#30 - Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D.: Controversial discussion-cancer as a mitochondrial metabolic disease?
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 01. 2020
- Original release date: 11/26/18
In this episode, Thomas Seyfried, a cancer researcher and professor of biology at Boston College, discusses a controversial view of cancer as a mitochondrial metabolic disease. Many topics related to the causes, treatments, and prevention of cancer are covered in this in-depth conversation.
We discuss:
-How Tom got interested in cancer research [9:00];
-Calorie-restricted ketogenic diets, fasting, and epileptic seizures [18:30];
-Otto Warburg and the Warburg effect [30:45];
-Germline mutations, somatic mutations, and no mutations [42:00];
-Mitochondrial substrate level phosphorylation: Warburg’s missing link [51:30];
-What is the structural defect in the mitochondria in cancer? [1:02:00];
-Peter’s near-death experience with the insulin suppression test while in ketosis [1:06:30];
-Insulin potentiation therapy and glutamine inhibition [1:13:15];
-The macrophage fusion-hybrid theory of metastasis [1:39:30];
-How are cancer cells growth dysregulated without a mutation? [1:47:00];
-What is the dream clinical trial to test the hypothesis that we can reduce the death rates of cancer by 50%? [2:03:15];
-How can the hypothesis be tested rigorously that structural abnormalities in the mitochondria impair respiration and lead to compensatory fermentation? [2:26:30];
-Case studies of GBM survivors [2:32:45]; and
-More.
Show notes page: peterattiamd.com/tomseyfried/
About:
The Peter Attia Drive is a weekly, ultra-deep-dive podcast focusing on maximizing health, longevity, critical thinking…and a few other things. With over 10 million episodes downloaded, it features topics including fasting, ketosis, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, mental health, and much more.
Peter is the founder of Attia Medical, PC, a medical practice with offices in San Diego and New York City, focusing on the applied science of longevity. The practice applies nutritional biochemistry, exercise physiology, sleep physiology, techniques to increase distress tolerance, lipidology, pharmacology, and four-system endocrinology to increase lifespan (delaying the onset of chronic disease), while simultaneously improving healthspan (quality of life).
Learn more: peterattiamd.com/
Subscribe to receive exclusive subscriber-only content: peterattiamd.com/subscribe/
Sign up to receive Peter's email newsletter: peterattiamd.com/newsletter/
Connect with Peter on:
Facebook: bit.ly/PeterAttiaMDFB
Twitter: bit.ly/PeterAttiaMDTW
Instagram: bit.ly/PeterAttiaMDIG
Subscribe to The Drive:
Apple Podcast: bit.ly/TheDriveApplePodcasts
Overcast: bit.ly/TheDriveOvercast
Spotify: bit.ly/TheDriveSpotify
Google Play: bit.ly/TheDriveGooglePlay
My 80 years old brother was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in the pancreas in April 2023. I am a not practitioner MD and when I saw this professor's explaining the metabolic approach of cancer, it made perfectly sense to me. I suggested my brother NOT to take radio nor chemotherapy and follow LCHF diet + turmeric + berberine. In August 2023 he took a new PET and the cancer was gone. His doctor couldn't believe the result of the control PET and ordered to review the biopsy from April believing there was a mistake in the biopsy report and that it has not been a Ca, but a pancreatitis. The review of the biopsy confirmed it was an adenocarcinoma. Many many thanks Dr. Seyfried 🙏
How much Tumeric would he take every day?
WAOW! Congrats to you and your brother. I don’t know anyone with cancer, but I’m happy to know this was a success without the use of poisons.
Thank you for sharing that encouraging experience.
Wow!
Attia interrupting and arguing with the explanation is frustrating. If Attia thinks he knows what Seyfried is going to say before he finishes his sentence (and interrupts him), those of us listening do not. If Attia is going to debate because he wants to advocate for traditional methods of diagnosis and treatment, then at least let Seyfried finish his explanation and then voice his concerns. And then the listeners can decide for themselves without hearing the argumentative persuasion and expressed fear of Attia. That’s exactly what most physicians do…. “Whoa. Do you want to die? This is how we do it. Don’t question it.” So thankful for Dr. Seyfried and doing this research. 🙏🏼
Very interesting Peter. I don't agree with you that Professor Seyfried is arguing for a fifth branch of cancer therapy. He is saying there are NON TOXIC therapies that should be implemented FIRST. It was my impression he thinks surgery to be of value, but chemo and radiation are not. If his therapies were just another discipline - how would a patient navigate the system - most are absolutely ignorant of all therapies and can easily be led down the toxic road. It was a great discussion - one that I will listen to again and recommend to others. I like your pushback and I love that Seyfried pushed right back. As a student of how to survive stage 4 cancer I found it of value.
But that doesn't make money, and poo poos a half century of trash and mainstream nutrition science.
But what if surgery isn’t an option with your stage 4 cancer, then would you go for the chemo?
@@yournamehere6939 it becomes an option as the suggested treatment by Seyfried makes the tumors smaller, and more visible.
As a layperson I listened to the entire podcast, I enjoyed being challenged. I also enjoyed and suggest Dr Seyfried’s interview with Dr Eric Berg.🌻
I agreed with most of what Dr Seyfried said except that most oncologists would not treat without a tissue diagnosis, thus biopsy. If radiology detects a 1 cm nodule in the breast, the next logical step is to get a biopsy in order to determine whether it’s fibroadenoma or carcinoma. Making such a statement about tissue biopsy is not being realistic.
