Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Cancer has got to be one of the most complex subjects of our time. And today we're going to dive in just a little bit into the real complexities of cancer research. It's a real catch 22.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: Welcome to the Duster Mud podcast. In the last episode of the Duster Mud podcast, we talked about the link between sugar and cancer and some of the research that we had found. And probably not surprising, we've continued to do more research. And since the last episode, we've found that there's actually a theory associated with this and medical doctors that are discussing it, and it's known as the metabolic theory of cancer.
[00:00:43] Speaker A: That's right. And Dr. Thomas Seyfried is the leading researcher that we found that is working on this particular theory. What does this theory really entail, Dr. Seyfried?
[00:00:59] Speaker B: I guess S-E-Y-F-R-I-E-D. Seifried argues that cancer is a result of mitochondrial damage leading to abnormal energy processing rather than purely genetic mutations. So, not saying that there's not a genetic mutation.
[00:01:15] Speaker A: Right.
[00:01:16] Speaker B: But that it's damage inside the mitochondria.
[00:01:18] Speaker A: Okay. That has to do with the processing of energy rather than just.
It just happened.
[00:01:25] Speaker B: Right?
[00:01:26] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:01:26] Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely. So, just an interesting thing that as we delve further and further into it, we find that there's actually a theory.
There's actually doctors. I believe he's at Yale. There's actually doctors that are talking about this. I did get to watch a short talk of his.
We'll probably end up doing more research into it, but a short talk of his from 2020. Okay, so this is not a new theory. I mean, relatively, in the history of medicine, I guess, but it's been at least three years old, and that got me to really looking at.
[00:02:10] Speaker A: And what makes me wonder why we really haven't heard of it.
That's the big question. Why haven't we heard of this until now? Cancer is a very ubiquitous thing in our society. It's a real problem. We're all fighting it one family at a time. Why is this something that isn't, someone's not just standing at the, I don't know, on top of a building screaming about it?
[00:02:37] Speaker B: Well, since we got a resounding answer to the do you like the numbers? Question? And the answer was yes, that's right. I came prepared with some numbers. Okay, I'm ready when you say that it's ubiquitous. In 2023, us cancer deaths were 609,820.
[00:02:57] Speaker A: That's a lot.
[00:02:58] Speaker B: So over almost 610,000 deaths from cancer in the US alone, globally, I was able to find 2020, and according to the World Health Organization, almost 10 million deaths globally related to cancer.
[00:03:18] Speaker A: Right.
[00:03:19] Speaker B: So you're right. It is something that is obviously out there. It's a problem we're all dealing with as a problem.
So the more we got to digging into this, I want to throw out another number.
The global pharmaceutical industry.
Their 2022 revenue was $1.48 trillion.
[00:03:49] Speaker A: Wow.
Okay.
[00:03:52] Speaker B: So the more research we did, I came across another thing that has a name, and they call it the catch 22 of medical research.
[00:04:06] Speaker A: Right. It's a problem because we all want an answer to a really bad problem. Cancer is a really bad problem. Right. And we all want an answer, and we want a good answer.
[00:04:19] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:04:20] Speaker A: We want something that'll fix it.
[00:04:22] Speaker B: Right. Yes.
[00:04:26] Speaker A: Finding that answer.
Pharmaceutical companies work for money.
[00:04:33] Speaker B: That's correct. They are for profit organizations. Yes.
[00:04:37] Speaker A: We say it. What we all will about pharmaceutical companies, we all appreciate, when we're sick, the fact that they spent money to find out an answer.
[00:04:48] Speaker B: That's right. Research and development, they spend annually, 15% to 20% of their revenue goes.
[00:04:55] Speaker A: I think that's one of the largest research and development industries, that they spend more on their r and D.
They're one of the top spenders for medical.
[00:05:07] Speaker B: Research and development is the pharmaceutical industry.
[00:05:10] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:05:10] Speaker B: Yes. So for 2022, that range somewhere. It's hard to find the exact numbers, but somewhere between, say, 220 and $300 billion spent on research and development by the pharmaceutical companies in 2022.
[00:05:28] Speaker A: That's a lot.
[00:05:29] Speaker B: Yes.
The catch 22 happens, though, because they are for profit organizations, which means that the research that they're going to do is research leading to a drug that is going to make them a profit. Right there. For profit.
[00:05:51] Speaker A: Right.
[00:05:52] Speaker B: So all of that money is tied up in the next thing that is going to make them a profit.
[00:06:01] Speaker A: Right.
[00:06:02] Speaker B: Which is understandable for companies that are responsible to their shareholders, and they are to make a profit.
[00:06:11] Speaker A: And oftentimes, we are the beneficiaries of their research and development.
[00:06:18] Speaker B: Yes, that is absolutely right.
[00:06:23] Speaker A: However, sometimes there might be an alternative.
[00:06:31] Speaker B: Yeah. If we go back to Dr. Seyfried and the metabolic theory of cancer. Cancer is one of the most profitable diseases for the pharmaceutical industry.
They spend the majority of their research and development monies on cancer, but their.
[00:06:52] Speaker A: Return on investment is high because their.
[00:06:55] Speaker B: Return on investment for cancer is the highest.
[00:06:59] Speaker A: Wow.
[00:07:00] Speaker B: And what that leads to is when you come up or when there are theories outside of a drug related solution, those theories, for obvious reasons, aren't getting the research and development from the drug companies.
[00:07:21] Speaker A: So the drug companies don't like theories or ideas or treatment that are not patentable. They want a drug that they can patent.
