THE COMMON FACTOR THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBESITY AND BREAST CANCER

(© 22 August 2015: Dr.V.M.Palaniappan, Ph.D.)

Did you read the latest news referring to the common causative factor/s for breast cancer and obesity that was published by Medical Xpress (Aug.20, 2015), cited in Science X Newsletter?

Following is the URL for you to read the full text:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-scientists-probe-obesity-ties-breast.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=ctgr-item&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

*   *   *   *   *   *

YOU MAY WANT TO READ THIS PART IN THIS ARTICLE FIRST, AND THEN PROCEED TO READ MY RESEARCH FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS / COMMENTS IN THE SECOND PART, BELOW – Dr.Palani.

*   *   *   *   *   *

The research works of Research Assistant Professor Lisa Arendt and Associate Professor Charlotte Kuperwasser from Tufts University in Boston were published in the Science Translational Medicine (Aug.19^th issue).

They have observed that “The processes underlying the obesity-breast cancer link had left specialists stumped, although some had proposed obesity-related differences in hormones or inflammation. But obesity-related stiffening of breast tissues was not high on the list.”

The authors have referred to another new work in Cornell University by a doctoral student Bo Ri Seo and associates. It seems they examined the breast fat tissues in women and mice, and found that “in obesity, the web-like network of fibres holding fat cells in place is more rigid than normal”

To make it simple, those cells were RIGID.

We may want to ask a question here:

What makes those cells rigid?

The authors have tried to explain it in the following manner:

The “low oxygen in the denser tissues might be one explanation. It's still possible that an inflammatory process plays a role.”

(According to my research findings, both the above do not seem to be correct. I will explain the phenomenon in the later part in this article – Dr.Palani).

Scientists normally believe that mice (or man) can become obese in two ways: one due to genetic reasons, and second due to over-eating.

When these two authors compared the tissues of mice that became obese due to the above two reasons, they found the tissues in both were stiff.

So, they seem to have concluded that the STIFF STRUCTURE is the responsible factor for breast cancer.

They further found that even ‘normal’ cells grown under the ‘cancerous conditions’ also became cancerous – that is rigid.

Their further research showed that loss of weight due reduced feed had softened the rigidity to some extent.  In other words, the rigidity is reversible to some extent.

So, they seem to believe that “weight loss is the only recommendation for obesity in women diagnosed with breast cancer.”

According to Seo and her associates, “Dense breast tissue on a mammogram is associated with a higher probability of developing breast cancer.”

They say that there is a possibility to regenerate breast (getting breast tissue from a donor) after its complete removal through surgery. However, they have raised doubt about the suitability of the donor’s breast tissue – if she too happens to be an obese woman.

The Editorialists have observed the following:

The “diabetic women who take the drug metformin have a lower risk of developing breast cancer”.

Arendt and Kuperwasser seem to have read in some other study that there was no relationship between short-term weight loss and lessening of cancer risk in postmenopausal women.

*   *   *   *   *   *

THE FOLLOWING ARE MY (DR.PALAN’S) FINDINGS:

(For ease of understanding, I am presenting here abrupt statements initially, and later, the explanations.)

1.  Hormones and inflammation do not seem to be the causative factors for the development of breast cancers.
   
   
2. Low oxygen in the denser tissues does not seem to have any relevance to breast cancer at all.
   
   
3.  Obesity-related stiffening of breast tissues (that is, the rigidity), as per my study, does not seem to be the causative factor as such, but is an intermediary transitional phenomenon only.
   
   
4. Ref: Obesity: It may be true that Genetics plays a major role in determining the overall COMMON structure of people belonging to a particular race (or ethnicity), but may not bring about variations within the same population.
   
   
   In other words, if parents and fore-fathers (one individual of a particular race) are of a comparable and more or less identical size and structure, that one individual descendent becoming too HUGE cannot be attributed to the genes. Blaming the genetic mutations too may not be an acceptable explanation. (If genetic mutation, why is it that that one individual does not become too puny at all? Mutations need not be unidirectional.)
   
