Free newsletter

Site Manager

Tami Dickson

Follow Us

Follow Unittus

Custom Search
MSG Brain Damage & Cancer Mitochondrial May 10/12 Print E-mail
Wednesday, 09 May 2012 16:46

MSG Brain Damage & Cancer Mitochondrial  May 10/12

Ranger interviews neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock on MSG and brain damaging excitotoxins

Friday, April 13, 2012 by: NaturalNews

Watch the full video at:

Video Information

The Health Ranger interviews neurosurgeon, author and researcher Dr. Russell Blaylock, also known as the foremost authority on excitoxins such as MSG and aspartame.

Dr. Blaylock is the author of "Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills."

In this part of the interview, Dr. Blaylock covers topics such as:

* MSG, aspartame and other dangerous excitotoxins that can cause neurological diseases

* Nutrition and it's affect on the brain and recovery from brain injuries

* What "MSG Syndrome" is and just how toxic MSG really is

* What MSG does to the brain and brain function, especially in young children

* How MSG has contributed to the obesity epidemic in America and American children

* How food companies hide dangerous food additives under many different names

Learn more at: See more interviews at www.NaturalNews.TV


Cancer a Mitochondrial Disease  May 8/12

Cdsapi’s Added Comment:  Dr. Ho is a scientist miles ahead of the pack.  The complete article is attached  -  it is very technical, and certainly of great interest in those who understands the intricacies of biochemistry and metabolism.

For the rest of us, certain conclusions jump out at us, that serve to form as sounder foundation and understanding of the framework and complexity within which Nature operates.   Hopefully it will lead us to question  the arrogance of the “Science by Declaration”  myths that today’s “Expert” Genetic Gurus expound as though they were fact.

1.  Metabolism is a very intricate, synergistic, integrated process.  It is folly to assume that “scientists”, from what they hypothetically assume, can so arrogantly proclaim what is “scientific”, given their limited knowledge and understanding within preconceived assumptions.   Far too readily, modern-day scientists operate with “Science by Declaration”  that superimposes the “ignorance of man” on the “wisdom of Nature”.   Scientific humility would be in order.

2.  It is folly to jump on the modern “Science Religion” bandwagon that assumes that everything is determined by “genetic predisposition”  and that therefore “man” can and should redesign Nature to set it “straight” by correcting its inherent genetic flaws.  Rather than superimposing the “Ignorance of Man” on the “Wisdom of Nature”,  “Caution” would definitely be in order.

3.  Metabolism are fundamentally determined by “electronic energy balance”.  This means that it operates on and  is determined by electromagnetic frequencies.   From our study of electromagnetic frequencies , we know that external, conflicting frequencies disrupt the integrity of operational frequencies.

Hence to a major point to be made.   Given what we know about the interaction of energy frequencies,  it is totally inconceivable and irresponsible for “the authorities” to declare that the disruptive electromagnetic energy frequencies comprising the “electromagnetic soup” in which we now swim, can be “declared” safe.   Quite to the contrary  -  it would be a foregone conclusion that this “imposed electromagnetic frequency energy soup” will disrupt very sensitive metabolic processes,  and that the biological consequences cannot be other than catastrophic.   We are already witnessing biological breakdown,  and an exponential increase in individuals who are “electromagnetic energy sensitized”.  Should we be surprised to see an exponential escalation in cancers directly due to the disruption of mitochondrial function – the response to the disruption in the integrity of electronic energy potentials at the cellular level?

Conclusion:  There is no way that “Smart Meters”  or the entire “wireless industry” can ever be considered “safe”  -  because they are inherently and intrinsically metabolically disruptive.  We are energy creations  - and we function in an “energy paradigm”.   WE are energy  -  and energy controls us  - capable of either supporting us or destroying  us.    Nature has always functioned in that “energy paradigm”.   The ultimate folly is to violate its non-violatable principles.   The ignorant arrogance of man carries a very heavy price!