[00:07:35] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:07:36] Speaker A: That is their goal.
[00:07:38] Speaker B: Correct. To make a profit.
[00:07:39] Speaker A: So to make a profit. So they need it to be patentable. You cannot patent a diet.
[00:07:47] Speaker B: Correct. And as I dove further into it, there are some things out there that could happen. Like, you could develop an app that would help you with your diet. They could develop counseling services that would go along with a diet. So there are potential on the fringes, maybe sources of income, but nothing like when we discussed ozempic. Nothing like that.
[00:08:18] Speaker A: Right.
[00:08:21] Speaker B: I offer a counseling service.
The return on investment, barely peanuts is peanuts compared to, I have found, a drug that treats this.
[00:08:34] Speaker A: Right.
All told, there's a significant dilemma within the cancer research world.
[00:08:41] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:08:42] Speaker A: As to what works.
And I'm not against drugs.
[00:08:50] Speaker B: Right.
[00:08:51] Speaker A: I am not against a proper diet.
[00:08:53] Speaker B: Right.
[00:08:54] Speaker A: And it sounds to me like the best thing would be a synergy of the two, potentially. Like, maybe there are some drugs out there that flat out work.
[00:09:07] Speaker B: Right.
[00:09:08] Speaker A: On some flavors of cancer, and we certainly don't want to get rid of those.
[00:09:13] Speaker B: Oh, no, absolutely.
[00:09:14] Speaker A: And we're grateful for them.
[00:09:15] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:09:16] Speaker A: Treatments and methods, but the recognition of the medical community to say, hey, also, let's ditch the sugar.
Also, let's make sure that we're understanding the metabolic pathways of the cancer cell itself, and perhaps a, prevent it, and b, help treat it alongside other treatments.
[00:09:41] Speaker B: And I absolutely love what you're saying and couldn't agree with it if I agreed with you twice as much. Well, there we go with you more. There's a dilemma, though.
[00:09:50] Speaker A: Okay, what is it?
[00:09:51] Speaker B: Medical doctors aren't willing to make that recommendation without the scientific evidence that it works.
[00:10:00] Speaker A: How do you get to the scientific evidence that it works?
[00:10:02] Speaker B: You have to spend money on research.
[00:10:03] Speaker A: And development, and guess what they're not going to do? Spend the money on research and development on something that isn't going to make the money.
[00:10:10] Speaker B: So here's the catch.
[00:10:11] Speaker A: There's the catch.
[00:10:12] Speaker B: So you're absolutely right.
I believe that that would be the best answer. But then, for a medical doctor whose livelihood, their license is on the line. Their livelihood is on the line, and they are, I would say, hesitant or reticent to recommend something that doesn't have the proven research and study to say that this actually works. So what you're left with, is there any hope? Yes, some. You're left with government, the NIH.
They do spend money on research. I think they spent.
[00:10:56] Speaker A: They write grants.
[00:10:57] Speaker B: I believe it was somewhere around $6 billion on cancer research last year, which.
[00:11:02] Speaker A: Convincing them, though, to do research on.
[00:11:05] Speaker B: They would have to be convinced of the efficacy of something like a metabolic theory of cancer as well.
But at least it's not totally profit driven.
[00:11:16] Speaker A: Right.
[00:11:17] Speaker B: And then you have things like race.
[00:11:20] Speaker A: For the cure and the Susan become different philanthropic foundations.
[00:11:24] Speaker B: Right. So there are philanthropy, private donations, and really the government is what you're left with because there's no profit incentive to find a non drug treatment.
[00:11:40] Speaker A: Yeah, I agree with you. But also the mind shift, the paradigm shift of being at least willing to say, hey, let's look into this.
[00:11:51] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:11:52] Speaker A: For the doctors to say, do what's working. Maybe, I mean, some kind of recognition of the fact that these cells are broke.
And if we could get to the acknowledgment point and then move forward, then maybe more foundations, maybe more grants, maybe more funding towards that side of the house would happen.
[00:12:26] Speaker B: Yeah.
I'll leave a link to Dr. Seyfried.
I'll find a YouTube video. There's a few of them out there that he's talking on. I'll leave a link to him and you guys can check it out. It's really interesting to hear him talk about it and discuss the metabolic theory of cancer. And it falls right in line with what we were saying on the last podcast episode about sugar and cancer.
[00:12:53] Speaker A: We love to hear your comments about these subjects. If you have experience with working with cancer, eliminating sugar, doing ketogenic diets, different pharmaceutical treatments, whatever it is, I know we have nurses out there that have been and doctors out there who have been in this field and are far more knowledgeable than we are. The best thing that we have right now is our own research. And to hear you guys inputs is wonderful and hugely helpful to everyone in the community.
[00:13:26] Speaker B: It sure is. And I'll let you know. We recorded a podcast with my mom, and I'm in the process of editing right now. And we'll bring that to you. I hope to have it complete and bring it to you on Thursday. It's a really good discussion. I think you guys are going to really enjoy listening to her. And I know it was very insightful for Shelley and I.
[00:13:46] Speaker A: It was.
[00:13:46] Speaker B: I think it's. I think you'll enjoy it.
[00:13:48] Speaker A: It's a good one, you guys. You're not going to want to miss it.
[00:13:51] Speaker B: Yeah, for sure.
[00:13:52] Speaker A: Well, make sure you have subscribed and hit the like button if you're enjoying these. And until next time. Bye, y'all. Bye.
