The cost of cancer research in the United States is mind boggling. In the last 40 years, the United States government has spent upwards of $100 billion dollars on researching the causes and treatments of cancer. And sadly, the result of all this spending has been a dismal record of improvement.
During this 40 year "War on Cancer," survival rates for people diagnosed with cancers has changed very little. The mainstream cancer industry puts out press releases which talk about cure rates increasing, but what they are really talking about is a "5 year survival rate", not a cure rate.
This 5 year survival rate is a measure of how many patients are still alive five years after being diagnosed with cancer. Note the lack of "cure" in that measurement.
And the only reason that the 5 year survival rate number has gotten better is because of better detection methods, not because of the discovery of any successful mainstream, drug related cures for cancer.
The United States has spent $100 BILLION dollars researching cancer with little progress to show. Seems to me that the hypotheses we are researching might need to be overhauled. And it gets worse.
Radiation, cancer drugs, and chemotherapy make enormous amounts of the money for the the mainstream cancer industry, so it's in their interest to ignore and downplay treatment options that bypass the conventional and expensive treatments. Here's a quick rundown of the kind of money involved in cancer treatment:
And sadly, for many people, these mainstream cancer treatments are more dangerous than the original cancers, especially if the cancer is a slow growing one. Chemotherapy treatments and radiation are highly toxic to the entire body, not just to the cancer cells, and many people die from treatment damage, rather than the cancer itself. See this paper and this paper.
For example, a meta-analysis study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that the use of the cancer drug bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy or biological therapy was associated with an increased risk of treatment-related death.
The main problem which has been elucidated by Dr. Otto Warburg in the 1920s, and more recently by Dr. Thomas Seyfried in his book "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease" is that research efforts have largely focused on defining cancer as a "genetic" disease.
Most cancer research money is spent on investigating genetic causes. But as Dr Warburg, Dr. Seyfried and others have hypothesized, cancer may instead be a metabolic disease, meaning it is a disease of cellular energy processes.
And as such, it is becoming apparent that metabolic therapies using a ketogenic diet are advantageous in improving the outcomes of cancer treatments since they cripple and destroy cancer cell metabolism while supporting normal cellular health. The added benefit is that this simple dietary treatment is much less toxic to the patient than conventional "standard of care" cancer therapies.
Here are just a few of the cancer research studies conducted recently which explore using the ketogenic diet to treat cancer:
If you are interested in more information on how to treat cancer with a ketogenic diet, I recently launched a new eBook which provides all the details. Click here or on the book cover to order a copy.
In his book "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease," (link below) Dr. Thomas Seyfried discusses how keeping blood sugar levels very low and ketones high is an optimal body condition for stopping the growth of the cancer.
Dr. Dominic D'Agostino, a cancer researcher and assistant professor at the University of South Florida has a blog discussing ketogenic research and his team's current studies on optimizing the anticonvulsant and neuroprotective effects of the ketogenic diet and ketone esters.
I have more information about using the ketogenic diet as a therapeutic device on my cancer treatments page.