The host's position towards cancer being a metabolic disease demonstrates physicians are so hard wired to their traditional training. As a 5-year cancer survivor who went through the standard care, I really appreciate how much work these people like Dr Thomas Seyfried and other scientists have done against all odds for humanity. If I were informed of this metabolic therapy by my oncologist when I was diagnosed with cancer 5 years ago, I think I would have made an informed decision instead of just going through the standard care blindly. Now that I have learned a little more about this disease from a patient's perspective, in order to manage my cancer after the surgery and radiotherapy 5 years ago, I came off the subsequent long term medication and been on KD and monthly water fasting for thetaptic ketosis as well as managing stress which I feel the right decision to take control of my own health.
You make a good point to Blanche, that cancer isn't a disease that is typically cured. You get it and it is always lurking in the background the rest of your life. Not like a virus you cure. Stay vigilant! 👍
Yeah you are right. 90% of MD's are absolut morons imo. Seyfried is a biochemist that's the difference....
I had the same feeling, also on another interview, that time to Dr Attia directly. But here towards the end of the podcast he wraps it up in the same way as I would: it is immaterial whether cancer needs a definition of this kind, as it is a complex multi factorial and multifaceted disease, with so many aspects that can well be considered for any approach needed. In other words, I can say basically all conditions are metabolic, genetic, immunologic etc, since we might well trace and find factors of each of these aspects in any given disease.
I agree. Peter is a little stuck on medicine 2.0. Seems like he’s having a hard time breaking out of the matrix with his rigid training as a mainstream MD. It’s clear that mutations are downstream affects, not the primary drivers of cancer! So why are we still treating it as a genetic disease? Follow the money. Trillion dollar industries don’t want you to know that good food can heal you!!
@@kyonjannisso why does seyfried’s cause only lead to cancer?
Wow -- at the end of this interview it was like Peter Attia didn't hear a WORD of what Professor Seyfried said? Keep working Professor Seyfried -keep telling the truth about cancer. There is definitely something up with Attia.
Kathleen...ABSOLUTELY!!!
Agreed!!!
Attia is PAID as a clueless conventional MD, with NO RESULTS and with zero knowledge of the Biology on this disease. He still thinks immune therapies are the way to go LOL. The fancy failure drugs.
He's so arrogant for nothing, with ZERO knowledge. Talks alot, pretends he's following Seyfrieds convo, but sounds like the student, lol.
All talk - NO DO.
Instead of jumping on this, from a 75 year old phd biologist whos put in the years of hard work, and picked up the science from Otto Warburg and found the missing link to what feeds this disease (Glutamine), and he's teaching medical students, along with the support of a full medical team proving these facts, to get this valuable knowledge spread , Attia is giving Seyfried advice, lol. What a nittwit.
For someone who's experienced the death of a loved one from a brain tumour, maybe he should Zip it, grab a note pad, and learn something. But noooooo, his pay cheque is too valuable. Lol.
Pisses me off when we've lost a lot of loved ones to this disease and yet we get another cocky blind MD with no results and lacking education imply its not credible .
Go jump in the lake ATTIA!!!
Thank you for saying something up front. I won't bother listening to this episode of the podcast. I'm familiar with Dr Seyfried and his work is brilliant. I don't want to sit here and listen to Peter not getting it, I would just find it frustrating. Unfortunately it also casts aspersions on Peter's work in general. The fact that he is unwilling to listen to Dr Seyfried and can't absorb what is being said or review the evidence fairly is a significant mark against him. I also think he should show respect and refer to him as Dr Seyfried rather than just "Tom."
@@HAL-1984 I agree with you but people can know each other online and consider themselves friends without having met in person.
I think Tom needs some guidance to progress this Attia is right actually it's perhaps a case of not being able to see the wood for the trees.
Dr. Seyfried makes a very strong case for the Metabolic Model....and it's clear to me that a MAJOR paradigm shift is ABSOLUTELY essential today...to rid us of the "curse" of cancer...and of the "Cancer Establishment!!!" BTW...I found it very unfortunate that the host seemed to feel the need to be confrontational/contentious...and to insist that we use both "approaches," when there is plenty of evidence today that the SMT approach is an irrelevant/obsolete one.
Dr. T.C.Halle
Los Angeles
Agreed!! Attia is clueless. Paid to talk, but no walk. Lol.
So I’ve watched this twice thus far. Seyfried took Peter to school on this one no doubt about it. I hear so much doubt in Peters voice and attitude. I am no scientist, doctor or scholar by any measure but I believe what Thomas is teaching is an absolute revelation, epiphany, revolutionary idea that could bring healing to so many. Man’s greed is only thing keeping this from going forward. There is no money to be made from metabolic therapy.
Dr Seyfried is taking the oncology world to school.
THANK YOU !!! DR. THOMAS SEYFRIED (Boston College Biology Dept.) ✨
The “Press Pulse” Cancer Treatment Protocol is saving so many lives all around the World !! This paradigm shift is taking time .. but at some point the continued documented “Success and Results” .. will speak for themselves.
Peter's main objective was to challenge the Professor, thats why it turned out sounding like an interrogation. Fortunately the Professor's level of knowledge is too deep for the interviewer.
Bring him back, an individual following his techniques has been alive for over 7 years with gbm.
Peter seemed to not get some of the point but it was worth a listen to hear Dr. Seyfried.
I missed this one. I’m glad I found it. The fact that this great man is “curing” cancer gives me hope for humanity. The fact that this information is often suppressed, is criminal and evil.
If this information was being suppressed, it wouldn’t be on CZcams (and PubMed).
