Science Has A Systemic Problem, Not an Innovation Problem
Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
A recent email, asking me to submit a survey, got me thinking about the malaise that scientists and industry professionals frequently bemoan: that innovation has been stymied for some reason and all sorts of convuluted processes must be altered to spur this mythical void of great new discoveries….. and it got me thinking about our current state of science, and what is the perceived issue… and if this desert of innovation actually exists or is more a fundamental problem which we have created.
The email was from an NIH committee asking for opinions on recreating the grant review process …. now this on the same day someone complained to me about a shoddy and perplexing grant review they received.
The following email, which was sent out to multiple researchers, involved in either NIH grant review on both sides, as well as those who had been involved in previous questionnaires and studies on grant review and bias. The email asked for researchers to fill out a survey on the grant review process, and how to best change it to increase innovation of ideas as well as inclusivity. In recent years, there have been multiple survey requests on these matters, with multiple confusing procedural changes to grant format and content requirements, adding more administrative burden to scientists.
The email from Center for Scientific Review (one of the divisions a grant will go to before review {they set up review study sections and decide what section a grant should be assigned to} was as follows:
Update on Simplifying Review Criteria: A Request for Information
NIH has issued a request for information (RFI) seeking feedback on revising and simplifying the peer review framework for research project grant applications. The goal of this effort is to facilitate the mission of scientific peer review – identification of the strongest, highest-impact research. The proposed changes will allow peer reviewers to focus on scientific merit by evaluating 1) the scientific impact, research rigor, and feasibility of the proposed research without the distraction of administrative questions and 2) whether or not appropriate expertise and resources are available to conduct the research, thus mitigating the undue influence of the reputation of the institution or investigator.
Currently, applications for research project grants (RPGs, such as R01s, R03s, R15s, R21s, R34s) are evaluated based on five scored criteria: Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, and Environment (derived from NIH peer review regulations 42 C.F.R. Part 52h.8; see Definitions of Criteria and Considerations for Research Project Grant Critiques for more detail) and a number of additional review criteria such as Human Subject Protections.
NIH gathered input from the community to identify potential revisions to the review framework. Given longstanding and often-heard concerns from diverse groups, CSR decided to form two working groups to the CSR Advisory Council—one on non-clinical trials and one on clinical trials. To inform these groups, CSR published a Review Matters blog, which was cross-posted on the Office of Extramural Research blog, Open Mike. The blog received more than 9,000 views by unique individuals and over 400 comments. Interim recommendations were presented to the CSR Advisory Council in a public forum (March 2020 video, slides; March 2021 video, slides). Final recommendations from the CSRAC (report) were considered by the major extramural committees of the NIH that included leadership from across NIH institutes and centers. Additional background information can be found here. This process produced many modifications and the final proposal presented below. Discussions are underway to incorporate consideration of a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) and rigorous review of clinical trials RPGs (~10% of RPGs are clinical trials) within the proposed framework.
Simplified Review Criteria
NIH proposes to reorganize the five review criteria into three factors, with Factors 1 and 2 receiving a numerical score. Reviewers will be instructed to consider all three factors (Factors 1, 2 and 3) in arriving at their Overall Impact Score (scored 1-9), reflecting the overall scientific and technical merit of the application.
- Factor 1: Importance of the Research (Significance, Innovation), numerical score (1-9)
- Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Approach), numerical score (1-9)
- Factor 3: Expertise and Resources (Investigator, Environment), assessed and considered in the Overall Impact Score, but not individually scored
Within Factor 3 (Expertise and Resources), Investigator and Environment will be assessed in the context of the research proposed. Investigator(s) will be rated as “fully capable” or “additional expertise/capability needed”. Environment will be rated as “appropriate” or “additional resources needed.” If a need for additional expertise or resources is identified, written justification must be provided. Detailed descriptions of the three factors can be found here.
Now looking at some of the Comments were very illuminating:
I strongly support streamlining the five current main review criteria into three, and the present five additional criteria into two. This will bring clarity to applicants and reduce the workload on both applicants and reviewers. Blinding reviewers to the applicants’ identities and institutions would be a helpful next step, and would do much to reduce the “rich-getting-richer” / “good ole girls and good ole boys” / “big science” elitism that plagues the present review system, wherein pedigree and connections often outweigh substance and creativity.
I support the proposed changes. The shift away from “innovation” will help reduce the tendency to create hype around a proposed research direction. The shift away from Investigator and Environment assessments will help reduce bias toward already funded investigators in large well-known institutions.
As a reviewer for 5 years, I believe that the proposed changes are a step in the right direction, refocusing the review on whether the science SHOULD be done and whether it CAN BE DONE WELL, while eliminating burdensome and unhelpful sections of review that are better handled administratively. I particularly believe that the de-emphasis of innovation (which typically focuses on technical innovation) will improve evaluation of the overall science, and de-emphasis of review of minor technical details will, if implemented correctly, reduce the “downward pull” on scores for approach. The above comments reference blinded reviews, but I did not see this in the proposed recommendations. I do not believe this is a good idea for several reasons: 1) Blinding of the applicant and institution is not likely feasible for many of the reasons others have described (e.g., self-referencing of prior work), 2) Blinding would eliminate the potential to review investigators’ biosketches and budget justifications, which are critically important in review, 3) Making review blinded would make determination of conflicts of interest harder to identify and avoid, 4) Evaluation of “Investigator and Environment” would be nearly impossible.
Most of the Comments were in favor of the proposed changes, however many admitted that it adds additional confusion on top of many administrative changes to formats and content of grant sections.
Being a Stephen Covey devotee, and just have listened to The Four Principles of Execution, it became more apparent that issues that hinder many great ideas coming into fruition, especially in science, is a result of these systemic or problems in the process, not at the level of individual researchers or small companies trying to get their innovations funded or noticed. In summary, Dr. Covey states most issues related to the success of any initiative is NOT in the strategic planning, but in the failure to adhere to a few EXECUTION principles. Primary to these failures of strategic plans is lack of accounting of what Dr. Covey calls the ‘whirlwind’, or those important but recurring tasks that take us away from achieving the wildly important goals. In addition, lack of determining lead and lag measures of success hinder such plans.
In this case a lag measure in INNOVATION. It appears we have created such a whirlwind and focus on lag measures that we are incapable of translating great discoveries into INNOVATION.
In the following post, I will focus on issues relating to Open Access, publishing and dissemination of scientific discovery may be costing us TIME to INNOVATION. And it appears that there are systemic reasons why we appear stuck in a rut, so to speak.
The first indication is from a paper published by Johan Chu and James Evans in 2021 in PNAS:
Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science
Chu JSG, Evans JA. Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Oct 12;118(41):e2021636118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021636118. PMID: 34607941; PMCID: PMC8522281
Abstract
In many academic fields, the number of papers published each year has increased significantly over time. Policy measures aim to increase the quantity of scientists, research funding, and scientific output, which is measured by the number of papers produced. These quantitative metrics determine the career trajectories of scholars and evaluations of academic departments, institutions, and nations. Whether and how these increases in the numbers of scientists and papers translate into advances in knowledge is unclear, however. Here, we first lay out a theoretical argument for why too many papers published each year in a field can lead to stagnation rather than advance. The deluge of new papers may deprive reviewers and readers the cognitive slack required to fully recognize and understand novel ideas. Competition among many new ideas may prevent the gradual accumulation of focused attention on a promising new idea. Then, we show data supporting the predictions of this theory. When the number of papers published per year in a scientific field grows large, citations flow disproportionately to already well-cited papers; the list of most-cited papers ossifies; new papers are unlikely to ever become highly cited, and when they do, it is not through a gradual, cumulative process of attention gathering; and newly published papers become unlikely to disrupt existing work. These findings suggest that the progress of large scientific fields may be slowed, trapped in existing canon. Policy measures shifting how scientific work is produced, disseminated, consumed, and rewarded may be called for to push fields into new, more fertile areas of study.
So the Summary of this paper is
- The authors examined 1.8 billion citations among 90 million papers over 241 subjects
- found the corpus of papers do not lead to turnover of new ideas in a field, but rather the ossification or entrenchment of canonical (or older ideas)
- this is mainly due to older paper cited more frequently than new papers with new ideas, potentially because authors are trying to get their own papers cited more frequently for funding and exposure purposes
- The authors suggest that “fundamental progress may be stymied if quantitative growth of scientific endeavors is not balanced by structures fostering disruptive scholarship and focusing attention of novel ideas”
The authors note that, in most cases, science policy reinforces this “more is better” philosophy”, where metrics of publication productivity are either number of publications or impact measured by citation rankings. However, using an analysis of citation changes occurring in large versus smaller fields, it becomes apparent that this process is favoring the older, more established papers and a recirculating of older canonical ideas.
