Can someone redpill me on cancer?

Can someone redpill me on cancer?

Is cancer treatment actually more likely to kill people diagnosed with cancer? Is most cancer treatment unnecessary?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JGsSEqsGLWM
youtube.com/watch?v=shCYA2J-De8
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Heinrich_Warburg
foodrenegade.com/your-apples-year-old/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11297836
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814608006419
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20388854
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20042525
cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/20040140.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8167261/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

google Jon Rappaport cancer

i think he had a book on the subject

Once cancer gets into the lympahtic system it spreads over the entire body and you are fucked.

Cancer can be benign, but once it goes into metastasis you literally have a few weeks to live.

You can poison yourself with apricot seeds which seems to be the #1 holistic approach currently.

Chemotherapy is like firing an atomic shotgun into a crowd to catch a psycho mad scientist. Gonna be some collateral damage to catch that fucker

Ask Steve Jobs how alternative medicine worked out for him. He became transgendered then died in shame.

>asking Sup Forums for medical advice
Are you sure you want to go down this road? Cancer is cancer, nip. People die from it, people run for it (or from), people raise awareness of it. It's the modern day aids epidemic.

Now, whether or not it was created by Jews...

Most types of cancer is highly treatable and many types are completely curable through standard treatments.

Is some cancer research faked to get more funding?

>Can someone redpill me on cancer?
there's no pills for cancer

Who is that old lady?

People who don’t understand protein pathways think they can cure cancer with backyard plants or homoeopathic alternatives with diets. There is a reason that cancer does not have a cure. It’s because it’s not a disease per se. It’s not a virus or bacteria or other parasite that can be fought by your immune system or killed by drugs. It’s a normal process of your body gone wrong. It’s a growth of cells that, at some point, forgot to stop growing, quickly becoming redundant, spreading throughout the body, and killing you by simply taking up too much space and sapping too many of your body’s resources.

You can’t fight something like that the way you fight other diseases. The most common way to stop it completely is surgery, simply cutting out the carcinogenic cells so that they stop growing, but if you miss even a little bit of them, they’ll come back. Some drugs will also keep the growth of cancer at bay, but they’re nasty ones that are also harmful to your body’s normal growth. This is not the sort of thing that you can just take a miracle drug and be done with. Cancer is much more complicated of what people made it look, the probability of curing yourself from cancer depends on which type of cancer it is, the localization, when you were diagnosed, your age, your genes, your immune system, how well the surgery removes it (in cases of need it), the behaviour of avoiding risk factors.

There are around 200 different types of cancers and all of the ones that are possible to cure with today’s science have their own individual treatment plans. Some require intensive chemotherapy and radiation therapy, some can only be kept from spreading via shots taken each month or so but not destroyed completely. If there is a cure, it’s probably for the less complicated and more extensively studied cancers developed as a short cut through the hell that is chemotherapy.

They've been here in full force since Sup Forums harbor. I dare say they make most of the threads here now.

You could theoretically treat cancer at a genetic or even epigenetic level. If you could find a way to target the cells which are over reproducing and alter the genes then you’re cured, but we're a long way from that level of science, and even then what is left over of you would not necessarily be 'human'.

It’s pretty much the same when people complain about the common cold. “Oh we have all this advanced medicine but we can’t cure anything as simple as the common cold!” These people are idiots, the cold is caused by hundreds of thousands if not millions of different viruses that constantly mutate. It’s not so much a disease as it is a collection of symptoms referred to as a cold for simplicity. Cancer is similar in it's approach.

just take liposomal vitamin C and intravenous vitamin C

you'll be fine, man

Here you go

youtube.com/watch?v=JGsSEqsGLWM

>Can someone redpill me on cancer?

if you get it you deserve it

it's caused by unhealthy living habits related to petroleum products in your environment

Cancer treatment is pretty fucking dangerous.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy cause cancer to come back in a few years. All dietary and mood pills are just not helpful, neither are the painkillers.

Cannabis and a balanced diet are great against cancer, avoid other drugs tho.

I'm a little disoriented here. Where's the shitpost here?

