It Turns Out Cancer Can Be Killed After All

The article author clearly doesn't understand enough physiology (or English grammar, usage, and spelling, for that matter) to be making any scientific conclusions.

For example, his theory that eating only fruits and vegetables starves the cancer of sugar is ludicrous. Dietary glucose and sucrose (half glucose, half fructose) occur naturally only in fruits and vegetables; many fruits are, in fact, quite high in sugar. (The way to starve one's system of sugar is with a ketogenic diet.)

Similarly, his claim that all cancer cells die at a temperature at which all healthy cells are safe (or at oxygenation levels that are safe for all healthy cells) is bogus. Hyperthermia treatments are directed at the tumor and at higher temperatures than he states. BTW, Lance Armstrong's hyperthermia therapy was to treat his testicular cancer, not win the Tour de France.

etc. etc.

That said, I'm all for exploring treatments outside the current Western burn/cut/irradiate paradigm... but beware of utter quackery. US medicine is largely constrained by what is FDA-approved (for better or worse), a constraint overseas providers are free of.

I'll bet the Tijuana clinics mentioned were also big laetrile pushers in the past... or even now.

His paranoia about a primary profit motive to chemo and surgery seems ludicrous -- if a patient can be cured with far cheaper chemicals and methods, why wouldn't the Western doctors use those and charge the patient the same higher rates and make more money?

*Technical note: some organs and tissues NEED glucose; even with no dietary carbohydrate, the body manufactures glucose out of proteins as needed via gluconeogenesis... so the body is never completely sugar-free.

Can anyone with relevant knowledge in this field comment on this? Are the treatments described in the article effective?

The way it is described sounds too good to be true.