Gregory S. Bambeck Ph.D. and Michael Wolfson J. D., M.B.A 

After a half of a century, mainstream big science has completely reversed its dogma on how it is necessary that cancer cells partition their nutrient resources, in a specific way, between material for cell growth and energy production. A thirty years ago modified version of the originally rejected Warburg theory, now has powerful support from newly integrated metabolic pathway studies and core system therapies. This theory was worse than ignored, as it was actively squelched by a small, but elite group, controlling the publication and funding philosophy of cancer during this whole time span. Only the future will tell how much human suffering, could have been prevented, if just honest inquiry and scrutiny had also been allowed to flower, instead of the exclusionary and prejudicial pursuit of personal influence over pet investigative paradigms. Much precious time, knowledge and human life were lost enforcing such preconception, assumption, and opinion upon the course of scientific investigation. Fortunately, but belatedly, data and fact finally triumphed over politics and elevated position. Newly discovered metabolic control systems may benefit us all, not only in the medical area of cancer, but in therapeutic arenas of some other major diseases of aging, as well. A brief human, scientific, data and fact history is contained, herein.

          In a watershed reversal of an entrenched fifty four year old dogma, Science magazine published a Special Section issue on 12/03/10 devoted to metabolic energetics; and more so to the diseases of aging, such as heart disease, diabetes II and especially, cancer. Most important, from a historical (and this document’s) standpoint, is the article on p.1340 by Levine and Puzio-Kuter, which concludes that key elements of the Warburg aerobic glycolysis hypothesis are critical to and necessary for the initiation and maintenance of the transition from the normal cell to cancer cell metabolic pattern. In most of our previous (and this) papers, we refer to this conversion as the cancer ‘metabotype.’ This publication did not surprise us, as our prediction that such a ‘revelation’ would happen soon, has its basis not just in new, but in firm, and very old, evidence. From 1956 to near present times, such a pronouncement would have been considered heretical, and so taboo as to be refused publication in any major scientific journal or to have received any research funding by any respectable granting agency. This sorry story goes back to the mid twentieth century. Although science itself may be impartial, scientists, being all too human, are not. Their organizations and institutions consist of hierarchies of power, influence and opinion no different from that of any other political system. Sometimes, even the ‘show me’, ‘replicate to prove’, and peer review crosscheck and verification safeguards of scientific inquiry can be swept away in the emotional heat of the moment. As such, was the fury and wholesale rejection surrounding the towering influence of the Nobel laureate, Otto Warburg and his aerobic glycolysis hypothesis. Fortunately, for science and the rest of us, blunders of this magnitude are rare.

     Science, for all its outward appearances of rational intelligence and progresses that have arisen from its aggregate achievements, can obscure the view from inside individual laboratories or in narrow areas of specialization, where it can be actually shown that science moves forward more so in fits and starts, lurches and bounds and often in haphazard random walks. Scientific disagreements usually take place without much beyond a few political ripples, as friendly (or otherwise) combatants ruffle each other’s feathers on a one to one, or small group basis. In short, things do not normally get out of hand.

     Such is not the case with the Warburg  hypothesis, or the refinements of its one and only significant shortcoming. For over a half of a century, the subject of aerobic glycolysis has been verboten; sealed with skull and crossbones. In 1956, Warburg’s two valid hypotheses went down the same drain used to flush down his third imperfect hypothesis. More significantly, even the study of general intermediary metabolism, itself, has moved into similar backwaters for the last 30 years. How and why did this happen? What has caused such a profound reversal in our thinking? How have we, (science and medicine) been hurt by this?  Can we, or do we resolve the inequities of the past and/or give credit where credit is due? What are the medical implications of our newly found logical reversal? Where do we go from here?

