The view from a different point is so enlightening. This broader viewpoint encompasses so much more as the body is a totality and not an island of unrelated events. It is the wonder and beauty of an organism that treats offenses to it protectively, not as something to be viewed as being flawed.
Thank you for this amazing article and interview. Most of what is related makes sense, and I do believe the body has the unique ability to heal itself. I write this sitting in a room at the Ronald McDonald House where my young grandson has undergone major surgery. No one, including us, knows how he got so sick. Healthy as a horse one day and then BAM! critically sick. He is a mystery and an anomaly. Every day I search for answers to help him (something I have done for the past 2 plus years without success) which is why I love your articles.
On another issue, my experience is the complete opposite of Dr. Cole. Twenty years ago,I took my family off a meat-based diet, and we had amazing results wherein our bodies responded with healing qualities similar to what was related. We became healthier.
Immediately. Back then the decision was more protest against the CAFOs.
Fast forward 20 years and Capitalism has raised its ugly head (it always interfers when there is money to be made) to capture and destroy most of the vegan market we grew to appreciate. As a result, we are moving to a more meat inclusive diet. I am going to re-read this wonderful interview. Thank you again.
Interesting article thank you for a different perspective on Cancer.
I read as much as I can about health and the one important thing most authors fail to mention is we are all different and unique. I think it's important for people to know themselves and base their diets on individual requirements. I can tell when my diet makes me feel good or bad and my cravings for a food are my bodies way of letting me know what I need. I appreciate your viewpoint and look forward to your updates.
When anyone tries to sell the one size fits all , they are just selling themselves. Our bodies know what it needs and our diets can change all the time. Paula, I totally agree that cravings are our bodies way to say what it needs. Our bodies are not static and are constantly seeking homeostasis.
I'm so sorry to hear about your grandson Lynn. Have you thought to look into vaccines? Has he had vaccines? I would research in this area quit heavily . This person did not mention vaccines at all in this article and they are highly toxic. Proteins can not be injected directly into the body along with heavy metals, and other toxic ingredients without dire consequences. Bless you!
Yes, we get results from a certain diet and then think that must mean that is the appropriate diet and find all kinds of reasons to reinforce that idea. What I think truly happens is two fold, 1 you start focusing on exactly what you’re putting in your mouth and thus eliminating a lot of junk and 2 a drastic change in diet does a reset on the body. I think the real food answer is to eat unpoisoned whole foods that your body currently likes, regardless of whether that is plant or animal.
I’ve been following Patrick Cole’s Substack recently, and think that TST explains what medicine doesn’t. In this interview he talks about copper being a toxin, but unlike iron, only mentions it as either plant sourced or from copper pipes, utensils, etc., not animal based such as organ meats. Copper is needed in the diet to balance iron. Both iron and copper only become toxic if from the wrong source or out of balance.
I respect the work of Unbecoming tremendously, and I also respect the work of people mentioned here. However, with all respect I have to individuals, this narrative describes firefighting after the fire, and the logic of "tumors are the second liver" is equivalent to "termites are remodeling my deck". Carnivore diets do not restore health. No restrictive diet is restoring health - these are symptom management approaches. And, of course, they can be helpful, but a person who has to stay on a restrictive diet to be functional is not healthy by definition. They are successfully managing the symptoms of their chronic condition.
As to tumors - whenever anyone talks about this, they forget that the #1 ingredient of the human body is WATER, which is 60%-80%+ of the body, depending on age and organ. Tumors are the result of localized stagnation of water in the cells where the tumors happened. The immediate reasons can be several, and the main ones are either physical or electrical, but they are inter-related.
The result of lowered zeta potential (we need on average >30-100mv negative charge, and increased acidity (cells need slightly alkaline conditions to extract the charge), and/or inflammatory responses which exacerbate the above, lower the WATER quality in that region where the tumor develops. Tumor is a SWAMP/STAGNANT pool of water vs normal healthy tissues are clear creeks and rivers. That's all there is to it. If you take a water from a healthy creek and compare it to a sample from a swampy pool you will see an identical to tumor "ecosystem" with the about the same differences in pH and charge/conductivity.
