100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Cure for Cancer? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I've heard it advertised lately that there's been new discoveries about cures for cancer that aren't being utilized because of the non-profitable nature of the cure. Any ideas on this and does anyone know anything about this issue? More importantly does anyone know what the cure is or might be? Volant touched on the subject of nutrition and toxins. If you look at world-wide statistics, then the proof of this being a primary cause of cancer should be evident. The Gerson Therapy and Hoxsey Therapy are nutritional and natural treatments that surfaced in the 20's and 30's. Royal Rife was an inventor in the early 1900's who developed a machine to bombard cells with RF. Recently there was a scientist who has discovered that a certain cannabanoid from marijuana caused tumors in mice to be eradicated in 70% of tests and greatly reduced in 30%. Some good documentaries: The Science and Politics of Cancer World Without Cancer The Gerson Miracle The Beautiful Truth Dying to Have Known The Royal Rife Story Hoxsey: How Healing Becomes a Crime The Rise and Fall of A Scientific Genius, The Forgotten Story of Royal Raymond Rife |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter & Volant have it right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard it advertised lately that there's been new discoveries about cures for cancer that aren't being utilized because of the non-profitable nature of the cure. Any ideas on this and does anyone know anything about this issue? More importantly does anyone know what the cure is or might be? You are probably talking about DCA - all my hippie friends are posting links about it. In short, it's ********. Pretty much everything you will read on people's blogs about DCA is ********. I'm so tired of wading through mountains of ******** on DCA. I could be wrong, but here's my understanding: Somewhere around 2006 or 2007, maybe a little earlier, someone found some evidence that DCA may be useful in fighting cancer. Remember, we already have tools that are useful in fighting cancer. There was no evidence to suggest it was any more effective than chemo. It was known to have dangerous side effects. Not a single non-idiot ever claimed it was a 'cancer cure-all', unless they were deliberately lying (maybe to grab headlines, or sell snake oil, or further another agenda. Since it can't be patented, there was less incentive to research it, but it was researched (I think by a canadian university, at the very least) and found wanting. As in: possibly useful for fighting cancer, but not all that awesome and with the threat of side effects. Between 2007 and today, the hippie community has been going nuts, passing these moronic blog posts to each other, convincing each other there is a miraculous cancer cure-all out there being hidden by the evil pharmaceutical industry. Suppose Evil Big Pharma did pick up this drug, test it, and start using it on people? These ****ing wingnuts would be crying foul and blaming big pharam for poisoning people with a known carcinogen and neurotoxin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter & Volant have it right! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totage wrote:
What kind of cancer are you talking about? A great question to begin an intelligent inquiry! I'm assuming that they're talking about every kind. While boosting the immune system may be effective for treating most kinds of cancer, anytime someone claims to have a cure-all for all forms of cancer its a safe bet they either have no idea what they are talking about, or they are lying. NavyGirl quoted: Because the pharmaceutical companies won’t develop this, the article says other independent laboratories should start producing this drug and do more research to confirm all the above findings and produce drugs. All the groundwork can be achieved in collaboration with the Universities, who will be glad to assist in such research and may develop an effective drug for curing cancer Exactly. There are non-profit organizations and universities who are able and willing to finance the research into cancer treatments. Anyone who claims that the non-patentability of a drug will automatically and absolutely prevent it from being researched, at all, has no idea what they are talking about. Volant wrote: the cure is nutritious food and clean air,water toxins ruin your genes we live in a toxic world but simpletons want a pill Well I wouldn't have gone with 'cure', but I do think there is a lot to be said for a healthy lifestyle. It's a statistical thing, and having a health lifestyle will definitely shift the odds. However, until we reprogram our species DNA to remove genetic factors contributing to cancer, some people are going to be born with a higher cancer risk no matter what their lifestyle choices are. Spider wrote: Want to prevent cancer? A low carb diet has been proven to not only prevent cancer, but can cure cancer. Going with the theme of statistical influences: 'can' is the key word there. And I doubt it prevents cancer in all cases - though I accept it may dramatically reduce one's risk. And probably one of the most intelligent and relevant responses to the hippie communities lies about DCA being a 'simple, safe, cheap cure for all forms of cancer': MetalWing wrote: There are many types of cancer. Some are common and some are not. Some are genetic. Some are environmental. Many are caused by a virus. Some are caused by radiation damage. It is highly unlikely that any one cure will be found for all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There have been a number of documentaries made over the last two decades that have compiled information on cancer and heart disease.
