Every disease, including cancer, has to comply to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Efforts should be made to decrease the entropy, which stays inside the patients and makes him sick.

We will take the example of cancer to analyze whether this innovative approach can lead to an effective treatment. The physician should aim at reducing the amount of entropy that remains in the cancer cell. This entropy is the reason for cell proliferation. To decrease the cellular proliferation, there are only two solutions (Table 6). The first option is to decrease the production of entropy. In order to do so, the amount of food ingested by the cancer cell should decrease. The second option is to increase the export of entropy outside of the body. Entropy should be exported outside the cancer cell in the form of heat and proliferation will cease.

Table 5 : Principles of Cancer Treat 

Decrease entropy production    Increase entropy export 
Caloric restriction/fasting   Exercise
Ketogenic diet   Metabolic rewiring
Cancer cell death   Remove the excess electrons


Decrease Entropy Synthesis

The oldest way to reduce the synthesis of biomass is to starve the cancer cell. From the nineteenth century, fasting was a possible option proposed to cancer patients. Strict fasting will lower blood sugar to fall by 20%. The body will compensate and draw on the protein stores to make glucose. The faster will no longer secrete insulin that stimulates tumor growth.

Nencioni, A., Caffa, I., Cortellino, S.,Longo, V. D. (2018). Fasting and cancer: molecular mechanisms and clinical application. Nature Reviews Cancer, 18(11), 707-719.


To make an overweight cancer patient lose weight makes perfect sense. Obesity is one of the bedrocks of cancer. This is true regardless of the origin of the cancer, whether it is a man or a woman. In animals, caloric restriction slows the onset and rate of growth of cancers.

Lv, M., Zhu, X., Wang, H., Wang, F., Guan, W. (2014).Roles of caloric restriction, ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting during initiation, progression and metastasis of cancer in animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one, 9(12), e115147.


The role of fasting is supported by multiple testimonials of patients but has not been explored by conventional trials. As of today, there are no therapeutic trials testing the value of fasting in cancer patients. Fasting cannot be patented. There is little money to be made. In addition, it is notoriously difficult to check what the patient really eats.

The world of fasting gradually formed into rival chapels. Some “experts” advise fasting over long periods, others over short but repeated periods. The six-week fasts are very popular. Others advise fasting every day for 12 hours; others do not eat three days a week. The clinical outcomes need to be scientifically documented.

While the duration and frequency of the fast may seem arbitrary, the nature of the diet advised to the cancer patient is also a subject of endless discussions. We do not wish in this book to enter into these controversies. Here again what is the real value of cabbage, green tea, curcumin, or other food supplements.
Many hospitals have rushed into the vein and are recommending in Switzerland, Germany or Mexico food based on wheat grass or other alternative treatment.

Fasting and diet are a difficult practice and must be done under the supervision of a specialist, dietitian or even better doctor.

Nutrition has taken a 180-degree turn in recent years. In the 1970s, there was major danger associated with consumption of saturated fat and high cholesterol. A common belief was that accumulation of cholesterol in the arteries could block the blood flow. Sparing the scourge of cardiovascular disease was the privilege of populations with low cholesterol levels. Consequently, the diet had to be low in cholesterol and therefore high in sugar. It was nonsense, based on truncated science and funded by an industry that profited from fear. Like the tobacco industry, the sugar industry has funded biased studies and subsidized unscrupulous researchers.

Kearns, CE, Schmidt, LA,Glantz, SA (2016). Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA internal medicine, 176 (11), 1680-1685.


Everything was wrong, the data had been tampered with, and the cholesterol was innocent. To fight cholesterol, the health authorities had recommended a change in diet. Sugar had replaced fat. And sugar was the real culprit in the epidemic of cardiovascular disease and cancer. It was wrong from the very beginning, and we replaced innocent cholesterol with killer sugar.

In old cookbooks, meats roasted in fat and cheeses galore. There are few desserts and especially no soda. One hundred years ago, the consumption of sugar was a few kilos per adult per year. Today, it is over 40 kg.

But it is not only consumption that has increased; the nature of sugar has changed. We went from glucose to fructose. And then again, fructose is worse than glucose.

In the early 1960s, the industry discovered fructose. This sugar is present in large quantities in corn. Like glucose, fructose is a sugar. But there are fundamental differences. Unlike glucose, fructose will not make you feel full. Consuming a high fructose soda does not cut the hunger; on the contrary it stimulates it.

There is preferential uptake of glucose by the liver and the brain. The liver can only digest fructose. This means that sodas will target the hepatic metabolism. As fructose does not target the brain, the eater will not have the feeling of having fed.

In the liver, the fructose will turn into fat. This is the reason for obesity in American adolescents and livers weighed down with fat (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) also called fatty liver).

Fructose, like alcohol, is a drug. But it does not encourage violence. The scourge of fructose resembles that of tobacco in the 1950s. Science knows. The institutions are silent. The industry purrs and subsidizes biased studies that unscrupulous journalists carry.