The Prime Cause of Cancer is not Genetic By Brian Scott Peskin BSEE
Cancer was once an uncommon disease affecting a small percentage of Americans. In 1900, only 3% of the population died of cancer.2 But now, cancer has become so common that virtually everyone knows someone afflicted with this terrible disease. In fact, for the average American, contraction of cancer isn't the exception; instead, it has become the rule.3 We've come to accept cancer as unstoppable, incurable and even a natural part of life. This perception is a tragedy, since cancer is not a natural disease for man and is preventable.
What is shocking to most people, is the scientific fact that cancer is genetically recessive, not dominant. In fact, the human body is highly resistant to cancer. In 1969, Professor Henry Harris of OxfordUniversity shook the cancer research community to its core when he proved these previous theories wrong. Professor Harris took normal tissue cells and fused three types of cancer cells to them. Surely, he thought, the cancer cells would take over the normal cells and "convert" them into cancer. Surprisingly, they grew normally.4
Contrary to popular opinion, cancer takes several decades to develop in humans.5 Given this long incubation period, science can show us the way to destroy any initial pre-cancerous cells and keep the cancerous ones from causing widespread damage.
If you think cancer has a genetic basis, then think again. Dr Robert A. Weinberg of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), one of the world's leading cancer researchers and discoverer of the so-called oncogene (cancer-causing gene), reversed his previous conclusions after discovering that "fewer than one DNA base in a million appears to have been miscopied". It's not enough of a defect! His exact words: "Something was very wrong. The notion that a cancer developed through the successive activation of a series of oncogenes had lost its link to reality." He called the genetic discoveries made thus far "sterile".6 The prime cause of cancer is therefore not genetic. This was announced in 1998. Did you hear about it? Probably not.
In 2006, the heads of the world's largest cancer research centre in Houston, Texas, announced that cancer's prime cause isn't genetic: "'If it could have happened [solving cancer with genetics], it would have already happened with genetic mutations,' said William Brinkley, a senior vice-president at Baylor who says other research should take precedence over the cancer genome projectÉ Dr John Mendelsohn [president of M. D. Anderson Cancer Center] states, 'Any claims that this [genetic research] is going to be the key to curing cancer are not appropriate.'"7
Thus, the prime cause of cancer is not a genetic mutation. Even if cancer "runs in your family", there is real hope. Unfortunately, the geneticists have it backwards, attempting to force the facts to fit their genetics-based theories when they don't fit the facts, because, as Professor Harris demonstrated many years ago, cancer isn't genetically dominant. Where does this leave us? Where can we look for solutions? What about the popular nutritional solutions to fighting cancer?
The popular anti-cancer "solutions" don't work
Most people diligently follow the experts' recommendations in the hope of winning the war on cancer. Unfortunately, virtually nothing of what we are told is based on scientific facts. Consider the following list of supposed "solutions", along with the date of their published failures as reported in the world's leading medical journals. Many of us never hear of the retractions and consequently keep following methods that don't protect us from contracting cancer.
(a) Fruits and vegetables: Even the green leafy vegetables don't protect against contracting breast cancer (JAMA 2001; 285:769-776).8
(b) Fibre: This worsens colon cancer rather than helping prevent it (Lancet 2000; 356:1286-7).9
(c)Mammography: Samuel S. Epstein, MD (chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition), Rosalie Bertell and Barbara Seaman published an article exposing truths about mammography that most women have never been told (Int J Health Sci 2001; 31(3):605-15): "Contrary to popular belief and assurances by the US media...mammography is not a technique for early diagnosis. In fact, a breast cancer has usually been present for about eight (8) years before it can finally be detected..."10
(d) Fish oil: Most fish oil supplements are worthless in preventing cancer and may be hazardous to your health (articles: 1995Ð2006). The International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL) 4th Congress, which met on 4Ð9 June 2000 in Tsukuba, Japan, reported the following:11
"...[S]tudies indicate that at the levels used, fish oil [comprised of omega-3 derivatives] decreases a wide range of immune cell responses (natural killer cell, cytotoxic T lymphocyte activities, lymphocyte proliferation and production of IL-2 and IFN-y (1,2))..."
"...Recent studies have indicated that relatively low levels of the long chain omega-3 fatty acids (EPA or DHA)...are sufficient to bring about some of the suppressive effects..."
