The battle against cancer has been raging now for the better part of seven decades.
In that time medical science has progressed through any number of treatment protocols.
The issue is that, without many exceptions, the same types of treatment protocols used in the early days are still the primary treatment methods that are still utilized by mainstream medicine today.
The good ole standby's continue to be: surgery, chemo and radiation.
There is no question that the delivery of the above mentioned protocols have been honed and have evolved into far better treatments over the intervening years.
Despite these impressive medical advances, we are diagnosing more cancer, and survival rates while significantly improving, still aren't nearly as high as we need them to be especially for the more aggressive forms of cancer.
Why aren't survival rates much higher after all these years? That is a very difficult question to answer.
One theory could be that even though we have better early detection and more aggressive therapies, if cancer isn't arrested or stopped in its earliest stages, then there just isn't much that can be done after it has metastasized that would not adversely impact the patient.
Is cancer just too smart and elusive an enemy to defeat once it has metastasized? Is there a "point of no return" as it relates to metastasized cancer? I don't think so! I think the focus has primarily been in the wrong place.
Currently we introduce drugs in the form of chemotherapy into the body in an attempt to systemically track down cancer cells wherever they maybe in the hopes of finding and killing them all.
Even though that approach works well in some instances, we all know the nasty side effects and lackluster results associated with that.
Maybe a more effective approach might be to use the bodies own inherent mechanisms to track down and subsequently kill these despicable invaders that we so disgustingly call cancer.
How to do that? Science has long known that glucose is the energy source that cancer cells must have in order to survive.
Why then can't cancer be cured or put into remission by just eliminating glucose from the body.
Life nor cancer was just not meant to be that easy! The human body is capable of generating glucose even if you eliminate most if not all carbohydrates from your diet.
That is probably why cancer diets have not proven to be very successful in most people.
Your body does have the ability to cure cancer or at least get rid of the cancer but it needs help from a variety of sources.
What are those sources? Well, most importantly you have to have your normal cells derive its energy from a source other than glucose.
Fortunately enough "mother nature" gave us an alternate energy source which is widely known as ketones.
Ketones are produced when the body uses fats instead of carbohydrates for its energy.
Once that transformation has occurred, in order for your body to then cure itself of cancer, you need to force your body to stop producing the glucose that it is designed to produce, even in the absence of carbohydrates.
Doing these things along with a few additional tricks should allow most cancer victims the opportunity to "Stop Cancer And Die From Old Age Instead!"