Nice read by the way.

youtube.com/watch?v=shCYA2J-De8

He had AIDS.

liposomal curcumoid/potassium dichloracetate/doxycycline hyclate enemas.

a cure cancer would be a cure for natural mortality in general.

>liposomal curcuminoid/potassium dichloracetate/glutathione/doxycycline hyclate enemas

Nope there are cures for AIDS and HIV for the rich in the US.

But cancer is triggered in many case by viruses or different kinds of materials.

Fuck right off
My father has non hodgkins lymphoma and was on deaths bed. Had chemo and stem cell transplant 4 years ago and today is playing golf with his grandchild

Don't listen to holistic anything regarding serious illnesses

Cancer is an artificial illness created by the Jews to remove goyim and make money on treatment.

Cells naturally grow, divide, and propagate.
Cancer is that process gone runaway like a truck with no brakes rolling down a mountain.

Most cancer treatments are like user said, a shotgun you fire at hopefully the part of the body where the cancer cells are. There's no way to kill JUST the cancer without killing everything around it. Unless you catch it early and can just cut it out.

Most cancer treatments cause way more harm than good. Cancer is also misdiagnosed frequently. If you look up a common explanation of bayesian probability, it uses a mamogram test as an example, and that demonstrates also that diagnosis tools are flawed greatly.

There ARE ways to reduce cancer risk, like avoiding carcinogens and eating antioxidants (usually come from fruit, veg, healthy food.) But everything is carcinogenic, just to different levels. Carcinogens are just shit that can cause the "grow and divide" switch to flip on or otherwise damage or mutate DNA. So anything from sunlight (UV rads) to food (everything in the world is mildly radioactive) to the objects in your house (treated with an array of chemicals).

If you have cancer, it's not always a case that the cure is worse than the disease, but it is often so. Also there have been doctors who falsely diagnose someone with cancer, give them all the chemo and everything, and it turns out they never had cancer at all. One nigger doctor did it on purpose for shekels.

Well, they contribute. But shit like sunlight, air pollution, water pollution, radiation, and dumb luck also contribute. Hard to avoid.

>ausfailian
>not shitposting

W-what? And he's even correct?

Weed does help, but ironically smoking ANYTHING, even weed, contributes to lung cancer. Don't inhale smoke from burning matter, kids. Edibles only.

>Is cancer treatment actually more likely to kill people diagnosed with cancer?

Given that the mortality rate of those with treatment is lower than those without, this is obviously not the case.

RESULTS:

At multivariate analysis, HIV-positive patients compared with HIV-negative patients had a higher risk of an unfavorable performance status (PS ≥ 2) and a younger age (

False. Cancer has existed even in ancient egypt.

Cancer risk also increases with age (probability theory. More days lived = more cells dividing = more chances for shit to go wrong.) We also diagnose better now, so what used to seem like people die for no reason, we now know it is cancer or whatever else.

Jews may distribute pollutants and food contaminants to accelerate it, though, of course.

>Can someone redpill me on cancer?

It cannot be 100% prevented. It will never truly be cured. It is an inevitable result of having cells which:

1) have the genetic material necessary for growing and dividing indefinitely, but also
2) have completely fallible fail-safe mechanisms in place to avoid doing so; and cells which become cancerous can undergo a process similar to evolution to become tumors

Sorry friends, but we all gonna die

>Cannabis and a balanced diet are great against cancer, avoid other drugs tho.

No, cannabis causes testicular cancer

Many pateints endure the same regime and simply die.

Cancer forms in a cell due to lack of Oxygen. This has been known since the 20s en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Heinrich_Warburg

I believe it has mostly to do with nutrition. The average American is relatively malnourished and Americans have the highest cancer rates. The apples at American grocery stores are a year old and contain little nutrients.
foodrenegade.com/your-apples-year-old/
Fruits and vegetables contain vitamins, minerals, amino acids, phytonutrients, and [IMPORTANT] antioxidants. Without antioxidants, your body cannot oxidize all the various molecules in your body, resulting in cells with oxygen deficiency, which later leads to cancer.

It's hard to cure, but easy to prevent. Americans, however, will suffer due to their poor quality food. Ironic that people in mudhuts south of the border eat better than the American people.

I knew it was the Egyptians.