"...This decrease (of inhibited lymphocyte proliferation and natural killer cell activity) causes increased cellular bacteria [infection] and impaired tumor cell killing."
Any substance causing impaired tumour cell killing ability is cancer-causingÑthe opposite of what we desire. With so many of us consuming fish oil, could this be another reason that cancer contraction rates are increasing instead of decreasing?
Fish oil is also worthless in preventing heart disease, and Harvard Medical School warned us about this years ago but too few Americans listened.12 Consuming whole fish instead of fish oil failed, too.13
The Japanese have greater cancer rates and greater heart disease rates than Americans. Cancer has been Japan's number-one cause of death since 1981.14 The popular media don't often disclose these startling facts.
In January 2006, the omega-3 anti-cancer fallacy was exposed (JAMA 2006; 295(4)): "A large body of literature spanning numerous cohorts from many countries and with different demographic characteristics does not provide evidence to suggest a significant association between omega-3 fatty acids and [lack of] cancer incidence. Dietary supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids [is] unlikely to prevent cancer."15
The most comprehensive analysis to date, published in the British Medical Journal of 24 March 2006, reviewing 96 trials including 44 trials with supplements and five trials consisting of mainly ALA (parent omega-3) from plants like flax with the remainder being fish oil, confirms the anti-cancer failure: "We found no evidence that omega-3 fats had an effect on the incidence of cancer and there was no inconsistency... This systematic review assessed the health effects of using omega-3 fats (together or separately) on total mortality, cardiovascular events, cancer and strokes in a wide variety of participants and found no evidence of a clear benefit of omega-3 fats on health."16
Unfortunately, in spite of these facts, most physicians around the world still recommend fish oil to prevent both cancer and heart disease.
(e) Soy: Soy products won't protect you against contracting cancer, either. The properties of soy are still touted by nutritionists, physicians and popular health and beauty publications, all ignorant of the scientific facts. There is a very hazardous side to soy that you need to know about. For example, the article "Soybean Goiter: Report of Three Cases" (NEJM 1960; 262(22):1099-1103) details three cases of infants developing goitre when they were consuming soybean "formula". The condition was rapidly eliminated in two of the infants when the soy "formula" was terminated. The third child was cured when iodine was added to the diet.17
What did soy formula have to do with thyroid (goitre) problems? Soybeans are a source of isoflavonoids, including genistein and daidzein. Contrary to popular belief and what is often reported in the media, they are both hazardous to your health. The following comes from Biochemical Pharmacology 1997; 54:1087-96): "Soybeans contain compounds (genistein and daidzein-the 'active ingredients') that inhibit [interfere with] thyroid peroxidase (TPO) which is essential to thyroid hormone synthesis [production]." Soybeans are not good for the thyroid! The popular so-called phyto-oestrogens genistein and daidzein are actually endocrine disruptors. Women around the world have been misled. What does soy "formula" have to do with the iodine deficiency? Soy contains phytates which "magnetise out" essential nutrients like iodine.
Today, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Health and Human Services, lists 288 records of soy at its "FDA Poisonous Plant Database" (March 2006 revision). Their website will shock you as you discover that soy is anything but a health food (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~djw/pltx.cgi?QUERY=soy).18
Soy harms your immune system, too. Back in 1975, the Canadian Journal of Biochemistry reported that soybeans actually weaken your immune system:21 "Soybean trypsin inhibitor was found to inhibit transformation of human lymphocytes..."
Here's why this happens. Trypsin is an enzyme produced by your pancreas and used in digesting protein; it is critical for antibody production. An inhibitor is something that disables. Think of it like having one foot on the gas and another on the brake of your automobile at the same time. Your car's engine would blow up.
So a trypsin inhibitor will irritate your pancreas, stressing it to produce hormones when it can't, leading to decreased oxygenation from the irritation. Soy prevents the protein you eat from being fully utilised and digested. Your immune system can't get fuelled with proper antibodies and lymphocytes--a double whammy. Therefore, soy is cancer-causing to your pancreas, and cancer of the pancreas is typically a death sentence. Because of bad advice, many women especially have decreased the amount of cancer-fighting animal-based protein they consume in favour of soy. Resist this incorrect advice and minimise your chances of contracting both thyroid and pancreatic cancer.