Swampy water is acidic and neutral to positive charge. Bogs have acidity levels of up to 3.5 pH. Bacteria that are "unhealthy" to human biome prefer those conditions, but they are not survivable to mammalian cells. The mammalian cells convert to fermentation rather than oxygen for energy extraction as a last ditch effort to save themselves in deteriorating water conditions. No, sugar in your diet did not cause this!!! It's simply because your cells have suffocating conditions because you were injected with something or taking some chronic medication that is creating these conditions. And most people start craving sugar and simple carbs only AFTER cellular injury/microbiome injury has set in.
Comparing these swampy conditions to a normal liver and calling it a "second liver" is rather foolish, IMO. It is a response of the body to some attack and problem and an attempt to heal by sequestering these unhealthy patches into some contained mass, of course. But it is definitely not a second liver. Again, I do not mean to attack anyone involved in these discussions, just pointing out that the logic of the person interviewed here is not great.
And of course he is not discussing any causes of these issues, which are - vaccines that destroy the healthy electrical charge in the body, cause short circuits and lead to the localized or generalized stagnation and swampiness of what should be a bubbling brook as God designed in perfection.
You changed to meat from what? Or did you add meat to your same diet? Saying you got better by eating it convinces me of nothing. It therefore calls into question the rest of the article. I am not saying any of it is wrong. The writing just has a Snake Oil start.
Tumors kill people all the time. That they have a function, does not suddenly make them 'beneficial'. And that they indicate there is something intrinsically wrong internally, is not news.
"Patrick is not the first to argue that tumors are protective rather than pathological. Thomas Cowan, in Cancer and the New Biology of Water, reaches the same conclusion from a different direction. Cowan builds on Otto Warburg, the Nobel laureate who documented that cancer cells shift from oxygen-based respiration to fermentation,..."
That cancer cells 'use fermentation' rather than respiration, doesn't suddenly make cancer cells beneficial either. In fact, this fact is the key to killing cancer cells; It explains why oxidative medicine, like Chlorine Dioxide, which pumps oxygen into tissue, kills cancer cells.
"...and argues that this shift is the cell’s intelligent survival response when its environment can no longer support normal metabolism."
Well hell, let the cancer cells die. What are you suggesting?
The tumor, for Cowan, is what the body produces when cells adapt to conditions that would otherwise kill them.
It is not news that tumors mean something is seriously wrong. That the body itself produces tumors, is no happier news than - that the body producing cancer cells. That Cowan is 'building on the work of Otto Warburg, is par for the course. He did the same with viruses - quoting what was the original work of Dr. Stefan Lanka in his Wissenschaft publications. Anything Cowen recommends as novel and good, does not mean it is; It's just his penchant for passing himself off as if at the 'cutting edge' of anything.
This entire premise needs to be taken with a grain of Sodium Chlorite.
I wonder why repeated vaccines are not mentioned as toxic overload because vaccines are a direct assault on the body organism and most likely the cause of most if not all cancer. Also what about Linus Pauling's use of IV ascorbic acid to cure cancer and other institutes that are seeing positive results (cure) with this. Ascorbic acid is water soluble. In Ayurvedic medicine they have known that tumors are a defense mechanism in the body and tumors should be left alone while healing through herbal remedies and lifestyle the tumors can then dissolve on their own.
Might you be able to provide any suggeted reading for this? I can, and probably will, look myself. Howewver if you recommend anything that is where I will start. Thanks for your hoped-for reply, whatever it is.
I’ve been researching vaccine damage and toxic ingredients for years and also alternative methods to health other than allopathic poison. You can read the many articles that Sasha Latypova has and one of the best in a broad area of knowledge. Also go to vaccine insert ingredients and look up the ingredients. Substack Dr. Mike Yeadon and Dr. Wojaks. Understand that allopathic medicine NEVER cures ever. It only masks the symptoms and the reason is still there. You have to read through the propaganda and research non biased sites that are not linked to pharma, hospitals etc etc … People that see benefits from outside the Medical criminal syndicate are always demonized. Lots of independent research is needed. Just know that when Rockefeller and the Carnegie Foundation took over all medicine… texts, schools, licensing , AMA, etc etc (all of it) in the early 1900s , Rockefeller said he was going to “market disease”. It’s about making you sick to pretend to make you well. Good Luck!!