Cancer is a series of mutations that are not repaired in stem cells.
Every instant some cells in your body have their DNA destroyed by something, virus is one of hundred things that can trigger a misreparation.

>Is cancer treatment actually more likely to kill people diagnosed with cancer?

No, there is a benefit/risk rule that was elaborated by decades of oncology experiment and practice.
I'm in med school and I can tell you the checklist is pretty well designed and long, doctors will treat you either to heal you or to gain time, in the second case they will try to make it as much comfortable as possible.

>Is most cancer treatment unnecessary?

The only one who is considered like not obligatory treatable is the prostate one, however you will need to be checked very regularly to observe its evolution.

Therapy for cancer are still pretty agressive but doctors are largely knowledgable about them in 2016, especially when the patient comfort is more and more a preoccupation for the medical world.

>Therefore, the metabolic change observed by Warburg is not so much the cause of cancer, as he claimed, but rather, it is one of the characteristic effects of cancer-causing mutations.

Nice reading comprehension, fatburger.

Yes and without trying you are dead.
Period.
Makes no sense not to try.

I'm not sure what you're quoting, but there's no certainty behind what you're saying.
>Today, mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes are thought to be responsible for malignant transformation, and the metabolic changes are considered to be a result of these mutations rather than a cause
>thought

Ultra low cancer rates in the KZ system during WWII. Metabolic mechanics are involved at different steps of neoplastic processes.

You can think of modern cancer treatment akin to early surgical techniques. Say someone has an infection in the leg. Nowadays you'd pop them on an antibiotic drip for a week or so and they be right as rain. 100 years ago you'd cut that leg off.

Giving people chemo and radiation therapy is like cutting the leg off. It works, but it's nasty. I'm studying Biochemistry at the moment and there are some pretty interesting possibilities for cancer treatment that will be coming up as viable techniques in the next decade or two. My favourites are:
>Stem cells
Basically the holy grail. You could potentially get a patient's cells, turn them into pluripotent stem cells and then turn those cells natural killer cells and then flood a patient with what are essentially their own cells. NK cells can generally cope with most cancers, but once one goes past a certain threshold the small number of NK cells can't cope. Flood a patient with several billion over a week or so and you could well blow the cancer the fuck out. Very efficient too with less risk of stray cancer cells being left behind like can happen with surgery. Only real risk is some kind of autoimmune backfire where the NK cells start attacking healthy cells. Introducing some kind of "kill switch" might avoid this.

>rational drug design
This one is a big one and will probably bear really tasty fruit very soon. Basically tailor-make a drug for a particular cancer that is specific to that cancer so you can avoid the nasty side-effects that most chemo drugs have.

>Pharmacogenetics
This is also pretty cool. Essentially it would involve genotyping the patient as well as their cancer and then making a decision based on that about what drug would be best and at what dosage. This can be applied outside of cancer for various diseases and disorders. So rather than doctors kind of playing guinea pig a bit with a patient to work out the most effective dosage, they could tailor the best dosage and drug right off the bat.

Known patients who were scheduled for 800K US$ of aggressive treatments for an 18 months max outlook of survival who walked away and went to a near starvation diet & lived 13 and 15 years before crashing for 2 weeks and then passing.

Do you have a source for that?

Oncology certified pharmacist here. Manager of an oncology clinic in my city.

This guy is pretty much right, for the most part. Cancer is the perfect disease, as it is your OWN body that is fucked up. It evades your immune system, and it is very difficult to target only the affected cells. We've gotten better at this with targeted radiation and surgery (gammaknife and cyberknife are super cool) and even new classes of drugs (Opdivo and Keytruda specifically, many others that target genetically mutated receptors instead of a 'carpet bombing' approach).

As far as responding to OP, is it MORE likely to kill you than the cancer? Absolutely not. The regimens that CAN kill you by making you very sick are for very bad/advanced cancers usually.

My boss, who owns this clinic does believe he'll see a cure for most cancers in his lifetime, and he's 64. Currently, the coolest thing we're doing is treating blood cancers (leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma) by harvesting stem cells, blasting them with drugs, and injecting them. Is working quite well.