@DennisBolanos In the least it (and the substantiating data) certainly isn't being acknowledged by the field of oncology.
Just so rude and aggressive from Dr Attia. Hard to listen to, attacking his distiguished guest. An interview, including "push back" should not dusturb the listener trying to absorb the information. This one did. Very disappointed in Dr Attia. Learn some manners. Kudos to Dr Seyfried, thank you for your thoughtful information. And forebearance.
Peter Attia on a new Podcast every day. Dr Siegfried in his lab. PA would be the last oncologist I would want to sse.
I used Dr. Sseyfried's approach to control my metastised prostate cancer. I reduced my psa 50% in less than 3 months. I'm now trying to optimize my treatment because being in continuous theropetic ketosis is not practical.
Good luck Gary - my partner is about to go down this route. Not sure if you're in the UK? If so, there's easy access to HBOT.
check out dr longis fasting mimicking diet. Its sold by "Prolon". its pricey, but i could fast 5 days with it a WHOLE lot easier than a five day fast wothout it.
You got this!
Get a hold of "learn to starve cancer" by Jane McLelland. lots of good applications, along with a knowledge of keto and nutrition. 1st rate book-
how are you doing today? all the best!
Suzannah were you able to get HBOT on NHS here in the UK?
Five years on, has there / will there be a followup podcast with Thomas Seyfried? Keen to learn of the Metabolic Therapy progress. Thank you.
No follow up here, but I have been following him on various other podcasts during the last few years and the poor guy is sounding more and more exasperated with each one.
Docuseries in 2022: Cancerevolution by Brad & Maggie Jones
There was a fairly recent one of Dr Sayfried with Dr Chaffee
@@x.y.7385 Found it. Jan
‘23. Forgotten I’d already played this one. Thanks again
I know a guy still alive after GBM diagnosis, 8+ years or more. He smoked like a chimney. Went to Sweden, had a Neurosurgeon administer Stem Cell/ Exosomes therapy. I believe it came back 2 x in these years, and he repeated the therapy in Sweden. Still here. Fort Lauderdale. If science doesnt open their minds and accept other protocols in cancer, its a crime against humanity. Standard of medicine is failing. We need outliers who think and try new approaches. Help them make this happen.
please contact of surgeon in SWeden. I have GBM
Tom Seyfried helped me to save my life !!!
I've seen your story guy and it's very inspiring. I'm glad your still here.
You’re wrong to say there is no evidence to back up the claims about the danger of biopsies. I argued the same point with my ignorant oncologist. My tumour went from 2.5cm to 7.5cm within days of a needle biopsy. Same happened to other friends and patients I have spoken to.
That was my experience also - my cancer grew surprisingly fast after a biopsy. First I was inadequately anesthésized and a punch biopsy performed that was excruciatingly painful. They had to do again. My 1.3 millimeter cancer went to 3.5 upon surgery and in a sentinel node.
Never let them do a biopsy. Always tell the surgeon that you want a full resection of the mass, to include a safe margin of normal tissue as possible. Sometimes they can only do what they can do though. Taking a few millimetres of normal tissue( I.e. a margin over and above the mass that is targeted as the problem) may result in keeping the problem in one place. Biopsies often cause spread of the problem. Always ask to be under the care of head of department. X
Stop it Peter. You are rudely and unnecessarily interrupting the doctor. You are a kind of behaving like you are a big shot.
Theres a difference between pushing back, and messing up an interview....
Thumbs up to Seyfried! Thank you sir for questioning the paradigm while offering a viable solution. The ever growing cancer center machinery won’t be able to sustain profits with fasting and keto diets. You asked the clinician for help in getting the word out and he dumped on you. His years of regimented dogma training won’t allow self thought.
At 38:55 'Once you start doing culture work, you are taking cells from a tissue and separating them, and growing them as if they were microorganisms in a culture dish. Well this changes everything - they're no longer connected to each other. They are growing in some artificial fluid and they're doing things that they sometimes do and sometimes not do in the real world. So you make a lot of assumptions about things based on a system that itself is artificial'
Fund Thomas Seyfried ! ! ! NOW
This Attia fellow seems a little unnecessarily obtuse in the face of such an intellectually talented individual. What a pity the host was so belligerent and unpleasant, inquisitorial and aggressive particularly toward the end. He is not the most receptive human being I have ever heard speak. Perhaps he was a little intimidated by his Scientific guest . Merely following already elucidated biochemical pathways is not intellectually demanding. However, challenging orthodoxy with evidence in this time requires courage as well as intellectual rigour. I am afraid that this host was out of his depth. Better seek out the Prof elsewhere on a more open platform with a more thoughtful host as he has much knowledge to impart.
At 1:15:26 'how do you shut the door on glutamine? "for the glutamine door you have to use drugs. and the best drug we've found is DON" '
6-diazo-5-oxo-L-norleucine (DON)
I did this for my nephew with MS.
Metabolic therapy, CBD+THC and lion’s Mane.
No meds, 4 years completely normal, MRI it’s almost perfect.
What is THC please?
@@zebscircle tetra-Hydro-Cannabinol
@@julio-iz3sk Thank You! ☮💝
MS is mercury poisoning from amalgams mostly. Check out cutler chelation.
THC and CBD both kill cancers to, by apoptosis, Cancer patients need to be told of these things, cut of the energy source = Keto, Tumeric, Berberin, Cause apoptosis = Cannabis Extracts!