Animals fed herbicides, pesticides, steroids, hormones, GMO corn, soy - wasting away in pens, unable to move even 5 inches in the entirety of their miserable lives, knee deep in their owns waste with painful festering sores and even broken bones is better than a strawberry spinach salad? Ok. You have a right to your opinion, but the "great minds think alike" comment is a deal breaker.
I think someone mentioned that staying away from CAFO animals worked or got better results. Big food wants to kill off small ranchers precisely because they raise pasture raised cows on what grows naturally in their pastures. That tells me they know that eating pasture raised animals is healthy and their war against cattle is really about forcing us to eat CAFO raised animals.
Very interesting article, but now I'm wondering how this cancer theory fits in with another interesting theory that cancer tumors are parasitic infections or nests of parasites that the body encapsulates to prevent harm to the body.
Could be. Some parasites use heavy metals as fuel or use them as biofilm. I follow the cancer is a parasitic infection crowd because I got an insight one day: what if parasites are symbiotic until they are not. What has changed in the terrain? So while I understand that people want to do a parasite cleanse, that may not be the best way to deal with 'too many parasites'.
Yes, it's true that parasites love heavy metals, as do Lyme spirochetes and likely other things. My Lyme disease, contracted 40 years ago, was horrendous until I had my mouthful of amalgam fillings removed along with my root canaled tooth. I was shocked how quickly I improved. So was I so sick because of Lyme or heavy metals? I dunno.
I would like to go back to the carnivore diet. I followed it rigorously for 2 1/2 years. I did have success on it, but there were drawbacks. Such as, my cortisol was so high that I couldn’t sleep, sometimes for days at a time. Your interview with Patrick Coles made me realize that there are some changes I could make that may alleviate some of the problems I experienced on the carnivore diet. I messaged Patrick, but have yet to receive a reply. While on the carnivore diet I eliminated all dairy. That may have been contraindicated, but I need some input from someone more knowledgeable about it than I. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Thank you
Really thoughtful conversation. Bringing together different perspectives often leads to richer discussions and encourages readers to think more critically about complex topics rather than relying on simple answers. At the same time, I think it’s important for us to remind ourselves that interviews are best viewed as opportunities to explore ideas rather than establish conclusions. Personal experience, expert opinion, and emerging hypotheses all contribute to meaningful dialogue, but they are most valuable when considered alongside the broader body of scientific evidence. Perhaps one of the most rewarding aspects of medicine and science is that progress often begins with asking better questions rather than claiming to have all the answers. Open, respectful discussions like this help foster curiosity, critical thinking, and a deeper appreciation for the complexity of human health. Thanks for sharing this insightful interview.
God! There are SO MANY theories of what cancer really is and how to address it. Royal Rife thought they were induced by microbes. Tuminello thought they were a fungus. Warburg had his approach. There have been many many more over the years.
Many of these theories have demonstrable methods of treatment, with some good results. This theory sounds cool, but again, does it truly explain everything about cancer? Does it account for everything?
Be careful, folks that live in the theoretical space - like this one - sounds like they have it all figured out. But when you are treating patients on the ground, in real time, you have to have a theory that delivers routinely. It's messy in the clinic. Theories sound all noble and brilliant - on paper.
Is the cure for cancer to go carnivore because it's so clean it allows the body to detox out and the cancer's self resolve? But how often does this theory actually work? In other words, if 100 cancer patients applied this approach faithfully, how many would be "cured."
Love the idea, also love that some have employed it to good effect. But I am going to put this in the next cool idea about cancer category. I don't treat a ton of cancer, but do have many patients who are looking for answers for their cancer.
There are likely some truths in this perspective, but I believe many of the other theories also have some truth and demonstrable efficacy. Some other theories are somewhat compatible with concepts of this theory, others not. But like so many other credible-seeming cancer approaches found on the internet, it likely has utility for some, but will be a bust for others. After 25 years in practice, I've learned to not get too swayed by the next new cancer theory. The work goes on.
The view from a different point is so enlightening. This broader viewpoint encompasses so much more as the body is a totality and not an island of unrelated events. It is the wonder and beauty of an organism that treats offenses to it protectively, not as something to be viewed as being flawed.
Thank you for this amazing article and interview. Most of what is related makes sense, and I do believe the body has the unique ability to heal itself. I write this sitting in a room at the Ronald McDonald House where my young grandson has undergone major surgery. No one, including us, knows how he got so sick. Healthy as a horse one day and then BAM! critically sick. He is a mystery and an anomaly. Every day I search for answers to help him (something I have done for the past 2 plus years without success) which is why I love your articles.