          Answers to some of these questions, in part or more fully, are available in the Science article referenced in the second sentence of this paper. We highly recommend that the reader look into this article, because it (ever so quietly) represents probably the biggest biomedical upheaval, reversal and revolution in more than a half century. This is no small potatoes. We are looking at a genuine historical paradigm shift of momentous dimensions, the historical importance, of which, aerobic glycolysis naysayers would wish to remain hidden in the attic, like a senile grandparent, because the ‘unquiet’ story version is simply just too embarrassing. We know this is true, because one of us was there; lived it. We take a little different tack than Science, when answering such questions and while remembering the fifty-four year aformentioned history. We are going to talk a little science, but the real heavy stuff we will leave to the reader to find in our short, but highly informative reference list. Regardless, it helps to have a basic background in metabolics, nutrition and bioenergetics or biochemistry 101. For the less technically initiated, scan over the science stuff, paying deeper attention to the human narrative woven throughout this document, as it is instructive in its own way.

     About 70 years ago, Otto Warburg, a highly prestigious paragon of theoretical metabolics, hypothesized that aerobic glycolysis, lactic acid production and mitochondrial respiratory deficiency were a triple requirement for the conversion from a normal to a cancer cell. This cellular state completely changed the way a cell made the vital energy carrier molecule, ATP, which is required to power most cellular functions. In a normal cell, glucose is the primary fuel burned to make ATP. This occurs in two stages. The first stage, called glycolysis, burns without oxygen, produces two ATP and feeds its product, pyruvate, into the second stage, called the Kreb’s-OX/PHOS system, which burns with oxygen and produces 32 ATP. The second system also makes two ATP without oxygen. Thus, in total, four ATP (12%) result from burning without oxygen (substrate phosphorylation) and 32 ATP (88%) are made by burning to carbon dioxide, with oxygen (oxidative phosphorylation-OX/PHOS). Glycolysis occurs in the cell cytoplasm, while Kreb’s-OX/PHOS occurs in the cellular organelles called the mitochondria. When oxygen concentrations are limiting (hypoxia), mitochondria cannot burn all the pyruvate that glycolysis produces. So instead, the pyruvate, is converted to lactate and exported from the cell. Rather than dying an energy death due to lack of ATP, the cell elevates glucose importation and the rate of glycolysis increases dramatically (often exceeding 1000%) to make up for the ATP energy production shortfall. When oxygen levels rise, the normal cell system returns back to its efficient 12/88% ATP production ratio. This we call the Pasteur affect. This return to normal does not occur in cancer cells when adequate oxygen supply returns to normal, once again. Thus, Warburg used the term aerobic glycolysis, when ascribing this phenomenon to cancer cells. Warburg stated that cancer cells were different from normal cells in that they were ‘stuck’ in a state of 1) elevated glycolysis, 2) elevated lactate production and 3) mitochondrial oxygen consumption deficiency.  

          It was postulate number three that became the fly in the ointment. Scientists successfully attacked his mitochondrial respiratory defect concept because many cancer cell mitochondria had normal respiration. Warburg countered that low mitochondrial numbers, on a per cell basis, could yield the results seen, as it is the cell, which is the unit of life. This whole debate came to a head in 1956-1959, in a duel between Warburg  and Weinhouse, Chance and others. Warburg’s third hypothesis was upended, when it was demonstrated that more than just a few types of cancer cell mitochondria have normal respiratory chains and that a small number of cancers even show elevated respiration on a ‘per cell’ basis (Warburg, Science 123, 309-314, 1956. Weinhouse, 124, 267-269, 1956. Chance, 128, 700-708, 1959). When Warburg shifted his emphasis toward mitochondrial ATP production deficiency, Weinhouse countered by assuming that normal carbon dioxide production and oxygen consumption were a proof of adequate ATP production. Weinhouse was wrong on this one, but it was before the days of the chemiosmotic hypothesis of Mitchell, and the concept of respiration being uncoupled from ATP was unknown and not readily measurable with the technology of the times, so his knowledge error can be overlooked, but his assumption cannot, because it was no more proven than its antithesis. Even though Weinhouse was very wrong, he won the day. In fact, he won the next four decades, and even in 1999, metabolism was still not considered in Hanahan and Weinberg’s highly touted ‘six hallmarks of cancer’, even though by

1) Introduction

2)  Dialectics

3) Basic form of motion

4) Measure of motion- work

5) Heat

6) Electricity

7) Tidal friction-Kant and Thomson-trait on the rotation of the earth and lunar attraction

Part played by labour in transition from ape to man

9) Natural science and spirit world.