If you have ever entered a hospital for more than a couple of days, then you know there is NO Hippocratic oath. Do No Harm has been replaced by legal liability policies that don't care about the patient as much as the regimen to create billing & constant loss of sleep w/ interruptions every hour like torture. Who in there right mind would authorize physical therapy at 4 am for a cancer patient & never let him sleep for two weeks? FREE
I also believe the standard of care has to change into a quite different paradigm. HOWEVER, Peter's advice, as a strategy, is quite wise. Don't pick that fight... just facilitate for new advocates (pull instead of push) to propose/demand having another branch of oncology, like "metabolic oncology." Don't fight the other paradigms/branches of oncology. Just try to peacefully offer the alternative. Then, if your alternative seems to work better, the progress you are dreaming of now may actually happen. Awesome podcast. Thanks to both.
Cassiel, you hit the nail on the head. People are learning about cancer metabolism on their own and teaching doctors from the ground up. #CANCEREVOLUTION!
I would say Thomas is so correct and I remember reading that medical community was against the heart surgery! Medicine is so complacent and many people are dying that could live longer because of fear of loss of revenue!
Thanks for the interview...wondering if any update/ following up about the mentioned clinical study in Turkey? any publications so far , has been 4 years .. thank you .
Great talk and the repeated focus on biopsy is well appreciated! Thank you for uploading. I love the long, in depth talks about topics that really deserve it!
So Dr Attia where are the links you promised??? Only promoting you show?? You told him you would put links for donations??? Maybe I don’t see it and apologize if I’m wrong. Help please
The reason Peter can’t rap his head around it is that he refuses to accept the evidence.
Seyfried is just simply stating that Metabolic therapy should be looked at and taken seriously.
Dr Seyfried is on the money 👍🏻
The information density of this discussion is at NEUTRON star levels (units of information per second cubed). 😃👏👏👏PLEASE do an updated 2022 or 2023 discussion with Doc Seyfried on his latest breakthroughs etc.? THANK YOU bro. ✌️😀👌👍
This is de facto whistleblowing. Love this PhD!
I'd like to say, I am just so glad to be alive in this era of time when brilliant discussions like this can be offered to the public, to help the laypeople understand the complexity and expertise these people posses.
Thank you, Drs Attia and Seyfried.
Just to be clear, the studies (tumour specific) on surgery and biopsy actually being the leading causes of metastases are quite old and well known now...
In overseeing my daughters medical care for Choroid Plexus Carcinoma, (extremely rare malignant brain tumour ) I did 13 years of intensive research. One thing I learned was to avoid needle biopsy if at all possible, for the reasons Dr. Siefried states. A better option is to take out the tumour in one piece. “”En bloc” is the phrase used . If a margin of healthy tissue can be safely removed around the tumour during the procedure , this is beneficial also in attempting to prevent metastasis. Hope this helps. Great video gentleman . Thank you from UK. 🖖
Hi Dr Peter Attia, has there been any further progress or understanding on this topic and Professor Thomas’ work? Keen to get your current perspective on this. Thank you.
My solid tumour got rapidly inflammed then metastasized to a lymph node due to an overly aggressive needle biopsy. Pre-surgery I reduced the inflammation via 5 day fast and KD.
The intro told me everything about how the interview was going to go. Atia stated how he felt about his guest before he introduced him.
Dr. Attia's introduction is too low key-- an amazing discussion that shouldn't be missed. It's often too technical but I don't think you should pause---just listen and think. I was a bit disappointed with some of Dr. Attia's statements in the ending segment but that doesn't detract from the return of value for listening to it.
This guy surely get money for that. Otherwise you cannot utter such stupid stone age argument. In another page he insists that fasting would harm body. I am the one who was rescued by fasting from the last stage of cancer. When i hear such bold nonsenses, i get temper
Such great audio quality. I'm listening at 1.5 speed. I'll be thru this in 2/3 the time. You're a real professional!!!
This feels more of an interrogation rather than a discussion/debate/interview.
Informative clip and pretty obvious because it was due to Dr. Seyfried.
Why does Dr. Attia say “a lot of it won’t make sense”? To whom? Dr Seyfried makes PERFECT sense to me. ❤. I found Dr. Attia very condescending, whereas Dr. Seyfried is as clear as a blue sky on a summer day.
Seyfried schooled him, Attia and countless others can’t go back on the failed (somatic) theory
I have lost all respect for Dr Attia! He should be screaming from the rooftops that cancer is not a genetic disease but a metabolic disease of the mitochondria!!!
The elephant in the room are the lawyers who see a jury money award if you pursue care outside the standard of care.
Peter is operating in cancer paradigm 2.0 during this interview while Thomas is in paradigm 3.0. Thats what made this very difficult.
Thomas is using the cancer reverting to single cell organism model.
Peter is using the gene mutation theory.
Agreed. I just wrote a rant about this but didn't manage to say what you did in about 2 sentences. Thank God there are people like you, lol. Yes Peter is stuck in the gene centric paradigm. And I also see Peter as always trying to be on the popular front. He wants to position himself as part of the more populist.
Lewis Cantley and Craig Thompson both brilliant people believe that the change in behaviour is due in large part because of the biosynthetic requirements of proliferating cells. You need both and if the energy pathways are broke or ailing in overall function then the cells most effective method of energy creation is compromised. Hence the gradual shift from oxphos to aerobic glycolysis. Not sure why Peter needs to complicate matters other than to pretend he is so much smarter than everyone else.
I certainly got that impression!
It is a great idea to push the information out. Push it to cancer patients who then can choose to push this to their physicians. It is not alternative but addition to standard treatment.
In support of what Dr Seyfried is saying, there is a clinic in Hungary that has at least one case of success with glioblastoma with a nutritional therapy alone. And multiple successful cases of autoimmune and other diseases treated with nutritional therapy alone.
