Warburg discovered an effect of cancer, not a cause

[Guest guest]

Although his work was brilliant and useful, what Warburg discovered was not a cause of cancer, but rather an effect caused by cancer.

The metabolic differences Warburg observed are an adaption of cancer cells to the hypoxic (oxygen-deficient) conditions inside solid tumors. The cancer has already occured at the point that the cellular hypoxia occurs and therefore the cellular adaption is not a cause, as he claimed, but an effect of cancer.

oleander soup , Simon <tanstaafl wrote:>> On 11/26/2008, Mike V (mds9513) wrote:> > It almost sounds as if the cause of cancer is more directly related to> > the psychological state of mind rather than toxins and immune system> > and etc. > > Stress may be a trigger, but it certainly is not the cause.> > Otto Warburg won the nobel prize in 1931 for essentially discovering the> cause of cancer - cellular hypoxia - although he didn't apply his> research to cancer until much later...> > http://healingtools.tripod.com/primecause1.html>

[Guest guest]

On 11/26/2008, Tony () wrote:

> The metabolic differences Warburg observed are an adaption of cancer

> cells to the hypoxic (oxygen-deficient) conditions inside solid

> tumors.

 

I disagree... from what I have read of his work, it is an adaptation of

NORMAL cells to the condition of hypoxia...

 

But there is no way for either of us to *prove* it one way or another,

so if you disagree, we'll just have to agree to...

 

> The cancer has already occured at the point that the cellular hypoxia

> occurs and therefore the cellular adaption is not a cause, as he

> claimed, but an effect of cancer.

 

Cancer is an 'effect' of cellular hypoxia...

 

But again, the more important question is, what causes the cellular

hypoxia...

 

--

 

Live free - or die with vigor!

[Guest guest]

A great deal has changed since 1924 - including the idea among most people who have researched cancer as I have that Warburg discovered a cause instead of an effect. Yes, we can alwasy agree to disagree; however, the fact will remain that Warburg discovered an effect of cancer and not the universal cause of cancer.

What caused the cancer and thus the hypoxia is an irritation or inflammation from a foreign object that ultimately defeatedthe immune system, almost always in the presence of an impaired liver, and there is no single cause. It could be any number of pathogens or toxins, including bacteria, viruses, heavy metals, chemical compounds, etc.

Reversing the effect Warburg discovered may get rid of the cancer tumors and so his work is still of very great value.

oleander soup , Simon <tanstaafl wrote:>> On 11/26/2008, Tony () wrote:> > The metabolic differences Warburg observed are an adaption of cancer> > cells to the hypoxic (oxygen-deficient) conditions inside solid> > tumors.> > I disagree... from what I have read of his work, it is an adaptation of> NORMAL cells to the condition of hypoxia...> > But there is no way for either of us to *prove* it one way or another,> so if you disagree, we'll just have to agree to...> > > The cancer has already occured at the point that the cellular hypoxia> > occurs and therefore the cellular adaption is not a cause, as he> > claimed, but an effect of cancer.> > Cancer is an 'effect' of cellular hypoxia...> > But again, the more important question is, what causes the cellular> hypoxia...> > -- > > Live free - or die with vigor!>

[Guest guest]

On 11/26/2008, Tony () wrote:

> however, the fact will remain that Warburg discovered an effect of

> cancer and not the universal cause of cancer.

>

> What caused the cancer and thus the hypoxia is an irritation or

> inflammation from a foreign object that ultimately defeatedthe immune

> system, almost always in the presence of an impaired liver, and there

> is no single cause.

 

I agree with your last statement, but your prior contention that

cellular hypoxia is CAUSED by the cancerous cells just doesn't make sense...

 

The cellular hypoxia Warburg discovered was there BEFORE the cancer

cells - otherwise, he would have seen the cancer, no?

 

> It could be any number of pathogens or toxins, including bacteria,

> viruses, heavy metals, chemical compounds, etc.

 

Here we agree... poor lifestyle choices (and on rare occasion, over

exposure to large quantities of toxic material) cause slow degeneration

of different systems in the body, cellular hypoxia being one 'effect'.

Which systems show first signs of being affected are dictated by each

individuals genetic makeup - meaning, whatever system is 'weakest', is

the first to be negatively affected. In one person it may be their

liver, in another their digestive system, in another, their heart.

 

Anyway, we are certainly in general agreement, and only appear to differ

on the one point, and I'll say it again... your opinion is just that,

just as mine is - neither your opinion nor mine can be 'proven', so the

only thing I'd suggest is that you stop proffering your opinion as 'fact'...

