Hi ,Urgelt.:) I wanted to put this here to be as public as possible and help as many people as I can. I found some promising news from PubMed for the future treatment of various cancers. The links to the studies are at my blog. For viewers : razwelldotblogspotdotcom. Look for the article "Cannabinoids Show Promise As A Future Treatment For Various Cancers.
Thankfully, this is genuine science rather than Internet marketing.
Hundreds of plant substances seem to have anti-cancer properties. But it seems to be difficult to translate these into "cures." It's perplexing.
When you eat a diet rich in unprocessed plant-sourced foods, you get some protection against cancer that Americans largely forgo. When you add nutritious plant foods to American diets, cancer rates go down. That effect may be all they are seeing in this study of cannibinoids.
But hope springs eternal. Mayhap they'll turn up something more potent.
Hi, Urgelt. :) I wanted to post this here to make this information as public as possible and help as many people as I can. I found some promising news from PubMed on the use of Cannabinoids for future cancer treatment. The links to the studies are at my blog . For viewers : RazwellDOTblogspotDOTcom. Look for article "Cannabinoids Show Promise As A Future Treatment For Various Cancers".
The healing process can only be checked by the hydrocyanic acid found in any of 1,200 seeds, grasses & grains. The modern Western diet is deficient in these essential nitrilocides. Cancer, therefore, belongs to the long list of vitamin-deficiency diseases: night blindness, pellagra, scurvy, pernicious anemia, etc.
Divide and conquer! It worked for the British Raj and it works for the cancer cartel. Let there be cancer ascribed to each organ and sub-groups to each of these. Cancer: early detection is the key; the key to maximizing profits.
Cancer is a group of diseases characterized by some common traits.
Within the group there is considerable variety in how the diseases manifest, how rapidly they progress through tumors and metasticization, how they respond to the presence or absence of hormones, and how they respond to treatments.
One common trait is this: malignant cells all have genetic damage, and their ability to repair that damage is impaired. But which genes are damaged varies, too.
Laetrile is for cancer patients. To avoid the chronic metabolic disease cancer one only needs to include the seeds of apples, pears, watermelons, pumpkins in their diet, and/or bitter almonds, bamboo, flax seed/oil, brown rice, etc. These foods are natural nitrilosides that are indeed deadly, but only to malignant cells. I consume 20 Japanese plum seeds daily. The preventative, cure and control for cancer is in the produce department.
Laetrile has fared poorly in peer-reviewed studies, unfortunately.
But I'll endorse a view which is not entirely far from yours.
Many, many nutrients in vegetable and fruit food sources have anti-cancerous properties. Unfortunately, industrial processing removes these nutrients. Cancer may be partially understood as a disease of malnutrition brought on by industrial food processing.
Including lots of raw or minimally-processed vegetables and fruits in your diet very probably reduces risk.
@Urgelt : Malignant cells are errant trophoblasts (healing cells/new-life cells/pre-embryonic cells). The healing process can only be checked with Amygdalin; the molecularity of which is hydrogen cyanide, benzaldahyde and glucose (sugar).
Malignant cells can be derived from just about any human cell except red blood cells, which do not undergo mitosis and thus can never become malignant.
Claims for efficacy of amygdalin (sold in Mexico as laetrile) have not been substantiated in peer-reviewed studies. I can't put it any plainer than that.
Cyanide toxicity of amygdalin is a major concern. It's dangerous stuff.
The safety of a drug in humans can't be established by looking at cows and horses eating grass. You understand that, don't you?
The efficacy of amygdalin has been found wanting in scientific studies. Safety of the drug is an open question, but not one worth answering since it fails on efficacy.
The healing process can only be checked by the hydrocyanic acid found in any of 1,200 seeds, grasses & grains. The modern Western diet is deficient in these essential nitrilocides. Cancer, therefore, belongs to the long list of vitamin-deficiency diseases: night blindness, pellagra, scurvy, pernicious anemia, etc.
I don't understand this part. What sort of toxin added to most products will make the product cheaper to make? That's obviously the main goal of corporations: to get their wallets fatter. So why the toxins? Wouldn't adding chemicals to the mix of most products just make things more inconvenient and perhaps more expensive, let alone drive away customers? Or are the toxins byproducts of cheaper manufacturing materials such as cheap plastic and preservatives? I never could get to the bottom line...
Some manipulate flavor, texture, and color to improve appeal.
Some are used to modify the properties of materials. BPA softens plastic and makes it more flexible, for example. But it leeches from the plastic into food and beverages.
Mercury in fillings makes them softer. Easier to get dental flux into the cavity, easier for your teeth to grind them into the right shape.
Toxins make products cheaper and more useful, taken narrowly.
The problem is that corporations are, by and large, ignoring the health and environmental consequences of their use of toxins. These consequences are often years and years downstream, making it difficult to impossible to hold them liable for damages.
Government is the only force that could possibly protect us. But regulators are dominated by the industries they regulate. There isn't much help coming from that quarter.
@Urgelt But why would the corporations need to add toxins in the first place? What's stopping them from creating a product with minimal health risk? Most, if not at least some products shouldn't even logically be considered to need to have toxins added to the mix. Why do the companies add the toxins in the first place? Are the toxins byproducts of industrialized production that seem to just fall into the makeup of the product? I just don't get that part.
@HMachProductions There's a lot we are kept in the dark about.... Money makes the world go round at least some people think so. Its all about greed. I recomend " The Beautiful Truth"
@Urgelt Like Monsanto and the FDA for example. I'm so glad to see there are smart people in the world! i care about this stuff so much and most people have no idea and dont even care to know. sad
The bottom line is profit. So long as corporations which use toxins are never held accountable for it - and they rarely are - they can produce products with advantages that result in more sales, and they can produce them at less cost.
The bottom line for most things in our culture is profit. If someone else gets screwed, they're just out of luck.
@Urgelt exactly! and look at plastics. They emit gas when heated (who doesnt have a vynol shower curtain or warm food in plastic bowls in the microwave?) Even plastic water bottles arent good for you. I didnt even realize where plastic came from until recently. oil companies have to be extremely rich and obviously if it's at the people's expense it does not matter.
@HMachProductions think of how many oil byproducts there are. Also pharmecutical companies get richer if more people are sick. The best way to do that is to make them unhealthy. Most processed foods contain one or more corn products. Corn isn't very nutritious to begin with. Most corn is genetically modified containing a bacteria that is immune to round up also. Meat fillers to kill new strains of ecoli from cows eating corn, ultrviolet lights on produce to kill bacteria adds free radicals
@HMachProductions There was also a study done called"Empty Peaches" that shows how the nutrition of produce in America is significantly lower today than it was in the 1950's. You can blame polution and pesticides. What I don't understand is that if nicotiene and caffiene are natural pesticides, why use round up??
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind - or in most researchers - that infections, particularly viruses, play a strong role in many cancers.
The problem is that none of the agents of infection which have been implicated in cancers are new. It's very difficult to explain exploding cancer rates solely by referencing infective agents.
The answers may be synergistic:: toxins combined with infective agents and genetic vulnerabilities resulting in the terrible trends we see.
@Urgelt Have you heard of Dr. max Gerson and the Gerson Therapy? Or The Gerson Institute of Mexico?
Dr. gerson believed he found a cure for cancer and other diseases. Basically, if you give the body proper nutrition a clean pancreas it can heal itself of anything. He has a 50 case study that you might find interesting.
I think there is only one cancer but it can affect any part of the body and only one real cause: a lack of antioxidants.
Smoking has been in a slow decline during the period cancer rates have broadly exploded in the US.
Nevertheless, to this extent, I agree: smoking delivers carcinogens into your lungs. Smoking adds to your risk. It doesn't explain the trend, but that does not means it's safe.
@Urgelt i recently found out that Nicoteine is a natural pesticide. Could this chemical be the cause of the carcenogines or is that just smoke in general?
People with cancer sometimes go into spontaneous remissions.
It's a leap to assume that a particular thing they may have been doing with naturopathic treatments, or diet, or whatever, caused the remission. The only way to be sure is to replicate the effect in controlled studies.
