The most common view on the etiology of cancer is that it is a genetic disease involving mutations of genes that normally prevent cancer from occurring. The thought is that over time things like radiation cause damage to DNA, the cell replicates in an incorrect manner, and it's progeny become malignant. This became the prevailing theory in the 1970s with the discovery of oncogenes (genes that can turn cells into "tumor cells").



Since the 1970s, trillions of dollars has been sunk into Cancer rese

The most common view on the etiology of cancer is that it is a genetic disease involving mutations of genes that normally prevent cancer from occurring. The thought is that over time things like radiation cause damage to DNA, the cell replicates in an incorrect manner, and it's progeny become malignant. This became the prevailing theory in the 1970s with the discovery of oncogenes (genes that can turn cells into "tumor cells").



Since the 1970s, trillions of dollars has been sunk into Cancer research with nearly no effect. The mortality rate for all cancers has only declined 5% since the 1950s. That's sad.



Before the 1970s, the prevailing view of cancer was that it was a metabolic disease. Early research by Otto Warburg showed that cancer cells have abnormal metabolisms and produce the majority of their energy from glycolysis rather than oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos), even though the latter produces many more ATP. Usually glycolysis happens in the absence of oxygen, but what Warburg found is that cancerous cells rely on glycolysis even in the presence of oxygen, which is unusual. This is referred to the Warburg effect. Usually when oxygen is present, OxPhos is preferred vs glycolysis, since it produces far more energy. Warburg believed this was due to the Mitochondria being permanently damaged and the cell unable to undergo OxPhos.



Seyfried understands that Cancer research since the 1970s has been less than fruitful and seeks to revive the metabolic theory of cancer of Warburg, with added research since then. Seyfried is able to show that oncogenes are up or down regulated by the mitochondria in response to weakened respiration, flipping the relation of genes to cancer on its head.



The most damning evidence against the somatic mutation theory is by way of nuclear-cytoplasm transfer experiments. The nucleus of a cancerous cell can be transplanted into the cytoplasm from healthy cells and the cancerous cell no longer proliferates. Weird right? The mitochondria in the healthy cytoplasm bring the nucleus of the cancerous cell back to normal function.



In the final chapters he suggests therapies to treat cancer in light of the fact that cancer is a metabolic disease. The main ways being the Ketogenic Diet and the other being caloric restrictions. He mentions some other research drugs that inhibit glycolysis, but I'm not sure they're widely used. My only critique here is that I'd like to see more talk about metabolic __enhancers__ rather than just glycolysis inhibitors (like fasting, Keto, etc). What are things we can do to restore mitochondrial function? Why can't we restore cardiolipin saturation since we know it's important in different ETC complexes? Why don't we have therapies to enhance the ETC like methylene blue?



This book is quite complicated, so I'm not sure I'd suggest reading unless you're very passionate about the subject or do research in this area.