I was their patient in 2020 and they helped me get over Graves disease in 2 months with the same nutritional therapy. My endocrinologist said he had never had someone recover so fast.
You can read their case studies and articles online. That is Paleomedicina, Hungary. The calorie restriction and food choice limitations during the course of treatment are brutal but on the other side is health. There are many interviews on CZcams with one of their English speaking docs. Her name Zofia Clemens.
What were you allowed to eat?
@@wocket42 only red meat from 4 legged animals (beef, pastured pork, lamb, etc.), no chicken or fish, in 2 to 1 fat to protein ratio (ribeye is the perfect example); mandatory 400 grams of liver per week and some brain or bone marrow (don't remember the exact amount). And that was to be fit on 350 grams of food per day. No more. No supplements, no coffee, no toothpaste. Just my prescription thyroid medication that was followed very closely and adjusted weekly following blood work. Like I said, brutal but effective.
We have interviewed over 30 cancer patients that have used metabolic treatments. You can see what they did and hear them tell their stories first hand. And we're always looking for more! Just reach out!
Yes, the Hungary clinic Paleomedicina. We saw Dr. Zsófia Clemens present at the Keto Live conference in Switzerland. Her research is pretty impressive.
@@CANCEREVOLUTIONdoc Zsofia Clemens was my doctor in 2020.
Amazing Thomas Seyfried, share all your talks!!
Here is another one: James McCraw, www.beatingthecancer.com . Survivor of grade 4 Glioblastoma multiforms.
@@jackn8dx933 site cannot be reached for whatever reason
Every MD has a financial conflict of interest. Its never acknowledged.
The financial conflict of interest in medicine is the same mechanism that will never allow it to truly progress. The guards will always guard the prison that pays them.
I have no doubt Drs are well intentioned. But they don’t independently make any decisions on ANYONES care. They all follow a broken standard, written by someone they dont even know way up the ladder. At the top of the ladder… they worry about profitability. You may not like it… but medicine is a business first and about people second. Look at the facts. People have never been sicker and healthcare profits have never been bigger. When you look at this institution for what it is… A BUSINESS…. It will make more sense to you, regardless of your belief system.
I wonder how many Drs even bother to ask the question… who wrote my medical school curriculum?
The conflicts of interest and the incentive structure is completely the core of the problem in “medicine”. Seyfried attempts to get to that core, but its “complex”
At the core of complexity is fraud in every institution. Whether you acknowledge it or not makes no difference
At 57:11 'Do you think there's a better explanation for why these hypotheses are not being investigated with the rigor that maybe they should be? "Well you have to look at the discipline of the individuals that are working on the project. So most of the people doing cancer research are molecular biologists..they have that perspective on the nature of the problem. So you don't look at respiration directly, you look at gene expression profiles that may be directly or indirectly related to that, and then you make claims about what's going on. So most of the people are of a discipline that says that genes are changed and not looking at the actual consumption of oxygen..production of lactic acid..then you have a very different explanation for what's happening" '
Nice. Well said
AMEN!!!!!!!
why is Peter Attia defensive? He just doesn't like Dr. Sefried! Peter is probably feeling inadequate in the discussion.
I did have a friend survive glioblastoma for 18 years. He did radiation and dietary changes. What took his life was the damage done to his brain from the radiation. But, 18 years, that’s unheard of.
But he was a living vegetable 🥒🍆
Thank you Peter for your thoughtful approach to this podcast in explaining what we know about cancer and what the future of cancer treatment may look like. I am hopeful Dr. Seyfried will be successful in proving the metabolic theory of cancer treatment.
So very much agree - instead of arguing what kind of disease it is, the effort should be focused on getting /recording data.
What erks me is that Peter's tittle. Peter would rather have Lewis Cantley or Craig Thompson on because they are closer to conventional wisdom and both popular figures in the cancer research world. Peter is all about his pals and who he hangs with.
I love how Peter pushes back on Seyfried about what essentially boils down to the structure equals function debate. Glossed over by Peter because he has to pay homage to his pals that have different explanations. Let's be clear STRUCTURE = FUNCTION. this is not controversial. The organelles when damaged can NOT respire properly. When this hits a certain threshold of over all decline because of the damaged mitochondrial structures (membranes, proteins) the cell begins it transformation towards cancer. That is because structure = function. Peter can try and use arguments about how to quantify the dis morphological mitochondria and tell us that it doesn't mean the mitochondria are damaged or damaged to a point that they can't function properly. But to what end?
There should be controversy here. The damaged cell that can not respire properly and didn't manage to kill itself divests much of its higher order features so that it can revert back to a time where proliferation / growth were in fashion. Stem cells, blasts etc exemplify this best. These are cells that are highly proliferative and resemble cancer cells best.
There is nothing controversial here.
Let's talk about Lewis Cantley and why Peter seems to lean towards Cantleys camp. 1)he is a popular figure in the cancer biology world. 2)he can push aside Warburg or at least take the more mainstream view that all this is because the cell requires building blocks. Both can exist and do for good reason. Of course biosynthetic pathways are up regulated. There is no sense creating energy for a proliferating cell if you can't provide it with the building blocks it requires.
Both are critical and both are greatly significantly up regulated.