Dr Otto Warburg's anti-cancer research
Many of my physician colleagues were shocked to discover these truths. How many of us saw these important medical journal findings reported in the popular press? Unfortunately, not enough of us. Don't despair, because there is an anti-cancer answer. It was discovered back in 1925 by Otto Warburg, MD, PhD. Dr Warburg has been referred to as the greatest biochemist of the 20th century; the sheer number and magnitude of his discoveries qualify him as the most accomplished biochemist of all time.22
In the 1920s, Dr Warburg carried on the research on respiratory enzymes, certain vitamins and minerals that the body requires for the utilisation of oxygen in the cells, which eventually earned him the Nobel Prize in 1931. (Today, these vitamins and minerals are termed "co-enzymes".) The Nobel Committee clearly expected the medical world to benefit through Otto Warburg's vital discoveries about cancer. Unfortunately, politics intervened and cancer wasn't eradicated.
Despite his early successes and honours, Dr Warburg continued to make major fundamental discoveries throughout his later years as well, capping off an amazingly fruitful 60-year career in research. In addition, Dr Warburg often created new tools for his research. For example, he discovered how to measure the pressure of oxygen in a living cell by developing a special manometerÑa very important development that led to his discovery that low oxygen concentration and pressure always presaged the development of cancer.
The importance of Dr Warburg's achievement is that he isolated the functional prime cause of cancer. Rather than working on a theoretical level too far removed from the physiological realities of cancer to be able to provide practical therapies and preventive programs, he described the actual conditions in the cells that set up and cause cancer, and by doing this made it possible for others later to develop functional, practical ways to inhibit the development of cancer.
It is appalling that no significant principle out of his numerous discoveries has been utilised by the US medical research community for cancer prevention, treatment and remission retention. Despite the expression of opinions disputing the direction and validity of Warburg's work, no scientist or researcher has ever disproved the validity, correctness or applicability of these important discoveries to the prevention and cure of cancer. Even today, medical consensus often has little to do with science. Politics has squandered the efforts of many cancer researchers.
The prime cause of cancer
We have become so accustomed to being told that "some day" we might discover what causes cancer and that cancer is the major medical mystery of our modern time, that the following might be hard to believe.
Dr Otto Warburg discovered and clearly stated that the prime, most basic, cause of cancer is too little oxygen getting into the cell. "We find by experiment about 35% inhibition of oxygen respiration already suffices to bring about such a transformation during cell growth," he stated at a 1966 conference of Nobel laureates in Lindau, Germany.28
That's it! It sounds very simple, doesn't it? Just one-third less oxygen than normal and you contract cancer. Based on meticulous experiments that he and many others verified numerous times, Dr Warburg discovered and stated that the prime, number-one cause of cancer is simply too little oxygen getting into the cell (hypoxia).
It gets worse because once a cell becomes cancerous, it can't return to normal; it must be destroyed (Science 1956; 123(3191)).29
When I first encountered this information, I didn't believe it. Even now, there is still no one who is more shocked than I am! To my amazement, this cancer-oxygen connection information has been published numerous times in recent cancer journals, e.g., RadiotherapyandOncology 1993; 26(1):45-50 and 1999; 53:113-17.30 However, the practical solution to solving the oxygen deficiency problem has evaded researchersÑprobably because they haven't known where to start.
Taking hydrogen peroxide, calcium supplements, fish oil supplements, massive amounts of omega-3, ozone or so-called "oxygenated water" won't solve the cellular oxygen deficiency. No one has been able to advance Dr Warburg's discovery until now.
This lack of understanding explains many of the misunderstood biochemical activities related to cancer that waste precious time and lead virtually nowhere. Only Dr Warburg's anti-cancer discovery predicts so many never-before-explained real-life results.31
Dr Warburg's discovery has been verified numerous times both in turning normal cells cancerous and in showing that cancer doesn't develop in highly oxygenated areas. Surprisingly, it was American physicians who conclusively proved it in 1953 and confirmed it in 1955! Goldblatt and Cameron noted (p. 535) (J. Experimental Medicine 1953; 97:535-552) that once damage is too great to the cell, then no amount of oxygen will return the cell's respiration back to normal: it is forever doomed to a cancerous life.
This is why prevention is the ultimate solution to never contracting cancer. However, they confirmed it is possible to prevent a "respiration-impacted" precancerous cell from becoming permanently cancerous if oxygen deficiency is stopped early enough.32
Secondary causes of cancer
Virtually every supposed cause of cancer mentioned today in the health and nutritional media is a secondary cause. Secondary causes include things such as environment, chemical carcinogens, environmental and medical radiation, trans-fats, food additives, the chemicals in tobacco smoke, viruses and even genetic mutations.