Regrettably, I can say with 95% certainty that the pharma industry IS INDEED a bunch of greedy fucks and are trying to milk this for all it's worth. I do believe that there is a very very real possibility that a 'cure' is intentionally being evaded, because there is no money in curing disease, it's 100% true.

Case in point, we have almost no new antibiotics in the last 20 years. No money in it. Take 2 pills a day for 14 days and you're done forever, unless you get infected again. We're losing that race too, bacteria are evolving way faster than our drugs can keep up with them. Merck and Phyzer have both shut down their antibiotic branches of research for this reason.

Cancer drugs have grown by about 400% in the last 5 years though. In 2010 there was 42 oral drugs available, there are over 250 now.

None of these 'natural' remedies work. The anti-neoplastons from Burzinsky, any herbs, the sodium carbonate, nothing.

>>Stem cells
>Basically the holy grail. You could potentially get a patient's cells, turn them into pluripotent stem cells and then turn those cells natural killer cells and then flood a patient with what are essentially their own cells. NK cells can generally cope with most cancers, but once one goes past a certain threshold the small number of NK cells can't cope. Flood a patient with several billion over a week or so and you could well blow the cancer the fuck out. Very efficient too with less risk of stray cancer cells being left behind like can happen with surgery. Only real risk is some kind of autoimmune backfire where the NK cells start attacking healthy cells. Introducing some kind of "kill switch" might avoid this.

I'm doing this as we speak. Patient is hooked up to the machine, we're takign his stem cells. We're sending them to Houston to be infused with growth factors to have 'super soldier' type NK cells. You are correct about the autoimmune backfire, as these cells can indeed run amok and fuck up everything. Rare though, I haven't seen it.

>not documented anecdotal story vs 110 of highly interpreted scientific datas in multiple fields and practice

But yes, if you don't want to live it is fine by me.

Why do you think it's more prevalent in the most developed countries?

I feel that a possible way around it would be to give the introduced NK cells a gene that makes them highly susceptible to some drug that the rest of the body's cells don't care about so that if they do run amok you could inject the drug and knock them out before they do any real damage.

Still an undergrad so don't really know enough to know if that would be feasible.

>Cancer forms in a cell due to lack of Oxygen

Full retard. Cancer cells form due to mutations in oncogenes or tumor-supressing genes. When a cancer cell takes over and has high metabolic needs, the local environment becomes anoxic so the tumor either starts promoting the formation of blood vessels around it or spreads to other parts of the body.

No because they are both dead and it was first hand anecdotal intrigue. I was the one that told them about the KZ cancer studies undertaken by the SS. I have used the enema cocktail on dogs including two of my own who were given less than a year. One lived another 7 years until 17 the other almost 9 years until almost 20 and it was a sizeable dog of almost 50 kilos.

Because more developed countries adopt the typical western diet: high in meat, dairy, and saturated fat and low in fruits, vegetables and grains. Meat and animal products in general are pro-cancer, plant foods are anti-cancer.

Virtually every kind of fruit, vegetable and grain has a variety of cancer-fighting compounds. People in shitty countries eat traditional diets that are generally high in plant foods and fiber.

Some neoplasms form where there was impactful localised physical trauma in animals.

Cancer is what you get for browsing Sup Forums

This shit. Such bullshit

>meat and animal products are generally pro cancer and plant like products are anti cancer.

Citation needed.

A balanced diet is best at avoiding cancer. That is usually just meat and veg. I know amerilards eat stek and ketchup but a balanced diet is all that's needed. Meat is a part of this and is good for you.

People in Shitry countries also have shitty life expectancy. Fuck you vegan lefty. Go eat a dick and fuck off to Guatemala.

>People who don’t understand protein pathways think they can cure cancer with backyard plants or homoeopathic alternatives with diets.

People who don't understand medicine think that drugs just pop magically out of test tubes rather than being essentially synthetic isolated plant extracts. Nearly every drug that exists is a beneficial compound that was found in a plant, isolated and synthesized.