.Of course it had been succeeded in neglecting the human-based humanities, by leaving most of the other sciences of his time out of its fold due to unknown reasons. This book could not be seen in the world without Karl Marx without whom Engel’s identification could not seen separately as he himself claimed many times

.

In my previous writing,’ why did Frederick Engel deviate from the concept of Karl Marx on dialectics of nature? In which, I described the doctors’ real story in some remote

Village was only to claim that the subject expert has only locus standi in modern days from whom the people in common want to learn more in his related observations only. Engle was really a science student and his strong association with the scientists

Was not a secret and open to all those who were familiar with his contributions in helping Karl Marx at that time.

 Actually the dialectics of nature, a set of articles was incomplete form in the life time of both Karl Marx and Frederic Engel. Much later it had been brought out in German in English languages, in 1925. Karl Marx had some little difference on the foundational prepositions from the ‘foreign’ elements in these articles to get support of the claim what Engel had in mind at that time

. Actually he had a thought to write a complete book on science with his findings in comparison with the other contemporaries as one of the equals, but it was unfortunately not possible for an unmatchable pair of world who has contributed a lot to the poor as a light in the hands to live with dignity and respect.   

I thing why does not all the acts of the same individuals not possible in the most similar way in all repeated acts, if they have been asked to repeat in the same conditions and in same situation without change of any connected objects for the practical purposes to form an idea about how does human behaviors and social sciences or in other word if anybody ask the validity to add the term ‘science’ to the humanities, are differed from the each from its minor branches besides its main branches of the divisions of the subjects, viz physical sciences, biological sciences and humanities without moving further into its branches and sub-branches in depth. For simple answers to the following questions what I like to say that all the answers very relevant to bifurcate the subjects discussed in the dialectics of nature into two main branches for the living and non-living primarily

.

1) Can anybody hit all sixes in 12 balls at least?

2) Can any good spinner make all the team out continuously in two or in three over?  

3) Can any man sign on the paper in the same way without any difference?

4) Why does not of them take the wounded persons to hospital in any accident from the spot?

5) Why does not get all convicted in all the cases booked by the police in any state?

6) Why does not vote the entire citizen to one candidate in any democratic state in the world?

7) Why did warren buffet and bill gates contributed all his assets in past?

What was the need of Osama bin laden to leave his wealthiest life and why did he engage in war games with the mighty forces of America and its allied forces

]]>

9) Why was Saddam Hussein uncompromised with his stand against the American forces and lost his life,along with thousands of thousands of people from both sides?

10) Why 1.5 million Cambodians were lost their lives in the war.

While answering to all these questions, the mind would go towards the humans only but not towards non-living things in nature. Because they are number of contradictions in the human society. The first of its kind was the man and the nature. The nature has its own contradictions with all of its elements which play a key role in molding it into further developments. In the nature, important players are, fire, water, forest, terrain, temperature, and rain falls

.On the other side, wild animals, poisonous insects, and friendly animals form another part. The humans and their origin with descendents, development, have another part. Each of the part with its branches including its components and players would never play another part as a set flexible to merge into its all rules. In essence where the players of the specific field it have its own set of laws and its principles for the different acts to play within its circle. Where the players are different the rules and laws also differ from the earlier field.

Hence the principles of the physics and chemistry do not constitute a single set of laws. At the same time, biology, astronomy and mathematics do not constitute a single set of law because its players are different and their rules are different from other branch of laws. In single set of the planetary laws the humans have the predominant role in molding the nature in changing the conditions like global warming and change of climate

. The consequences and influences of the acts of the humans in consolidations either throgh the men or through the machinery the conditions of the globe are changing. To change the laws of any branch it has the role of the players inside if I say in computer’s languag the specific software for a specific work is applicable and applied. No other software is allowed to perform the different work in windows only

The present soft-wares are developed by one or two individuals with their sound knowledge on the subjects and they felt that these soft wares are useful for making money in the global market either through their companies or through themselves only.