“Rather than resulting in faster turnover of field paradigms, the massive amounts of new publications entrenches the ideas of top-cited papers.” New ideas are pushed down to the bottom of the citation list and potentially lost in the literature. The authors suggest that this problem will intensify as the “annual mass” of new publications in each field grows, especially in large fields. This issue is exacerbated by the deluge on new online ‘open access’ journals, in which authors would focus on citing the more highly cited literature.
We maybe at a critical junction, where if many papers are published in a short time, new ideas will not be considered as carefully as the older ideas. In addition,
with proliferation of journals and the blurring of journal hierarchies due to online articles-level access can exacerbate this problem
As a counterpoint, the authors do note that even though many molecular biology highly cited articles were done in 1976, there has been extremely much innovation since then however it may take a lot more in experiments and money to gain the level of citations that those papers produced, and hence a lower scientific productivity.
This issue is seen in the field of economics as well
Ellison, Glenn. “Is peer review in decline?” Economic Inquiry, vol. 49, no. 3, July 2011, pp. 635+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A261386330/AONE?u=temple_main&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=f5891002. Accessed 12 Dec. 2022.
Over the past decade, there has been a decline in the fraction of papers in top economics journals written by economists from the highest-ranked economics departments. This paper documents this fact and uses additional data on publications and citations to assess various potential explanations. Several observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the Internet improves the ability of high-profile authors to disseminate their research without going through the traditional peer-review process. (JEL A14, 030)
The facts part of this paper documents two main facts:
1. Economists in top-ranked departments now publish very few papers in top field journals. There is a marked decline in such publications between the early 1990s and early 2000s.
2. Comparing the early 2000s with the early 1990s, there is a decline in both the absolute number of papers and the share of papers in the top general interest journals written by Harvard economics department faculty.
Although the second fact just concerns one department, I see it as potentially important to understanding what is happening because it comes at a time when Harvard is widely regarded (I believe correctly) as having ascended to the top position in the profession.
The “decline-of-peer-review” theory I allude to in the title is that the necessity of going through the peer-review process has lessened for high-status authors: in the old days peer-reviewed journals were by far the most effective means of reaching readers, whereas with the growth of the Internet high-status authors can now post papers online and exploit their reputation to attract readers.
Many alternate explanations are possible. I focus on four theories: the decline-in-peer-review theory and three alternatives.
1. The trends could be a consequence of top-school authors’ being crowded out of the top journals by other researchers. Several such stories have an optimistic message, for example, there is more talent entering the profession, old pro-elite biases are being broken down, more schools are encouraging faculty to do cutting-edge research, and the Internet is enabling more cutting-edge research by breaking down informational barriers that had hampered researchers outside the top schools. (2)
2. The trends could be a consequence of the growth of revisions at economics journals discussed in Ellison (2002a, 2002b). In this more pessimistic theory, highly productive researchers must abandon some projects and/or seek out faster outlets to conserve the time now required to publish their most important works.
3. The trends could simply reflect that field journals have declined in quality in some relative sense and become a less attractive place to publish. This theory is meant to encompass also the rise of new journals, which is not obviously desirable or undesirable.
The majority of this paper is devoted to examining various data sources that provide additional details about how economics publishing has changed over the past decade. These are intended both to sharpen understanding of the facts to be explained and to provide tests of auxiliary predictions of the theories. Two main sources of information are used: data on publications and data on citations. The publication data include department-level counts of publications in various additional journals, an individual-level dataset containing records of publications in a subset of journals for thousands of economists, and a very small dataset containing complete data on a few authors’ publication records. The citation data include citations at the paper level for 9,000 published papers and less well-matched data that is used to construct measures of citations to authors’ unpublished works, to departments as a whole, and to various journals.
Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship
Josh Angrist, Pierre Azoulay, Glenn Ellison, Ryan Hill, Susan Feng Lu. Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship.
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE
Abstract
Does academic economic research produce material of general scientific value, or do academic economists write only for peers? Is economics scholarship uniquely insular? We address these questions by quantifying interactions between economics and other disciplines. Changes in the influence of economic scholarship are measured here by the frequency with which other disciplines cite papers in economics journals. We document a clear rise in the extramural influence of economic research, while also showing that economics is increasingly likely to reference other social sciences. A breakdown of extramural citations by economics fields shows broad field influence. Differentiating between theoretical and empirical papers classified using machine learning, we see that much of the rise in economics’ extramural influence reflects growth in citations to empirical work. This growth parallels an increase in the share of empirical cites within economics. At the same time, some disciplines that primarily cite economic theory have also recently increased citations of economics scholarship.
Citation
Angrist, Josh, Pierre Azoulay, Glenn Ellison, Ryan Hill, and Susan Feng Lu. 2020. “Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship.” Journal of Economic Literature, 58 (1): 3-52.DOI: 10.1257/jel.20181508
VOL. 58, NO. 1, MARCH 2020
(pp. 3-52)
So if innovation is there but it may be buried under the massive amount of heavily cited older literature, do we see evidence of this in other fields like medicine?
Why Isn’t Innovation Helping Reduce Health Care Costs?

National health care expenditures (NHEs) in the United States continue to grow at rates outpacing the broader economy: Inflation- and population-adjusted NHEs have increased 1.6 percent faster than the gross domestic product (GDP) between 1990 and 2018. US national health expenditure growth as a share of GDP far outpaces comparable nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (17.2 versus 8.9 percent).
Multiple recent analyses have proposed that growth in the prices and intensity of US health care services—rather than in utilization rates or demographic characteristics—is responsible for the disproportionate increases in NHEs relative to global counterparts. The consequences of ever-rising costs amid ubiquitous underinsurance in the US include price-induced deferral of care leading to excess morbidity relative to comparable nations.
These patterns exist despite a robust innovation ecosystem in US health care—implying that novel technologies, in isolation, are insufficient to bend the health care cost curve. Indeed, studies have documented that novel technologies directly increase expenditure growth.
Why is our prolific innovation ecosystem not helping reduce costs? The core issue relates to its apparent failure to enhance net productivity—the relative output generated per unit resource required. In this post, we decompose the concept of innovation to highlight situations in which inventions may not increase net productivity. We begin by describing how this issue has taken on increased urgency amid resource constraints magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic. In turn, we describe incentives for the pervasiveness of productivity-diminishing innovations. Finally, we provide recommendations to promote opportunities for low-cost innovation.
Net Productivity During The COVID-19 Pandemic
The issue of productivity-enhancing innovation is timely, as health care systems have been overwhelmed by COVID-19. Hospitals in Italy, New York City, and elsewhere have lacked adequate capital resources to care for patients with the disease, sufficient liquidity to invest in sorely needed resources, and enough staff to perform all of the necessary tasks.
The critical constraint in these settings is not technology: In fact, the most advanced technology required to routinely treat COVID-19—the mechanical ventilator—was invented nearly 100 years ago in response to polio (the so-called iron lung). Rather, the bottleneck relates to the total financial and human resources required to use the technology—the denominator of net productivity. The clinical implementation of ventilators has been illustrative: Health care workers are still required to operate ventilators on a nearly one-to-one basis, just like in the mid-twentieth century.
High levels of resources required for implementation of health care technologies constrain the scalability of patient care—such as during respiratory disease outbreaks such as COVID-19. Thus, research to reduce health care costs is the same kind of research we urgently require to promote health care access for patients with COVID-19.
Types Of Innovation And Their Relationship To Expenditure Growth
The widespread use of novel medical technologies has been highlighted as a central driver of NHE growth in the US. We believe that the continued expansion of health care costs is largely the result of innovation that tends to have low productivity (exhibit 1). We argue that these archetypes—novel widgets tacked on to existing workflows to reinforce traditional care models—are exactly the wrong properties to reduce NHEs at the systemic level.
Exhibit 1: Relative productivity of innovation subtypes
Source: Authors’ analysis.
Content Versus Process Innovation
Content (also called technical) innovation refers to the creation of new widgets, such as biochemical agents, diagnostic tools, or therapeutic interventions. Contemporary examples of content innovation include specialty pharmaceuticals, molecular diagnostics, and advanced interventions and imaging.
These may be contrasted with process innovations, which address the organized sequences of activities that implement content. Classically, these include clinical pathways and protocols. They can address the delivery of care for acute conditions, such as central line infections, sepsis, or natural disasters. Alternatively, they can target chronic conditions through initiatives such as team-based management of hypertension and hospital-at-home models for geriatric care. Other processes include hiring staff, delegating labor, and supply chain management.