Thus far the supposed "cures" advocated by the fringe have very little scientific evidence backing them up.
@Urgelt scientic evidence takes time and an interest in the subject. Unfortun ately I don't think there is enough of an interest in the area due to propoganda from pharmecutical companies and all the other rich evil greedy corps.
They go on detoxification diets - very very strict ones. This is perhaps best done gradually,so as not to overload the body all at once, since detoxification is such a hard thing to go though. There are people who have recovered without treatment, as all cancer treatment is carconigenic and the recovery rates are generally quite low for a lot of them,unfortunately. Google cancer is a fungus.
A detox involves eliminating all harmful foods from the diet. There are many types - I'd say the raw vegetable diet is the one to go with personally, though it can be a real shock to the system at first. First thing to do is eliminate caffeine and sugars (including fruits for a bit) and then start on an all raw diet, and include anti fungal/cancer supplements and herbs, keep well nourished, take a good quality probiotic and a fiber supplement such as psyllium husk :)
@cutelittleflowers Dr. Max gerson used coffee enemas on his patients to cause the liver to produce a chemical and casue the pancreas to be flushed out. The pancreas is like the doorway to the outside of the body in a sense and it is supposed to get rid of cancer naturally. however, breaking down large amounts of protein from meat and dairy products cause the pancreas to be too busy to rid the body of other toxins.
Hey also, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that cancer is a fungus. Many people these days have all kinds of fungal problems, all due, as you say on your other video, to killing probiotic bacteria. I beleive fungal infections cause it. Anti fungal medicines like oregano oil, coconut oil, raw onions and garlic, colloidal silver, golden seal extract, etc. and a low sugar low yeast diet, will rid the body of yeast -
The main association between fungal infections and cancer, so far as I am aware, is that chemotherapy can damage immune response and encourage secondary infections.
I don't know of a reason to suspect fungi as a cause for cancer, but I am willing to be surprised by what science turns up. There's still a lot to learn about this family of diseases.
They have!!! You check it out for yourself. People have done detoxification and got rid of their cancer. These people were "terminally ill". I do not know enough to say for sure that anyone wih cancer can, but it has been done. All I know is that chemo and radiation therapy are both carcinogenic, and the percentage of recovery is so low.... I will send you a few links when I get the chance. I'm not good enough with my words to sound beleiveable :-P
I'm a skeptic; it takes some persuading to get me to believe anything. :-)
If I stand next to a fire hydrant and a cat jumps on my head, does standing next to fire hydrants cause cats to jump on heads?
Maybe. The way to find out isn't through anecdotes, though. It's through science.
That's what is missing for these fringe assertions of cancer cures. Endless testimonials, often used to sell products to desperate people. Science? Not so much.
@sonicycle have you seen "The Beautiful Truth"? It talks about riding the body of cancer through proper nutrition and other subjects you would probably find interesting.
It was from a college level textbook. I have the reference somewhere around the house but I'm not going to go dig it up. I was shocked when I read it.
In past centuries it was usual to discount baby and toddler deaths when figuring life expectancy. In some parts of Europe, lower class children didn't even receive names until past toddler stage - why go to the effort until you knew the child would survive?
I'd be concerned that tossing a number out like that without context invites us to compare apples to oranges.
I agree with you completely, and it isn't just cancer that is a result of all these toxins ... look at all the auto-immune disorders, too. Case & point -- mercury in "silver" tooth fillings. It is sad. Just follow the money trails :(
For a long time, the dental establishment insisted that the mercury in fillings is fixed in place and doesn't exude vapors. That's been shown to be completely false. They continually add to the toxic load our bodies must deal with, and mercury is a very, very serious toxin.
Unfortunately, at present there aren't any nontoxic alternatives. Nor do I get the sense the dental community is rushing to develop them.
Bullseye! The political segment and tie in is undeniable.. Okay-- so until we change that.. how would you rate moderate exercise as a purging and cleansing mechanism of toxins and carcinagins?
Going for a jog in heavy smog probably will do more harm than good.
If you really want to detox, drink plenty of water. Water is the body's solvent and the means by which it rids itself of the molecules it does not want. Working up a good sweat might do some good, too - just don't do it in a way which might cause you to take in more toxins than you can purge.
Reducing exposure remains the most important thing, I think.
There are toxins - carcinogens - used in the manufacture of computers and electronics. When new and burning in, there may be some vapors that would not be good to breathe in a closed space.
So far as I can tell, the radiation emitted by older monitors isn't terribly dangerous. Radiation emitted by LCD monitors is even less so.
Emissions from electronics factories may be a larger concern, if you live near one. But it's a concern with most industrial factories, not just electronics.
Your video touches me greatly. My dad survived lung cancer, twice, and my aunt died of breast cancer last year. I also know another person who has a cancer. My dad's cancer was explainable as he had always smoked (to be honnest, he still does, as stupid as this sound), but my aunt had a healthy lifestyle. Well, cancer is not fair. That's a proof that if we have a genetic vulnerability to cancer, we're screwed, just by living on this earth. And guess who's vulnerable with such a family history...
Genetic vulnerability is not a death sentence, I hope. Your lifestyle and diet can reduce risk, and treatments are improving every year.
But it's worrisome, to be sure.
We have not yet learned how to operate an industrial society which is safe for humans. We could, I think. But it's going to take a lot of work in both science and politics to do it.
N-Acetyl L-Cysteine and Turmeric (when standardized to contain high Curcermin) can derail and even fight cancer. Kava also shows some ability to fight cancer without hurting other cells.
My questions is if a cure for cancer is discovered, how likely is it that it will be released to the general public? I mean, cancer is the single most profitable thing for the health industry...and it doesn't seem too far-fetched to me that Pharmaceutical companies would do their best to suppress a cure that would reduce the profits they make from the disease.
What do you think about the theorie that if there is a cure for cancer, there is also a cure for the aging of the body? (dna manipulating/regenerating technology)
No scientists are championing that theory, Lawren, that I've ever heard or read about.
All you need to do to cure cancer is to get cancer cells to die, while leaving healthy cells alone. We'll get there in the next decade, I think.
The challenges involved in immortality are significantly larger and more complex.
Just as well. Immortality is not a good idea unless we are able to control our population at a sustainable level. Thus far we've shown no ability to do that at all.
I thought when I watched this video before that you had given a percentage of the number of cancers caused by cigarettes but, after watching it again it appears I was mistaken - you only said a "small percentage". Do you know what that percentage is and can you point me to any data that confirms that smoking is only accountable for a small percentage?
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, to be sure. About 1 in 10 life-long smokers will contract lung cancer. About 90% of lung cancers occur in current or former smokers.
But the question isn't that simple. For example, what happens to risk if you smoke, but take in no industrial pollutants into your lungs? Or radon? Or viruses? There are thousands of carcinogens entering our lungs, and the truth is we don't have a good handle on synergistic effects between multiple carcinogens.
I think what everyone is forgetting is that nature will always have a way of keeping the population down. Disease and cancer is normal and there will never be a cure. Don't say im insensitive either - I have lost 3 family members to cancer. I do strongly believe though it is necessary and inevitable that such a thing exists. It is natures way of trying to maintain BALANCE in the world. Looks like mother natures struggling a bit though (overpopulation much?) Cancer will never have a cure.
There is nothing natural about industrially-produced carcinogens, nor the cancers which result from exposure to them. Cancer is a self-inflicted wound, not Mother Nature culling the herd.
However, overpopulation does leave us vulnerable to a population crash.
I'm pretty sure a crash is headed our way, though when, or how it will manifest, are by no means easy to know in advance.
I understand what you are saying--but I don't know why you let the tobacco industry off the hook so lightly. They lied and cheated the public and nothing was done for years.
Their products cause at least 30% of cancer deaths--it is not the small number that you imply.
I certainly do not mean to let the tobacco industry off the hook. They are still selling a dangerous product, and yes, they lied.
But I have come to believe that no "cancer cause" acts in a vacuum.