On another issue, my experience is the complete opposite of Dr. Cole. Twenty years ago,I took my family off a meat-based diet, and we had amazing results wherein our bodies responded with healing qualities similar to what was related. We became healthier.
Immediately. Back then the decision was more protest against the CAFOs.
Fast forward 20 years and Capitalism has raised its ugly head (it always interfers when there is money to be made) to capture and destroy most of the vegan market we grew to appreciate. As a result, we are moving to a more meat inclusive diet. I am going to re-read this wonderful interview. Thank you again.
I was a vegetarian for several decades. It served me well. As I got older, I moved back to an animal protein diet.
I suspect that life stages are also an important feature that we need to consider. Maybe?
Interesting article thank you for a different perspective on Cancer.
I read as much as I can about health and the one important thing most authors fail to mention is we are all different and unique. I think it's important for people to know themselves and base their diets on individual requirements. I can tell when my diet makes me feel good or bad and my cravings for a food are my bodies way of letting me know what I need. I appreciate your viewpoint and look forward to your updates.
When anyone tries to sell the one size fits all , they are just selling themselves. Our bodies know what it needs and our diets can change all the time. Paula, I totally agree that cravings are our bodies way to say what it needs. Our bodies are not static and are constantly seeking homeostasis.
Lately I have been craving beef. Perhaps I am deficient in zinc?
I'm so sorry to hear about your grandson Lynn. Have you thought to look into vaccines? Has he had vaccines? I would research in this area quit heavily . This person did not mention vaccines at all in this article and they are highly toxic. Proteins can not be injected directly into the body along with heavy metals, and other toxic ingredients without dire consequences. Bless you!
Zero vaccines. Totally organic. And he never had a fast-food meal. It is a complete mystery how he got so critically sick.
Such a heartbreak. I'm so sorry and send blessings.
Yes, we get results from a certain diet and then think that must mean that is the appropriate diet and find all kinds of reasons to reinforce that idea. What I think truly happens is two fold, 1 you start focusing on exactly what you’re putting in your mouth and thus eliminating a lot of junk and 2 a drastic change in diet does a reset on the body. I think the real food answer is to eat unpoisoned whole foods that your body currently likes, regardless of whether that is plant or animal.
I’ve been following Patrick Cole’s Substack recently, and think that TST explains what medicine doesn’t. In this interview he talks about copper being a toxin, but unlike iron, only mentions it as either plant sourced or from copper pipes, utensils, etc., not animal based such as organ meats. Copper is needed in the diet to balance iron. Both iron and copper only become toxic if from the wrong source or out of balance.
I respect the work of Unbecoming tremendously, and I also respect the work of people mentioned here. However, with all respect I have to individuals, this narrative describes firefighting after the fire, and the logic of "tumors are the second liver" is equivalent to "termites are remodeling my deck". Carnivore diets do not restore health. No restrictive diet is restoring health - these are symptom management approaches. And, of course, they can be helpful, but a person who has to stay on a restrictive diet to be functional is not healthy by definition. They are successfully managing the symptoms of their chronic condition.
As to tumors - whenever anyone talks about this, they forget that the #1 ingredient of the human body is WATER, which is 60%-80%+ of the body, depending on age and organ. Tumors are the result of localized stagnation of water in the cells where the tumors happened. The immediate reasons can be several, and the main ones are either physical or electrical, but they are inter-related.
The result of lowered zeta potential (we need on average >30-100mv negative charge, and increased acidity (cells need slightly alkaline conditions to extract the charge), and/or inflammatory responses which exacerbate the above, lower the WATER quality in that region where the tumor develops. Tumor is a SWAMP/STAGNANT pool of water vs normal healthy tissues are clear creeks and rivers. That's all there is to it. If you take a water from a healthy creek and compare it to a sample from a swampy pool you will see an identical to tumor "ecosystem" with the about the same differences in pH and charge/conductivity.