The neurologist,medical oncologist are all in cohoots together and share the same beliefs in standard care. All want is follow standards of care, surgery, radiation, anti-androgen drugs. I was diagnosed for prostate cancer. The neurologist wanted to proceed with a biopsy without a MRI. I said I wanted it before that. He then took it personally and said I didn’t believe in his professional opinion. So I didn’t go back to him and continue to look more into what Prostate cancer. I went back and asked if a second PSA test and it had went down to half what it was. Keep in mind I had changed my diet and I told him this. So he then requested the MRI at my insistence. The results came back and he said in a cold way it is just as he thought. He said it is cancer. He gave me a copy of report. I requested a PET/CT scan because I wanted active surveillance. He agreed but said I shouldn’t beat long to get Biopsy. Those results came back and he said it is still cancer. But not as bad as he had seen on MRI. Then I proceeded to with Biopsy. I had biopsy and the results came back. He then said it is definitely cancer. He recommended radiation and sent me to consult with a radiologist. The radiologist explained the treatment. Oh, this doctor had also said it had spread to the lymph nodes. The radiologist explained the treatments and recommended I see a medical oncologist since I have so many questions and don’t want to radiation. He recommended I see a medical urologist. I made and appointment and saw someone in the oncologist department that was also a urologist. He had ordered my records and did see anything in my lymph nodes but I will still need radiation but may not need anti-androgen. He explained proton and prothon radiation. I went there to learn difference between proton beam and regular radiation and he explained. He then scheduled me with medical oncologist that can answer more questions I may have and will reschedule me again because He said my insurance may not cover proton beam radiation. he said they will see if they would pay it. He said it could be an out of pocket expense. The story continues because I am not taking these drugs with all the side effects including raising glucose and can cause heart problems, hot flashes and all this crazy stuff. They want to also feminize me. This is crazy.
Any similarity with what is faced by a group of medical practitioners with the use of Ivermectin during the Covid epidemic?
It appears that not only does structure dictate function in the world of biology but it also applies to our corrupted medical hierarchy world.....
This is the most informative post cast I have listened. I like to ask Dr. Seyfried if there is ongoing trial for metabolic treatment for stage 4 breast cancer in Florida?
Ignoring that which doesn't support the current "standard of care" is what is taking place at this moment, and that is an abomination! I think it isn't merely a religious belief in "standard of care," I think it is a matter of profits. We need to look at who is saying, "Don't mess with my medical profits."
This is the best interview on this subject I've heard.. I'm glad Peter is disagreeable and challenges Thomas Seyfried views...Seyfried answered every question so eloquently, but the last point Peter made about Seyfreid arguing for a 5th way isn't what he was saying at all.. hes saying the other methods such as chemo/radiation are proven to be ineffective and should be stopped.
BALONEY. The interviewer seemed clueless...and didn't really listen to what Seyfried had to say.
This was Fabulous! Thank you Dr. Attia. I would love to hear Dr. Attia and Seyfried's thoughts on Rife therapy.
Great dialogue. We should all welcome constructive push-back which was demonstrated feature of this podcast.
They want the standard of care first because that is where the financial interest lies, change the financial interest and all will turn on a dime.
My cousin had a mammogram in 2019, the doctor took a biopsy and said she had a pre-cancer cell, and had the cancer removed, shockingly In the last month she has been diagnosed with lung cancer, and the cancer spread to her hip and chin causing a very painful Trigeminal Neuralgia. Her first symptom was in May a nerve pain to her face, lip and tongue and a severe headache.
It's hard but doc seyfried has knowledge of trials going on... Email him at Boston University, and see if you can get a response.
My prayers go out to her.
Yeah that can happen of the macrophages.... Sorry to hear that....
She past away in April 2022. My childhood cousin.
2:28:35 It's $imple, Pete. What would happen if everyone just $topped doing the one metobolic thing that this guy is saying causal. It's not that people are acting 'in bad faith', it's just that we are so surrounded by and normalized to the cause. It's like the doctors smoking cigarettes during their lunch breaks discussing how baffled the medical community is at the rise in lung cancer. In hindsight, this is going to look similarly obvious, but it's not some giant scheme being controlled by some bad actors it's just so hard to believe something when you are in it.
Edit: the reason he is putting his foot down and not saying it is 'somewhere in the middle' is because that would be LYING, Peter. You can only do the 'above the fray' thing so much before you start causing the same sort of confusion that got us here to begin with. I understand your a celeb doctor now and personally have to cast a wide net amongst some big egos, but the last thing those who are sick need is a 'fair and balanced' discussion with more 'jury's still out' conclusions.
Thanks for uploading on CZcams, love you Peter!
I'm grateful that this doctor is brave enough to upload this. I noticed that when Dr. Syefried asked him what he suggested, he said he'd rather do it over a scotch (away from the public ear). I can't blame him. We who aren't in the medical community, are very aware that there's a medical MAFIA, and let's not pretend there isn't.
There are many naturopathic clinics throughout the USA giving vitamin C and ozone along with a low carb diet, in addition to Ipt
Wasn’t this purportedly about Dr. Seyfried? So quit interrupting! Who cares about Attila’s personal opinions?
Peter seems very arrogant
He is. He had much to learn.
Interesting how interesting thank you Dr. Attia for having invited Dr Seyfried... Must wait to have 3 free hours to listen... Will be surely a great pleasure...
I did have these 3 hours, never listened with more passion - with a lot of pauses and helps of wikipedia
(my brother died 2016 with metastasis).
the support from patients refusing radiation and chemo ? My feeling is that this refusal gets far more common than before... We have now another attitude towards physicians and towards death...
Standard care scientists: There is no scientific evidence
New therapy advocates: let’s try this alternative method
Standard care scientists: you can’t do that because it doesn’t fit the standard of care protocols
🤨
Yep..."circular reasoning!!"