There are several carcinogens in tobacco smoke. There are thousands of other industrial carcinogens entering our bodies from other sources. Studies of tobacco and cancer do not control for those other carcinogens, and it leaves unanswered questions about synergistic effects.
I suspect that the risk from tobacco, absent these other carcinogenic influences, would be less.
Still, I take your point. Tobacco smoke has nasty carcinogens in it that are connected to cancer. My broader point is that *all* industrially-produced carcinogens, not just tobacco carcinogens, put us at risk. It's not enough to eliminate one source. We need to be looking at all of them.
"90-95% of industrial pollution exposure is from consuming animal products." -The China Study, bottom of page 165. This is the most comprehensive study on cancer or diet ever. It's ongoing.
No single study settles a question in science. It never happens.
You do know what an outlier is?
The assertion that 90-95% of industrial pollution exposure comes from consuming animal products is highly questionable. The only way to arrive at a conclusion like that is to assess the rate at which thousands of industrial carcinogens enter the body from other sources - and that's extremely difficult to look at.
You're philosophizing. I'm providing falsifiable numbers. When you reference scientifically credible data with numbers & apply it to a point you may then have a counter-arguement. Until then it just appears as though you are upset at what you are reading because it is merely uncomfortable for you to accept. "Highly questionable" just means you want to hear something more comfortable.
Science is not the same as philosophy. I know you have a passion for all that is grey but there are darker and lighter shades and there are cases which are just so close to black and white that it is difficult to philosophize/imagine enough gray to ignore the differences.
You do NOT have to be a scientist to use science/data from research. Many health science researchers ignore various high correlation, causal agents of disease risks, regardless of what reasons they have.
Science is a subset of philosophy, as you will learn in any "history of science" course.
Many philosophical tools are used in science: induction, deduction, analogy being examples.
As a nonscientist, I find it easy to pose questions. Some of the questions I can pose are answered pretty well by available studies. Some are not.
A study which examines dietary correlations to cancer, but ignores almost all carcinogens, cannot answer my questions about the relative significance of causes.
I understand what you mean, crisology, but Science, in contrast, is Philosophy. Philosophy entails with Science, as philosophy works in parallel with science, where the search for truth is never ending from any perspective taken from the observer, science is in a never ending road for truth, theorizing and hypothesizing on a common point, same goes for philosophy.
And they both seek facts in a World that the only facts we know, is that we know little facts. This coming from a philosopher.
The USDA is part business and part politics. Who is paying me? The USDA is as guilty as the individuals who ignore their own genetic instruction
You're narrowly focussed on cancer etiology. Diet promotes cancer. We are all exposed to natural & synthetic carcinogens but grocery store bought food & ALL meat provide necessary conditions to cultivate cancer (promotion stage). You can have cancerous cells but without the conditions to promote the cancer you're safe. Diet is the main "culprit."
There is a way to test your hypothesis that does not rely on statistical population studies. It requires a laboratory, of course.
Take groups of identical laboratory animals. Feed some groups varying levels of carcinogens and different diets. Feed other groups varying diet only. Tabulate the results.
This should give us an idea of the sensitivity of the cancer rate to dietary adjustments.
Naturally, you'd have to have a good idea of what diets block cancer.
I have never heard of any peer-reviewed study which does this. I'm not an authority, of course, but I do read pretty extensively for a nonscientist.
You present your hypothesis as though science had settled this question. You allow no room for doubt. Yet I think you will find that it's not well studied at all.
Science doesn't look for "proof". There are no neat, conclusive cause-effect studies for ANY degenerative disease.Absolute proof is impossible and irrelevant. Nobody has proved a single factor causing a single outcome. It does not exist. So any isolated single factor studied for cancer will NEVER provide a yes/no/100% causal answer but a probability, which is convincingly well established, statistically significant, biologically plausible and causally related with animal fat & cancer.
It's not my hypothesis. It has already been tested thousands of times, beginning w/The China Study. Rats w/cancer initiation were fed varying amts of animal protein. At 20% all rats showed full blown cancer or precursors. At 5% NO cancer promotion. No researcher can ask for more convincing evidence.
"Why doesn't the American Cancer Society focus on controlling toxic substances entering our food, etc"
ACS funded grants for the biggest/most comprehensive disease study of all time-The China Study
I want you to understand that I do not deny that diet plays a role. What we are debating is which factor dominates the others.
The ACS researchers did not attempt to differentiate between foods produced by industrial methods and foods which are produced without them. There are uncontrolled variables here, and there is a need for further research.
I do not demand "proof." I demand "evidence." The evidence for concluding that diet is the dominant factor is weak.
Incidentally, there's a dark horse candidate still in the race for "most serious cause of cancer" that has not been ruled out.
Viruses.
The best known is the HPV virus, but that may be the tip of the iceberg. The truth is, not a great deal is known about all the viruses in humans or their long-term effects.
Our cellular DNA is under constant assault from free radicals, viruses, specific proteins, bacterial toxins, radiation, and carcinogens, many of which are industrially produced. Some of it can be repaired, and repair is more likely with a good diet, avoidance of hormones in food and hormone-mimickers, and lucky genetics. But when damage accrues too rapidly, things can break down in a very large portion of our population.
That's the crux. We're accumulating damage too fast.
Read The China Study, they showed that HBV animals did not develop cancer or precursors from HBV without the 20% animal protein diet. W/5% there were no cases. 100-0 almost unheard of in ANY med studies..
The biggest risk factor AND Promotor of cancer & most diseases is unnatural diet. The last 100 yrs correlates w/the rise in heart disease too. Hint: The same diet that prevents AND reverses cancer, prevents CHD, Alzheimers, anxiety, constipation, cataracts, etc..
"understand I do not deny that diet plays a role" But u do also want me to understand u feel unable to have the biggest influence on your own cancer risks & that diet is not as big a factor as imagined/vaguely stated although partly accurate contributing factors of industrial pollution in general?
"I do not demand "proof." I demand "evidence."
What special evidence do you demand? I can provide for you. I just need you to be specific. When you obtain the evidence what are you willing to do?
ALL store bought meat is produced by industrial methods, even "organic" flesh. Even the "feedstuff" for factory animals is GMO. To be specific, unnatural H. Sapiens diet is THE biggest cause of cancer.
"There are uncontrolled variables here" w/ALL diseases. Cancer etiology is not as mysterious as many others.
"there is a need for further research" There is a greater need for brutal honesty & using non-grey paint brushes.
You cannot provide the evidence that is needed to prove your assertion, because it does not exist.
I explained the form this evidence must take already: peer-reviewed studies which assess the relative weight of dietary and carcinogenic influences. The issue cannot be resolved by studying diet or carcinogens in isolation.
Urgelt "The issue cannot be resolved" as long as you prefer to philosophize while ignoring scientific available evidence.
You have made a false claim about cancer etiology. u refuse to research the issue. u only want to talk about how much is not known, yet in your mind, u really believe politics provide more solutions than diet. You'll be waiting on your hands for a while w/that deadly philosophy. It's easy to say- 'we don't know this, we don't know that, etc' You're playing in traffic.
Eh. First, I don't "research." I "read." I do not originate studies or publish articles about science. I am not a scientist, and I do not claim to possess a scientist's rigor.
Second, yes, I believe the industrial spewing of thousands of carcinogens is extremely hazardous to us. I think the body of evidence for those dangers is clear enough to motivate political action.
I think the evidence for the dangers of industrial foods is also clear enough to motivate political action. Though I do not conclude from available data that it is primarily responsible for cancer, I concede it is a player, and it *is* responsible for many other health problems.
And that's as far as I can go based on what I see in the available evidence. I certainly cannot do what you have done, which is to dismiss thousands of studies demonstrating a link between carcinogens and cancer.
"evidence for the dangers of industrial foods is also clear enough to motivate political action" OK, except there aren't enough ppl who care enough about cancer to be influential. Meanwhile, the vast majority of individuals maintain a nationalized diet/standard quo/high cancer rates. Most people vote 3+ times a day for cancer-reflected in poor food choices. How will anyone take you seriously when your dollars support the biggest cancer risk-biochemically incompatible food?