Performance-Enhancing Versus Cost-Reducing Innovation
Performance-enhancing innovations frequently create incremental outcome gains in diagnostic characteristics, such as sensitivity or specificity, or in therapeutic characteristics, such as biomarkers for disease status. Their performance gains often lead to higher prices compared to existing alternatives.
Performance-enhancing innovations can be compared to “non-inferior” innovations capable of achieving outcomes approximating those of existing alternatives, but at reduced cost. Industries outside of medicine, such as the computing industry, have relied heavily on the ability to reduce costs while retaining performance.
In health care though, this pattern of innovation is rare. Since passage of the 2010 “Biosimilars” Act aimed at stimulating non-inferior innovation and competition in therapeutics markets, only 17 agents have been approved, and only seven have made it to market. More than three-quarters of all drugs receiving new patents between 2005 and 2015 were “reissues,” meaning they had already been approved, and the new patent reflected changes to the previously approved formula. Meanwhile, the costs of approved drugs have increased over time, at rates between 4 percent and 7 percent annually.
Moreover, the preponderance of performance-enhancing diagnostic and therapeutic innovations tend to address narrow patient cohorts (such as rare diseases or cancer subtypes), with limited clear clinical utility in broader populations. For example, the recently approved eculizimab is a monoclonal antibody approved for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria—which effects 1 in 10 million individuals. At the time of its launch, eculizimab was priced at more than $400,000 per year, making it the most expensive drug in modern history. For clinical populations with no available alternatives, drugs such as eculizimab may be cost-effective, pending society’s willingness to pay, and morally desirable, given a society’s values. But such drugs are certainly not cost-reducing.
Additive Versus Substitutive Innovation
Additive innovations are those that append to preexisting workflows, while substitutive innovations reconfigure preexisting workflows. In this way, additive innovations increase the use of precedent services, whereas substitutive innovations decrease precedent service use.
For example, previous analyses have found that novel imaging modalities are additive innovations, as they tend not to diminish use of preexisting modalities. Similarly, novel procedures tend to incompletely replace traditional procedures. In the case of therapeutics and devices, off-label uses in disease groups outside of the approved indication(s) can prompt innovation that is additive. This is especially true, given that off-label prescriptions classically occur after approved methods are exhausted.
Eculizimab once again provides an illustrative example. As of February 2019, the drug had been used for 39 indications (it had been approved for three of those, by that time), 69 percent of which lacked any form of evidence of real-world effectiveness. Meanwhile, the drug generated nearly $4 billion in sales in 2019. Again, these expenditures may be something for which society chooses to pay—but they are nonetheless additive, rather than substitutive.
Sustaining Versus Disruptive Innovation
Competitive market theory suggests that incumbents and disruptors innovate differently. Incumbents seek sustaining innovations capable of perpetuating their dominance, whereas disruptors pursue innovations capable of redefining traditional business models.
In health care, while disruptive innovations hold the potential to reduce overall health expenditures, often they run counter to the capabilities of market incumbents. For example, telemedicine can deliver care asynchronously, remotely, and virtually, but large-scale brick-and-mortar medical facilities invest enormous capital in the delivery of synchronous, in-house, in-person care (incentivized by facility fees).
The connection between incumbent business models and the innovation pipeline is particularly relevant given that 58 percent of total funding for biomedical research in the US is now derived from private entities, compared with 46 percent a decade prior. It follows that the growing influence of eminent private organizations may favor innovations supporting their market dominance—rather than innovations that are societally optimal.
Incentives And Repercussions Of High-Cost Innovation
Taken together, these observations suggest that innovation in health care is preferentially designed for revenue expansion rather than for cost reduction. While offering incremental improvements in patient outcomes, therefore creating theoretical value for society, these innovations rarely deliver incremental reductions in short- or long-term costs at the health system level.
For example, content-based, performance-enhancing, additive, sustaining innovations tend to add layers of complexity to the health care system—which in turn require additional administration to manage. The net result is employment growth in excess of outcome improvement, leading to productivity losses. This gap leads to continuously increasing overall expenditures in turn passed along to payers and consumers.
Nonetheless, high-cost innovations are incentivized across health care stakeholders (exhibit 2). From the supply side of innovation, for academic researchers, “breakthrough” and “groundbreaking” innovations constitute the basis for career advancement via funding and tenure. This is despite stakeholders’ frequent inability to generalize early successes to become cost-effective in the clinical setting. As previously discussed, the increasing influence of private entities in setting the medical research agenda is also likely to stimulate innovation benefitting single stakeholders rather than the system.
Exhibit 2: Incentives promoting low-value innovation
Source: Authors’ analysis adapted from Hofmann BM. Too much technology. BMJ. 2015 Feb 16.
From the demand side of innovation (providers and health systems), a combined allure (to provide “cutting-edge” patient care), imperative (to leave “no stone unturned” in patient care), and profit-motive (to amplify fee-for-service reimbursements) spur participation in a “technological arms-race.” The status quo thus remains as Clay Christensen has written: “Our major health care institutions…together overshoot the level of care actually needed or used by the vast majority of patients.”
Christensen’s observations have been validated during the COVID-19 epidemic, as treatment of the disease requires predominantly century-old technology. By continually adopting innovation that routinely overshoots the needs of most patients, layer by layer, health care institutions are accruing costs that quickly become the burden of society writ large.
Recommendations To Reduce The Costs Of Health Care Innovation
Henry Aaron wrote in 2002 that “…the forces that have driven up costs are, if anything, intensifying. The staggering fecundity of biomedical research is increasing…[and] always raises expenditures.” With NHEs spiraling ever-higher, urgency to “bend the cost curve” is mounting. Yet, since much biomedical innovation targets the “flat of the [productivity] curve,” alternative forms of innovation are necessary.
The shortcomings in net productivity revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the urgent need for redesign of health care delivery in this country, and reevaluation of the innovation needed to support it. Specifically, efforts supporting process redesign are critical to promote cost-reducing, substitutive innovations that can inaugurate new and disruptive business models.
Process redesign rarely involves novel gizmos, so much as rejiggering the wiring of, and connections between, existing gadgets. It targets operational changes capable of streamlining workflows, rather than technical advancements that complicate them. As described above, precisely these sorts of “frugal innovations” have led to productivity improvements yielding lower costs in other high-technology industries, such as the computing industry.
Shrank and colleagues recently estimated that nearly one-third of NHEs—almost $1 trillion—were due to preventable waste. Four of the six categories of waste enumerated by the authors—failure in care delivery, failure in care coordination, low-value care, and administrative complexity—represent ripe targets for process innovation, accounting for $610 billion in waste annually, according to Shrank.
Health systems adopting process redesign methods such as continuous improvement and value-based management have exhibited outcome enhancement and expense reduction simultaneously. Internal processes addressed have included supply chain reconfiguration, operational redesign, outlier reconciliation, and resource standardization.
Despite the potential of process innovation, focus on this area (often bundled into “health services” or “quality improvement” research) occupies only a minute fraction of wallet- or mind-share in the biomedical research landscape, accounting for 0.3 percent of research dollars in medicine. This may be due to a variety of barriers beyond minimal funding. One set of barriers is academic, relating to negative perceptions around rigor and a lack of outlets in which to publish quality improvement research. To achieve health care cost containment over the long term, this dimension of innovation must be destigmatized relative to more traditional manners of innovation by the funders and institutions determining the conditions of the research ecosystem.
Another set of barriers is financial: Innovations yielding cost reduction are less “reimbursable” than are innovations fashioned for revenue expansion. This is especially the case in a fee-for-service system where reimbursement is tethered to cost, which creates perverse incentives for health care institutions to overlook cost increases. However, institutions investing in low-cost innovation will be well-positioned in a rapidly approaching future of value-based care—in which the solvency of health care institutions will rely upon their ability to provide economically efficient care.
Innovating For Cost Control Necessitates Frugality Over Novelty
Restraining US NHEs represents a critical step toward health promotion. Innovation for innovation’s sake—that is content-based, incrementally effective, additive, and sustaining—is unlikely to constrain continually expanding NHEs.
In contrast, process innovation offers opportunities to reduce costs while maintaining high standards of patient care. As COVID-19 stress-tests health care systems across the world, the importance of cost control and productivity amplification for patient care has become apparent.
As such, frugality, rather than novelty, may hold the key to health care cost containment. Redesigning the innovation agenda to stem the tide of ever-rising NHEs is an essential strategy to promote widespread access to care—as well as high-value preventive care—in this country. In the words of investors across Silicon Valley: Cost-reducing innovation is no longer a “nice-to-have,” but a “need-to-have” for the future of health and overall well-being this country.
So Do We Need A New Way of Disseminating Scientific Information? Can Curation Help?

