cancerous or not. People often die from cancer treatment rather than cancer itself. The healthcare system profits from sick individuals, leading to unnecessary procedures like biopsies that can worsen the situation.

There's no such thing as biopsy spreading cancer. They say that out loud, but they have not even one scientific study to show for that, whereas I have 50 to show that they do spread cancer. They just believe so strongly and so blindly what they were told, and they're afraid of the truth because it means that for years and years and years, doctors have been killing people through biopsies. Be very careful. Never do a prostate biopsy. Never do a breast biopsy. There are better ways. You don't need the mammogram with its own radiation. You don't need biopsy to tell you if it's cancer or not. You can be 99% sure just by doing an ultrasound with a technician who knows what she is doing.

The cancer cells have evolved with excess food, right? They only understand a lot of food and they don't understand how to make their own food. They understand that, Hey, I gotta get it from the bloodstream, right? If you just do fasting or fasting mimicking diet, they're not happy, you know, but we see over and over kind of a cycle of chemotherapy. It's about the equivalent. So, if you just do fasting mimicking diet cycles, it'll have the slowing down effect of cycles of chemotherapy. But then when you combine it with chemo and we combine it then with immunotherapy, when you combine it with hormone therapy, etcetera, etcetera, that's where you see, you know, in a lot of cases, we actually can drive the cancer down to zero or, you know, really stop it, you know, stop its growth for a very long time.

Every early cancer detection is customer creation and fraud, with no proof that it cures anyone. The cancer industry is a $300,000,000,000 industry driven by money, with each patient bringing in between $3,000,000 and $7,000,000. If a patient doesn't have cancer, they may be given it. Cancer is not an illness but an accumulation of symptoms. Cancer rates have increased from seven percent in 1900 to fifty-six percent today, and including "the thing we cannot talk about," it's ninety-two percent. The speaker claims to have cured 66,000 cancer patients.

The speaker argues that there has been manipulation of science and a dangerous phenomenon called overdiagnosis that has affected millions of women, particularly in breast cancer, over the last thirty years. Citing a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, the speaker claims that over the past three decades in the United States, one point three million women were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer that would never have caused harm. This condition is described as ductal carcinoma in situ, or stage zero cancer, which the speaker asserts was equated with actual cancer. According to the speaker, these diagnoses led to standard treatments such as mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation, with chemotherapy, and then follow-up hormone-suppressive therapies like tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor (arimidex). The speaker contends that many women were subjected to these interventions for cancers that would not have caused harm, and therefore experienced the associated physical, psychological, and social burdens. The speaker characterizes the consequence as a form of medical holocaust, asserting that women were diagnosed with a cancer they did not have, underwent treatment, and endured stigma and psychospiritual stress as a result. Additionally, it is claimed that the healthcare industry told these women that they were saved or that their lives were extended, but the speaker asserts the opposite outcome occurred. A further claim is that these women identify with the aggressor in a manner likened to Stockholm syndrome. The speaker notes that millions participate in breast cancer awareness marches, seemingly unaware that the events are funded by corporations that profit from the drugs used to treat breast cancer. In summary, the speaker presents a narrative in which overdiagnosis led to widespread unnecessary cancer treatments, causing harm to a large population of women, while the industry purportedly benefited financially from the drugs and treatments administered. The remarks connect the phenomenon to broader concerns about the motives of the pharmaceutical and medical industries and the messaging surrounding breast cancer awareness campaigns.

I want to address why I’ve chosen not to get a mammogram. In nursing school, I learned not to deeply palpate a mass due to the risk of spreading infection or causing a cancerous mass to rupture and metastasize. It doesn’t make sense to compress a lump between plates, as that could lead to further issues. Research shows that people often die from metastasis rather than the primary tumor, and cancer treatments can cause metastasis. Additionally, I’m concerned about the radiation exposure from mammograms, as breast tissue is sensitive. I prefer to live a toxic-free lifestyle and remain hopeful, despite the rising cancer rates and reports of aggressive cancers. I encourage everyone to do their own research on this topic.

Colleagues in Istanbul showed that chemotherapies at much lower dosages can be even more therapeutically powerful when you're in nutritional ketosis. You don't have to get rid of a lot of these different procedures that we have today. I'm just saying radiation for brain cancer. I'm not saying radiation for lung or some of the other cancers. If can shrink those tumors down and make them very weak and vulnerable, a surgical procedure, a radiation procedure, even low dose chemo could come in. And even immunotherapy, if you took a big tumor and shrunk it down to a small nub and it's resistant to a lot of the things, they all have to share something in common for them to survive this path. That might be an immunotherapy could come in because they're gonna target whatever all of them have together, and you could possibly get rid of it that

The mitochondria, not the nucleus, is the center of cancer. Cancer is a mitochondrial metabolic disease. Realizing this will massively drop death rates in just a few years. We may never completely get rid of cancer, but we can learn to live with it and keep it at bay. If we restrict the fuels that cancer needs through diet and lifestyle, and keep our mitochondria healthy, we can manage it. If we don't focus on the mitochondria, then almost 50% of people will continue to get cancer.

