Why do tumors occur in some organs but not others? Can we map specific toxins onto specific organs for cancer? This post answers these questions from the perspective of Toxin Sequestration Theory.
Thanks for the comment. In my blog posts about specific toxins, I cite experimental evidence that toxins are preferentially sequestered inside specific cancer tumors. For example, I cite that oxalate are stored in breast cancer tissue, seed oils are stored in prostate cancer tissue. There’s alot of evidence for this kind of thing. I will write a blog in the future about metastasis, good question but will save the answer for later.
Brain tumors are relatively rare compared to prostate, breast, lung, colon, or liver cancers. This is consistent with the idea that the body avoids building sequestration sites in critical, low-regeneration organs like the brain and heart.
When brain tumors do occur, they often involve toxins that have a special affinity for neural tissue or can bypass the blood-brain barrier — such as certain heavy metals, lipid-soluble toxins (e.g., seed oil-derived oxidized lipids), mycotoxins, or chemicals that cause chronic neuroinflammation and oxidative stress. In these cases, the body may be forced to create a local sequestration site because the toxin is directly damaging delicate brain cells.
The brain is generally a last-resort location for tumor formation. Its relative rarity supports the idea that tumors form preferentially in tissues that are either heavily burdened by a specific toxin or best equipped to isolate it without immediate catastrophic consequences.
Yes, the more I think about it, the more I agree. The stories of your children and how positive their response to diet change was, had my complete attention. I have 3 grandsons and we are trying hard to get them on healthier diets. It is so hard with school and sports, as you know. I'm glad you are able to home school, that isn't possible for my daughter and family, but I am trying to influence the older boys as best I can, and the 5 year old is easy, he loves meat but also sweet potatoes. So we just have to try our best.
I'm guessing you've seen the movie The Magic Pill? And there is a new one, not sure you've heard of it, The Cholesterol Code, fabulous documentary and is now on Amazon for rent or purchase, a must see!
I will write a blog post in the future about childhood cancers. Toxicity is generational, which means it’s handed down from generation to generation. In utero, toxins pass from the mother to the baby through the placenta. Sadly, this means that children pay for the “sins” of their parents, and it means that the youngest generation (today) is the most toxic generation.
When a baby is born with jaundice, that’s a sign that the baby has liver damage from toxic overload. Jaundice is very very common in babies. Hence, this means that many babies are born with toxicity.
In addition, children today are increasingly exposed to heavy metals (in vaccine shots) and toxins in baby formula and fortified baby foods (baby foods are fortified with non-heme iron which is a toxin that drives cancer).
Hence, childhood cancers are absolutely consistent with my theory.
Thanks for the quick reply, and Yes, makes perfect sense. It actually makes no sense otherwise. Most people just shake their heads in complete wonder, how that little baby already has brain tumors etc. But I can totally see this. I found you via the No Carb Life interview and was intrigued by your ideas and theory. I think going Carnivore is the only thing that we can do at this point, to try and stay away from most toxins. It's shameful what is being presented as food today.
Thank you for this fascinating and well-constructed piece :) loved how you tackled a fundamental question in cancer biology (why tumors preferentially arise in specific organs) through a more integrative lens. What I found most inspiring was the interplay between seed and soil. The idea that cancer development depends not just on genetic alterations, but also on the local environment, such as metabolic conditions, immune surveillance, stromal interactions, and even organ-specific signaling, aligns with a growing body of evidence. One aspect that might further strengthen the piece would perhaps be to more clearly distinguish where the evidence is strongest (e.g., well-characterized organ tropisms and microenvironmental influences) versus where the mechanisms remain more speculative. That added clarity could help patients better understand how these concepts translate into prevention or treatment strategies.
Such an insightful and thought-provoking read for this evening!
Very interesting. How about building a team of herbalists, naturopaths, Chinese medicine/acupuncturists to formulate ideas of how to strengthen the body's detox and such since that is one of strong area for those natural practioners.
Thanks for the comment! Indeed, I’m wondering how we can grow the detox movement. I know Garrett Smith has a wonderful “Love your liver” program that’s devoted to detox. So I’m hoping to see that grow.