Swampy water is acidic and neutral to positive charge. Bogs have acidity levels of up to 3.5 pH. Bacteria that are "unhealthy" to human biome prefer those conditions, but they are not survivable to mammalian cells. The mammalian cells convert to fermentation rather than oxygen for energy extraction as a last ditch effort to save themselves in deteriorating water conditions. No, sugar in your diet did not cause this!!! It's simply because your cells have suffocating conditions because you were injected with something or taking some chronic medication that is creating these conditions. And most people start craving sugar and simple carbs only AFTER cellular injury/microbiome injury has set in.
Comparing these swampy conditions to a normal liver and calling it a "second liver" is rather foolish, IMO. It is a response of the body to some attack and problem and an attempt to heal by sequestering these unhealthy patches into some contained mass, of course. But it is definitely not a second liver. Again, I do not mean to attack anyone involved in these discussions, just pointing out that the logic of the person interviewed here is not great.
And of course he is not discussing any causes of these issues, which are - vaccines that destroy the healthy electrical charge in the body, cause short circuits and lead to the localized or generalized stagnation and swampiness of what should be a bubbling brook as God designed in perfection.
Thank you Sasha.
LOVED: "Termites are remodeling my deck."
Makes more sense to me than anything the modern stone age medical mafia has invented.
You changed to meat from what? Or did you add meat to your same diet? Saying you got better by eating it convinces me of nothing. It therefore calls into question the rest of the article. I am not saying any of it is wrong. The writing just has a Snake Oil start.
Absolutely! This is all snake oil garbage. Nothing in this article makes sense. That's just my view.
Tumors kill people all the time. That they have a function, does not suddenly make them 'beneficial'. And that they indicate there is something intrinsically wrong internally, is not news.
"Patrick is not the first to argue that tumors are protective rather than pathological. Thomas Cowan, in Cancer and the New Biology of Water, reaches the same conclusion from a different direction. Cowan builds on Otto Warburg, the Nobel laureate who documented that cancer cells shift from oxygen-based respiration to fermentation,..."
That cancer cells 'use fermentation' rather than respiration, doesn't suddenly make cancer cells beneficial either. In fact, this fact is the key to killing cancer cells; It explains why oxidative medicine, like Chlorine Dioxide, which pumps oxygen into tissue, kills cancer cells.
"...and argues that this shift is the cell’s intelligent survival response when its environment can no longer support normal metabolism."
Well hell, let the cancer cells die. What are you suggesting?
The tumor, for Cowan, is what the body produces when cells adapt to conditions that would otherwise kill them.
It is not news that tumors mean something is seriously wrong. That the body itself produces tumors, is no happier news than - that the body producing cancer cells. That Cowan is 'building on the work of Otto Warburg, is par for the course. He did the same with viruses - quoting what was the original work of Dr. Stefan Lanka in his Wissenschaft publications. Anything Cowen recommends as novel and good, does not mean it is; It's just his penchant for passing himself off as if at the 'cutting edge' of anything.
This entire premise needs to be taken with a grain of Sodium Chlorite.
I wonder why repeated vaccines are not mentioned as toxic overload because vaccines are a direct assault on the body organism and most likely the cause of most if not all cancer. Also what about Linus Pauling's use of IV ascorbic acid to cure cancer and other institutes that are seeing positive results (cure) with this. Ascorbic acid is water soluble. In Ayurvedic medicine they have known that tumors are a defense mechanism in the body and tumors should be left alone while healing through herbal remedies and lifestyle the tumors can then dissolve on their own.
Might you be able to provide any suggeted reading for this? I can, and probably will, look myself. Howewver if you recommend anything that is where I will start. Thanks for your hoped-for reply, whatever it is.
I’ve been researching vaccine damage and toxic ingredients for years and also alternative methods to health other than allopathic poison. You can read the many articles that Sasha Latypova has and one of the best in a broad area of knowledge. Also go to vaccine insert ingredients and look up the ingredients. Substack Dr. Mike Yeadon and Dr. Wojaks. Understand that allopathic medicine NEVER cures ever. It only masks the symptoms and the reason is still there. You have to read through the propaganda and research non biased sites that are not linked to pharma, hospitals etc etc … People that see benefits from outside the Medical criminal syndicate are always demonized. Lots of independent research is needed. Just know that when Rockefeller and the Carnegie Foundation took over all medicine… texts, schools, licensing , AMA, etc etc (all of it) in the early 1900s , Rockefeller said he was going to “market disease”. It’s about making you sick to pretend to make you well. Good Luck!!