Here is a very, very small sampling of the massive and growing body of research supporting fighting cancer through diet.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11297836
>E.O and chyavanaprash (a non-toxic herbal preparation containing 50% E.O) extracts were found to reduce ascites and solid tumours in mice induced by DLA cells. Animals treated with 1.25 g/kg b.wt. of E.O extract increased life span of tumour bearing animals (20%) while animals treated with 2.5 g/kg b.wt. of chyavanaprash produced 60.9% increased in the life span. Both E.O and chyavanaprash significantly reduced the solid tumours.

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814608006419
>The extracts from cruciferous vegetables as well as those from vegetables of the genus Allium inhibited the proliferation of all tested cancer cell lines

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20388854
>Sulforaphane inhibits breast CSCs and downregulates the Wnt/beta-catenin self-renewal pathway. These findings support the use of sulforaphane for the chemoprevention of breast cancer stem cells and warrant further clinical evaluation.

this

This is also something that is being looked at. They have techniques where they inject melanoma cancers on the skin surface with a substance that does exactly what you said. It makes the cells much more susceptible to the medication. This specific one is just enabling an already existing receptor, but the premise is kinda the same.

see
>People in Shitry countries also have shitty life expectancy.

People in shitty countries often die earlier but not from cancer. I'm a lefty browsing Sup Forums? Kek.

Regarding animal products, here are a few connections but most of it is very specific, one type of meat being linked to one type of cancer, that sort of thing:

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20042525
>Our results suggest that the postdiagnostic consumption of processed or unprocessed red meat, fish, or skinless poultry is not associated with prostate cancer recurrence or progression, whereas consumption of eggs and poultry with skin may increase the risk.

>cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/20040140.html
>This study provides preliminary evidence that exposure to poultry oncogenic viruses may possibly be associated with the occurrence of liver and pancreatic cancers.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8167261/
>Maternal hot-dog consumption of one or more times per week was associated with childhood brain tumors. Among children, eating hamburgers one or more times per week was associated with risk of ALL and eating hot dogs one or more times per week was associated with brain tumors

Contrary to popular opinion, chicken is actually a lot worse for you from a pro-cancer standpoint than red meat but none of it is very good. There's obviously a lot of pressure from the beef, egg and dairy industries to downplay and/or fund alternative studies to make the evidence seem less conclusive but animal foods are, at best, neutral. On the other hand, we have a massive and growing body of evidence showing that fruits, vegetables and grains are incredibly good for you and protective against virtually all cancers.

So even if meat isn't bad, you're still missing the opportunity to eat much healthier food every time you opt for a steak over a salad. You're not going to get cancer from eating a couple hamburgers a month but if you're eating them every day, you're asking for it.

>Currently, the coolest thing we're doing is treating blood cancers (leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma) by harvesting stem cells, blasting them with drugs, and injecting them. Is working quite well.
family friend had a rare but treatable blood cancer, detected in her late 50s. a bone marrow stem cell transplant "cured" it, but she's on prednisone and anti-rejection drugs until she kicks off. The steroid induced osteoperosis is brutal. A lot of times the cure leaves you totally fucked up for life.

>Case in point, we have almost no new antibiotics in the last 20 years. No money in it.
Aren't the botique IV antibiotics like $5k a dose? The biggest problem with antibiotics is drug resistance. It's almost an unwinnable battle.

>skinless poultry is not associated with prostate cancer recurrence or progression
>chicken is actually a lot worse for you from a pro-cancer standpoint than red meat

?

I remember reading that there was this woman with a special cancer mutation that eventually outlived her, they had taken some of the cancer cells and kept them fed and in a contained environment outside of her body and theyre still alive and growing despite the fact she died awhile back

Clinical trials (oncology) here and I agree about the cure is here soon. If not cure, then a regimen that will slow it's growth which will prolong life until a normal death age. Like hiv...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

It was some black woman with cervical cancer. They are so robust that practically 50% of the various strains of research cells have been taken over by HeLa at some point in time.