We had high hopes for Science 2.0, in particular the smashing of data and knowledge silos. However the digital age along with 2.0 platforms seemed to excaccerbate this somehow. We still are critically short on analysis!

Old Science 1.0 is still the backbone of all scientific discourse, built on the massive amount of experimental and review literature. However this literature was in analog format, and we moved to a more accesible digital open access format for both publications as well as raw data. However as there was a structure for 1.0, like the Dewey decimal system and indexing, 2.0 made science more accesible and easier to search due to the newer digital formats. Yet both needed an organizing structure; for 1.0 that was the scientific method of data and literature organization with libraries as the indexers. In 2.0 this relied on an army mostly of volunteers who did not have much in the way of incentivization to co-curate and organize the findings and massive literature.

The Intenet and the Web is rapidly adopting a new “Web 3.0” format, with decentralized networks, enhanced virtual experiences, and greater interconnection between people. Here we start the discussion what will the move from Science 2.0, where dissemination of scientific findings was revolutionized and piggybacking on Web 2.0 or social media, to a Science 3.0 format. And what will it involve or what paradigms will be turned upside down?
We have discussed this in other posts such as
Will Web 3.0 Do Away With Science 2.0? Is Science Falling Behind?
and
For years the pharmaceutical industry has toyed with the idea of making innovation networks and innovation hubs
It has been the main focus of whole conferences
However it still seems these strategies have not worked
Is it because we did not have an Execution plan? Or we did not understand the lead measures for success?
Other Related Articles on this Open Access Scientific Journal Include:
Global Alliance for Genomics and Health Issues Guidelines for Data Siloing and Sharing
Multiple Major Scientific Journals Will Fully Adopt Open Access Under Plan S
This is OUTSTANDING.
Now we need a “shortcliff” post to follow one chart that traces the dynamic process, no reader shall get lost inside any of the process boxes.
Really nice overview and very interesting metabolic changes.
However, related to the title, the cancerous changes- event always comes first before lactate preferred metabolism comes into place. Right?
This is what has been inferred. So if that is the premise, then the mutation would be the first event. That position has been successfully challenged and also poses a challenge to the proper view of genomic discovery. The real event may very well be the ongoing oxidative stress with aging, and decreased physiochemical reserve.
I haven’t developed the whole picture. Nitric oxide and nitrosylation contribute to both vascular relaxation and vasoconstriction, which is also different in major organs. The major carriers of H+ are NADH and FADH2. Electron transport is in the ETC in mitochondria. I called attention to the “escape” of energy in aerobic glycolysis. As disease ensues, it appears that lactate generation is preferential as the mitochondrion takes up substrate from gluconeogenesis. Whether it is an endotoxic shock or a highly malignant fast growing tumor, the body becomes trapped in “autocatabolism”. So the tumor progresses, apoptosis is suppressed, and there is a loss of lean body mass.
All of this is tied to genetic instability.
We see the genetic instability as first because of the model DNA–RNA–protein. We don’t have a map.
It is a very nice report. I did work for a short time to develop compounds to block the glucose uptake especially using glucose-mimics. I wonder is there any research on this area going on now?
High dose IV vitamin C may be an excellent choice since its structure is similar to glucose and utilizes the same transport system.
Thanks. I have been researching this exhaustively. There are even many patents trying to damp this down. You were on the right track. The biggest problem has been multidrug resistance and tumor progression.
[…] Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? (pharmaceuticalintelligence.com) […]
[…] Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? (pharmaceuticalintelligence.com) […]
Martin Canizales • Warburg effect (http://www.cellsignal.com/reference/pathway/warburg_effect.html), is responsible of overactivation of the PI3K… the produced peroxide via free radicals over activate the cyclooxigenase and consequently the PI3K pathway activating there, the most important protein-kinase ever described in the last mmmh, 60-70 years? maybe… to broke the Warburg effect, will stop the PI3K activation (http://www.cellsignal.com/reference/pathway/Akt_PKB.html) then all the cancer protein related with the generation of tumor (pAKT,pP70S6K, Cyclin D1, HIF1, VEGF, EGFrc, GSK, Myc, etc, etc, etc), will get down regulation. That is what happen, when I knock down the new protein-kinase in pancreatic cancer cell lines… stable KD of pancreatic cancer cell lines divide very-very-veeeery slow (by Western blotting, cyclin D1 disapear, VEGF, HIF1a, MyC, pAKT, pP70S6K, GSK, and more and more also has, very-very few consume of glucose [diabetes and cancer]. Stable cells can be without change the media for 3 weeks and the color doesn’t change, cells divide but VERY slow and are alive [longevity]) are not able to generate xenograft tumors related, to scramble shRNA stable cell lines. When, we broke the warburg effect, the protein kinase get’s down as well all the others. Is the same, with bacteria infections…. bacteria infections, has many things to teach us about cancer and cell proliferation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22750098)
research paper, should be ready (writing) very soon and must be submmited before end this year. Hee hee! you know… end of the world is in December 21 2012
The emphasis on p13 and the work on pancreatic cancer is very interesting. I’ll check the references you give. The Warburg effect is still metabolic, and it looks like you are able to suppress the growth of either cancer cells or bacteria. The outstanding question is whether you can get a head start on the SIR transition to sepsis to severe sepsis to MODS, to shock.
It looks like an article will be necessary after your work is accepted for publication. Thanks a lot for the response.
Also, when this protein-kinase is over expressed… UCP1 get down..then, less mitochondria, consequently less aerobic cell functions…in adipose tissue, less mitochondria promote the differentiation of BAT (Brown Adipose Tissue) to, WAT (White Agipose Tissue). Has relation with AS160 phosphorylation, Glut4 membrane translocation, promote the GABA phosphorylation (schizophrenia-autism), neuronal differentiation (NPCs:Neural Progenitor Cells), dopaminergic cell differentiation….
Larry, all comments are part of the second paper.
When you publish the paper can yuo be so kind to send me a copy of the series? My email is michael.gonzalez5@upr.edu
[…] Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? […]
[…] Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? […]
[…] Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? […]
Larry please take a look at Gonzalez et al. The Bioenergetic theory of Carcinogenesis. Med Hypotheses 2012; 79: 433-439 and let me know your thoughts.
[…] Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? Lhb https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/17/is-the-warburg-effect-the-cause-or-the-effect-of-ca… […]
[…] The Initiation and Growth of Molecular Biology and Genomics, Part I […]
[…] https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/17/is-the-warburg-effect-the-cause-or-the-effect-of-ca… Promising New Approach To Preventing Progression Of Breast Cancer (medicalnewstoday.com) […]
[…] Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? […]
[…] Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? […]
[…] https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/17/is-the-warburg-effect-the-cause-or-the-effect-of-ca… […]
[…] Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? […]
Thank you!
[…] Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? […]
[…] https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/17/is-the-warburg-effect-the-cause-or-the-effect-of-ca… […]
Informative article especially concerning activation of HIF under normoxic conditions. Recently, a paper has come out showing patients showing symptoms of mood disorder having increased expression of Hif1a. Also, there are reports that Hif1a is important in development of certain tissue types.
[…] https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/17/is-the-warburg-effect-the-cause-or-the-effect-of-ca… […]
COLOURS AND LIFE. The basic idea of this theory is that the oxidation of hydrogen and carbon atoms, arising from the degradation of carbohydrates, is by two distinct processes based on oxidation-reduction electron transfer and photochemical process of energy release on the basis of color complementary, predominance of one or another depending on intracellular acid-base balance. I can not understand why nobody wants to do this experiment. I’m sure this assumption hides a truth. Before considering it a fiction to be checked experimentally. I would like to present a research project that concerns me for a long time that I can not experience myself.
Involuntarily, after many years of searching, I have concluded that in the final biological oxidation, in addition to the oxidation-reduction electron transfer occurs photo-chemical process, accordance to the principle of color complementary energy transfer. I imagine an experiment that might be relevant (sure it can be improved). In my opinion, if this hypothesis proves true, one can control the energy metabolism of the cell by chromotherapy, as the structures involved are photosensitive and colorful. I would be very happy if this experiment were done under your leadership. Sincerely yours Dr. Viorel Bungau
INNER LIGHT – LIGHT OF LIFE.
CHROMOTHERAPY AND THE IMPLICATIONS IN THE METABOLISM OF THE NORMAL AND NEOPLASTIC CELL. “Chlorophyll and hemoglobin pigments of life porphyrin structure differs only in that chlorophyll is green because of magnesium atoms in the structure, and hemoglobin in red because of iron atoms in the structure. This is evidence of the common origin of life.” (Heilmeyer) We propose an experiment to prove that the final biological oxidation, in addition to its oxidation-reduction, with formation of H2O and CO2, there is a photochemical effect, by which energy is transferred from the H atom, or C, process is done selct, the colors, complementary colors on the basis of the structures involved are colored (red hemoglobin Fe, Mg chlorophyll green, blue ceruloplasmin Cu, Fe cytochrome oxidase red, green cytochrome oxidase with Cu etc.). The basic idea is that if life pigments (chlorophyll, hemoglobin, cytochromes), which provides energy metabolism of the cell, are colored, we can control their activities through chromotherapy, on the basis of complementary color and energy rebalance the body, with a figured X- body-colored-ray.