Most people vote 3+ times a day for cancer - agreed. But it isn't just foods - it's thousands of other consumer products, too.
I consume mostly organic foods, many of which is raw. I'm a vegetarian. I avoid many consumer products which contain carcinogens - but believe me, it's impossible to avoid them all, and I can do nothing about air or water quality as an individual.
Collective political action would help. And yes, I favor political action to improve food quality and safety.
Most people vote 3+ times a day for cancer - agreed. But it isn't just foods- it's thousands of other consumer products" With food being the greatest factor. I used to think I could just eat whatever I wanted too if I did some other healthy things.
"I can do nothing about air or water quality as an individual" Why? There are filters, drink mostly juice. Humans need little water on natural diet.
"I favor political action to improve food quality and safety"
Again, nonsense. Industrial carcinogens have become completely ubiquitous. They are in soils, water, air. They are added to crops as fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides. Plants are even genetically engineered to produce carcinogenic toxins to fight off insects and diseases. Plastics leech carcinogens into the juice.
You can't buy juice that is free of all industrial carcinogens. Even organic brands have some contamination. The entire ecosphere is contaminated.
Then at least you could read research. Without reading the research you make false claims. Even many who dutifully research cancer risks still maintain deathstyles to contribute to cancer. You don't have to be a researcher to act on available information, nor do people doing the research often make dietary choices according to health. There are more powerful socio-illogical/conditioning/addictive factors besides health data that determine diet for many.
I do reach research - original studies as well as media summaries.
The challenge for nonscientists - and that's you as well as me, Crisology - is to parse the language of science, grasp its limitations, understand what a study is not saying as much as what it is, know when a consensus is or is not present, recognize outliers, recognize bias, and see the big picture (which always has holes).
Most laypersons lack the educational background to do any of this well.
"The challenge for nonscientists" AND scientists-You put them on a pedistal. Scientists usually eat AGAINST genetic instructions too! It's not merely an ethereal intellectual challenge- this cancer issue.
"understand what a study"
But we are not robots & understanding biochemically compatible diet/air, etc are not just a function of analyzing what is natural/healthy but then shedding conditioning that influenced ppl to promote cancer in the first place- a socio-illogical issue.
Nah, I don't put scientists on a pedestal. I know they can err.
Laypersons are more likely to misunderstand what a study is telling them - and just as important, what it is *not* telling them. But I am not under the illusion that scientists never misunderstand.
According to your reasoning, a study which does not control for carcinogenic variables is able to weight their significance against other variables. That is a fundamental error in interpretation of data.
"I don't put scientists on a pedestal" Then u know most health scientists err in practice if not in research.
Laypersons are more likely to misunderstand what a study is telling them" It's not a question of a particular study that is "misunderstood" by laypeople or scientists, it's a question of addiction/custom/conditioning. Or as you say even a political problem too.
"According to your reasoning, a study which does not control for carcinogenic" No. They try to ctrl variables.
There are literally thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - of industrial carcinogens entering our bodies every day. Every single one of them has its own chemical properties. Very little is known about exactly what these substances are doing, physiologically, other than that they produce cancer in laboratory animals.
Do you see the size of the problem? Controlling for one or two of these substances in a diet-focused study leaves unanswered questions.
Breast cancer risk increased by 56% for each additional 100 g/day of meat consumption. How does this compare w/industrial toxin data? In the China Study a particular protein (AF) was described as causing liver cancer in 100% of rats fed 20% of this animal protein. At 5% there were no cases that resulted. Humans require proportionately less protein than rats.How much evidence you demand for biochemically incompatible diet & how little for industrial toxin.
You provide no data or even a hypothesis to support your claims but demand much more from conflicting evidence of your claims.
Everything is not grey! You ignore overwhelming evidence until you are convinced of 100% causation in all cases. Playing in traffic does not cause you to die but it is correlated w/increased risk of dying. This is a game of linguistic semantics. Will you play in traffic & focus on smaller political factors?
I am not a scientist. It's perfectly clear you are not, either. We are both interpreting the results of other people's studies.
There are literally thousands of studies demonstrating the cancer-producing properties of carcinogens in laboratory animals. Testing for carcinogenic properties is done in dozens of labs around the US and elsewhere.
There is no doubt that carcinogens are a factor - none. The only question is to what extent carcinogens drive the cancer rates.
Statistical population studies which pronounce "too much of this or that causes cancer" make no effort to identify exactly what in the food is responsible. And they almost never attempt to differentiate between foods produced by industrial methods (which rely heavily on chemicals and drugs) and foods which are produced without industrial methods. They do not, in other words, rule out industrial carcinogens as a factor. The studies aren't designed to do that.
You will please note that I am not asserting that food is not a factor. I think there are nutrients which help the body to repair DNA damage or prevent it. A diet deficient in these nutrients increases risk of cancer. But if there is one thing we have learned about cancer, it is that it is multifaceted. You need something to damage the DNA; you need to impair the cellular repair mechanism; you need to disable mitochondria. Over 100 mutations are required for most cancers to get started.
Carcinogens are mutagens which are capable of producing the specific mutations required for cancer to get started. And they are literally everywhere - in every liter of air we breath, in every ounce of food we consume, in lipstick and plastic containers, everywhere. Some are natural. A great deal is industrially produced, and that causes me concern.
Knowing carcinogens produce cancers in laboratory animals, why should we tolerate an industry that produces them? We should not.
I am well aware that the food, drug and chemical industries hire people to "encourage" alternative explanations for cancer, to divert attention away from carcinogens. Your comments lead me to wonder who is paying your salary.
The USDA has evolved into a political business w/close ties to policy makers, genetic engineers, large agribusiness, meat & dairy industry interest$ that influence regulatory policy & dominate food production(Just research background of high-level appointees of USDA) Gov subsidies tip the playing field for large, genetically modified agribusiness (cheap grains) for factory farms(eliminating ~8% of feed costs). These meat/dairy & grain industries would not survive in a free market of nutrition.
"you need to impair the cellular repair mechanism" or avoid ingesting carcinogens.. with enough exposure an unnatural diet also promotes cancer. This has been repeatedly revealed by Campbell. In the case of liver cancer- toxic animal protein initiates, MFO enzyme (which normally detoxifies can activate FA metabolites w/high protein diet of ~20%. At 5% protein NO rats showed cancer promotion.
"Over 100 mutations are required for most cancers to get started" & it can occur in minutes.
"make no effort to identify exactly what in the food is responsible"
You make no effort to research relevant studies. Natural & synthetic carcinogens have been described across organs, species & carcinogen varieties (genetic/dietary). Even genetic cancer is promoted by high protein. Most cancer IS preventable.
Epidemiology is a method. It has advantages and disadvantages. Its primary advantage is it isn't invasive - it's difficult to study the effects of carcinogens or other harmful things on humans because of ethical concerns, and epidemiology gets around that. But it gives up a great deal in certainty and uncontrolled variables. At best it's a method for pointing the way to further research. At worst it's misleading.
Statistical studies can find a correlation between high protein food intake and cancer. But there are a ton of uncontrolled variables - including whether drugs and toxins were used to produce the foods.
Your certainty is not warranted by the body of evidence which supports it.
In EVERY degenerative disease study there are "a ton of variables". You will NEVER find a single cause for cancer or ANY disease. There is no such thing. Cancer initiation, promotion & progression are all very complex with many causal agents working in concert & many anti-promoters. Yet it is dangerous to dismiss such a causal related agent (diet) as merely being correlated since the main problem with the cancer battle is that many ppl are unaware of the fact cancer is mostly preventable.
I did not dismiss diet as cause. I dismissed your assertion that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that diet is the primary cause.
You can site some studies which show correlations between foods and cancer, but those studies do not tease out the effects of industrial carcinogens present in those foods.
Further, you aren't interested in thousands of laboratory animal studies correlating carcinogens to cancer, in which the diet of the animals is held constant.
"I dismissed your assertion that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that diet is the primary cause" while avoiding to provide counter-evidence.
