Seems like this guy came across my theory on ammonia and cancer and decided to put his own twist on it.
https://patrickcoles.substack.com/p/cancer-imports-glutamine-to-detox
If it gets people's attention, I guess it's good. But the "twist" is ridiculous. No wonder Stephanie Seneff is sharing this; she has this same view of cancer, as if it is trying to solve something. It's not.
This looks like an old alt-health template with a new molecule swapped in. Stephanie Seneff was already arguing years ago that tumors are protective, first around sulfate and later around deuterium; Coles now applies the same story to ammonia. The pattern is always the same: reinterpret cancer as the body’s solution, say mainstream oncology is attacking the wrong thing, and steer readers toward diet/detox thinking. For a life-threatening disease, that is not a harmless intellectual exercise. When the evidence is this weak, and the claims are this sweeping, it looks less like a contribution to oncology and more like a marketable contrarian narrative for the alternative-health ecosystem.
This looks like a recycled alt-health template with ammonia swapped in. Coles’s public timeline shows a very sharp leap from quantum computing in August 2025, to personal nutrition in December 2025, to a sweeping cancer theory by March 2026, which is not what careful scientific development usually looks like. He also explicitly credits Stephanie Seneff, who had already been promoting the same basic “tumor as protective adaptation” story for years, first around sulfate and later around deuterium. So the framework is not new; the molecule changed, but the narrative stayed the same.
The deeper problem is that the ammonia literature points the other way. Rather than showing tumors altruistically detoxifying ammonia for the host, many studies show ammonia can promote lipogenesis and tumor growth, suppress antitumor T-cell and NK-cell function, and, in liver-cancer models, support stemness, tumor initiation, and aggressiveness. That makes Patrick Coles's theory sound much more like an alt-health inversion than a conclusion driven by the evidence. For a life-threatening disease, that matters: theories like this are easy to market because they manipulate the audience’s distrust of oncology and make cancer sound like a misunderstood healing response, but they are not held to anything close to the evidentiary standard that cancer claims should meet. When there's no evidence to support the sweeping claims, you're not dealing with a contribution to oncology but with a marketable contrarian narrative for the alternative-health ecosystem.
This looks like an old alt-health template with a new molecule swapped in. Stephanie Seneff was already arguing years ago that tumors are protective, first around sulfate and later around deuterium; Coles now applies the same story to ammonia. The pattern is always the same: reinterpret cancer as the body’s solution, say mainstream oncology is attacking the wrong thing, and steer readers toward diet/detox thinking. For a life-threatening disease, that is not a harmless intellectual exercise.
Coles’s public timeline shows a very sharp leap from quantum computing in August 2025, to personal nutrition in December 2025, to a sweeping cancer theory by March 2026, which is not what careful scientific development usually looks like. He also explicitly credits Stephanie Seneff, who had already been promoting the same basic “tumor as protective adaptation” story for years, first around sulfate and later around deuterium. So the framework is not new; the molecule changed, but the narrative stayed the same.
The deeper problem is that the ammonia literature points the other way. Rather than showing tumors altruistically detoxifying ammonia for the host, many studies show ammonia can promote lipogenesis and tumor growth, suppress antitumor T-cell and NK-cell function, and, in liver-cancer models, support stemness, tumor initiation, and aggressiveness. That makes Patrick Coles's theory sound much more like an alt-health inversion than a conclusion driven by the evidence.
For a life-threatening disease, that matters: theories like this are easy to market because they manipulate the audience’s distrust of oncology and make cancer sound like a misunderstood healing response, but they are not held to anything close to the evidentiary standard that cancer claims should meet.
When there's no evidence to support the sweeping claims, you're not dealing with a contribution to oncology but with a marketable contrarian narrative for the alternative-health ecosystem.
I edited the previous post b/c it included some repeated text after merging two AI summaries.