   
   Further, at all times during the process of evolution, “Natural Selection” or “Survival of Fittest” occurs to choose only the best, not the unfit, worst and destructive. People often tend to forget this reality.
   
   
   So, genetic inheritance cannot be the causative factor for obesity and cancer developments.
   
   
5. Ref: OVER-EATING and OBESITY:
   Based on my 40 years of research in the area of “Ecological Healing System”, or “EcoTherapy” for short, I have found the following to be true*:
   
   
   (* Ref: Palaniappan,V.M., (1998). Obesity: causes, cure, and prevention. ISBN 978-967-9988-05-8. 471pp.
   Palaniappan, V.M. (2007). The true causes of all diseases. ISBN 978-967-9988-13-0.192pp.
   Palaniappan, V.M. (20??). All about obesity in a nutshell. ISBN 978-967-9988-18-5. 220pp.)
   
   
   There are TWO different types of OBESITY:
   
   

1.  HARMLESS OBESITY:
   
   
   The body size of a person becoming too big, with flabby, ‘hanging’ kind of flesh over the face, around the waist, in buttocks, thighs, and the like.
   
   
   This kind of obesity occurs essentially due to the FAT CELLS that make up the ADIPOSE TISSUE.
   
   
   The FATTY TISSUE occurs as a result of FAT ACCUMULATION, because of eating too much of fats, oils and carbohydrates, or because of NOT burning off that excessive food as energy through working (or exercising).
   
   
   This kind of obesity does NOT do any harm to the person, except making the person look ‘out-of-shape’ and somewhat clumsy and lazy. That will be all to it.
   
   
   This fat tissue related obesity as such does not give rise to MORBID OBESITY – for certain. Fat tissue is nothing more than stored energy.
   
   
   In other words, this kind of obese person will not get diabetes, heart diseases, stone diseases, cancers, etc.
   
   
   This kind of obesity ALONE (overweight + clumsy-looking shape) can be reversed easily either by STARVATION or REDUCING THE FOOD (fats, oils, and carbohydrates) OR BY BURNING THE FAT (that is, spending the stored energy through over-working or exercising).
   
   
2. HARMFUL OBESITY:
   
   
   Even before trying to understand the HARMFUL obesity, we have to remember the following:
   
   
   When we consume FOOD (solid or liquid), it gives us the following:
   
   

1.  Energy for work (this is the one that gets saved as FAT cells, if not spent then and there).
   
   
2. Vitamins: these are just catalyst-like helpers for our well-being.
   
   
3. MINERALS.
   
   
   To start with all plants absorb several minerals (Ca, Mg, K, Na, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, etc.) from soil.
   
   
   Of all these, the most important mineral that gets into the plant body in great quantities is CALCIUM (Ca).
   
   
   This abundant Ca gets into the body of man (and all animals) through food (solids and liquids).
   
   
   Man requires about 500 mg (adults) to 1000 mg (children) of Ca daily for a variety of purposes, we know very well.
   
   
   However, we are bound to consume MORE or less Ca, inadvertently.
   
   
   In reality, it has been well studied by numerous scientists that no major disaster happens if the amount absorbed is LESS (See my book on obesity: page:   ).
   
   
   If MORE Ca gets CONSUMED, then, the body already has TWO built-in mechanisms to get rid of those Ca EXCESSES:
   
   

1.  The intestine purposely avoids absorbing the water-insoluble Ca from vegetable matter, and rejects such excesses through defecation.
   
   
   (The faeces, when it contains Ca, will be alkaline and in solid form.)
   
   
2.  All water-soluble Ca EXCESSES will be driven out of the blood stream (helped by Calcitonin, secreted by the Thyroid gland) and body through URINE.

With the help of the above TWO mechanisms, ALL Ca EXCESSES get out of the body, leaving it in a healthy state.