If it's industrial manufactured, it's not "food" The China Study provided convincing evidence for high protein being the NECESSARY criteria for cancer development, regardless of initation.
"studies do not tease out the effects of industrial carcinogens present in those foods"
Across nations, across species of fruit/meat, the evidence is unrefuted/convincing that even though fruit/veg are exposed to the various industrial carcinogens, they still show the high ratios of (anti)promotor effects on carcinogens, while across industrial effects both on meat & fruit, meat/dairy/processed foods show proportionately the higher cancer risk.
The China study shows a correlation. So do thousands of studies of carcinogens. Now, I do not contend that sheer numbers of studies will settle the question as to which factor dominates (though if they did, carcinogens would win hands-down); but to say there is no evidence for carcinogenic involvement is an act of willful ignorance.
I will not spoon-feed you studies of carcinogens. That information is readily accessible via any search engine.
"China study shows a correlation" of 100-0- more than you'll see or reasonably expect for any other cancer promotion agent. It provides quantitative & qualitative evidence almost unheard of in the medical or nutritional fields of research. The China Study is the largest epidemiology study ever w/a team of some of the most reputable researchers in the world & is unparalleled in the amount of quality research it provides.
"to say there is no evidence for carcinogenic involvement is an act of willful ignorance" Which is what u just did. I don't know where that came from. But until you provide any viable hypothesis for your claims or some evidence, you aren't even wrong yet.. And by not quoting me & claiming I made statements I didn't, you are only arguing with yourself rather than maturely debating with honesty.
"I will not spoon-feed you studies of carcinogens" nor do I ask, just consider what u demand others to spoon feed you, while minimizing the effects of a government subsidized, inherited, biochemically incompatible diet of natural & synthetic carcinogens. You refuse to take an honest look at the best evidence, no matter how rationally convincing. You make up suspicious claims without sufficient evidence & demand others spoon feed you an imaginary, single/100% causal event.
To place as much blame on less controllable, more vague industrially manufactured toxins while glazing over the far greater effects of volitional, unnatural diet in general is deceitful.
Running out in 8 lanes of traffic (diet-induced cancer) correlates w/higher mortality rate than running out in 1 (synthetic-industrial-induced cancer) lane & is evidence there is another psychological motive besides an honest search for natural health.
According to available evidence all acquired cancer require excess protein environment. The most scientifically credible sources provide a range of 33-100% cancer development depending on diet alone. Your response?
Food and cancer rates correlate in statistical population studies. That's evidence, though not of the strongest scientific kind.
The body of evidence for carcinogens is much stronger, relying on thousands of peer-reviewed double-blind studies.
But the scientific strength of laboratory evidence alone does not prove carcinogens are dominant. All it means is that the lens of scientific attention is selectively focused.
In science, the ability to frame what we do not know, and how it might affect our interpretation of what we do know, is critical.
There is a lot we do not know. We do not know if carcinogens in food are driving the China Study results. We do not know everything about how cancer cells form and what it takes for them to thrive, biochemically. But we do know that cancer patterns in the population are not entirely random.
One last point. In statistics, the "r" value is an indication of the likelihood that a correlation exists. A value of 1.0 means certainty. A value of .5 or less means noise.
An "r" value of .76 is not a strong correlation. The correct way to interpret it is "there may be a relationship in the data."
"r" values say nothing about the relative strengths of different causes.
"5-10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects..The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25-30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30-35% are linked to diet"
Your response??
It may seem "strangely truncated" to isolate variables & categorize cancer incidence risk but that's how science works. You're just philosophizing & refuse to isolate a single type of cancer or study to begin analyzing.
The words "can be attributed to" means that there are statistical population studies which attempt to assign portions of the cancer epidemic to single causes.
There is no scientific consensus for a single-cause model for all cancers.
In a single individual, there are many factors at work leading to cancer. Bad diet ups the risk; so does exposure to carcinogens, specific viruses, radiation, and possibly even bacterial infections. Even injuries can be positively correlated to cancer onset.
In a multi-mode model of cancer, preventing cancer becomes a question of removing risk factors. Diet is a good place to start, simply because the individual has more control over diet than many of the other risk factors. Avoiding carcinogenic products, protecting skin from sunlight, not smoking, avoiding broken bones or trauma, and safe sex are also helpful.
I said before that I will not spoon-feed you studies. You can find what you need via Google.
"do you think protein consumption explains cancer clusters such as Love Canal"
As stated before (unrefuted). In order to have full blown cancer you need to be exposed to a carcinogen, then enzymatic activity mediates (contingent upon health variables & proper diet), then you need an environment to promote the cancer. According to trials in The China Study, 5% protein diet did not promote the deadly toxin AF while 20% promoted every cancer initiation.
You, on the other hand, seem to think the China Study rules out carcinogens as a dominant cause. It does no such thing, because it does nothing to control for carcinogenic variables. The study was never designed to support the conclusions you are drawing from it.
"heredity" was covered & accounts for <5% of cancer.
"a question of removing risk factors" What about anti-promoters? Remove risk factors as u say, then reverse cancer not w/pasta, overcooked veg but raw fruit.
"Diet is a good" Just the best according to abundant research.
"protecting skin from sun" I haven't focused on skin cancer as it isn't usually terminal.
"I will not spoon-feed you" but u will demand others spoon feed u.
"what you need via Google" Not Pubmed scientific database?
PubMed is very useful. So are summary articles in science publications intended for a more general audience, accessible through Google.
The role heredity plays in cancer cannot be said to be understood well, nor will it be understood well until we fully understand cellular biochemistry. That goal is many years away.
Estimates are just that - estimates. They will undergo frequent revision in coming years as our knowledge improves.
"The role heredity plays in cancer cannot be said to be understood well" u can say that about anything. What is understood is heredity plays a minor role (<5%)
You can say that cancers which recur in familial bloodlines play a minor role. What you cannot say is that heredity plays a minor role. We don't know that.
Heredity is the foundation for all cellular biochemistry. We appear to be inheriting a vulnerability, some more than others. We don't yet know if anyone is immune.
We may very well find that tinkering with the human genome will protect us against almost all cancers.
"can be attributed to" means there are statistical population studies which attempt to assign portions of the cancer epidemic to single causes" No, it means evidence confirmed an observed independent variable has a correlation, linear relationship, etc. As research accrues hypothesis is accepted/rejected, retested-theory may develop, then a law. In health there are few isolated causes. Smoke hasn't been identified as causing cancer either. That doesn't mean smoke (run in traffic or ingest meat).
There *are* no independent variables in cancer. The single-mode model of cancer is, given what is known, extremely unlikely.
You can study a variable in isolation, and that can yield useful insights. But studying a variable in isolation does not magically transform it into an independent variable.
Contrary to your assertion, smoke - not just from cigarettes, but any kind of smoke - contains carcinogens which have been linked to cancer in animal experiments.
There *are* no independent variables in cancer" That's my line. There are independent variables (IV) in a standard research design so although you don't realistically isolate all variables scientists isolate as best they can. After repeatedly running trials w/different populations, patterns emerge.
Contrary to your assertion, smoke- not just from cigarettes, but any kind of smoke- contains carcinogens which have been linked to cancer in animal experiments" How is this contrary to what I said?
listen to this ...
gadionson1 1 month ago
Hi ,Urgelt.:) I wanted to put this here to be as public as possible and help as many people as I can. I found some promising news from PubMed for the future treatment of various cancers. The links to the studies are at my blog. For viewers : razwelldotblogspotdotcom. Look for the article "Cannabinoids Show Promise As A Future Treatment For Various Cancers.
Thankfully, this is genuine science rather than Internet marketing.
Take care, Urgelt.
Raz
Razwell 9 months ago
Hundreds of plant substances seem to have anti-cancer properties. But it seems to be difficult to translate these into "cures." It's perplexing.
When you eat a diet rich in unprocessed plant-sourced foods, you get some protection against cancer that Americans largely forgo. When you add nutritious plant foods to American diets, cancer rates go down. That effect may be all they are seeing in this study of cannibinoids.
But hope springs eternal. Mayhap they'll turn up something more potent.
