We’re Fundamentally Wrong About The World’s Deadliest Disease.

Is it genetics, or something deeper?

Cancer Cell Illustration from Geneng. News / iStock.

If, after all our work, millions of people keep dying every year, we shouldn’t blame it on the disease. After all, cancer doesn’t care.

Why Is This So Complicated?

In our massive body of scientific knowledge on cancer, we package its origins into what we call the “somatic mutation theory.

Somatic Mutations.

How we view cancer through the lens of somatic mutation theory.

Let’s say you were analyzing a frog with a tumour. What would happen if you isolated one of its cancer cells, and transplanted its nucleus — containing lots of supposedly cancerous mutations — into a new frog embryo?

“There was unequivocal genomic evidence that the R545–1 NT ES cell was cloned from a tumorigenic nucleus of the R545 tumor cell line. Furthermore, these characteristic genomic alterations were present in all R545–1 NT ES cell derivatives.”

Powering Up (Way Too Much).

Those quiescent cells became cancerous, but there was a lot more to it than just that. After the mitochondria transfer, their nuclear DNA began mutating.

Cell Metabolism

“The prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar.” — Otto Warburg.

Also, as a side-effect of the inefficiency of Glycolysis, a cancer cell would need to take in 18x more glucose to get the same amount of ATP.

Connecting The Dots

Healthy cells tend to slowly stockpile resources to divide from their environment. That’s why they divide slowly.

A better look at what damaged mitochondria do to your cells. Source

Cancer isn’t genetic. It’s metabolic. This isn’t an alternative explanation to cancer. This is the explanation to cancer.

If we don’t know even understand how cancer even develops, how can we create reliable cures to it without a fluke? We can’t. This is what we’re missing, and it isn’t rocket science.

I write about things every week(ish).