SERIOUS PROBLEM arises only when MAN (and some domesticated animals, but not wild ones) DISTURBS ONE OR BOTH OF THE ABOVE TWO ‘NATURAL’ FUNCTIONS.

1. If and when a person eats chocolates, biscuits, pastries made of ultra-refined flour, over-ripe fruits (such as papaya that may contain far too much of fibres), etc., the faeces becomes SLIMY (a bit watery, normally recognised as diarrhoea).
   
   
   At this, the faeces turns ACIDIC.
   
   
   When this happens, the HITHERTO UNABSORBED Ca EXCESSES in the colo-rectal region, GETS ABSORBED BY THE LARGE INTESTINE.
   
   
   This process ADDS on to the Ca OVERLOAD.
   
   
   This overloaded, now-water-soluble Ca excesses become part of the URINE so that it get VOIDED out of the body.
   
   
   If the person URINATES ADEQUATELY (I have studied the adequacy to be 7 or more number of times a day, and the optimum appear to be 8 urinations, so that the Liquid Input / Urine Output Ratio remains between 1.0 and 1.2.  See Palaniappan, 1998, 20?? for procedure), ALL the Ca EXCESSES get leached out from the body, leaving it in a healthy state.
   
   
   The problem arises only if the person UNDER-URINATES.
   
   
   If for instance, if the person urinates only 3 or 4 times daily, this inadequacy leaves behind* in the body about HALF of the Ca EXCESSES.
   
   
   (* Water can remove Ca only to its maximum saturation point.)
   
   
   So, the Ca EXCESSES (that became EXCESSES because of consuming too much Ca in the first place, making the faeces slimy subsequently, and under-urinating eventually), REMAINS INSIDE THE BODY.
   
   
   Now, the Calcitonin will NOT allow these Ca EXCESSES to remain in the blood.
   
   
   As a result, such EXCESSES get TRANSPORTED by the LYMPH fluid to various parts of the body for STORAGE.
   
   
   The SOFT CELLS in various parts of the body form the best STOREHOUSES.
   
   
   The cells that make up the soft tissues in the BREAST (as well as soft cells in all other organs in the body, e.g., any part of the gastro-intestinal system, bladder, PROSTATE GLAND, etc., etc.) absorb these Ca EXCESSES*, into their cytoplasm, to form part of it. The Ca excesses get converted into WATER-INSOLUBLE, SOLID CALCIUM OXALATE CRYSTALS.
   
   
   (* The soft cells that make up the LACTICIFEROUS tissues in the breasts are designed to scavenge and absorb Ca from all available sources in order to produce MILK for feeding the baby.
   
   
   In men, the soft cells that make up the PROSTATE GLAND are also designed to absorb Ca from all available sources, essentially from the LYMPH DUCTS, for the production of SEMEN.
   
   
   When such accumulations go beyond the optimum, or the tolerance limits of those cells, those cells DIVIDE mechanically – that is asexually – mitotically, just to accommodate more of the oncoming Ca EXCESSES.
   
   
   Naturally, such cell divisions result in the formation numerous cells – all at ONE SPOT. For want of space, all those over-loaded, over-inflated, over-filled, over-stuffed cells jointly take up the shape of a LUMP* – the Breast LUMP**.
   
   
   (* Often, the Oncologists tend to recognise this enlargements as inflammation, as stated at the beginning of this article.)
   
   
   (** In the case of the Prostate Gland, such an accumulation results in its ENLARGEMENT.)
   
   
   These Calcium oxalate CRYSTALS are the ones that make the breast cells (tissues) HARD or RIGID, as was found by Lisa Arendt and Charlotte Kuperwasser of Tufts University in Boston, in the Reported study.
   