One of the ... best? ... in any case most acclaimed is one called "Forks over Knives". Hitler invaded Norway in 1939 and took all the farm animals to feed his army. Instantly, the rate of heart disease and cancer plummeted. Eventually, researcher took this model and fed rats diets with different amounts of animal protein (casein from milk). At 20% the rats did poorly. At 5% the rats did well. When the poor health rats were switched back to 5% casein diet, their illnesses disappeared. "Forks over Knives" makes a pretty good case for the vegetarian diet and gives some great data for historic countries who had no heart disease and little cancer till they started eating an American diet. Everyone should watch the film and take from it what they will. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ijukNzlUg I'm not sure life without cheeseburgers is worth living. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBC wrote:
The moral of the story, anytime anyone says there is a single all powerful cure you should be very skeptical, Yes! Very. Peter wrote: Volant touched on the subject of nutrition and toxins. If you look at world-wide statistics, then the proof of this being a primary cause of cancer should be evident. I can accept that environmental toxins, collectively, are the 'primary' factor that leads to an increase in cancer risk... though I also think that our longer lifespans also have a lot to do with increases in cancer rates. I don't believe that living a completely toxin free life would lead to a cancer free society - genetics still plays too large of a role. Plus, ultraviolet radiation isn't a toxin, but can increase cancer risk. Also, as Conrad pointed out, cancer has been with humanity since the beginning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MetalWing wrote:
"Forks over Knives" makes a pretty good case for the vegetarian diet and gives some great data for historic countries who had no heart disease and little cancer till they started eating an American diet Years ago I did a lot of reading on vegetarianism and all of the perceived benefits of it. I have eaten a vegetarian diet for most of my adult life and I'm completely happy with it. However, most of the evidence doesn't really compare 'eating meat' with 'not eating meat'. It compares, as you say in this quote, eating the standard american diet with some particular vegetarian diet. (Such as the standard american vegetarian diet...) The problems that come from the way industrialized nations, especially the US, go about producing and consuming their meat are not isolated. So I'm not convinced that all of the problems are a result of eating animal flesh; they may just come from eating the animal flesh available in our grocery stores and fast food restaurants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cancer is most likely caused by damaged DNA. A single cell that has had it's DNA damaged by a free radical or through some other event can't properly reproduce. Every time it tries to reproduce, it produces a flawed cell that quickly dies out. Eventually this "seed" cell produces a viable cell, which is cancer. Eliminating the cancer cells won't prevent the seed cell from producing more cancer cells in the future. Luckily, cancer has a weakness. Cancer cells can only live off of glucose for energy. Cancer cannot grow without enough glucose. So a low carb diet effectively starves the cancer cells, preventing them from growing. This is why anthropologists find no evidence of cancer before the advent of farming. Egyptians were riddled with cancer, but their ancestors were cancer free. It's the high carb, starchy diets that allow cancers to grow. Instead of worrying about finding a cure for cancer (which probably doesn't exist), just eat a low carb diet and starve the cancer into submission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Thu 05/10/12 08:57 AM
|
|
Cancer cells can only live off of glucose for energy. When you've mentioned this before, I tried to research this specific claim. I have found many non-academic websites backing up this claim, and many non-academic websites refuting the idea that a low carb diet would be helpful. I don't give either set much weight. From peer reviewed publications I see that you are right that there is a specific form of energy metabolism that most cancer cells depend on, which requires glucose. However, I can't find any peer reviewed source confirming that this is true of 100% of all cancer cells. I found many sources that say 'most' without explicitly denying that it may be all, nor have I found any counter examples. So do the scientists say 'most' simply to be conservative in their phrasing, or do they know of cancers (or of particular cancer cells...) that don't depend on glucose? At some point I found (and lost track of) a source (don't remember if it was in a peer reviewed publication or not...) saying that 80% of all cancers relied exclusively on glucose - but I don't remember if they meant % 'by type of cancer' or 'by number of cells' or something else.... plus they may have just been wrong. Edit: plus they may have meant 'at least 80', again being conservative when the truth might be 100%. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Thu 05/10/12 09:06 AM