There are innumerable secondary causes of cancer, and minimising them and their harmful effects can be helpful in preventing cancer. But endlessly pursuing new secondary causes, like smoking, without explaining specifically what common effect they have on the cells, has never led, and will never lead, researchers to a real cancer cure.
Dr Warburg cautioned us again and again about wasting precious time pursuing secondary causes. Make no mistake about this: the thing every secondary cause of cancer has in common with every other one is that it leads, directly or indirectly, to insufficient oxygen in the cells. Therefore, if we directly address the question of how to get sufficient oxygen into the cells, we will have minimised the danger from every type of secondary cause.
Exercise is not the solution to remaining cancer-free
I know what many of you are likely thinking: "I exercise a lot, therefore I am oxygenating my blood. I've got cancer beat!" No. All that exercise didn't stop world champion cyclist Lance Armstrong from contracting cancer. It is true that by exercising you are increasing oxygenation to your blood. However, by doing so, you still haven't guaranteed that this oxygen will be transferred effectively to each cell in each organ in your body.
Dr Warburg made it quite clear that oxygen alone is not sufficient: "To be sure, cancer development takes place even in the presence of free oxygen gas in the atmosphere, but this oxygen may not penetrate in sufficient quantity into the growing body cells, or the respiratory apoenzymes of the growing body cells may not be saturated with the active groups."34
There are many factors that promote the lack of cellular oxygen, including certain deficiencies we will talk about shortly. Exercise, by itself, is therefore not the solution to remaining cancer free. Many people, including athletes, who exercise regularly still get cancer. Furthermore, a person breathes at least 17,000 times a day (12 breaths a minute). Do you really think that you aren't breathing in enough oxygen with 17,000 breaths a day? You are. The problem lies elsewhere.
Essential fatty acids and EFA-containing oils
The body requires special fats that, among other important functions, make it possible for sufficient oxygen to reach the cells via the cellular membranes, which are the key. These special fats are highly oxygen-absorbing. Called essential fatty acids, or EFAs, these special fats must be supplied from outside the body every day, from foods and certain oils, because your body can't manufacture them on its own. There are two "parent" forms of EFAs that allow your body to make whatever it needs from them, i.e., various types of EFA "derivatives". Parent omega-6 is termed linoleic acid (LA), and parent omega-3 is termed alpha-linolenic acid (ALA).
For tables of EFA-containing oils, shown with their percentages of parent omega-6 to parent omega-3, as well as of some EFA derivatives, see http://www.BrianPeskin/Nexus.com. With all the hoopla about olive oil, I want you to know that it contains mainly omega-9, a non-essential oil that your body itself makes. "Extra virgin" olive oil is traditionally unprocessed and therefore not cancer-causing, but it won't protect you against contracting cancer in the least. Avoid margarine: it won't go bad even when kept out of the fridge. This is the proof of hydrogenated oil's failure to oxygenate. If it still could oxygenate when eaten, it would turn rancid when left unrefrigerated--just like fish does. Canola and soy oils are not recommended; neither was ever meant for human consumption but as food for farm animals or for industrial applications. Many foods, especially salad dressings, now contain canola oil. You should try to avoid it.
The oils must be uncooked, or at the very least only slightly heated, to retain their important nutritional properties. Also bear in mind that some supplement manufacturers' labels fail to separately identify and distinguish the parent EFAs from the EFA derivatives. It may be impossible to tell whether you are getting the parent EFAs or the EFA derivatives. Make certain of what you're getting before you purchase it. Make sure the oils are raw, unprocessed and organic and that they do not contain fish oil or any hydrogenated oils.
Omega-6 versus omega-3 ratios in the body
We must look at the tissue content of our bodies to determine what oils contain the best anti-cancer EFAs. It is known from pathology studies that the brain and nervous system have a ratio of one part omega-6 to one part omega-3 (1:1). Some nutritionists suggest that this ratio is best, but they are wrong. Here's why.