The problem with a biopsy is this. Now it spreads all over the place. So you do spread it. But what they're not telling you is that the research is showing that if you take these drugs, you're almost guaranteeing metastasis. If you did a biopsy and or a surgery, you're gonna get metastasis. Now if you add high dose chemo, you're get metastasis. If you do radiation, you're gonna get metastasis. What they're looking at is giving you a short term reduction of the primary, and then you think, oh, I'm in remission. Nine months later, it would came back. The federal, the FDA will have approved it. Your insurance will pay for it. It's the right thing to do. And you're gonna do that. It's also part of the sales team. It's part of the sales technique.

Cancer is a symptom and a tumor for example is nothing else in the approach of the body to keep us alive. We have so many toxins in our system that would kill us so the body builds a bubble, a bucket, a tumor, and collects all these poisons and basically keeps the poisons on one spot where they don't do harm. That's a tumor. So the cancer is basically your friend. The tumor is working on keeping you alive. This view warns that a needle biopsy can pinch into this tumor and release the toxins into the system and suddenly you have a very fast growing, very aggressive cancer that you didn't have before the needle biopsy. The same problem occurs with mammography. They put 50 pounds of pressure on the breast. If the lymph node is ready to burst, that cannot be a good thing. Usually it bursts and that's what causes cancer. Not just two percent; "mammography's can cause cancer just by the pressure that's applied."

Speaker 1 states they are not telling people to avoid chemotherapy. Research indicates that when patients are in nutritional ketosis with a glucose ketone index of 2.0 or below, lower doses of chemotherapy can be more therapeutically powerful. Speaker 1 suggests that radiation may be beneficial for some cancers, like brain cancer, to shrink tumors. After shrinking tumors and making them vulnerable, surgical procedures, radiation, low-dose chemo, or even immunotherapy could be more effective. Immunotherapy may target what the remaining cells have in common, potentially eliminating them.

Biopsy is the only way to diagnose cancer, but it has its drawbacks. Breaking the fibrin sheath around a tumor during a biopsy can cause it to spread. A ballerina who had a biopsy experienced the growth of little tumors around the biopsy site. A histological diagnosis is needed, where a pathologist examines the slide to determine the type of cancer. However, this diagnosis doesn't provide much help. It is also a sales technique to justify specific drugs for treatment. Research shows that biopsies, surgeries, high dose chemo, and radiation can all lead to metastasis. These treatments may provide short-term reduction of the primary tumor, but the cancer often returns later.

Thirty years, forty years. They'll look back at chemotherapy as a barbaric and kind of caveman like thinking of destroying the entire body to treat a cancer. Know, we gotta get away from this. We gotta move towards targeted approaches and even towards natural compounds, like medicinal mushrooms—cordyceps, turkey tail mushroom—these have shown lots of promise. But also ivermectin and fenbendazole are now gaining national attention as possible cancer treatments, with positive anecdotal reports of remission after taking these products. A recent study—a systematic review of ivermectin in cancer—found not only is it completely safe if people are undergoing conventional treatment, but it does show potent anti-tumor effects in the test tube via 10 mechanisms. And so, we gotta go to natural compounds. Forty years from now, I hope we’re not still administering chemotherapy as the main form of treatment.

Mammograms can produce cancer because they involve squashing the breasts, which are very sensitive. This squashing causes pain, which indicates inflammation. Inflammation involves increased blood flow and leaking blood vessels to bring in white blood cells and oxygen. The signs of inflammation are that the area is red, hot, painful, and swollen. Mammograms irradiate inflamed, acutely injured tissue with ionizing radiation. This process is not done with prostates or testicles, only breasts. The speaker believes this is a male-dominated madness.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss access to treatment protocols and the scope of their metabolic approach to cancer. Speaker 1 notes they recently published a comprehensive, open-access protocol for glioblastoma in Biomedical Central, co-authored with Doctor Thomas Durai and over 20 scientists, physicians, nutritionists, and dietitians. The paper also marks the launch of the new Society for Metabolic Oncology. The protocol targets glioblastoma, a deadly brain cancer; Speaker 1 highlights that the same metabolic issues—cancers’ need for glucose and glutamine and their inability to burn ketones or fatty acids—apply across cancers such as lung, colon, breast, and bladder. He asserts that glioblastoma has seen no major advancement in management for a hundred years and attributes part of the problem to how brain irradiation can increase glucose and glutamine in the tumor microenvironment, potentially hastening decline. Speaker 1 emphasizes that the protocol for glioblastoma could be used for other cancers and centers on “pulling the plug on the fermentable fuels.” The regimen involves a phase of mild exercise, monitoring the glucose ketone index (GKI), and transitioning patients from dangerous metabolic states to more manageable ones to reassess treatment strategies and progressively reduce tumor activity. He stresses they are not claiming a cure; instead, they aim to “manage cancer effectively,” enabling patients to maintain a high quality of life whether or not the tumor regresses. Speaker 1 shares a clinical example: Pablo Kelly, who died last year, lived ten years with glioblastoma; he married and had three children. Although never cured, his tumor was put into an indolent state. Pablo died after a fourth surgical debulking; the tumor had been reduced and became operable after metabolic therapy, though it was never completely eradicated. The discussion notes that initial diagnosis described his tumor as inoperable, with a prognosis of death within twelve months if treated with large doses of chemo and radiation; he avoided radiation and chemotherapy and pursued metabolic therapy. The tumor then shrank enough to allow subsequent surgery over years, illustrating a shift from an aggressive to a more indolent disease course. Speaker 0 clarifies that “debulking” means removal of tissue. Speaker 1 reiterates their stance: cancer can be managed, changing its diagnosis from extremely aggressive to indolent, but they avoid using the word cure. They acknowledge uncertainty about long-term cures and note that standard care does not guarantee cure, while suggesting their approach can achieve substantially better outcomes.