Diagnosed Stage 2B cervical cancer in 2003. I received aggressive radiation and brachy therapy. Without this treatment I would not be here today. Of course with such aggressive treatment I will forever have side effects. I was blessed to be in the very capable hands of my radiation oncologist and thank him til this day for saving my life.
Plants also do cellular respiration ... Peter: "I didn't realise that" - humility appreciated. Goodness though, what an admission.
I knew that and I’m a simple person!
GBM is fatal, why can’t the patient choose to try this? Don’t they have the right to try?
Of course you can try it.
This podcast is fascinating and gives hope to many hopeless people. This episode is now 4 years old and I wonder if there’s been a more recent one with Dr Seyfried that hopefully contains more new info, evidence and definite advice for cancer patiens.
Fantastic episode, irrespective of the disagreements on advice irrespective of agreeing on its merits
I had been hoping for an interview between Peter Attia and Thomas Seyfried for ages, then I found this from 4 years ago! Well ahead of the pack.
Does anyone know how I can reach Dr. Seyfried. I would like to invite him to speak to our annual Functional Medicine Workshop, where over 1500 MDs would receive his perspective on cancer.
Why can't you just call him at Boston College???
@@tlebryk EXACTLY my thought.
Complicated but nutrition is a big lever!!
S'geht ab Göran.
At 42:55 'Do you have a sense of what amount of human cancers arise from germline mutations rather than somatic mutations? Well they say it's about 5-6%'
Wherever you go you come back to evolutionary biology
Zenger's: One wouldn't expect the immune system to recognize a cancer cell because it's self.
Dr. Stefan Lanka: That's it. We have a lot of embryonic cells in our body all over. Those are the stem cells. When the nerve cells have got broken, new nerve cells may regenerate out of the embryonic cells, because those cells cannot be regenerated. So we have embryonic tissues everywhere, and here comes evolutionary biology.
Now I have to tell you the basis of our lives. The fermentation process was not producing enough energy to form multicellular organisms or to enable the cell to differentiate. Bacterial cells are not differentiated, not able to build multicellular organisms because they don't have enough energy. Only the invention of photosynthesis -- using the energy of the sun to split down matter in order to get electrons -- allowed life to go on. Life is driven by the force of electrons, and with photosynthesis the electrons came out of the splitting of the water, and the base product was oxygen.
This photosynthesis was so successful that it polluted the whole planet. The water, and eventually the atmosphere, became saturated with oxygen. Only when bacteria began to learn to use oxygen to produce much more energy out of organic material, out of a sugar molecule, did we have the next step in evolution. Life dealt with the oxygen catastrophe, and since then we have had a perfect equilibrium of oxygen-producing bacteria and oxygen-using bacteria, so that they keep the atmosphere at a constant level of 20 percent oxygen. This is exactly the level at which life is able to persist. At a lower level, or a higher level, it is impossible. We are living in the equilibrium. That's the principle of Gaia, by the way.
Those bacteria which learned to use oxygen were able to produce 20 to 30 times more energy per sugar molecule, because the oxygen at the end was sucking so many electrons that many more electrons could be taken out of the sugar, to produce much more energy than was possible without the potent oxidative substance at the end of the energy-producing chain. This revolution in energy formation was the basis for all higher cells and all higher organisms. Of course, with this excess of energy, cells could eventually differentiate and form multicellular organisms. And these bacteria, which sere using the oxygen, are part of every one of our cells, called mitochondria. So very higher cell is a product of the fusion of several different kinds of bacteria: the spirochetes, which brought mobility into life; and the mitochondria, which produced much more energy than before.
This excess energy is the basis of all higher life, and if you violate it -- if you don't let the oxygen come into the organism; if the blood is oxidized by poppers [nitrites] or sulfinamides [including sulfa drugs like Bactrim and Septra]; or if the transit way between the blood and the cells is poisoned by heavy metals, or the lack of essential fatty acids; or when the mitochondria are destroyed in the cells, due to the lack of nutrition, or antibiotics -- the oxygen cannot be transported from the blood to the cells. Then the cell is not able to produce enough energy. It either may die, resulting in inflammation; or when it's possible for a cell to survive, it will become cancerous. When the cell is producing only fermentation, then that's cancer, as Otto Warburg already detected in the 1940's.
They knew from the very beginning that cancer cells have only embryonic markers on their surface. From a biological, evolutionary point of view it makes sense that a cancer cell is a reduction to an embryonic stage. It de-differentiates due to the lack of energy, and it waits until the lack of energy is over in order to differentiate again. Of course, if the lack of energy persists, it loses genetic material; and these were the old criteria to define cancer, when cells lost a lot of genetic material, because then they lost the ability to differentiate again.
Zenger's: In other words, cancer occurs when the cell is programmed to behave like a cell very early in fetal development and just divide like crazy.
Dr. Lanka: That's it. An embryonic cell goes into a unicellular state. It behaves like a unicellular organism, like a bacterium. It loses the ability to stop replication when coming into contact with other cells. So knowing about evolutionary biology, you are able to explain everything.
In order to explain failure to find a retrovirus that directly caused cancer, they claimed to be able to measure the immune system. But this is ridiculous. In the Journal of the American Medical Association, August 28, 1981, it was published that it makes no sense to measure lymphocytes in the blood because only a few of them are in the blood. The immune system is carried out, not in the blood, but in the tissues. Only rarely and accidentally do we see some of them in the blood. We've already carried out thousands of studies which have proven no correlation between disease or health, in old or young, in T-cells; and even less, of course, in T-cell subsets.