|
|
Low-Carbohydrate, High-Protein Diets May Reduce Both Tumor Growth Rates and Cancer Risk When asked to speculate on the biological mechanism, Krystal said that tumor cells, unlike normal cells, need significantly more glucose to grow and thrive. Restricting carbohydrate intake can significantly limit blood glucose and insulin, a hormone that has been shown in many independent studies to promote tumor growth in both humans and mice. Furthermore, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet has the potential to both boost the ability of the immune system to kill cancer cells and prevent obesity, which leads to chronic inflammation and cancer. Can a High-Fat Diet Beat Cancer? What sounds like yet another version of the Atkins craze is actually based on scientific evidence that dates back more than 80 years. In 1924, the German Nobel laureate Otto Warburg first published his observations of a common feature he saw in fast-growing tumors: unlike healthy cells, which generate energy by metabolizing sugar in their mitochondria, cancer cells appeared to fuel themselves exclusively through glycolysis, a less-efficient means of creating energy through the fermentation of sugar in the cytoplasm. Warburg believed that this metabolic switch was the primary cause of cancer, a theory that he strove, unsuccessfully, to establish until his death in 1970. Breast Cancer Prevention - Part Time Low Carb Diet Better Than Standard Full Time Diets Women who go on a low carb diet just two days per week have a lower risk of developing breast cancer compared to those who follow a standard calorie-restricted diet every day of the week, in order to lose weight and lower their insulin blood levels. Long-term high blood insulin levels are known to raise cancer risk. These findings were presented by scientists from Genesis Prevention Center at University Hospital in South Manchester, England, at the 2011 CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of those I had read, the other two were on par with the other half dozen pro-low-carb articles that I found.
I'm looking for something more definite. This article may (?) be what I'm looking for, but I'm unwilling to pay $30 to read it: http://jem.rupress.org/content/209/2/211.abstract |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Thu 05/10/12 11:26 AM
|
|
Cancer is most likely caused by damaged DNA. A single cell that has had it's DNA damaged by a free radical or through some other event can't properly reproduce. Every time it tries to reproduce, it produces a flawed cell that quickly dies out. Eventually this "seed" cell produces a viable cell, which is cancer. Eliminating the cancer cells won't prevent the seed cell from producing more cancer cells in the future. Luckily, cancer has a weakness. Cancer cells can only live off of glucose for energy. Cancer cannot grow without enough glucose. So a low carb diet effectively starves the cancer cells, preventing them from growing. This is why anthropologists find no evidence of cancer before the advent of farming. Egyptians were riddled with cancer, but their ancestors were cancer free. It's the high carb, starchy diets that allow cancers to grow. Instead of worrying about finding a cure for cancer (which probably doesn't exist), just eat a low carb diet and starve the cancer into submission. Funny how you laughed at nutrition and then supported nutrition... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 05/10/12 02:11 PM
|
|
boosting the immune system This term is actually meaningless. Also anytime someone talks about toxins, but will not tell you what substance specifically, you can ignore them, they have said NOTHING. Lots of meaningless drivel. Thinking a healthy life style protects you from disease is one of the most ignorant propositions one can hold as true. While a select few diseases are due to malnutrition, they are the exception, not the rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how you laughed at nutrition and then supported nutrition... No, I was laughing at Royal Rife, Hoxsey Therapy and Gerson Therapy. Quackery at it's finest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how you laughed at nutrition and then