[Guest guest]

The cellular hypoxia was caused by whatever caused the cancer. MOST people now agree on that - you and I will agree to disagree I guess.

 

Tony--- On Thu, 11/27/08, Simon <tanstaafl wrote:

Simon <tanstaaflRe: Re: Warburg discovered an effect of cancer, not a causeoleander soup Date: Thursday, November 27, 2008, 11:50 AM

 

 

On 11/26/2008, Tony ( ) wrote:> however, the fact will remain that Warburg discovered an effect of> cancer and not the universal cause of cancer.> > What caused the cancer and thus the hypoxia is an irritation or> inflammation from a foreign object that ultimately defeatedthe immune> system, almost always in the presence of an impaired liver, and there> is no single cause.I agree with your last statement, but your prior contention thatcellular hypoxia is CAUSED by the cancerous cells just doesn't make sense...The cellular hypoxia Warburg discovered was there BEFORE the cancercells - otherwise, he would have seen the cancer, no?> It could be any number of pathogens or toxins, including bacteria,> viruses, heavy metals, chemical compounds, etc.Here we agree... poor

lifestyle choices (and on rare occasion, overexposure to large quantities of toxic material) cause slow degenerationof different systems in the body, cellular hypoxia being one 'effect'.Which systems show first signs of being affected are dictated by eachindividuals genetic makeup - meaning, whatever system is 'weakest', isthe first to be negatively affected. In one person it may be theirliver, in another their digestive system, in another, their heart.Anyway, we are certainly in general agreement, and only appear to differon the one point, and I'll say it again... your opinion is just that,just as mine is - neither your opinion nor mine can be 'proven', so theonly thing I'd suggest is that you stop proffering your opinion as 'fact'...

[Guest guest]

On 11/30/2008, Tony Isaacs () wrote:

> The cellular hypoxia was caused by whatever caused the cancer. MOST

> people now agree on that - you and I will agree to disagree I guess.

 

Most people, meaning... who? Certainly not most people *I* know...

 

[Guest guest]

Simon, I guess you need to meet a wider group of people. If you Google "cause of cancer" you will see that the large majority of hits do not come back with Warburg's hypoxia hypothesis. Even his number one disciple and nobel nominee who followed up on his work does NOT list hypoxia as the cause of cancer:

"Every interference or intervention which disturbs man's biological-dynamic balance, his place in the cosmic scheme of things, in the dipolar field current of Electro-magnetic powers which surrounds the world, and its creatures, and which govern the entire cosmos, every interference with these far reaching relationships, promotes the disease of cancer." -Johanna Budwig, Ph.D.

One final time, and I DO mean final, cellular hypoxia is a part of the progression of cancer. If you wish to see it as the cause that is fine - but that begs the question of what caused the hypoxia in the first place. We do not get "exposed" to cellular hypoxia, but we do get exposed to things which result in hypoxia and it is those things which I and others consider as the actual causes of cancer.

Certainly the reversal and elimination of hypoxia can eliminate the cancer. However, it is my view that whatever caused the hypoxia (such as exposure to toxins, parasites, bacteria, viruses, etc., combined with a suppressed immune system, impaired liver and possible stress or other emotional factors) is the actual cause of cancer and if you do not eliminate those causes then the way for the return of cancer remains.

We will now move on from this discussion, which is becoming redundant and taking up too much space among our messages here.

Thanks.

oleander soup , Simon <tanstaafl wrote:>> On 11/30/2008, Tony Isaacs () wrote:> > The cellular hypoxia was caused by whatever caused the cancer. MOST> > people now agree on that - you and I will agree to disagree I guess.> > Most people, meaning... who? Certainly not most people *I* know...> > >

[Guest guest]

On 12/1/2008, Tony () wrote:

> but that begs the question of what caused the hypoxia in the first

> place. We do not get " exposed " to cellular hypoxia, but we do get

> exposed to things which result in hypoxia and it is those things

> which I and others consider as the actual causes of cancer.

>

> Certainly the reversal and elimination of hypoxia can eliminate the

> cancer. However, it is my view that whatever caused the hypoxia

> (such as exposure to toxins, parasites, bacteria, viruses, etc.,

> combined with a suppressed immune system, impaired liver and possible

> stress or other emotional factors) is the actual cause of cancer and

> if you do not eliminate those causes then the way for the return of

> cancer remains.

 

I guess you missed the part where I said pretty much the same thing..

[Guest guest]

Simon, the debate is OVER!

 

Now, let's move on.

 

Thanks,

 

 

oleander soup , Simon <tanstaafl wrote:

 

> I guess you missed the part where I said pretty much the same thing..

>