Most organs contain a 4:1 omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. However, the brain, nervous system and organs comprise only about 12% of body weight. Skin is 100% parent omega-6 and contains no omega-3;35 it comprises about 4% of body weight. The muscles comprise at least 50% of total body weight and are the prime factor to account for in determining the required parent omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. A key fact about muscle structure is that muscle contains from 5.5 to 7.5 times more omega-6 than omega-3, depending on the degree of physical condition.36 We are warned about "overdosing" on omega-6 in our diets and told that we must take lots of oils containing omega-3 to compensate. We are told that we are ingesting upwards of 20 times too much omega-6. This is wrong, and there is much more to the analysis.
Scientifically, you need an organic supplement with a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 of 1:1 up to 2.5:1. With this powerfully effective ratio, you only require a minimum amount of 3-4 grams on a daily basis. This ratio is significantly different than your physician, health practitioner or writers on popular nutritional publications will likely suggest: they simply don't know and understand the basis of it. Their analysis consists of a significant number of errors, and I hope you will review the paper "The Scientific Calculation of the Optimum Omega 6/3 Ratio" at http://www.BrianPeskin.com (click on "EFA Report") so you will understand this as well as the science behind the calculation of the ideal omega-6 to omega-3 ratio.
Today, people automatically think of fish oil or flax oil as the anti-cancer solution. Following these incorrect recommendations is a significant factor in why America's cancer rates continue to skyrocket in spite of millions of people taking these oils. Fish oil, with an overdose of omega-3 series derivatives, can actually be cancer-causing-the opposite of what we desire--and flax oil contains far too much parent omega-3.
Most parent omegas do not get converted to derivatives; they remain in the cell membranes and tissues in original parent form. Few scientists understand this and few medical texts explain it.37 Furthermore, commercial food processing destroys a significant amount of these EFAs, along with their oxygenating ability.
EFA-containing foods in the diet
Here's a representative listing of categories of foods containing these essential oils. It is imperative to understand that these foods must be grown organically and, if necessary, processed with low heat and no artificial preservatives-otherwise the EFAs will be ruined, like the trans-fat, hydrogenated, cancer-causing oils you've heard about. Compare your diet and these EFA-containing foods. Are you getting enough of them? Dairy/eggs/cheese: "Raw milk" cheeses and organic eggs are excellent sources of EFAs. Pasteurised (heated) milk is deficient in EFAs and is detrimental to infants. Meats: Organically raised and processed chicken, beef (grass-fed is best38), lamb, pork, etc. are rich sources of EFAs. Animal-based protein is also important for obtaining anti-cancer vitamins and minerals and for producing strong haemoglobin which enables oxygen transportation. Nuts: Organic, unprocessed raw almonds, walnuts, peanuts, cashews, etc.
Seafood: Shrimp (prawns), fish, lobster, crab, clams, oysters, etc. It is important to understand that consuming lots of seafood is not the anti-cancer answer. Seafood is overly abundant in both parent and derivative omega-3 EFAs. Fish, especially farmed fish, contains mostly omega-3 derivatives; farmed fish and oil from farmed fish are to be avoided. Seeds: Organic sunflower, sesame, flax, pumpkin, etc.
The following foods do not contain usable EFAs for humans: Fruits and vegetables: Animals with multiple stomachs can extract EFAs out of plant-based cellulose like grass, but humans, with only one stomach, cannot. Even if we could extract the EFAs, we could never eat the volume required to get enough. Grains/cereals: Humans cannot extract the EFAs from them.
The miracle of EFA "oxygen magnets"
Think of these polyunsaturated EFAs as "oxygen magnets". The proof of this fact is buried in the world's leading medical textbooks and medical journals such as Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry, 26th edition,40 and Human Nutrition Clinical Nutrition, July 1984.41
EFAs are integral to the structure and function of cellular respiration. Without high respiration efficiency, cancer is soon to follow. These EFA oxygen magnets in the cell membrane attract the oxygen that's in the bloodstream and transfer it into the cell, just like little oxygen sponges. This process is supposed to be happening in each of the body's 100 trillion cells.
So, no matter how much you breathe or exercise, if you don't have the proper functional EFAs at the cellular level then your cells will not absorb enough oxygen from your bloodstream and you will be that much more susceptible to cancer. Remember that the cancer "threshold" is a 35% decrease in cellular oxygen.
Without a continuing new supply of these EFAs from food, cellular oxygen transfer is significantly reduced. Imagine what would happen if you had 100 trillion cells that were all deficient in a vital substance they required to be able to absorb oxygen.