Urgelt 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, Urgelt. :) I wanted to post this here to make this information as public as possible and help as many people as I can. I found some promising news from PubMed on the use of Cannabinoids for future cancer treatment. The links to the studies are at my blog . For viewers : RazwellDOTblogspotDOTcom. Look for article "Cannabinoids Show Promise As A Future Treatment For Various Cancers".
Take care, Urgelt.
Raz
Razwell 9 months ago
The healing process can only be checked by the hydrocyanic acid found in any of 1,200 seeds, grasses & grains. The modern Western diet is deficient in these essential nitrilocides. Cancer, therefore, belongs to the long list of vitamin-deficiency diseases: night blindness, pellagra, scurvy, pernicious anemia, etc.
TransUnicorn 1 year ago
Divide and conquer! It worked for the British Raj and it works for the cancer cartel. Let there be cancer ascribed to each organ and sub-groups to each of these. Cancer: early detection is the key; the key to maximizing profits.
TransUnicorn 1 year ago
Cancer is a group of diseases characterized by some common traits.
Within the group there is considerable variety in how the diseases manifest, how rapidly they progress through tumors and metasticization, how they respond to the presence or absence of hormones, and how they respond to treatments.
One common trait is this: malignant cells all have genetic damage, and their ability to repair that damage is impaired. But which genes are damaged varies, too.
Let there not be oversimplification.
Urgelt 1 year ago
Laetrile is for cancer patients. To avoid the chronic metabolic disease cancer one only needs to include the seeds of apples, pears, watermelons, pumpkins in their diet, and/or bitter almonds, bamboo, flax seed/oil, brown rice, etc. These foods are natural nitrilosides that are indeed deadly, but only to malignant cells. I consume 20 Japanese plum seeds daily. The preventative, cure and control for cancer is in the produce department.
TransUnicorn 1 year ago
Laetrile has fared poorly in peer-reviewed studies, unfortunately.
But I'll endorse a view which is not entirely far from yours.
Many, many nutrients in vegetable and fruit food sources have anti-cancerous properties. Unfortunately, industrial processing removes these nutrients. Cancer may be partially understood as a disease of malnutrition brought on by industrial food processing.
Including lots of raw or minimally-processed vegetables and fruits in your diet very probably reduces risk.
Urgelt 1 year ago
@Urgelt : Malignant cells are errant trophoblasts (healing cells/new-life cells/pre-embryonic cells). The healing process can only be checked with Amygdalin; the molecularity of which is hydrogen cyanide, benzaldahyde and glucose (sugar).
TransUnicorn 1 year ago
Uh, no.
Malignant cells can be derived from just about any human cell except red blood cells, which do not undergo mitosis and thus can never become malignant.
Claims for efficacy of amygdalin (sold in Mexico as laetrile) have not been substantiated in peer-reviewed studies. I can't put it any plainer than that.
Cyanide toxicity of amygdalin is a major concern. It's dangerous stuff.
Urgelt 1 year ago
@Urgelt : Obviously you've never had cows & horses. They survive on cyanide-rich greens.
TransUnicorn 1 year ago
The safety of a drug in humans can't be established by looking at cows and horses eating grass. You understand that, don't you?
The efficacy of amygdalin has been found wanting in scientific studies. Safety of the drug is an open question, but not one worth answering since it fails on efficacy.
Urgelt 1 year ago
The healing process can only be checked by the hydrocyanic acid found in any of 1,200 seeds, grasses & grains. The modern Western diet is deficient in these essential nitrilocides. Cancer, therefore, belongs to the long list of vitamin-deficiency diseases: night blindness, pellagra, scurvy, pernicious anemia, etc.
TransUnicorn 1 year ago
I don't understand this part. What sort of toxin added to most products will make the product cheaper to make? That's obviously the main goal of corporations: to get their wallets fatter. So why the toxins? Wouldn't adding chemicals to the mix of most products just make things more inconvenient and perhaps more expensive, let alone drive away customers? Or are the toxins byproducts of cheaper manufacturing materials such as cheap plastic and preservatives? I never could get to the bottom line...
HMachProductions 1 year ago
Some toxins extend the product shelf life.
Some manipulate flavor, texture, and color to improve appeal.
Some are used to modify the properties of materials. BPA softens plastic and makes it more flexible, for example. But it leeches from the plastic into food and beverages.
Mercury in fillings makes them softer. Easier to get dental flux into the cavity, easier for your teeth to grind them into the right shape.
Toxins make products cheaper and more useful, taken narrowly.
Urgelt 1 year ago
The problem is that corporations are, by and large, ignoring the health and environmental consequences of their use of toxins. These consequences are often years and years downstream, making it difficult to impossible to hold them liable for damages.
Government is the only force that could possibly protect us. But regulators are dominated by the industries they regulate. There isn't much help coming from that quarter.
Urgelt 1 year ago
@Urgelt But why would the corporations need to add toxins in the first place? What's stopping them from creating a product with minimal health risk? Most, if not at least some products shouldn't even logically be considered to need to have toxins added to the mix. Why do the companies add the toxins in the first place? Are the toxins byproducts of industrialized production that seem to just fall into the makeup of the product? I just don't get that part.
HMachProductions 1 year ago
@HMachProductions There's a lot we are kept in the dark about.... Money makes the world go round at least some people think so. Its all about greed. I recomend " The Beautiful Truth"
nikkilovesdustie 1 year ago
@Urgelt Like Monsanto and the FDA for example. I'm so glad to see there are smart people in the world! i care about this stuff so much and most people have no idea and dont even care to know. sad
nikkilovesdustie 1 year ago
The bottom line is profit. So long as corporations which use toxins are never held accountable for it - and they rarely are - they can produce products with advantages that result in more sales, and they can produce them at less cost.
The bottom line for most things in our culture is profit. If someone else gets screwed, they're just out of luck.
Urgelt 1 year ago
@Urgelt Alright, sorry for the extra question. I didn't see that you had a 3 part response. I appreciate the insight.
HMachProductions 1 year ago
@Urgelt exactly! and look at plastics. They emit gas when heated (who doesnt have a vynol shower curtain or warm food in plastic bowls in the microwave?) Even plastic water bottles arent good for you. I didnt even realize where plastic came from until recently. oil companies have to be extremely rich and obviously if it's at the people's expense it does not matter.
nikkilovesdustie 1 year ago
@HMachProductions think of how many oil byproducts there are. Also pharmecutical companies get richer if more people are sick. The best way to do that is to make them unhealthy. Most processed foods contain one or more corn products. Corn isn't very nutritious to begin with. Most corn is genetically modified containing a bacteria that is immune to round up also. Meat fillers to kill new strains of ecoli from cows eating corn, ultrviolet lights on produce to kill bacteria adds free radicals
nikkilovesdustie 1 year ago
@HMachProductions There was also a study done called"Empty Peaches" that shows how the nutrition of produce in America is significantly lower today than it was in the 1950's. You can blame polution and pesticides. What I don't understand is that if nicotiene and caffiene are natural pesticides, why use round up??
nikkilovesdustie 1 year ago
@HMachProductions msg... it shuts off the "I'm full" switch in the brain. SO people consume more
nikkilovesdustie 1 year ago
Thanks for information! Now I have another reason to cut my consumption of things.
Georgij92 1 year ago
Respond to this video...
please research this more at your convenience: what came first? the cancer or the candida. think about it.
aria926 1 year ago
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind - or in most researchers - that infections, particularly viruses, play a strong role in many cancers.
The problem is that none of the agents of infection which have been implicated in cancers are new. It's very difficult to explain exploding cancer rates solely by referencing infective agents.
The answers may be synergistic:: toxins combined with infective agents and genetic vulnerabilities resulting in the terrible trends we see.
Urgelt 1 year ago
@Urgelt Have you heard of Dr. max Gerson and the Gerson Therapy? Or The Gerson Institute of Mexico?
Dr. gerson believed he found a cure for cancer and other diseases. Basically, if you give the body proper nutrition a clean pancreas it can heal itself of anything. He has a 50 case study that you might find interesting.