Thanks for sharing. Yeah it’s crucial to be careful with supplements. Just as an example, high doses of EGCG actually creates reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the body, leading to oxidative stress. That’s exactly what we’re trying to avoid. So I would be careful with that. For every supplement that you’re taking, just do an internet search and ask: does this supplement create ROS. If the answer is yes, don’t take that supplement.
It has been 24 hours since I saw Dave macs video. I am trying to wrap my head around the theory. This helped a lot. It is a logical explanation but so was the gene theory for me...then the metabolic theory. Again... working on it. I have had stage 4 now on year 7. Carnivore for 3.
Question: do you posture a "cure" ?
I was able to rid my body of every other ailment I had with carnivore. And....my tumor is stable. I did start to add some carbs back in 6 months ago. Still 90 to 95% fatty red meat.
Thanks for sharing this. That’s wonderful that you’ve been carnivore for 3 years. Honestly my best advice is to stick to carnivore and see if you can try to make it strict carnivore (cutting the few carbs you eat). Detox takes time, but if you’ve been carnivore for 3 years, then you’ve likely already gone through a detox process for: (1) oxalates, (2) seed oils, (3) some toxic metals. In particular, you’ve probably eliminated most of the oxalates and seed oils that were stored in your body.
Be very very careful with supplements, carnivore will take care of all your nutrition. Many supplements are toxic. Basic minerals, like magnesium, potassium, and zinc supplements, can be helpful with detox. So you can take basic minerals, but potentially avoid any other supplement than that.
The hard part may be changing mindset, not focusing on the tumor, but focusing on detoxing. The goal is to get the toxins out.
I like your theory that tumors are waste removers, given all the evidence I have seen to suggest tumors are not actually selfish actors, such as my placenta analogy and the analogy of myeloma producing antibodies against viruses. However, I think the case of some tumors serving to produce antibodies is evidence that their functions go beyond toxin removal, and the purpose may depend on the specific type of tumor. The thing that initially opened me up to the idea of tumors not being entirely selfish is this one guy I found on YouTube who argues that the purpose of tumors is to supply nutrients that one is deficient in. He is an Israeli and has a very Jewish sounding name, so I have trouble finding him, but will try to do so. He even goes as far as to say that tumors are organs that the body grows in response to stress, and in his case, the depletion of nutrients.
As evidence, he points to atrophic gastritis, which is an H. pylori induced disease that destroys the stomach and results in less and less vitamin B12 being absorbed, because the stomach makes a protein called intrinsic factor that is necessary for vitamin B12 to be absorbed. When vitamin B12 is severely deficient, blood abnormalities develop, and sometimes, people develop what is called a pseudo-leukemia, complete with chromosomal abnormalities, proliferation, and eventual mutations. It turns out, these pseudo-leukemia cells produce a substance similar to vitamin B12. I also would not be surprised if stomach cancer cells produce the intrinsic factor protein necessary to absorb B12 in the first place, since H. pylori infection is known to cause not just atrophic gastritis, but also stomach cancer.
That is how I started looking into the idea of tumors being organs, and whether organs can be grown in response to stress, and thus how I came upon the placenta as an organ with malignant tumor like features. The fetus literally grows it to protect itself from the mother's immune system, and to act as a filter, pumping toxins from her blood that can damage the developing embryo/fetus back into her blood, while also taking the brunt of the damage caused by these toxins. This, along with the turning off of genetic proofreading mechanisms, is why the placenta cells accumulate so many toxins. So there is an organ that is grown in response to stress in humans. Other animals have similar processes. Deer antlers are organs that are regrown every year, and the gene expression profile resembles osteosarcoma bone cancer more than healthy bone. Thus, some scientists consider both the placenta and antlers to be functional tumors. Certain fish and frogs also form stress organs called mucus cocoons to protect them from drying out. Certain plants also develop modifications of their roots, where the roots become spongy, which is an adaptation to having waterlogged roots. This stress adaptation is usually considered a tissue modification, but could also be considered a new organ developing, because the definition of an organ is many types of cells and tissues working together. This rases an interesting question in my mind, what if these various stress organs, from the placenta to various types of tumors, actually represent a new organ system. An organ system of temporary, disposable organs grown in response to stress.