Here's an example showing how these essential fats absorb oxygen. At the supermarket, fish goes bad in only a few days because the oil in the fish is highly oxygen-absorbing-it reacts rapidly with the oxygen in the air. Fish spoils rapidly because the EFA-containing oil has the capacity to absorb lots of oxygen. This chemical process is called oxidation. This is also true with other types of essential fats. They do their job of absorbing oxygen, but because of it they have a limited life. They simply won't work after a short period. EFAs become "spent", i.e., rancid. That's why they need to be replaced every day from our food-Nature designed us this way.
There are many ways to add additional oxygen to the bloodstream, such as by exercising, drinking "oxygenated" water or breathing purer air. However, these partial solutions are insufficient for maximum anti-cancer protection. When the EFA deficiency is solved, every organ becomes its own "oxygen magnet", just as Nature intended.
Breast cancer and oxygen deficiency
Breast cancer is the number-one cancer plague to women worldwide. The growing incidence of breast cancer can be explained for the first time in light of Dr Warburg's discovery about lack of oxygen to the cells.
The breasts consist of an exceptionally high amount of fatty tissue. A typical cell membrane in muscle tissue is half-fat and contains about one-third EFAs (oxygen transferors). However, fatty tissue like the breast contains areas of 80-95% fat concentration. These fatty components of breast tissue require and should have high EFA concentrations, but because of modern food processing they don't. Because important organs such as the brain, heart, lungs and kidneys require EFAs on a priority basis, there may not be enough left over to ensure that breast tissue receives an adequate amount of EFAs.
Therefore, oxygen deficiency in the breast tissue will be very significant.
Given this premise, we can deduce that breast tissue should and would be the number-one expected cancer site in women worldwide, and it is. This conclusion makes so much sense in explaining the massive rise in breast cancer rates. Harvard's Dr W. C. Willett gives us the proof. In a study on the intake of parent omega-6 involving over 80,000 nurses, it was shown that the group with the lowest intake of linoleic acid (parent omega-6) exhibited the highest incidence of breast cancer (NEJM 1987; 316(1):22-28).42
Has your ob-gyn told you that you need this miraculous anti-cancer nutrient? I doubt it; he or she probably doesn't know.
Fish oil won't stop heart disease
Surprisingly, it was known back in 1979 that diet influenced EFA composition of the cell membrane; this finding was published in Cancer Research (1979; 39:1726-32).43 In 1990, a masterpiece of research conducted by William E. Lands found that the amount of critical parent omega-6 in the tissues was dependent on diet (Lipids 1990; 25(9):505-16).44
To gain the best in scientific research, in 2002 I attended the world's 1st Essential Fatty Acids and Human Nutrition and Health International Conference in Shanghai, China.
There I discovered a shocking and unexpected discovery that fish oil lowers immunity. I nearly fell out of my chair! Overdosing on fish oil supplements can significantly decrease the effectiveness of your immune system, increasing your risk of contracting cancer. The International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL) June 2000 Congress in Tsukuba, Japan,45 had reported this startling fact, as noted earlier.
And don't think that fish oil prevents heart disease. It doesn't. Cardiovascular Research (2002; 54:183-190) reported on a study where both the fish oil group and the control group showed close to equal atherosclerotic progression (arteries getting more clogged in spite of taking fish oil supplements). Nor did fish oil stop thickening of the artery. On the contrary, the artery wall got thicker (worsened) with fish oil ingestion! A mere 1.65 grams per day of fish oil supplement was taken-a great enough dose to cause adverse immunity and excessive internal bleeding, too.46
These results showing the failure of fish oil were published in 2002. Did this stop "experts" in the nutritional and medical fields and even in our governments from declaring how great fish oil supplements are? No! HarvardMedicalSchool was involved in a study, published in 1995, titled "Controlled Trial of Fish Oil for Regression of Human Coronary Atherosclerosis" (Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 25(7):1492-8).47
The daily dose was six grams of fish oil versus six grams of olive oil in the control group. Their conclusion? "Fish oil treatment for two years does not promote major favorable changes in the diameter of atherosclerotic coronary arteries" (author's emphasis). This means that arterial clogging was not decreased with the fish oil supplements.