   
   If and when a person continues to:
   
   

1. consume Ca-rich food (such as seafood, eggs, Ca supplements, Ca-enriched eatables and drinks, etc.,),
2. defecate slimy faeces all the time (or, frequently), and 
3. if he/she under-urinates all the time, then, as per my study, it is almost certain, that these ‘inflammations’, the ‘lumps’, the  ‘enlargements’, or the ‘cysts’ keep on growing in size, until these so-called ‘cancer-structures’ attain much bigger sizes to a point of SQUEEZING other organs and preventing them from performing their normal functions.  
   Of course, this will ultimately result in death.

The following are very important points we have to remember:

• When ALL the soft cells in the body gather and retain the Calcium oxalate crystals (tiny stones), that INCREASES the total body weight of the person - resulting in OVERWEIGHT, and subsequently, morbidly OBESE. In other words, it is the ACCUMULATION OF Ca EXCESSES that forms the COMMON FACTOR that contributes to BOTH the development of OBESITY as well as the CANCER.
• Cancer Cell is NOT an organism on its own. It is just a normal cell that has become inflated due to the filling of excessive Calcium. Therefore, it does not spread from one organ to another, as has been misunderstood all this while. It only divides at one spot.
• When the accumulation of Ca Excesses continue in a person, the most vulnerable organ (the breast, uterus, cervix, etc. in women, and prostate gland, colon, etc. in men) begins to accumulate such excesses initially.
  
  
  Once that particular organ gets fully filled, then, other adjacent organ (i.e., their cells) begins the accumulation process.
  
  
  Later on, yet another organ continues to absorb and enlarge.
  
  
  Unfortunately, scientists hitherto appear to have mistaken this to be a ‘SPREADING ACTION’ of some kind of ‘organism’ called ‘a Cancer Cell’.
  
  
  The above being the case, treating a cancer patient with CHEMOTHERAPY or RADIATION does NOT serve any meaningful purpose, other than weakening the patient by the toxins contained in the chemicals such as Tamoxifen.
  
  
  One may want to query as how does some amount of good result happens when a patient is subjected to chemotherapy and/or radiation>
  
  
  Here is the answer:
  
  
  The chemicals used are strong ACIDS. Even otherwise, any concentrated chemical put into the body makes the body HYPERACIDOSED.
  
  
  Likewise, the RADIATION makes the body very highly HYPERACIDOSED.
  
  
  In acid state, the on-coming (i.e., the new input) ALKALINE Calcium EXCESS that is in the process of getting accumulated within the cells, will NOT accumulate, but will get NEUTRALISED. As a result, the cells will not get bloated up or inflamed, or form a new lump. Thereby, there will not be any new cell division occurring for a while.  HOWEVER, after a while, when the body returns to a mildly ALKALINE state, the cells will start accumulating the freshly on-coming Ca EXCESSES. This is the IRONY.
  
  
  I have found that the presence or absence of Oxygen has absolutely nothing to do with cancer.
  
  
  Since wild animals do not control their urinal urges, and do not consume any ultra-refined feed, they do not develop any cancers, or even diabetes, for that matter.
  
  
  On the other hand, domesticated animals tend to lessen their urine output, for they, most of the time, tend to depend upon their human masters for drinking water. Even the feed given to them may make their defecations slimy (in cows and dogs, for example).
  
  
  Earlier in this article, I talked of Harmless Obesity due to overeating, and Harmful Obesity due to the accumulation of EXCESSIVE CALCIUM.
  
  
  For someone to find a food that does NOT have any Ca in it is impossible. All food items contain Ca: some have plenty, while others may have lesser quantities.
  
  
  Similar to the proverbial saying that several droplets of rain can result in flooding, when one consumes TOO MUCH (in bulk) of any food, that food is bound to contribute plenty of Ca, essentially owing to the abundance of the food itself. This is the reason why and how the researchers of the above Report found rigid tissues in overfed mice (described above).
  
  
  Let me explain the case of post-menopausal women.
  
  
  The Editorialists mentioned above had said that the following: The “diabetic women who take the drug metformin have a lower risk of developing breast cancer”.
  