In my opinion, at the basis of malign transformation is a disturbance of energetical metabolism, which reached a level that cell can not correct (after having succeeded before, many times), disturbance that affects the whole body in different degrees and requires corection from outside starting from the ideea that the final biological oxidizing takes place through photochemical process with releasing and receieving energy. “Duality of cytochrome oxidase. Proliferation (growth) and Differentiation (maturation) cell.” Cytochrome oxidase is present in two forms, depending on the context of acid-base internal environment : 1.- Form acidic (acidosis), which contains two Iron atoms, will be red, will absorb the additional green energy of the hydrogen atom, derived from carbohydrates, with formation of H2O, metabolic context that will promote cell proliferation. 2.-Form alkaline (alkalosis), containing two copper atoms, will be green, will absorb the additional red energy of the carbon atom, derived from carbohydrates, with formation of CO2, metabolic context that will promote cell differentiation. Cytochrome oxidase structure has two atoms of copper. It is known that in conditions of acidosis (oxidative potential), the principle electronegativity metals, copper is removed from combinations of the Iron. So cytochrome oxidase will contain two atoms of iron instead of copper atoms, which changes its oxidation-reduction potential, but (most important), and color. If the copper was green, the iron is red, which radically change its absorption spectrum, based on the principle of complementary colors.
“Inner Light- Light of Life. Endogenous monochromatic irradiation. Red ferment of Warburg – Green ferment of Warburg.”
In my opinion, at the basis of malign transformation is a disturbance of energetical metabolism, which reached a level that cell can not correct (after having succeeded before, many times), disturbance that affects the whole body in different degrees and requires corection from outside starting from the ideea that the final biological oxidizing takes place through photochemical process with releasing and receieving energy. If the structures involved in biological oxidation finals are colored, then their energy absorption is made based on the principle of complementary colors. If we can determine the absorption spectrum at different levels, we can control energy metabolism by chromotherapy – EXOGENOUS MONOCHROMATIC IRRADIATION . Energy absorption in biological oxidation process itself, based on complementary colors, the structures involved (cytochromes), is the nature of porphyrins, in combination with a metal becomes colored, will absorb the complementary color, corresponding to a specific absorption spectrum, it will be in – ENDOGENOUS MONOCHROMATIC IRRADIATION.
This entitles us to believe that: In photosynthesis, light absorption and its storage form of carbohydrates, are selected, the colors, as in cellular energy metabolism, absorption of energy by the degradation of carbohydrates, is also done selectively, based on complementary colors. In the final biological oxidation, in addition to an oxidation-reduction process takes place and a photo-chemical process,based on complementary colors, the first in the electron transfer, the second in the energy transfer. So, in the mitochondria is a process of oxidation of atoms C and H, derived from carbohydrates, with energy release and absorption of its selection (the color), by the structures involved, which is the nature of porphyrins, are photosensitive and colorful, if we accept as coenzymes involved, containing a metal atom gives them a certain color, depending on the state of oxidation or reduction (red ferment of Warburg with iron, all copper cerloplasmin blue, green chlorophyll magnesium, red iron hemoglobin, green cytochrome oxidase with copper, etc.)
According to the principle electronegativity metals, under certain conditions the acid-base imbalance (acidosis), iron will replace copper in combination , cytocromoxidase became inactive, leading to changing oxidation-reduction potential, BUT THE COLOR FROM GREEN, TO REED, to block the final biological oxidation and the appearance of aerobic glycolysis. In connection with my research proposal, to prove that the final biological oxidation, in addition to an oxidation-reduction process takes place and a photo-chemical process, the first in the electron transfer, the second in the energy transfer.
I SUGGEST TO YOU AN EXPERIMENT:
TWO PLANTS, A RED (CORAILLE) LIGHT ONLY, IN BASIC MEDIUM, WITH ADDED COPPER, WILL GROW, FLOWER AND FRUIT WILL SHORT TIME, AND THE OTHER ONLY GREEN LIGHT (TOURQUOISE), IN AN ACID MEDIUM, WITH ADDED COPPER CHELATOR , WHICH GROWS THROUGHOUT WILL NOT GROW FLOWERS AND FRUIT WILL DO.
CULTURE OF NEOPLASTIC TISSUE, IRRADIATED WITH MONOCHROMATIC GREEN ( TOURQUOISE) LIGHT, IN AN ALKALINE MEDIUM, WITH ADDED COPPER, WILL IN REGRESSION OF THE TISSUE CULTURE.
CULTURE OF NEOPLASTIC TISSUE, IRRADIATED WITH RED ( CORAILLE) LIGHT, IN AN ACID MEDIUM, WITH ADDED COPPER CHELATOR, WILL LEAD TO EXAGERATED AND ANARCHICAL MULTIPLICATION.
If in photosynthesis is the direct effect of monochromatic irradiation, in the final biological oxidation effect is reversed. Exogenous irradiation with green, induces endogenous irradiation with red, and vice versa. A body with cancer disease will become chemically color “red”- Acid -(pH, Rh, pCO2, alkaline reserve), and in terms of energy, green (X-body-colored-ray). A healthy body will become chemically color “green”-Alkaline – (as evidenced by laboratory), and in terms of energy, red (visible by X-body-colored-ray). Sincerely, Dr. Viorel Bungau
-In addition-
“Life balance: Darkness and Light – Water and Fire – Inn and Yang.”
Cytochrome oxidase structure has two atoms of copper. It is known that in conditions of acidosis (oxidative potential), the principle electronegativity metals, copper is removed from combinations of the Iron. So cytochrome oxidase will contain two atoms of iron instead of copper atoms, which changes its oxidation-reduction potential, but (most important), and color. If the copper was green, the iron is red, which radically change its absorption spectrum, based on the principle of complementary colors. If neoplastic cells, because acidosis is overactive acid form of cytochrome oxidase (red with iron atoms), which will absorb the additional green energy hydrogen atom (exclusively), the production of H20 , so water will prevail, in Schizophrenia , neuronal intracellular alkaline environment, will promote the basic form of cytochrome oxidase (green with copper atoms), which will oxidize only carbon atoms, the energy absorption of red (complementary) and production of CO2, so the fire will prevail. Drawn from this theory interdependent relationship between water and fire, of hydrogen(H2O) and carbon(CO2) ,in a controlled relationship with oxygen (O2). If photosynthesis is a process of reducing carbon oxide(CO2) and hydrogen oxide(H2O), by increasing electronegativity of C and H atoms, with the electrons back to oxygen, which will be released in the mitochondria is a process of oxidation of atoms C and H, derived from carbohydrates, with energy release and absorption of its selection (the color), by the structures involved, which is the nature of porphyrins, are photosensitive and colorful. It means that matter and energy in the universe are found in a relationship based on complementary colors, each color of energy, corresponding with a certain chemical structure. In my opinion, at the basis of malign transformation is a disturbance of energetical metabolism, which reached a level that cell can not correct (after having succeeded before, many times), disturbance that affects the whole body in different degrees and requires corection from outside starting from the ideea that the final biological oxidizing takes place through photochemical process with releasing and receieving energy. The final biological oxidation is achieved through a process of oxidation-reduction, while a photochemical process, based on the principle of complementary colors, if we accept as coenzymes involved, containing a metal atom gives them a certain color, depending on the state of oxidation or reduction (red ferment of Warburg with copper, all copper cerloplasmin blue, green chlorophyll magnesium, red iron hemoglobin,etc. If satisfied, the final biological oxidation is achieved by a photochemical mechanism (besides the oxidation-reduction), that energy is released based on complementary colors, means that we can control the final biological oxidation mechanism, irreversibly disrupted in cancer, by chromotherapy and correction of acid-base imbalance that underlies this disorder.We reached this conclusions studying the final biological oxidation, for understanding the biochemical mechanism of aerobic glycolysis in cancer. We found that cancer cell, energy metabolism is almost exclusively on hydrogen by oxidative dehydrogenation, due to excessive acidosis , coenzymes which makes carbon oxidation, as dormant (these coenzymes have become inactive). If we accept the nature of these coenzymes chloride (see Warburg ferment red), could be rectivate, by correcting acidosis (because that became leucoderivat), and by chromoterapie, on the basis of complementary colors. According to the principle electronegativity metals, under certain conditions the acid-base imbalance (acidosis), iron will replace copper in combination , cytocromoxidase became inactive (it contains two copper atoms) leading to changing oxidation-reduction potential, BUT THE COLOR FROM GREEN, TO REED, to block the final biological oxidation and the appearance of aerobic glycolysis.