 On the other side, the computers were invented and developed for the convenience of the peoples’ works.  So that they invented and developed all these useful soft wares for the global market as well as for them selves also.. Here another question, Charles Babbage whose idea was behind invention of the computer, and the same idea was materialized through, proper Eckert & Mauchly. Now most of the people are using the computers in the globe. And it looks in the world that the computers are doing every work and the humans are the next and have been guiding by the computers

. From a distant look on the human-computer relations, it is common to understand that the humans are depended on the computers and the computers are the guiding force to humans. And those who are in writing the history of the present society in future really would write in such a way what they saw from out side. Just like the case of Engel’s writings on dialectics of nature.  As a matter of invention and writing a new thing about the present society it is common to write about the past which correspond to the visible elements to their logical conclusions, they only believe and write

.

 The basic and important issue in the name of Marxism, the dialectics of nature, if it is part of Marxism, upon which the entire structure is raised by other contributors for the development of Marxism, by Lenin, and after Moa. But all these contributions do not form one only in the name of Marxism, but all these isms have risen on the same structure of the philosophization in one form including all subjects and its contributors.

Following is the set of laws, Engel got from the writings of Hegel, and described about its functioning in his book.

“It is therefore, from the history of nature and human society that the laws of dialectics are distracted. For they are nothing but the most general laws, of these two aspects of historical development, as well as the thought itself and indeed they can be reduced in the main to three.

1) The law of transformation

2) The law of interpretation

3) The law of negation of the negation’

These laws basically extracted from the writings of Hegel and how had been applied to the dialectics of nature has been described in detail all. Here I take the reference where the human laws are described with comparison of other physical and biological and other subjects I add the argument with clarity of relevancy to disassociate the human laws from the laws of non-living things in the nature. At the same time, no one should have any objection for the description of the laws of all science and where as the laws of humans and human natures are discussed,it is the duty of every one to dislocate the laws of humans from the list of laws of all science in the interest of the broad human societies which are badly damaged by believing that the human laws are very scientific and based on science that will save the human society for peace and prosperity in the universal law of brotherhood with all respects, guaranteed by the charters of the human rights. Here is the following assertions on the subjects what he had mixed with each other for preparing a universal set of

Metaphysics deal with what is real. Ultimate reality is then the first and most important subject of metaphysics.

Metaphysics from ‘meta’ after and ‘physic’ nature, is mainly concerned in the sensible as means to explore the intelligible. In other words what we observe by our naked eye and our calculative mind is the spring board basis for understanding its presence, its nature, its function, its structure, its origin, its principles and its finality.

No object can be ever understood unless we refer to these criteria. Metaphysics dealing with the basic principles of things bypasses natural things to search of an explanation. Man, by his very nature is curious. This is an inborn impetus that instigates him to explain what he sees. This is the foundation of knowledge. Questions like why should man be curious? And, why ought man search for explanations? Remain unanswered.

It is this very curiosity and search for explanations, especially satisfactory ones, that we acquire knowledge. Knowledge remain a mysterious thing view the obligatory relation between mind and matter. No one can yet explain what mind is. No one can at the present time explain how the mind works and what for? No one can explain why should there be matter dimensions in space and time.

We wonder about these questions and science does not deal with these question for science, exact sciences or not, do not deal with the questions of the presence of objects, its forms and shapes, its colors and change, its origin and finalities. In fact science eschews all that is related to what cannot be proven by our senses or our calculation machines.

]]>

Science accepts, until further notice or discovery annulling the first notion or discovery, what can be so called proven and be subject to experimental empirical evidence. No evidence, science rejects the hypothesis and rejects its theoretical foundations. Everything must be proven, otherwise science does not accept it.

For this for example the notion of God is not accepted by sciences for it cannot offer a proof for God’s existence. God is not an experimental subject to be analyzed in the laboratory of chemistry or physics. It cannot be further treated by mathematics, the perfect science so long some mathematicians. T

hus, physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics do not deal with the subject of God, or any of the divine questions, for it cannot pin down with evidence its presence and its behavior. Thus, with great oddity and obscurity science falls short of recognizing God. But, with irony of subject, scientists fail to explain the presence of the universe, man and above all their own knowledge.