I think there is only one cancer but it can affect any part of the body and only one real cause: a lack of antioxidants.
nikkilovesdustie 1 year ago
I like listening to Urgelt :)
LokiV 1 year ago
wrong my friend smoking like a fire kills look at mcqueen he said asbestos but he was a biker, smoker
bobodd5 1 year ago
Smoking has been in a slow decline during the period cancer rates have broadly exploded in the US.
Nevertheless, to this extent, I agree: smoking delivers carcinogens into your lungs. Smoking adds to your risk. It doesn't explain the trend, but that does not means it's safe.
Urgelt 1 year ago
@Urgelt i recently found out that Nicoteine is a natural pesticide. Could this chemical be the cause of the carcenogines or is that just smoke in general?
nikkilovesdustie 1 year ago
but it's a painful process. People have cured their own cancer, though weirdly, it's not on TV!
MissMeAm 2 years ago
People with cancer sometimes go into spontaneous remissions.
It's a leap to assume that a particular thing they may have been doing with naturopathic treatments, or diet, or whatever, caused the remission. The only way to be sure is to replicate the effect in controlled studies.
Thus far the supposed "cures" advocated by the fringe have very little scientific evidence backing them up.
Urgelt 2 years ago
@Urgelt scientic evidence takes time and an interest in the subject. Unfortun ately I don't think there is enough of an interest in the area due to propoganda from pharmecutical companies and all the other rich evil greedy corps.
nikkilovesdustie 1 year ago
what do people do?
EdYoutubr 2 years ago
They go on detoxification diets - very very strict ones. This is perhaps best done gradually,so as not to overload the body all at once, since detoxification is such a hard thing to go though. There are people who have recovered without treatment, as all cancer treatment is carconigenic and the recovery rates are generally quite low for a lot of them,unfortunately. Google cancer is a fungus.
cutelittleflowers 2 years ago
A detox involves eliminating all harmful foods from the diet. There are many types - I'd say the raw vegetable diet is the one to go with personally, though it can be a real shock to the system at first. First thing to do is eliminate caffeine and sugars (including fruits for a bit) and then start on an all raw diet, and include anti fungal/cancer supplements and herbs, keep well nourished, take a good quality probiotic and a fiber supplement such as psyllium husk :)
cutelittleflowers 2 years ago
sounds disgusting but i guess when your life is at stake, people will do it with no hesitation
EdYoutubr 2 years ago
@cutelittleflowers Dr. Max gerson used coffee enemas on his patients to cause the liver to produce a chemical and casue the pancreas to be flushed out. The pancreas is like the doorway to the outside of the body in a sense and it is supposed to get rid of cancer naturally. however, breaking down large amounts of protein from meat and dairy products cause the pancreas to be too busy to rid the body of other toxins.
nikkilovesdustie 1 year ago
Hey also, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that cancer is a fungus. Many people these days have all kinds of fungal problems, all due, as you say on your other video, to killing probiotic bacteria. I beleive fungal infections cause it. Anti fungal medicines like oregano oil, coconut oil, raw onions and garlic, colloidal silver, golden seal extract, etc. and a low sugar low yeast diet, will rid the body of yeast -
MissMeAm 2 years ago
The main association between fungal infections and cancer, so far as I am aware, is that chemotherapy can damage immune response and encourage secondary infections.
I don't know of a reason to suspect fungi as a cause for cancer, but I am willing to be surprised by what science turns up. There's still a lot to learn about this family of diseases.
Urgelt 2 years ago
Also, check out codex alimentarius!! (if you haven't already)
sonicycle 2 years ago
I have.
Urgelt 2 years ago
TOTALLY! you're a genius :)
MissMeAm 2 years ago
Hardly.
Urgelt 2 years ago
They have!!! You check it out for yourself. People have done detoxification and got rid of their cancer. These people were "terminally ill". I do not know enough to say for sure that anyone wih cancer can, but it has been done. All I know is that chemo and radiation therapy are both carcinogenic, and the percentage of recovery is so low.... I will send you a few links when I get the chance. I'm not good enough with my words to sound beleiveable :-P
sonicycle 2 years ago
I'm a skeptic; it takes some persuading to get me to believe anything. :-)
If I stand next to a fire hydrant and a cat jumps on my head, does standing next to fire hydrants cause cats to jump on heads?
Maybe. The way to find out isn't through anecdotes, though. It's through science.
That's what is missing for these fringe assertions of cancer cures. Endless testimonials, often used to sell products to desperate people. Science? Not so much.
I'll be glad to look at your links.
Urgelt 2 years ago
@sonicycle have you seen "The Beautiful Truth"? It talks about riding the body of cancer through proper nutrition and other subjects you would probably find interesting.
nikkilovesdustie 1 year ago
I love you! thank you for sharing this wisdom with the world! I hope you don't mind if I share it with my viewers
francescorengifo 2 years ago
I don't mind at all, Francesco. Thanks for your positive comment.
Urgelt 2 years ago
good point. thanks
Darren1111 2 years ago
It was from a college level textbook. I have the reference somewhere around the house but I'm not going to go dig it up. I was shocked when I read it.
Darren1111 2 years ago
In past centuries it was usual to discount baby and toddler deaths when figuring life expectancy. In some parts of Europe, lower class children didn't even receive names until past toddler stage - why go to the effort until you knew the child would survive?
I'd be concerned that tossing a number out like that without context invites us to compare apples to oranges.
Urgelt 2 years ago
In the late 1600's in the New England area, the average person lived to be 71.
Darren1111 2 years ago
That sounds a wee bit high. Are you sure infant mortality is figured into that number? Mind sharing your source?
Urgelt 2 years ago
I agree with you completely, and it isn't just cancer that is a result of all these toxins ... look at all the auto-immune disorders, too. Case & point -- mercury in "silver" tooth fillings. It is sad. Just follow the money trails :(
Joliefemm 2 years ago
You're probably right.
For a long time, the dental establishment insisted that the mercury in fillings is fixed in place and doesn't exude vapors. That's been shown to be completely false. They continually add to the toxic load our bodies must deal with, and mercury is a very, very serious toxin.
Unfortunately, at present there aren't any nontoxic alternatives. Nor do I get the sense the dental community is rushing to develop them.
Urgelt 2 years ago
We swim in toxins.
InSaneTK 2 years ago
Yeah, we do.
Our industrial civilization is remarkable in its successes, but grievous in its faults. I hope we can learn to do it better and smarter.
Urgelt 2 years ago
Bullseye! The political segment and tie in is undeniable.. Okay-- so until we change that.. how would you rate moderate exercise as a purging and cleansing mechanism of toxins and carcinagins?
kurtnils 2 years ago
Circumstantially.
Going for a jog in heavy smog probably will do more harm than good.
If you really want to detox, drink plenty of water. Water is the body's solvent and the means by which it rids itself of the molecules it does not want. Working up a good sweat might do some good, too - just don't do it in a way which might cause you to take in more toxins than you can purge.
Reducing exposure remains the most important thing, I think.
Urgelt 2 years ago
do computers cause cancer?
waxcoatedbanjo 2 years ago
There are toxins - carcinogens - used in the manufacture of computers and electronics. When new and burning in, there may be some vapors that would not be good to breathe in a closed space.
So far as I can tell, the radiation emitted by older monitors isn't terribly dangerous. Radiation emitted by LCD monitors is even less so.
Emissions from electronics factories may be a larger concern, if you live near one. But it's a concern with most industrial factories, not just electronics.
Urgelt 2 years ago
Plain old soap and water will do well enough for ordinary purposes, I'm convinced.
Glad you enjoyed the video, Ct.
Urgelt 2 years ago
Your video touches me greatly. My dad survived lung cancer, twice, and my aunt died of breast cancer last year. I also know another person who has a cancer. My dad's cancer was explainable as he had always smoked (to be honnest, he still does, as stupid as this sound), but my aunt had a healthy lifestyle. Well, cancer is not fair. That's a proof that if we have a genetic vulnerability to cancer, we're screwed, just by living on this earth. And guess who's vulnerable with such a family history...