Malignant transformation occurs by energy metabolism imbalance in power generation purposes in the predominantly (exclusively) of the hydrogen atom of carbon oxidation is impossible. Thus at the cellular level will produce a multiplication (growth) exaggerated (exclusive), energy from hydrogen favoring growth, multiplication, at the expense of differentiation (maturation). Differentiation is achieved by energy obtained by oxidation of the carbon atom can not take, leading to carcinogenesis . The energy metabolism of the cell, an energy source is carbohydrate degradation, which is done by OXIDATIVE DEHYDROGENATION AND OXIDATIVE DECARBOXYLATION , to obtain energy and CO2 and H2O. In normal cells there is a balance between the two energy sources. If cancer cells, oxidation of the carbon atom is not possible, the cell being forced to summarize the only energy source available, of hydrogen. This disorder underlying malignant transformation of cells and affect the whole body, in various degrees, often managing to rebalance process, until at some point it becomes irreversible. The exclusive production of hydrogen energy will cause excessive multiplication, of immature cells, without functional differentiation. Exclusive carbon energy production will lead to hyperdifferentiation, hyperfunctional, multiplication is impossible. Normal cell is between two extremes, between some limits depending on the adjustment factors of homeostasis. Energy from energy metabolism is vital for cell (body). If the energy comes predominantly (or exclusively) by oxidation of the hydrogen atom, green energy, will occur at the structural level (biochemical), acidification of the cellular structures that will turn red, so WE HAVE MORPHOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL STRUCTURES “RED”, WITH “GREEN” ENERGY. This background predisposes to accelerated growth, without differentiation, reaching up uncontrolled, anarchical. ENERGY STRUCTURE OF THE CELL BODY WOULD BE INN. If necessary energy cell derived mainly by oxidation of the carbon atom, red energy,cell structures will be colored green, will be alkaline(basic), so WE HAVE MORPHOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL STRUCTURES “GREEN”, WITH “RED” ENERGY, on the same principle of complementarity. This context will lead hyperdifferentiation, hyperfunctional ,maturation, and grouth stops. ENERGY STRUCTURE OF THE CELL BODY WOULD BE YANG. If in photosynthesis, porphyrins chemicals group, whic be photosensitivity (their first feature), shows and a great affinity for metals with chelate forming and becoming colored (pigments of life), can absorb monochromatic light complementary, so if these pigments, which constitutes the group of chromoprotheine, in photosynthesis will achieve CO2 and H2O reduction the recovery of C, H respectively, and the issuance of and release of O, atoms as H and C that reduced the energy load, representing carbohydrates, is in the form of solar energy storage, in cellular energy metabolism, processes necessary life, energy will come from the degradation of substances produced in photosynthesis, the carbohydrates, by oxidative dehydrogenation and oxidative decarboxylation, through like substances, which form chelates with the metals, are colored, metals contained in the form of oxides of various colors(green Mg, red Fe, blue Cu,etc.),suffering from complementary color absorption process of reduction with H in case,if the oxidative dehydrogenation, when chelated metal pigment is red, becoming leucoderivat (colorless) by absorbing complementary color (green) of hydrogen, formation of H2O, or C, if the oxidative decarboxylation when chelated metallic pigment is green, energy absorbing additional, red energy of atom C, CO2 production, the process is identical. The process that lies at base cellular energy metabolism, takes place in the final biological oxidation, reducing the O atom in the form of metal oxide, in combination with photosensitive substance, porohyrin, colorful,absorbing complementary color, will reduce the O atom, with H and C, with the production of H2O and CO2. Green energy release of H atom in the oxidative dehydrogenation process, it is a process of”IRRADIATION MONOCHROMATIC ENDOGENOUS WITH GREEN”, and red energy release of C atom in the oxidative decarboxylation process, consists in an “IRRADIATION MONOCHROMATIC ENDOGENOUS WITH RED”. Porphyrin-metal combination in photosynthesis, the chelated form, by absorbing light in the visible spectrum, will be able to reduce to low and turn, C and H respectively, the state of oxide (CO2 and H2O),release of O. The final biological oxidation, the combination of metal-porphyrins in aerobically in the absence of light, will find in the oxidized state, so in the form of porphyrins and metal-oxide, will oxidize to C and H atom of hydrocarbonates, with formation of CO2 and H2O, or rather, will be reduced by C and H atom of hydrocarbonates,formation of CO2 and H2O, by absorbing energy produced by photosynthesis. If we can control the final biological oxidation, we can control cellular growth, thus multiplying, and on the other hand, maturation, so differentiation. Green energy will prevail if the cell (body) which multiplies (during growth), will in case of adult cell (functional) will prevail red energy . The two types of energy, that obtained by oxidative dehydrogenation , which will cause cell multiplication without differentiation , and that obtained by oxidative decarboxylation , which will be to stop proliferation, and will determine the differentiation (maturity, functionality). This process is carried out based on complementary colors, which are coenzymes oxidative dehydrogenation and oxidative decarboxylation is colored . It reveals the importance of acid-base balance, the predominance of the acidic or basic, as an acid structure (red), not only can gain energy from the carbon atom red (the principle of complementarity), but can not assimilate ( under the same principle). It must therefore acid-base balance of internal environment, and alkalinization his intake of organic substances by the electron donor. By alkalinization (addition of electrons) will occur neutralize acid structures, the red, they become leucoderivat, colorless, and inactive, while the basic, which because of acidosis became neutral, colorless and inactive, will be alkaline in electron contribution, will be in green, and will absorb red energy from the carbon atom. So, on two kinds of vital energy, it is clear correlation between the chemical structure of the cell(body),and type of energy that can produce and use. Thus a cell with acidic chemical structure, can produce only energy by oxidative dehydrogenation (green energy), because the acid can only be active coenzymes with acid chemical structure, red, will absorb the complementarity only green energy of hydrogen. Basic structures which should absorb red energy from carbon , are inactive due to acid environment, which in turn chemically in leucoderivat, so colorless structures, inactive. Conversion of these structures to normal, operation by alkalinization could be a long lasting process, therefore, we use parallel chromotherapy, based on the fact that these COENZYMES INVOLVED IN BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION FINALS ARE COLORED AND PHOTOSENSITIVE. Thus, exogenous irradiation with monochromatic green will neutralize, by complementarity, coenzymes red, acidic. In will reactivate alkaline coenzymes, which have become due acidosis leucoderivat, so colorless and inactive. Without producing CO2, carbonic anhydrase can not form H2CO3, severable and thus transferred through mitochondrial membrane. Will accumulate in the respiratory Flavin, OH groups, leading to excessive hydroxylation, followed by consecutive inclusion of amino (NH2). It is thus an imbalance between the hydrogenation-carboxylation and hydroxylation-amination, in favor of the latter. This will predominate AMINATION and HYDROXYLATION at the expense CARBOXYLATION and HYDROGENATION, leading to CONVERSION OF STRUCTURAL PROTEINS IN NUCLEIC ACIDS. Meanwhile, after chemical criteria not genetic, it synthesizes the remaining unoxidized carbon atoms, nucleic bases “de novo” by the same process of hydroxylation-amination, leading to THE SYNTHESIS OF NUCLEIC ACIDS “DE NOVO”. Sincerely yours, Dr. Viorel Bungau viorelbungau20@yahoo.com
Dr. Viorel Bungau,
Your comment is beautiful, clorful, insightful, magestic.
This article has drawn 3007 views
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
2012 242 362 247 851
2013 283 330 465 390 288 208 187 164 255 274 163 3,007
Dear Mr. Professor, Please join me in this research proposal, as leader, because I can not go alone.
The basic idea of this theory is that the oxidation of hydrogen and carbon atoms, arising from the degradation of carbohydrates, is by two distinct processes based on oxidation-reduction electron transfer and photochemical process of energy release on the basis of color complementary, predominance of one or another depending on intracellular acid-base balance. I can not understand why nobody wants to do this experiment. I’m sure this assumption hides a truth. Before considering it a fiction to be checked experimentally. I would like to present a research project that concerns me for a long time that I can not experience myself.