They fail utterly to explain where about man came from, his presence, his function, his nature, his essence, his role, his origin, his finality except for donkeys on two legs accepting natural selection as the admirable solution.

Science of today with all its progress, if it leads to anything other that uses of survival and understanding some relations among objects at a superficial level, it remain at best sterile in explaining reality and is totally unable to reach ‘ultimate knowledge’. It simply deals with what is and does not deal with what can be or what may be beyond matter.

Now the, if matter to exist then there must be an origin, or origins for matter. If man exists then there ought to be an origin of where man came from.

We cannot start ourselves questions and initiate endless interrogation concerning matter-objects taking into consideration only its presence as auto-sufficient and not forget about its origin, the what and why questions, its reason of being, what makes it function, who controls its presence and functioning, what is its relationships with other objects and why?

Sterility of science comes from its limitations to its phenomenal how and the phenomenal why. If science remain by its very nature, limited to the how, then it is sterile in its very definition to what is real and what is ultimately real.

Thus, and only thus, the sterility of sciences leaves the door wide open for other level of explanations, most needed by our human minds, this is of what is behind nature, nature being subject of science, and this is the domain of beyond-nature of metaphysics.

Man remains, in the clutches of natural sciences but remains, sterile, handicapped and incomplete, for natural sciences do not explain his existence, the reason of his life-cycle, how did he come about, what is he doing here and where is he going?

Man is not a machine of production, an animal of survival but a human being needs complete and satisfactory answers to his being, the being of the universe. He simply needs satisfactory answers to his simple questions and science fall short of this task.

The University of Metaphysical Sciences offers Bachelor’s, Master’s as well as Doctoral Degrees through online courses. Christine Breese has a teaching style that includes intensive guided mediation. This assists students in the metaphysical sciences and others to have profound meditational experiences that promote an expanded state of consciousness. The direct experiences through guidance and education increase the potential for an individual’s realization of their true self.

During presentations, Christine Breese not only facilitates guided meditations, but she also assists individuals through discussion as well as question and answer sections. With her background in metaphysical sciences, Christine Breese helps individuals find ways to integrate their meditational experiences and increased understanding of the Self into their daily life. Digesting and refining the material takes time and proper guidance. Christine Breese takes the time to assist individuals in their pursuit to better understand and know their true self. It is a lifelong journey and Christine Breese has many pieces of insightful information regarding the metaphysical sciences.

While founding the University of Metaphysical Sciences, Christine Breese has taught courses on Aura Viewing, Past Life Regression and Lucid Dreaming. The popularity of the University of Metaphysical Sciences is increasing providing avenues for individuals to become further educated in the metaphysical sciences. Progression is accomplished through academic information as well as through meditation and instruction. The curriculum is self-paced and is designed for novices as well as experienced individuals in the metaphysical sciences.

Find More Metaphysics Articles

The metaphysical science degrees are designed for the purposes of religious, spiritual, metaphysical and holistic vocations. The application process for admission is straightforward and serves as a means to assist individuals in finding their calling. They accept credits from other institutions that are like-kind and applicable to the courses that are available at the University of Metaphysical Sciences. Naturally, there is a precedence relation across the various degrees. One must attain a Bachelors Degree before a Masters Degree and one must attain a Masters Degree before one may earn a Doctoral Degree. The University of Metaphysical Sciences offers a self-paced curriculum in the Metaphysical sciences.

Christine Breese is experienced and educated in the metaphysical sciences. She has facilitated many meditation retreats and workshops for the benefit of others. Her encouragement to live in the moment assists students to learn how to become aware of their eternal consciousness. Christine Breese promotes an expanded state of consciousness through direct meditational experiences. There are several instructional videos available online by Christine Breese that shares her experiences and thoughts about the metaphysical sciences. The goal is to integrate the understanding and awareness of one’s true self with one’s daily life.

Christine Breese teaches courses in Past Life Regression, Aura Viewing, and Lucid Dreaming. Her teaching style incorporates meditation, discussions and question and answer sessions. Christine Breese is well educated in the metaphysical sciences. She has a Doctor of Divinity Degree in Metaphysical Sciences as well as a Ph.D. in Metaphysical Counseling.