supported nutrition... No, I was laughing at Royal Rife, Hoxsey Therapy and Gerson Therapy. Quackery at it's finest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boosting the immune system This term is actually meaningless. True, but only due to its ambiguity. It's like saying "exercise will make you stronger". Its so ambiguous, its a meaningless term. Do you mean that it will increase the output of your heart? Increase the number of actin-myosin connections? Increase the maximum weight that you can lift? Increase the length of time you can sustain an activity? Increase the density of your bones? While we need to understand and address specifics in order to talk intelligently about the topic, we do not need to understand or address specifics to benefit from the wisdom that: exercise is good for you. Both for your 'strength', and for your immune system. There is also a myth that goes: If the immune system can be depressed by lifestyle, it can elevated to arbitrary high levels of effectiveness through lifestyle. There is no evidence of the latter. So by 'boost' I mean 'bring people with impaired immune function up to normal levels'. A person does not need to have an identified nutritional disease to be adversely affected by poor nutrition. Also anytime someone talks about toxins, but will not tell you what substance specifically, you can ignore them, they have said NOTHING. Here are the toxins I'm talking about, taken from wikipedia: Components of gasoline Lead Alkylating antineoplastic agents (e.g. mechlorethamine) Other alkylating agents (e.g. dimethyl sulfate) Alcohol (causing head and neck cancers) Arsenic and its compounds Asbestos Benzene Beryllium and its compounds Hexavalent chromium(VI) compounds Ethylene oxide Vinyl chloride Cigarette Smoke (benzene, lead, arsenic, acetone) Lots of meaningless drivel. Thinking a healthy life style protects you from disease is one of the most ignorant propositions one can hold as true. If you mean 'protect' in the absolute sense, you are right. But its just and wrong (and more harmful!) to think that a healthy lifestyle does nothing to reduce your risk of a huge variety of diseases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how you laughed at nutrition and then supported nutrition... No, I was laughing at Royal Rife, Hoxsey Therapy and Gerson Therapy. Quackery at it's finest.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boosting the immune system This term is actually meaningless. True, but only due to its ambiguity. It's like saying "exercise will make you stronger". Its so ambiguous, its a meaningless term. Do you mean that it will increase the output of your heart? Increase the number of actin-myosin connections? Increase the maximum weight that you can lift? Increase the length of time you can sustain an activity? Increase the density of your bones? While we need to understand and address specifics in order to talk intelligently about the topic, we do not need to understand or address specifics to benefit from the wisdom that: exercise is good for you. Both for your 'strength', and for your immune system. There is also a myth that goes: If the immune system can be depressed by lifestyle, it can elevated to arbitrary high levels of effectiveness through lifestyle. There is no evidence of the latter. So by 'boost' I mean 'bring people with impaired immune function up to normal levels'. A person does not need to have an identified nutritional disease to be adversely affected by poor nutrition. Also anytime someone talks about toxins, but will not tell you what substance specifically, you can ignore them, they have said NOTHING. Here are the toxins I'm talking about, taken from wikipedia: Components of gasoline Lead Alkylating antineoplastic agents (e.g. mechlorethamine) Other alkylating agents (e.g. dimethyl sulfate) Alcohol (causing head and neck cancers) Arsenic and its compounds Asbestos Benzene Beryllium and its compounds Hexavalent chromium(VI) compounds Ethylene oxide Vinyl chloride Cigarette Smoke (benzene, lead, arsenic, acetone) Lots of meaningless drivel. Thinking a healthy life style protects you from disease is one of the most ignorant propositions one can hold as true. If you mean 'protect' in the absolute sense, you are right. But its just and wrong (and more harmful!) to think that a healthy lifestyle does nothing to reduce your risk of a huge variety of diseases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how you laughed at nutrition and then supported nutrition... No, I was laughing at Royal Rife, Hoxsey Therapy and Gerson Therapy. Quackery at it's finest. When either one of you devotes the time to perform "real science", then you're opinion might matter. Show your work, K??? |
|
|
|
|