But, even though they knew that these T-cell tests had not meaning, they were selling them to the market. Beginning in 1977, starting in the United States, it was possible to patent biological entities or biological techniques, so people started to make money out of biological ideas.
This is the definite turning point when modern medicine and modern biology lost their 'Unschuld', their innocence. That's it. The immune surveillance theory of cancer -- the belief that if you measure the strength of the immune system, then you could see when you are going to develop cancer -- was the basis of AIDS, the thinking about AIDS. They said if your immune functions are weak, you are going to develop all viral forms of opportunistic infections and all forms of cancer. And this never happened, as a matter of fact. In AIDS we never have seen opportunistic infections. We have never seen all viral forms of cancer; only one form of cancer, KS [Kaposi's sarcoma].
Thank you for this interview! I'm sharing the heck out of this interview and looking more into Dr. Seyfried's research..
I first met you at TED...what if we are wrong about diabetics? I imagine this metabolic approach may help with covid too.
A compelling analogy is that, just as cells need to signal to each other that it's okay to divide, they also signal to each other that it's okay to eat. Where does the second half come from in cancer cells? The protein created by AKT is part of a chain of signaling proteins that is mutated in up to 80 percent of all cancers. Craig Thompson, the president and chief executive of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, says that once these proteins go into overdrive, a cell no longer worries about signals from other cells to eat; it instead stuffs itself with glucose. Thompson discovered he could induce the “full Warburg effect” simply by placing an activated AKT protein into a normal cell.
James Watson too thinks cancer research is too gene-centric and thinks the promise of sequencing a patient's DNA as a way to extend life is "a cruel illusion," and that locating the genes that cause cancer has been “remarkably unhelpful.” "I never thought, until about two months ago, I’d ever have to learn the Krebs cycle. Now I realize I have to." If he were going into cancer research today, Watson says, he would study biochemistry rather than molecular biology.
I think part of Seyfried's PR problem is in the title: mitochondrial metabolic disease. Playing it like metabolism is _the_ etiology of cancer and all that has been learned of the genetics of unrestrained cell growth is secondary is very poor wording. Cell signaling and AKT are more pedagogically compelling objects of discussion. And explaining to Attia, "It's all Warburg's theory," or, "Baker pointed this out," isn't great salesmanship either, coming off as an evasive appeal to authority rather than extremely lazy teaching.
Seyfried has also said dubious things about the danger of biopsies; been slow to expand the animal models he would test on (varying mice, e.g.); made a painfully (to this statistician) erroneous conclusion at 2:00:56 from the annual cancer death rate growing faster than the diagnosis rate without acknowledging one lags the other, lifestyle changes could be tamping down the latter, the excellent progress that a breakout of data by cancer type makes obvious, and that the growth of the age group 65-74 is faster than both rates (); mischaracterized his own group's work as independent corroboration; and showed ignorance of the metastatic character of the glioma cells he used and the ability of cancer cells to digest ketones. So it's not surprising that he would have a hard time being taken seriously by the cancer establishment.
Sure, cancer cells can eat stuff other than glucose, including ketones, but jerking them around faster than they stochastically mutate the adaptation is a good strategy, and has gotten the attention of big names.
Sources:
Sam Apple (2015) NYT
Chad Macias of the Institute for Human Kinetics sigmanutrition.com/episode169/
American Cancer Society cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!%2F (see last graph for breakout)
Sorry, could you clarify one point, please? Is that correct that for a human to achieve ketosis you need to be either on a water only diet or a fat only diet but the latter is less restrictive and therefore more advised? I am translating this video for the family of a glioblastoma patient so I want to make sure I understand the basics. Thanks.
Yes, basically a water fast will be a quicker way to ketosis but to maintain ketosis a diet with very little carbohydrates, sugars will help you stay in ketosis, also keeping your stress levels low greatly helps also.
Ekaterina, this can be difficult and confusing, but please do more research. There are a lot of different kinds of ketogenic diets. Miriam Kalamian's book Keto for Cancer is a good place to start. The blog cancer v me also has some good resources.
@@CANCEREVOLUTIONdoc Unfortunately, we lost our friend to cancer last summer, but I'll share your resources in a dedicated social media group to help others. Thanks.
I found that Peter doesn't get what's the professor is trying to convey at the end. He demanded evidence of clinical trials that the method really effective. Dr. Seyfried clearly said, well yes the evidence can be made available as long as the people in the field give him permission to do that, and he even directly asked if Peter can be that person since he is in the field. Yet Peter's response is so roundabout and ask Seyfried to find other alternatives, what's going on!
He’s a scumbag that’s what’s going on.
Great vid / conversation. Thank you.
Why do interviewers ask questions but don’t permit a full answer?
Hi Peter, thank you for that interesting podcast. Would be great if you could discuss Thomas ideas again on your show!
awesome discussion
probably have to listen a couple more times to retain anything.
Amazing information and makes so much sense!!! The continued failure of "mainstream" medical community peddling insanely expensive drugs is mind blowing and yet they refuse to change. Even Peter Attia is having hard time accepting it. My sister survived stage 4 cancer by mixture of chemo to shrink the cancer and then after the cancer has shrunk the manageable size then they removed them.
At 43:33 'so if the inheritated mutation damages the respiratory system of the cell the probability of cancer is a real possibility'
I lost weight trying to think through what was being discussed in this podcast
hahahaha
Any follow-up to this podcast?
Please let Thomas
Seyfried speak more rather than cutting him off because we could learn more fro him. 2:39:20
Any opinions on turkey tail mushrooms?