This also makes me think it is possible that the mutations that accumulate may impair the functioning of the tumor over time. Perhaps cancer is actually a disease caused not by the tumor itself, but caused by the failure of the tumor, aka tumor failure. This part is pure speculation on my part, so take it with a grain of salt, but there are things that make one wonder. The mutations that myeloma develops cause the antibodies they produce to not only become less functional, undermining the cell's purpose, but also to clump together, depositing in vital organs and blocking blood flow. It is also possible that when a tumor whose job is toxin removal progresses to stage 4 cancer, that the tumor's inability to hold itself together results in the spilling out of the toxins it was meant to sequester, thus reducing its efficiency. It would also be interesting to see if the functioning of placentas deteriorates with time as mutations accumulate, but from what I have read so far, there is evidence that does indeed occur. I will likely make a post at some point asking the question of what an organ is, and whether tumors count, going over the evidence described above, called something like "What Is an Organ: do Tumors Count?" Since you inspired my post, I will link to at least one of your posts within my post.
Egcg does create a stressor. It has human clinical trials and at a high dose done twice a day it showed good results. Egcg has been touted as a good cancer treatment but I believe it needs to be in high dose like I take 2000mg twice a day with food. We shall see if my next scan shows progress or not
Ok, well that’s still from the mainstream medicine’s perspective, rather than my perspective. From my perspective, the goal is to reduce your oxidative stress. The oxidative stress is the true disease. That’s the thing that damages your body. Reducing tumor size is not the goal. The goal is to avoid oxidizing your body, due to toxins. In my theory, high dose EGCG is a toxin. It literally contributes to tissue and organ damage. So just please be careful. Wishing you the best.
Interesting framework — the idea of tissue-specific vulnerability is something I’ve been thinking about as well.
Curious how this would account for metastasis, and how we can actually verify toxin or sequestration levels in tissues?
Thanks for the comment. In my blog posts about specific toxins, I cite experimental evidence that toxins are preferentially sequestered inside specific cancer tumors. For example, I cite that oxalate are stored in breast cancer tissue, seed oils are stored in prostate cancer tissue. There’s alot of evidence for this kind of thing. I will write a blog in the future about metastasis, good question but will save the answer for later.
Thanks for the detail. Very interesting topic indeed.
Blog post coming soon (this week) on how my Toxin Sequestration Theory explains metastasis. Stay tuned :)
Yes having toxicology reports on cancer tumors would be important information.
Yes, good point. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the medical system provided patients with this information. Thanks for the comment!
I was wondering about brain tumors and cancer in young children, does this theory still hold?
Brain tumors are relatively rare compared to prostate, breast, lung, colon, or liver cancers. This is consistent with the idea that the body avoids building sequestration sites in critical, low-regeneration organs like the brain and heart.
When brain tumors do occur, they often involve toxins that have a special affinity for neural tissue or can bypass the blood-brain barrier — such as certain heavy metals, lipid-soluble toxins (e.g., seed oil-derived oxidized lipids), mycotoxins, or chemicals that cause chronic neuroinflammation and oxidative stress. In these cases, the body may be forced to create a local sequestration site because the toxin is directly damaging delicate brain cells.
The brain is generally a last-resort location for tumor formation. Its relative rarity supports the idea that tumors form preferentially in tissues that are either heavily burdened by a specific toxin or best equipped to isolate it without immediate catastrophic consequences.
So this is still consistent with my theory.
Yes, the more I think about it, the more I agree. The stories of your children and how positive their response to diet change was, had my complete attention. I have 3 grandsons and we are trying hard to get them on healthier diets. It is so hard with school and sports, as you know. I'm glad you are able to home school, that isn't possible for my daughter and family, but I am trying to influence the older boys as best I can, and the 5 year old is easy, he loves meat but also sweet potatoes. So we just have to try our best.
I'm guessing you've seen the movie The Magic Pill? And there is a new one, not sure you've heard of it, The Cholesterol Code, fabulous documentary and is now on Amazon for rent or purchase, a must see!
Thanks very much for the very interesting comments! Wishing the best to your family!