Lol
Man I'm in the business and the cancers I see are horrid and there ID no way done if these patients would live a half year without treatment. Not a chance.
Also Japan- everyone smoke there? Everyone? What is the lung cancer rate?

oddly enough the nips have next to zero incidence of breast cancer.

small titties + historically no bra use. I smell some correlation.

thank you for clearing that up

No doubt
Less mass to get that cancer

Like smaller balls less testicular cancer lol

At least read the whole sentence, man. Skinless poultry doesn't seem to increase prostate cancer risk while poultry with skin does. Meanwhile, we have evidence from the second study I linked connecting poultry viruses (to which you are exposed when you cook or eat any kind of chicken) with liver and pancreatic cancers. You're generally not going to find a single study implicating all meat in all cancer. If you want the whole picture you need to read the individual studies and put the pieces together yourself.

Like said, cancer is not a one size fits all sort of disease. Each specific kind of cancer is caused by its own specific set of factors. Just because skinless chicken doesn't increase prostate cancer risk doesn't meant that it doesn't increase pancreatic cancer risk.

In a similar fashion, the sulforaphane in broccoli inhibits breast cancer growth but might not be very useful in preventing esophageal cancer, where you would see more benefit from strawberry consumption. The best thing you can do if you want to reduce your cancer risk is to eat a wide variety of fruits and vegetables and reduce your meat, egg and dairy consumption as much as you can.

This isn't political, this is science.

>People in shitty countries often die earlier but not from cancer
Well yeah, if you die young, you don't get old enough to get one. Statistically everyone over 40 has something pre-cancerous in their body just waiting for those final mutations to start exploding.

Do you know how most cancer diagnoses are made? Through radiological exam (followed by biopsy). Poor countries can't run CT, MRI or ultrasound scans on every other person. A lower number of diagnoses doesn't necessarily mean that the actual prevalence is lower.

what are some of the worst that you've seen?

Incredibly interesting and informative thread, thanks for the great answers from those who are actually knowledgable.

Oral & nasal cancers probably.

Cancer has never been proven to actually exist.

Notice how there were never any written historical pieces about cancer until the 1900s, when the jews were in control of Big Pharma and Big Medical.

What if what he's saying is just some advanced form of shitposting

...lol

Are you implying your cells can not grow out of control because "da joos"?

Prove that cancer isn't just a creation to fuel funding for "research".

>Statistically everyone over 40 has something pre-cancerous in their body just waiting for those final mutations to start exploding.

Yes, and whether your current cancerous or precancerous cells stay benign or not is something you can heavily influence through your lifestyle: not smoking or drinking, eating well and exercising. What you put into your body is in a very big way the difference between dying with cancer or dying from cancer.

There have been plenty of massive population studies showing that populations eating traditional plant based diets have much lower rates of all sort of common western diseases, cancer included. We've also been able to watch some of these countries as they adopt a western diet and we've seen their cancer and heart disease rates rise along with their dietary changes. Japan is a nice example of a population that traditionally ate a lot of vegetables and grains and little meat and has recently embraced fast food and hamburgers and is experiencing rising heart disease and cancer rates as a result.

I have to disagree with your statement of there being no money in curing cancer. What with the 20-year patent given to medical drugs, having one that isn't just a treatment but an actual CURE for cancer basically gives whatever company patents it first a blank cheque for 20 years, they could pretty much name their price.

>Japan
>Saving dogs
Nice try Japan, you're not fooling anyone.

Yeah, they'd make a whole bunch, but one treatment and curing someone will net less money than 10-12 cycles of repeated administration. The history of pharmacy has shown this to be the case, and money is lobbied against it. I'm not tinfoil hat about it, but I pride myself on my ability to read literature and know my history.

Also my boss says he knows 100% certain of this exact thing happening when he was at MD Anderson in Houston. Did his fellowship in the 80's when HIV and AIDS hit, and they essentially stopped all cancer research and focused on AIDS.

Correct on both counts, but this isn't a bone marrow transplant we're doing, it's kinda like blood doping, what athletes do to cheat on drug tests. We take the blood, put drugs in it, then put it back in, in simplest terms. A bone marrow transplant is a total replacement of the marrow, and all subsequent cells made from that. And yeah, you'll have to be on anti-rejection meds probably forever.

>Cancer can be benign
TUMOURS can be benign, cancer is the name of malign tumours.

Also it seems like tumours rely on carbohydrates to reproduce it's cells, use a carbohydrate free diet and you'll have a higher chance on surviving.

>what is lipid and protein metabolism for 500, John