Involuntarily, after many years of searching, I have concluded that in the final biological oxidation, in addition to the oxidation-reduction electron transfer occurs photo-chemical process, accordance to the principle of color complementary energy transfer. I imagine an experiment that might be relevant (sure it can be improved). In my opinion, if this hypothesis proves true, one can control the energy metabolism of the cell by chromotherapy, as the structures involved are photosensitive and colorful. I would be very happy if this experiment were done under your leadership. Sincerely yours, Dr. Viorel Bungau
INNER LIGHT – LIGHT OF LIFE.
CHROMOTHERAPY AND THE IMPLICATIONS IN THE METABOLISM OF THE NORMAL AND NEOPLASTIC CELL. “Chlorophyll and hemoglobin pigments of life porphyrin structure differs only in that chlorophyll is green because of magnesium atoms in the structure, and hemoglobin in red because of iron atoms in the structure. This is evidence of the common origin of life.” (Heilmeyer) We propose an experiment to prove that the final biological oxidation, in addition to its oxidation-reduction, with formation of H2O and CO2, there is a photochemical effect, by which energy is transferred from the H atom, or C, process is done selct, the colors, complementary colors on the basis of the structures involved are colored (red hemoglobin Fe, Mg chlorophyll green, blue ceruloplasmin Cu, Fe cytochrome oxidase red, green cytochrome oxidase with Cu etc.). The basic idea is that if life pigments (chlorophyll, hemoglobin, cytochromes), which provides energy metabolism of the cell, are colored, we can control their activities through chromotherapy, on the basis of complementary color and energy rebalance the body, with a figured X- body-colored-ray.
In my opinion, at the basis of malign transformation is a disturbance of energetical metabolism, which reached a level that cell can not correct (after having succeeded before, many times), disturbance that affects the whole body in different degrees and requires corection from outside starting from the ideea that the final biological oxidizing takes place through photochemical process with releasing and receieving energy. “Duality of cytochrome oxidase. Proliferation (growth) and Differentiation (maturation) cell.” Cytochrome oxidase is present in two forms, depending on the context of acid-base internal environment : 1.- Form acidic (acidosis), which contains two Iron atoms, will be red, will absorb the additional green energy of the hydrogen atom, derived from carbohydrates, with formation of H2O, metabolic context that will promote cell proliferation. 2.-Form alkaline (alkalosis), containing two copper atoms, will be green, will absorb the additional red energy of the carbon atom, derived from carbohydrates, with formation of CO2, metabolic context that will promote cell differentiation. Cytochrome oxidase structure has two atoms of copper. It is known that in conditions of acidosis (oxidative potential), the principle electronegativity metals, copper is removed from combinations of the Iron. So cytochrome oxidase will contain two atoms of iron instead of copper atoms, which changes its oxidation-reduction potential, but (most important), and color. If the copper was green, the iron is red, which radically change its absorption spectrum, based on the principle of complementary colors.
“Inner Light- Light of Life. Endogenous monochromatic irradiation. Red ferment of Warburg – Green ferment of Warburg.”
In my opinion, at the basis of malign transformation is a disturbance of energetical metabolism, which reached a level that cell can not correct (after having succeeded before, many times), disturbance that affects the whole body in different degrees and requires corection from outside starting from the ideea that the final biological oxidizing takes place through photochemical process with releasing and receieving energy. If the structures involved in biological oxidation finals are colored, then their energy absorption is made based on the principle of complementary colors. If we can determine the absorption spectrum at different levels, we can control energy metabolism by chromotherapy – EXOGENOUS MONOCHROMATIC IRRADIATION . Energy absorption in biological oxidation process itself, based on complementary colors, the structures involved (cytochromes), is the nature of porphyrins, in combination with a metal becomes colored, will absorb the complementary color, corresponding to a specific absorption spectrum, it will be in – ENDOGENOUS MONOCHROMATIC IRRADIATION.
This entitles us to believe that: In photosynthesis, light absorption and its storage form of carbohydrates, are selected, the colors, as in cellular energy metabolism, absorption of energy by the degradation of carbohydrates, is also done selectively, based on complementary colors. In the final biological oxidation, in addition to an oxidation-reduction process takes place and a photo-chemical process,based on complementary colors, the first in the electron transfer, the second in the energy transfer. So, in the mitochondria is a process of oxidation of atoms C and H, derived from carbohydrates, with energy release and absorption of its selection (the color), by the structures involved, which is the nature of porphyrins, are photosensitive and colorful, if we accept as coenzymes involved, containing a metal atom gives them a certain color, depending on the state of oxidation or reduction (red ferment of Warburg with iron, all copper cerloplasmin blue, green chlorophyll magnesium, red iron hemoglobin, green cytochrome oxidase with copper, etc.)
According to the principle electronegativity metals, under certain conditions the acid-base imbalance (acidosis), iron will replace copper in combination , cytocromoxidase became inactive, leading to changing oxidation-reduction potential, BUT THE COLOR FROM GREEN, TO REED, to block the final biological oxidation and the appearance of aerobic glycolysis. In connection with my research proposal, to prove that the final biological oxidation, in addition to an oxidation-reduction process takes place and a photo-chemical process, the first in the electron transfer, the second in the energy transfer.
I SUGGEST TO YOU AN EXPERIMENT:
TWO PLANTS, A RED (CORAILLE) LIGHT ONLY, IN BASIC MEDIUM, WITH ADDED COPPER, WILL GROW, FLOWER AND FRUIT WILL SHORT TIME, AND THE OTHER ONLY GREEN LIGHT (TOURQUOISE), IN AN ACID MEDIUM, WITH ADDED COPPER CHELATOR , WHICH GROWS THROUGHOUT WILL NOT GROW FLOWERS AND FRUIT WILL DO.
CULTURE OF NEOPLASTIC TISSUE, IRRADIATED WITH MONOCHROMATIC GREEN ( TOURQUOISE) LIGHT, IN AN ALKALINE MEDIUM, WITH ADDED COPPER, WILL IN REGRESSION OF THE TISSUE CULTURE.
CULTURE OF NEOPLASTIC TISSUE, IRRADIATED WITH RED ( CORAILLE) LIGHT, IN AN ACID MEDIUM, WITH ADDED COPPER CHELATOR, WILL LEAD TO EXAGERATED AND ANARCHICAL MULTIPLICATION.
If in photosynthesis is the direct effect of monochromatic irradiation, in the final biological oxidation effect is reversed. Exogenous irradiation with green, induces endogenous irradiation with red, and vice versa. A body with cancer disease will become chemically color “red”- Acid -(pH, Rh, pCO2, alkaline reserve), and in terms of energy, green (X-body-colored-ray). A healthy body will become chemically color “green”-Alkaline – (as evidenced by laboratory), and in terms of energy, red (visible by X-body-colored-ray). Sincerely yours, Dr. Viorel Bungau
-In addition-
Life balance: Darkness and Light – Water and Fire – Inn and Yang.
Cytochrome oxidase structure has two atoms of copper. It is known that in conditions of acidosis (oxidative potential), the principle electronegativity metals, copper is removed from combinations of the Iron. So cytochrome oxidase will contain two atoms of iron instead of copper atoms, which changes its oxidation-reduction potential, but (most important), and color. If the copper was green, the iron is red, which radically change its absorption spectrum, based on the principle of complementary colors. If neoplastic cells, because acidosis is overactive acid form of cytochrome oxidase (red with iron atoms), which will absorb the additional green energy hydrogen atom (exclusively), the production of H20 , so water will prevail, in Schizophrenia , neuronal intracellular alkaline environment, will promote the basic form of cytochrome oxidase (green with copper atoms), which will oxidize only carbon atoms, the energy absorption of red (complementary) and production of CO2, so the fire will prevail. Drawn from this theory interdependent relationship between water and fire, of hydrogen(H2O) and carbon(CO2) ,in a controlled relationship with oxygen (O2). If photosynthesis is a process of reducing carbon oxide(CO2) and hydrogen oxide(H2O), by increasing electronegativity of C and H atoms, with the electrons back to oxygen, which will be released in the mitochondria is a process of oxidation of atoms C and H, derived from carbohydrates, with energy release and absorption of its selection (the color), by the structures involved, which is the nature of porphyrins, are photosensitive and colorful. It means that matter and energy in the universe are found in a relationship based on complementary colors, each color of energy, corresponding with a certain chemical structure. In my opinion, at the basis of malign transformation is a disturbance of energetical metabolism, which reached a level that cell can not correct (after having succeeded before, many times), disturbance that affects the whole body in different degrees and requires corection from outside starting from the ideea that the final biological oxidizing takes place through photochemical process with releasing and receieving energy. The final biological oxidation is achieved through a process of oxidation-reduction, while a photochemical process, based on the principle of complementary colors, if we accept as coenzymes involved, containing a metal atom gives them a certain color, depending on the state of oxidation or reduction (red ferment of Warburg with copper, all copper cerloplasmin blue, green chlorophyll magnesium, red iron hemoglobin,etc. If satisfied, the final biological oxidation is achieved by a photochemical mechanism (besides the oxidation-reduction), that energy is released based on complementary colors, means that we can control the final biological oxidation mechanism, irreversibly disrupted in cancer, by chromotherapy and correction of acid-base imbalance that underlies this disorder.We reached this conclusions studying the final biological oxidation, for understanding the biochemical mechanism of aerobic glycolysis in cancer. We found that cancer cell, energy metabolism is almost exclusively on hydrogen by oxidative dehydrogenation, due to excessive acidosis , coenzymes which makes carbon oxidation, as dormant (these coenzymes have become inactive). If we accept the nature of these coenzymes chloride (see Warburg ferment red), could be rectivate, by correcting acidosis (because that became leucoderivat), and by chromoterapie, on the basis of complementary colors. According to the principle electronegativity metals, under certain conditions the acid-base imbalance (acidosis), iron will replace copper in combination , cytocromoxidase became inactive (it contains two copper atoms) leading to changing oxidation-reduction potential, BUT THE COLOR FROM GREEN, TO REED, to block the final biological oxidation and the appearance of aerobic glycolysis.