I will write a blog post in the future about childhood cancers. Toxicity is generational, which means it’s handed down from generation to generation. In utero, toxins pass from the mother to the baby through the placenta. Sadly, this means that children pay for the “sins” of their parents, and it means that the youngest generation (today) is the most toxic generation.
When a baby is born with jaundice, that’s a sign that the baby has liver damage from toxic overload. Jaundice is very very common in babies. Hence, this means that many babies are born with toxicity.
In addition, children today are increasingly exposed to heavy metals (in vaccine shots) and toxins in baby formula and fortified baby foods (baby foods are fortified with non-heme iron which is a toxin that drives cancer).
Hence, childhood cancers are absolutely consistent with my theory.
Thanks for the quick reply, and Yes, makes perfect sense. It actually makes no sense otherwise. Most people just shake their heads in complete wonder, how that little baby already has brain tumors etc. But I can totally see this. I found you via the No Carb Life interview and was intrigued by your ideas and theory. I think going Carnivore is the only thing that we can do at this point, to try and stay away from most toxins. It's shameful what is being presented as food today.
Look forward to your further posts.
Thank you for this fascinating and well-constructed piece :) loved how you tackled a fundamental question in cancer biology (why tumors preferentially arise in specific organs) through a more integrative lens. What I found most inspiring was the interplay between seed and soil. The idea that cancer development depends not just on genetic alterations, but also on the local environment, such as metabolic conditions, immune surveillance, stromal interactions, and even organ-specific signaling, aligns with a growing body of evidence. One aspect that might further strengthen the piece would perhaps be to more clearly distinguish where the evidence is strongest (e.g., well-characterized organ tropisms and microenvironmental influences) versus where the mechanisms remain more speculative. That added clarity could help patients better understand how these concepts translate into prevention or treatment strategies.
Such an insightful and thought-provoking read for this evening!
Interesting, thanks for the helpful feedback! Much appreciated, and glad you liked the post
Very interesting. How about building a team of herbalists, naturopaths, Chinese medicine/acupuncturists to formulate ideas of how to strengthen the body's detox and such since that is one of strong area for those natural practioners.
Thanks for the comment! Indeed, I’m wondering how we can grow the detox movement. I know Garrett Smith has a wonderful “Love your liver” program that’s devoted to detox. So I’m hoping to see that grow.
Thank you Patrick. I do take HIGH dose D3, EGCG, MLT, KRILL OIL , MG. Also hihh K just e days a month. Also had histotripsy last summer.
Thanks for sharing. Yeah it’s crucial to be careful with supplements. Just as an example, high doses of EGCG actually creates reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the body, leading to oxidative stress. That’s exactly what we’re trying to avoid. So I would be careful with that. For every supplement that you’re taking, just do an internet search and ask: does this supplement create ROS. If the answer is yes, don’t take that supplement.
It has been 24 hours since I saw Dave macs video. I am trying to wrap my head around the theory. This helped a lot. It is a logical explanation but so was the gene theory for me...then the metabolic theory. Again... working on it. I have had stage 4 now on year 7. Carnivore for 3.
Question: do you posture a "cure" ?
I was able to rid my body of every other ailment I had with carnivore. And....my tumor is stable. I did start to add some carbs back in 6 months ago. Still 90 to 95% fatty red meat.
Thanks for sharing this. That’s wonderful that you’ve been carnivore for 3 years. Honestly my best advice is to stick to carnivore and see if you can try to make it strict carnivore (cutting the few carbs you eat). Detox takes time, but if you’ve been carnivore for 3 years, then you’ve likely already gone through a detox process for: (1) oxalates, (2) seed oils, (3) some toxic metals. In particular, you’ve probably eliminated most of the oxalates and seed oils that were stored in your body.
Be very very careful with supplements, carnivore will take care of all your nutrition. Many supplements are toxic. Basic minerals, like magnesium, potassium, and zinc supplements, can be helpful with detox. So you can take basic minerals, but potentially avoid any other supplement than that.
The hard part may be changing mindset, not focusing on the tumor, but focusing on detoxing. The goal is to get the toxins out.