Omega-6 derivative AA prevents blood clotting
Dr Warburg understood that slow blood speed allowed cancer to metastasise. Later, other researchers showed that if you can keep a localised cancer from metastasising, your risk of dying from cancer decreases by an amazing tenfold! Even though you may have cancer, you won't die from it. Blood speed and viscosity have a connection to the spread of cancer. This is a surprising, seldom-mentioned fact that was pointed out by world-renowned molecular biologist Robert Weinberg.49
What causes metastasis? Blood clots, and this is known, too.50 What prevents blood from "sticking together" and is also Nature's natural blood-thinner that prevents blood clots? No, it's not omega-3, like you are constantly told. Parent omega-6 is much more powerful. Arachidonic acid (AA) is a critical omega-6 derivative and major biochemical component which occurs in virtually every cell we have. It is the building block of the most potent anti-aggregatory ("helps blood thinning") agent known, termed prostacyclin. AA also inhibits platelet adhesion, making it a natural "blood thinner". AA even helps solve vascular problems as a response to injury.51
Heart attack victims often have depleted EFA levels, especially the EFA derivatives AA from parent omega-6 and EPA from parent omega-3.56 We need some parent omega-3 because EPA is one of its important derivatives. The problem is that fish oil supplements overdose us with far too much.
What's really clogging the arteries
Contrary to what we have heard for decades, it is not the saturated fat that clogs the arteries and impedes blood flow: it's the adulterated parent omega-6.
A groundbreaking Lancet article (1994; 344:1195-96) reported investigating the components of arterial plaques. Felton et al. measured the individual components, and in an aortic artery clog they found over 10 different compounds but no saturated fat.57 There was some cholesterol in the clog. This is explained by the fact that cholesterol acts as a protective healer for arterial cuts and bruises, just like a scab forms over external cuts.
What is the predominant component of a clog? You probably guessed it: the adulterated omega-6 polyunsaturated oils-those that start out containing properly functioning EFAs but get ruined during commercial food processing. Many similar analyses of arterial clogs showing the same result have been carried out and published in the medical journals, but it would seem that few physicians have seen them.58 The average person has little, if any, chance of ever discovering the truth.
So, it is not cholesterol itself that clogs the arteries. If you have a deficiency of EFAs, cholesterol acts as a "poison delivery system". EFAs are cholesterol's major component. As the medical textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell makes clear (p. 481), cholesterol is necessary for the structural integrity of the lipid bi-layer, the matrix in each of our 100 trillion cell membranes. JAMA (1994; 272:1335-40) published an article stating that cholesterol-lowering drugs do not work significantly to prevent heart disease. The reason? They can't lower the amount of defective parent omega-6 enough.
As stated in Current Atherosclerosis Reports (2004; 6:477-84), this is why cholesterol drugs can't do the job:59 "LDL contains up to 80% lipids [fats and oils], including polyunsaturated fatty acids and cholesterol, mainly esters. Linoleic acid (LA), one of the most abundant fatty acids in LDLÉ"
With this information, we see that it is what the cholesterol is transporting-the adulterated EFAs-that is the problem. An article in Human Nutrition: Clinical Nutrition (1984; 38C:245-260) further verifies that it is parent omega-6 that makes up most of the fatty acids in LDL and HDL cholesterol.60
Don't let anyone ever tell you that natural fats are "bad". One hundred trillion cells need lots of EFA-containing natural fats; in particular, lots of parent omega-6.
If just a little of this parent omega-6 is defective, reducing its ability to absorb oxygen and perform other cellular functions, it acts as a direct cause of cancer as well as heart disease. °
Author's Note:
Special thanks to Kenneth Sperling, Khanada Taylor and Jill Kostrinsky for their editorial assistance.
About the Author:
Brian Scott Peskin, BSEE, earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1979. He founded the field of Life-Systems Engineering Science in 1995. Brian was appointed as an adjunct professor at Texas Southern University in the Department of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in 1998Ð1999. Brian eventually started his own company, Maximum Efficiency Products, so he could publish his scientific findings and promote his unique nutritional supplements. Today he is an independent researcher.
This article is based on information in The Hidden Story of Cancer, written by Brian Peskin with clinical researcher Amid Habib, MD, FAAP, FACE (Pinnacle Press, 2006, see review in NEXUS 13/04). The book is available from Pinnacle Press, PO Box 56507, Houston, TX 77256, USA, or by phoning 1800 456 9941 (toll-free in North America) or +1 (713) 979 0065. For more information, visit the website http://www.BrianPeskin.com.