  
  It is true that the Diabetic women may not develop cancer. I have elaborated the reason for this in my book (Palaniappan, V.M. (2010). Cancer: Causes, Cure and Prevention. ISBN 978-967-9988-14-7. 621pp.)
  
  
  Can you guess why and how this happens? Let me explain it:
  
  
  I have established that the Type-2 diabetes occurs in a person when he/she drinks plenty of water, but under-urinates (See: Palaniappan, V.M. (2011). Diabetes: Causes, Cure and Prevention” ISBN 978-967-9988-14-7. 256pp.).
  
  
  I have found that it is Ca that behaves like sugar, and when Ca accumulates in a person due to under-urination, the Ca excesses give rise to type-2 diabetes.
  
  
  This happens because, the brain does not want the body to collapse (or severely malfunction) because of the Ca excesses. Therefore, in order to save the body, it force-induces liberal urination – in other words, diabetes develops.
  
  
  At monthly intervals, women tend to lose large quantities of Ca through their menstrual fluids (see my book: Menses, Menopause, and Osteoporosis).
  
  
  Once their menstrual discharges stop because of the menopause, their body begins to accumulate Ca. This makes their body weight increase month after month.
  
  
  When  their body has accumulated far too much of Ca, they develop Type-2 diabetes (or, they get massive heart attack, due to calcium-created heart blockages).
  
  
  Once a post-menopausal woman develops type-2 diabetes, she is going to urinate liberally and at frequent intervals. This would REMOVE ALL THE ACCUMULATE Ca EXCESSES FROM HER BODY.
  
  
  The absence of such Ca accumulation would naturally NOT give rise to cancerous lumps in her.
  
  
  *   *   *   *   *   *
  After reading all the above, you may want to know as how I CURE cancers and diabetes in people.
  
  
  Let me explain here in brief only the mode of treatment for Cancers, since this article deals with cancer.
  
  
  I am of the firm opinion, based on my 40 years of intense research and clinical practice, that ALL CANCERS (INCLUDING LEUKAEMIA) ARE CAUSED ONLY BECAUSE OF THE ACCUMULATION OF EXCESSIVE CALCIUM WITHIN THE BODY (Again, see my book on Cancer for evidences).
  
  
  The basic approach rests in the DECALCIFICATION OF THE PATIENT.
  
  
  In brief,
  • Ca rich diet (e.g., seafood, eggs, etc.) should be prevented.
  • Ca-enriched eatables and Ca-supplements should be stopped.
  • All eatables (e.g. chocolates, over-ripe papaya, any other very high fibre items, etc.) that may make the faeces SLIMY should be stopped.
  • Water intake must be increased to be between 2 L and 3 L, depending upon the environmental conditions and the size of the person.
  • Urination must be regulated to make sure that the person voids once every hour for a while, and then, once every two hours (while awake) or so.
  • Administration of foods and certain HERBS that are naturally highly ACIDIC are to be given.
  • ALL THE ABOVE SHOULD BE MANAGED IN AN ORDER I HAVE DEVELOPED, AND PRESENTED IN MY BOOK ON CANCER.

The above procedure completely cures a person from early stages of cancer. However, at late stages, the removal of the cancer structures through surgical procedure appears to be a must, prior to the management of the patient following my methodology.

This is so because, the lumps tend to become STONES (i.e., water-insoluble Ca stones) in the tissues. Therefore, they cannot be dissolve by the administration of acid substances. Hence, the need for surgical intervention appears to be a necessity.  However, after that, there is no place for chemotherapy or radiation in the curative procedure I have developed. The patient, whose lifestyle has been once changed, will NOT get back the cancer at any time later in her (or his) life.

                    *   *   *   *   *   *

Well, friends,              

Thank you for reading such a long article.

I hope the top people at the W.H.O would read this with open-mindedness, and would begin to recognise my works in this area, for the benefit of mankind.
With love and affection,

Dr. Palani, Ph.D.