Whether we like it or not, we are faced with a fork in the road  -  do we opt for the survival of biological life  -  or do we opt for short-term expediency and convenience that is destined to destroy us biologically.   Are we really prepared to opt for “Extinction of biological species, including mankind as we know it  - to be replaced with engineered, patented, owned and controlled “computerized-intelligent robots”.

There is no way that we can continue down the road of not-so-Smart electromagnetic lunacy – operating under the “ASSUMPTION’ that frequencies incoherent with the biological frequencies  are SAFE!

ISIS Report 12/04/12

Cancer a Redox Disease

Cancer cells are universally disturbed in their electronic energy balance, an understanding that potentially revolutionises cancer therapy and prevention    Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Two opposing approaches to cancer therapy

We are losing the war on cancer, targeting specific cancer gene mutations does not work, and for good reasons (see [1] Personalized Medicine for Cancer Fact or Fiction? SiS 54).

Not only are the mutations remarkably diverse, differing between individuals and between parts within a single tumour, cancer cells soon become resistant to new drugs.

There is growing realization that cancer is not primarily a genetic disease, but an epigenetic response to chronic stress [2] (Cancer an Epigenetic Disease, SiS 54).

Redundancy in diverse signalling pathways means that many different 'adaptive' mutations can enable cells to survive and multiply, predisposing them to malignant transformation.

One approach to cancer therapy is the much touted 'personalized medicine' that tailors the cure to key genes that have gone awry. But genetic heterogeneity poses a considerable, if not insurmountable hurdle [1].

The other approach is to target the most general characteristic of cancer cells and tumours that is distinct from normal cells, and this is becoming popular.

Cancer cells typically have an abnormal energy metabolism, prompting some researchers to suggest that cancer is a metabolic disease [3, 4].

I prefer to call cancer a redox disease, as explained later, to distinguish it from the usual "inborn errors of metabolism" that underpinned the hypothesis of "one gene one enzyme" of biochemical genetics [5].

Cancer a mitochondrial disease

The abnormal energy metabolism of cancer cells was discovered by German physiologist Otto Heinrich Warburg in the 1920s. Normal cells obtain energy by breaking down the 6-carbon molecule glucose into two 3-carbon pyruvate molecules in a series of reactions - glycolysis - that does not require oxygen, followed by oxidation reactions in the mitochondria in which oxygen is needed.

Cancer cells, however, depend heavily on glycolysis to obtain energy, even though plenty of oxygen is present. This phenomenon - aerobic glycolysis subsequently known as the Warburg effect - prompted Warburg to propose that mitochondrial dysfunction was the primary cause of cancer [6].

As glycolysis is much less efficient in extracting energy from glucose, cancer cells are voracious for glucose, and that is how tumours are detected by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in which glucose uptake is measured by means of a radioactive analogue, flourodeoxyglucose.

Aerobic glycolysis is a robust hallmark of most tumours; it involves a high uptake of glucose with lactate production in the presence of oxygen, lactate being the by-product of pyruvate, even in those cancer cells that appear to have working mitochondria [3]. The reason seems to be that cancer cells need glycolysis to generate carbon skeletons for the synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids to support rapid cell proliferation [7]; and blocking glycolysis does appear to inhibit cancer cells [8] (though it would also affect normal cells).

Warburg's idea fell into disfavour as the view of cancer as a metabolic disease was gradually displaced with one of cancer as a genetic disease caused by mutations in specific cancer related genes, or oncogenes [3].

In recent years, the idea that cancer is a metabolic disease has become fashionable again. Some commentators remark that [4] "molecular biology is re-discovering biochemistry"; it is more important than that.

Cancer is a disease of electronic energy imbalance, and electronic energy is the life-wire that animates cells and organisms, as the father of biochemistry Albert Szent-Györgyi had discovered three quarters of a century ago [9].

Read the rest of this report here on the I-SIS website at