I like your theory that tumors are waste removers, given all the evidence I have seen to suggest tumors are not actually selfish actors, such as my placenta analogy and the analogy of myeloma producing antibodies against viruses. However, I think the case of some tumors serving to produce antibodies is evidence that their functions go beyond toxin removal, and the purpose may depend on the specific type of tumor. The thing that initially opened me up to the idea of tumors not being entirely selfish is this one guy I found on YouTube who argues that the purpose of tumors is to supply nutrients that one is deficient in. He is an Israeli and has a very Jewish sounding name, so I have trouble finding him, but will try to do so. He even goes as far as to say that tumors are organs that the body grows in response to stress, and in his case, the depletion of nutrients.
As evidence, he points to atrophic gastritis, which is an H. pylori induced disease that destroys the stomach and results in less and less vitamin B12 being absorbed, because the stomach makes a protein called intrinsic factor that is necessary for vitamin B12 to be absorbed. When vitamin B12 is severely deficient, blood abnormalities develop, and sometimes, people develop what is called a pseudo-leukemia, complete with chromosomal abnormalities, proliferation, and eventual mutations. It turns out, these pseudo-leukemia cells produce a substance similar to vitamin B12. I also would not be surprised if stomach cancer cells produce the intrinsic factor protein necessary to absorb B12 in the first place, since H. pylori infection is known to cause not just atrophic gastritis, but also stomach cancer.
That is how I started looking into the idea of tumors being organs, and whether organs can be grown in response to stress, and thus how I came upon the placenta as an organ with malignant tumor like features. The fetus literally grows it to protect itself from the mother's immune system, and to act as a filter, pumping toxins from her blood that can damage the developing embryo/fetus back into her blood, while also taking the brunt of the damage caused by these toxins. This, along with the turning off of genetic proofreading mechanisms, is why the placenta cells accumulate so many toxins. So there is an organ that is grown in response to stress in humans. Other animals have similar processes. Deer antlers are organs that are regrown every year, and the gene expression profile resembles osteosarcoma bone cancer more than healthy bone. Thus, some scientists consider both the placenta and antlers to be functional tumors. Certain fish and frogs also form stress organs called mucus cocoons to protect them from drying out. Certain plants also develop modifications of their roots, where the roots become spongy, which is an adaptation to having waterlogged roots. This stress adaptation is usually considered a tissue modification, but could also be considered a new organ developing, because the definition of an organ is many types of cells and tissues working together. This rases an interesting question in my mind, what if these various stress organs, from the placenta to various types of tumors, actually represent a new organ system. An organ system of temporary, disposable organs grown in response to stress.
This also makes me think it is possible that the mutations that accumulate may impair the functioning of the tumor over time. Perhaps cancer is actually a disease caused not by the tumor itself, but caused by the failure of the tumor, aka tumor failure. This part is pure speculation on my part, so take it with a grain of salt, but there are things that make one wonder. The mutations that myeloma develops cause the antibodies they produce to not only become less functional, undermining the cell's purpose, but also to clump together, depositing in vital organs and blocking blood flow. It is also possible that when a tumor whose job is toxin removal progresses to stage 4 cancer, that the tumor's inability to hold itself together results in the spilling out of the toxins it was meant to sequester, thus reducing its efficiency. It would also be interesting to see if the functioning of placentas deteriorates with time as mutations accumulate, but from what I have read so far, there is evidence that does indeed occur. I will likely make a post at some point asking the question of what an organ is, and whether tumors count, going over the evidence described above, called something like "What Is an Organ: do Tumors Count?" Since you inspired my post, I will link to at least one of your posts within my post.
Egcg does create a stressor. It has human clinical trials and at a high dose done twice a day it showed good results. Egcg has been touted as a good cancer treatment but I believe it needs to be in high dose like I take 2000mg twice a day with food. We shall see if my next scan shows progress or not
Ok, well that’s still from the mainstream medicine’s perspective, rather than my perspective. From my perspective, the goal is to reduce your oxidative stress. The oxidative stress is the true disease. That’s the thing that damages your body. Reducing tumor size is not the goal. The goal is to avoid oxidizing your body, due to toxins. In my theory, high dose EGCG is a toxin. It literally contributes to tissue and organ damage. So just please be careful. Wishing you the best.