If you suspect a small tumor, immediately put your body on a detox and cleanse your bowels. Biopsies and radiation can temporarily shrink tumors, but they also damage surrounding tissue and can cause the tumor to grow back. Cancer cells are simply damaged cells caused by extreme acidosis. To cool down acidosis, hydration is key. The term "cancer" is misleading and belongs to the medical community. Autoimmune conditions should be avoided as they weaken the body. Relying on toxic chemicals from uninformed doctors is not the solution.

A tumor is a bubble the body builds to collect toxins and keep them in one spot, preventing harm. Cancer is a symptom, not an illness, and is essentially your friend. A needle biopsy can release toxins into the system, causing a fast-growing, aggressive cancer that wasn't present before. Similarly, mammography, which applies 50 pounds of pressure to the breast, can cause a lymph node full of toxins to burst, leading to cancer. Each mammography raises cancer risk by two percent and can directly cause cancer due to the applied pressure.

Biopsies spread cancer, and there are 50 scientific studies to prove it. Doctors have been killing people for years through biopsies, but they blame the cancer instead of the metastasis caused by the biopsy. Therefore, one should never do a prostate or breast biopsy. There are better ways to determine if it's cancer. Mammograms are unnecessary because of their radiation. An ultrasound with a skilled technician can provide 99% certainty.

The only definitive way to diagnose cancer is through a biopsy. However, biopsies can disrupt the tumor's protective sheath, potentially causing it to spread. A patient experienced this firsthand after a biopsy led to the emergence of multiple tumors. While a histological diagnosis from a pathologist identifies the cancer type, it often serves as a justification for specific drug treatments, which are approved by the FDA and covered by insurance. Unfortunately, research indicates that these treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation, often lead to metastasis. Patients may initially feel a sense of remission, but cancer frequently returns within months.

Chemotherapy can kill any cell, not just cancer cells. If those handling chemotherapy must wear hazmat suits because it's toxic, why give it to someone already sick? It's like using napalm for an ant problem; you might kill the ants, but you'll destroy everything else, including the healthy cells. Radiation, like chemotherapy, is dangerous. X-rays have warning signs because radiation damages DNA, which can potentially cause cancer. The speaker questions why a therapy known to create cancer is used to treat cancer.

Speaker 0 argues that medical procedures can cause death or spread disease: - A colonoscopy in elderly people (60–70, completely healthy and fit) can lead to death three days later because “they poke a hole in the colon, the bacteria goes in and they are dead.” - In mammography, when something is found, the medical profession proceeds with a needle biopsy, and “pokes into something that's there to save your life.” A tumor is described as there to save your life, yet the procedure is claimed to spread illness. - The body builds a bag to store toxins in its lymph nodes; “so now they come and poke into the lymph node and what will happen is they now spread the poison that the body is collecting for ten-twenty years in the entire body and twelve days later these women are dead.” - Mammography is described as applying “50 pounds of pressure on a woman's breast.” The analogy is made: if you have a lymph node or a pimple ready to burst, applying that pressure would “burst it to give the patient the cancer.”

But actually, I have to tell you, I have now seen where the end of cancer is coming from. I've had well over a dozen patients, and there are hundreds of people like this that are starting to form, that can go from stage four cancer, that's game over cancer, to stage zero. Not for everybody yet, but we're beginning to see where the light at the end of the tunnel is, and it involves your immune system. And some of the remarkable scientific breakthroughs are teaching us that our body heals itself against diseases as serious as cancer in ways that the pharmaceutical industry can't by itself do, but it really relies on the body. So, when you talk about food as medicine or medicine as medicine, none of them are as powerful as what the body is hardwired to do by itself.