Fascinating article. Thank you.
Animals fed herbicides, pesticides, steroids, hormones, GMO corn, soy - wasting away in pens, unable to move even 5 inches in the entirety of their miserable lives, knee deep in their owns waste with painful festering sores and even broken bones is better than a strawberry spinach salad? Ok. You have a right to your opinion, but the "great minds think alike" comment is a deal breaker.
I think someone mentioned that staying away from CAFO animals worked or got better results. Big food wants to kill off small ranchers precisely because they raise pasture raised cows on what grows naturally in their pastures. That tells me they know that eating pasture raised animals is healthy and their war against cattle is really about forcing us to eat CAFO raised animals.
Very interesting article, but now I'm wondering how this cancer theory fits in with another interesting theory that cancer tumors are parasitic infections or nests of parasites that the body encapsulates to prevent harm to the body.
What if they find paracites in tumors because that's where the toxins end up?
Could be. Some parasites use heavy metals as fuel or use them as biofilm. I follow the cancer is a parasitic infection crowd because I got an insight one day: what if parasites are symbiotic until they are not. What has changed in the terrain? So while I understand that people want to do a parasite cleanse, that may not be the best way to deal with 'too many parasites'.
Yes, it's true that parasites love heavy metals, as do Lyme spirochetes and likely other things. My Lyme disease, contracted 40 years ago, was horrendous until I had my mouthful of amalgam fillings removed along with my root canaled tooth. I was shocked how quickly I improved. So was I so sick because of Lyme or heavy metals? I dunno.
This information fits in with Dr Hamer's German New Medicine. Although he shows tumors responding to a shock to the psyche.
I would like to go back to the carnivore diet. I followed it rigorously for 2 1/2 years. I did have success on it, but there were drawbacks. Such as, my cortisol was so high that I couldn’t sleep, sometimes for days at a time. Your interview with Patrick Coles made me realize that there are some changes I could make that may alleviate some of the problems I experienced on the carnivore diet. I messaged Patrick, but have yet to receive a reply. While on the carnivore diet I eliminated all dairy. That may have been contraindicated, but I need some input from someone more knowledgeable about it than I. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Thank you
Thank you for this fascinating perspective.
Really thoughtful conversation. Bringing together different perspectives often leads to richer discussions and encourages readers to think more critically about complex topics rather than relying on simple answers. At the same time, I think it’s important for us to remind ourselves that interviews are best viewed as opportunities to explore ideas rather than establish conclusions. Personal experience, expert opinion, and emerging hypotheses all contribute to meaningful dialogue, but they are most valuable when considered alongside the broader body of scientific evidence. Perhaps one of the most rewarding aspects of medicine and science is that progress often begins with asking better questions rather than claiming to have all the answers. Open, respectful discussions like this help foster curiosity, critical thinking, and a deeper appreciation for the complexity of human health. Thanks for sharing this insightful interview.
God! There are SO MANY theories of what cancer really is and how to address it. Royal Rife thought they were induced by microbes. Tuminello thought they were a fungus. Warburg had his approach. There have been many many more over the years.
Many of these theories have demonstrable methods of treatment, with some good results. This theory sounds cool, but again, does it truly explain everything about cancer? Does it account for everything?
Be careful, folks that live in the theoretical space - like this one - sounds like they have it all figured out. But when you are treating patients on the ground, in real time, you have to have a theory that delivers routinely. It's messy in the clinic. Theories sound all noble and brilliant - on paper.
Is the cure for cancer to go carnivore because it's so clean it allows the body to detox out and the cancer's self resolve? But how often does this theory actually work? In other words, if 100 cancer patients applied this approach faithfully, how many would be "cured."
Love the idea, also love that some have employed it to good effect. But I am going to put this in the next cool idea about cancer category. I don't treat a ton of cancer, but do have many patients who are looking for answers for their cancer.
There are likely some truths in this perspective, but I believe many of the other theories also have some truth and demonstrable efficacy. Some other theories are somewhat compatible with concepts of this theory, others not. But like so many other credible-seeming cancer approaches found on the internet, it likely has utility for some, but will be a bust for others. After 25 years in practice, I've learned to not get too swayed by the next new cancer theory. The work goes on.