Malignant transformation occurs by energy metabolism imbalance in power generation purposes in the predominantly (exclusively) of the hydrogen atom of carbon oxidation is impossible. Thus at the cellular level will produce a multiplication (growth) exaggerated (exclusive), energy from hydrogen favoring growth, multiplication, at the expense of differentiation (maturation). Differentiation is achieved by energy obtained by oxidation of the carbon atom can not take, leading to carcinogenesis . The energy metabolism of the cell, an energy source is carbohydrate degradation, which is done by OXIDATIVE DEHYDROGENATION AND OXIDATIVE DECARBOXYLATION , to obtain energy and CO2 and H2O. In normal cells there is a balance between the two energy sources. If cancer cells, oxidation of the carbon atom is not possible, the cell being forced to summarize the only energy source available, of hydrogen. This disorder underlying malignant transformation of cells and affect the whole body, in various degrees, often managing to rebalance process, until at some point it becomes irreversible. The exclusive production of hydrogen energy will cause excessive multiplication, of immature cells, without functional differentiation. Exclusive carbon energy production will lead to hyperdifferentiation, hyperfunctional, multiplication is impossible. Normal cell is between two extremes, between some limits depending on the adjustment factors of homeostasis. Energy from energy metabolism is vital for cell (body). If the energy comes predominantly (or exclusively) by oxidation of the hydrogen atom, green energy, will occur at the structural level (biochemical), acidification of the cellular structures that will turn red, so WE HAVE MORPHOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL STRUCTURES “RED”, WITH “GREEN” ENERGY. This background predisposes to accelerated growth, without differentiation, reaching up uncontrolled, anarchical. ENERGY STRUCTURE OF THE CELL BODY WOULD BE INN. If necessary energy cell derived mainly by oxidation of the carbon atom, red energy,cell structures will be colored green, will be alkaline(basic), so WE HAVE MORPHOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL STRUCTURES “GREEN”, WITH “RED” ENERGY, on the same principle of complementarity. This context will lead hyperdifferentiation, hyperfunctional ,maturation, and grouth stops. ENERGY STRUCTURE OF THE CELL BODY WOULD BE YANG. If in photosynthesis, porphyrins chemicals group, whic be photosensitivity (their first feature), shows and a great affinity for metals with chelate forming and becoming colored (pigments of life), can absorb monochromatic light complementary, so if these pigments, which constitutes the group of chromoprotheine, in photosynthesis will achieve CO2 and H2O reduction the recovery of C, H respectively, and the issuance of and release of O, atoms as H and C that reduced the energy load, representing carbohydrates, is in the form of solar energy storage, in cellular energy metabolism, processes necessary life, energy will come from the degradation of substances produced in photosynthesis, the carbohydrates, by oxidative dehydrogenation and oxidative decarboxylation, through like substances, which form chelates with the metals, are colored, metals contained in the form of oxides of various colors(green Mg, red Fe, blue Cu,etc.),suffering from complementary color absorption process of reduction with H in case,if the oxidative dehydrogenation, when chelated metal pigment is red, becoming leucoderivat (colorless) by absorbing complementary color (green) of hydrogen, formation of H2O, or C, if the oxidative decarboxylation when chelated metallic pigment is green, energy absorbing additional, red energy of atom C, CO2 production, the process is identical. The process that lies at base cellular energy metabolism, takes place in the final biological oxidation, reducing the O atom in the form of metal oxide, in combination with photosensitive substance, porohyrin, colorful,absorbing complementary color, will reduce the O atom, with H and C, with the production of H2O and CO2. Green energy release of H atom in the oxidative dehydrogenation process, it is a process of”IRRADIATION MONOCHROMATIC ENDOGENOUS WITH GREEN”, and red energy release of C atom in the oxidative decarboxylation process, consists in an “IRRADIATION MONOCHROMATIC ENDOGENOUS WITH RED”. Porphyrin-metal combination in photosynthesis, the chelated form, by absorbing light in the visible spectrum, will be able to reduce to low and turn, C and H respectively, the state of oxide (CO2 and H2O),release of O. The final biological oxidation, the combination of metal-porphyrins in aerobically in the absence of light, will find in the oxidized state, so in the form of porphyrins and metal-oxide, will oxidize to C and H atom of hydrocarbonates, with formation of CO2 and H2O, or rather, will be reduced by C and H atom of hydrocarbonates,formation of CO2 and H2O, by absorbing energy produced by photosynthesis. If we can control the final biological oxidation, we can control cellular growth, thus multiplying, and on the other hand, maturation, so differentiation. Green energy will prevail if the cell (body) which multiplies (during growth), will in case of adult cell (functional) will prevail red energy . The two types of energy, that obtained by oxidative dehydrogenation , which will cause cell multiplication without differentiation , and that obtained by oxidative decarboxylation , which will be to stop proliferation, and will determine the differentiation (maturity, functionality). This process is carried out based on complementary colors, which are coenzymes oxidative dehydrogenation and oxidative decarboxylation is colored . It reveals the importance of acid-base balance, the predominance of the acidic or basic, as an acid structure (red), not only can gain energy from the carbon atom red (the principle of complementarity), but can not assimilate ( under the same principle). It must therefore acid-base balance of internal environment, and alkalinization his intake of organic substances by the electron donor. By alkalinization (addition of electrons) will occur neutralize acid structures, the red, they become leucoderivat, colorless, and inactive, while the basic, which because of acidosis became neutral, colorless and inactive, will be alkaline in electron contribution, will be in green, and will absorb red energy from the carbon atom. So, on two kinds of vital energy, it is clear correlation between the chemical structure of the cell(body),and type of energy that can produce and use. Thus a cell with acidic chemical structure, can produce only energy by oxidative dehydrogenation (green energy), because the acid can only be active coenzymes with acid chemical structure, red, will absorb the complementarity only green energy of hydrogen. Basic structures which should absorb red energy from carbon , are inactive due to acid environment, which in turn chemically in leucoderivat, so colorless structures, inactive. Conversion of these structures to normal, operation by alkalinization could be a long lasting process, therefore, we use parallel chromotherapy, based on the fact that these COENZYMES INVOLVED IN BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION FINALS ARE COLORED AND PHOTOSENSITIVE. Thus, exogenous irradiation with monochromatic green will neutralize, by complementarity, coenzymes red, acidic. In will reactivate alkaline coenzymes, which have become due acidosis leucoderivat, so colorless and inactive. Without producing CO2, carbonic anhydrase can not form H2CO3, severable and thus transferred through mitochondrial membrane. Will accumulate in the respiratory Flavin, OH groups, leading to excessive hydroxylation, followed by consecutive inclusion of amino (NH2). It is thus an imbalance between the hydrogenation-carboxylation and hydroxylation-amination, in favor of the latter. This will predominate AMINATION and HYDROXYLATION at the expense CARBOXYLATION and HYDROGENATION, leading to CONVERSION OF STRUCTURAL PROTEINS IN NUCLEIC ACIDS. Meanwhile, after chemical criteria not genetic, it synthesizes the remaining unoxidized carbon atoms, nucleic bases “de novo” by the same process of hydroxylation-amination, leading to THE SYNTHESIS OF NUCLEIC ACIDS “DE NOVO”. Sincerely yours, Dr. Viorel Bungau viorelbungau20@yahoo.com
[…] Is the Warburg Effect the Cause or the Effect of Cancer: A 21st Century View? Author: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/17/is-the-warburg-effect-the-cause-or-the-effect-of-ca… […]