Wizlyy 2 years ago
Genetic vulnerability is not a death sentence, I hope. Your lifestyle and diet can reduce risk, and treatments are improving every year.
But it's worrisome, to be sure.
We have not yet learned how to operate an industrial society which is safe for humans. We could, I think. But it's going to take a lot of work in both science and politics to do it.
Urgelt 2 years ago
Beautiful video. Thanks for posting.
drekecdrekecadrekecu 2 years ago
Indeed mankind is slowly destroying itself.
foolsgoldsoma 2 years ago
N-Acetyl L-Cysteine and Turmeric (when standardized to contain high Curcermin) can derail and even fight cancer. Kava also shows some ability to fight cancer without hurting other cells.
deathcoremaggot 2 years ago
My questions is if a cure for cancer is discovered, how likely is it that it will be released to the general public? I mean, cancer is the single most profitable thing for the health industry...and it doesn't seem too far-fetched to me that Pharmaceutical companies would do their best to suppress a cure that would reduce the profits they make from the disease.
TheDudeFactory 2 years ago
What do you think about the theorie that if there is a cure for cancer, there is also a cure for the aging of the body? (dna manipulating/regenerating technology)
lauwren 2 years ago
No scientists are championing that theory, Lawren, that I've ever heard or read about.
All you need to do to cure cancer is to get cancer cells to die, while leaving healthy cells alone. We'll get there in the next decade, I think.
The challenges involved in immortality are significantly larger and more complex.
Just as well. Immortality is not a good idea unless we are able to control our population at a sustainable level. Thus far we've shown no ability to do that at all.
Urgelt 2 years ago
I thought when I watched this video before that you had given a percentage of the number of cancers caused by cigarettes but, after watching it again it appears I was mistaken - you only said a "small percentage". Do you know what that percentage is and can you point me to any data that confirms that smoking is only accountable for a small percentage?
gfoote32 2 years ago
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, to be sure. About 1 in 10 life-long smokers will contract lung cancer. About 90% of lung cancers occur in current or former smokers.
But the question isn't that simple. For example, what happens to risk if you smoke, but take in no industrial pollutants into your lungs? Or radon? Or viruses? There are thousands of carcinogens entering our lungs, and the truth is we don't have a good handle on synergistic effects between multiple carcinogens.
Urgelt 2 years ago
Now, think about this. 1 in 10 smokers will get lung cancer. Between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 Americans will get *some* kind of cancer.
See what I mean?
Smoking isn't good. But avoiding smoking won't protect you from all of those other cancers. And there's a lot of them.
Urgelt 2 years ago
Thank you. Keep putting the word out.
gfoote32 3 years ago
I think what everyone is forgetting is that nature will always have a way of keeping the population down. Disease and cancer is normal and there will never be a cure. Don't say im insensitive either - I have lost 3 family members to cancer. I do strongly believe though it is necessary and inevitable that such a thing exists. It is natures way of trying to maintain BALANCE in the world. Looks like mother natures struggling a bit though (overpopulation much?) Cancer will never have a cure.
lazyantss 3 years ago
There is nothing natural about industrially-produced carcinogens, nor the cancers which result from exposure to them. Cancer is a self-inflicted wound, not Mother Nature culling the herd.
However, overpopulation does leave us vulnerable to a population crash.
I'm pretty sure a crash is headed our way, though when, or how it will manifest, are by no means easy to know in advance.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Whatever gets you through the night.
gfoote32 3 years ago
I totally agree with you! I wish everyone would finally do something!
ElCatolicoMix 3 years ago
I understand what you are saying--but I don't know why you let the tobacco industry off the hook so lightly. They lied and cheated the public and nothing was done for years.
Their products cause at least 30% of cancer deaths--it is not the small number that you imply.
kensington86 3 years ago
I certainly do not mean to let the tobacco industry off the hook. They are still selling a dangerous product, and yes, they lied.
But I have come to believe that no "cancer cause" acts in a vacuum.
There are several carcinogens in tobacco smoke. There are thousands of other industrial carcinogens entering our bodies from other sources. Studies of tobacco and cancer do not control for those other carcinogens, and it leaves unanswered questions about synergistic effects.
Urgelt 3 years ago
I suspect that the risk from tobacco, absent these other carcinogenic influences, would be less.
Still, I take your point. Tobacco smoke has nasty carcinogens in it that are connected to cancer. My broader point is that *all* industrially-produced carcinogens, not just tobacco carcinogens, put us at risk. It's not enough to eliminate one source. We need to be looking at all of them.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"90-95% of industrial pollution exposure is from consuming animal products." -The China Study, bottom of page 165. This is the most comprehensive study on cancer or diet ever. It's ongoing.
crisology 3 years ago
No single study settles a question in science. It never happens.
You do know what an outlier is?
The assertion that 90-95% of industrial pollution exposure comes from consuming animal products is highly questionable. The only way to arrive at a conclusion like that is to assess the rate at which thousands of industrial carcinogens enter the body from other sources - and that's extremely difficult to look at.
Urgelt 3 years ago
You're philosophizing. I'm providing falsifiable numbers. When you reference scientifically credible data with numbers & apply it to a point you may then have a counter-arguement. Until then it just appears as though you are upset at what you are reading because it is merely uncomfortable for you to accept. "Highly questionable" just means you want to hear something more comfortable.
crisology 3 years ago
Heh, science *is* philosophy.
The purpose of science is to explain things. It isn't just data, it's understanding the data. Reason plays a critical role.
I'd love to be in a position to falsify numbers, but... I'm not a scientist. Reason is all I have.
Could I be wrong? Sure.
So can scientists. And so can you.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Science is not the same as philosophy. I know you have a passion for all that is grey but there are darker and lighter shades and there are cases which are just so close to black and white that it is difficult to philosophize/imagine enough gray to ignore the differences.
You do NOT have to be a scientist to use science/data from research. Many health science researchers ignore various high correlation, causal agents of disease risks, regardless of what reasons they have.
crisology 3 years ago
Science is a subset of philosophy, as you will learn in any "history of science" course.
Many philosophical tools are used in science: induction, deduction, analogy being examples.
As a nonscientist, I find it easy to pose questions. Some of the questions I can pose are answered pretty well by available studies. Some are not.
A study which examines dietary correlations to cancer, but ignores almost all carcinogens, cannot answer my questions about the relative significance of causes.
Urgelt 3 years ago
I understand what you mean, crisology, but Science, in contrast, is Philosophy. Philosophy entails with Science, as philosophy works in parallel with science, where the search for truth is never ending from any perspective taken from the observer, science is in a never ending road for truth, theorizing and hypothesizing on a common point, same goes for philosophy.
And they both seek facts in a World that the only facts we know, is that we know little facts. This coming from a philosopher.
btbking 3 years ago
The USDA is part business and part politics. Who is paying me? The USDA is as guilty as the individuals who ignore their own genetic instruction
You're narrowly focussed on cancer etiology. Diet promotes cancer. We are all exposed to natural & synthetic carcinogens but grocery store bought food & ALL meat provide necessary conditions to cultivate cancer (promotion stage). You can have cancerous cells but without the conditions to promote the cancer you're safe. Diet is the main "culprit."
crisology 3 years ago
There is a way to test your hypothesis that does not rely on statistical population studies. It requires a laboratory, of course.
Take groups of identical laboratory animals. Feed some groups varying levels of carcinogens and different diets. Feed other groups varying diet only. Tabulate the results.
This should give us an idea of the sensitivity of the cancer rate to dietary adjustments.
Naturally, you'd have to have a good idea of what diets block cancer.
Urgelt 3 years ago
I have never heard of any peer-reviewed study which does this. I'm not an authority, of course, but I do read pretty extensively for a nonscientist.
You present your hypothesis as though science had settled this question. You allow no room for doubt. Yet I think you will find that it's not well studied at all.
Prove me wrong. Turn up studies that do this.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Science doesn't look for "proof". There are no neat, conclusive cause-effect studies for ANY degenerative disease.Absolute proof is impossible and irrelevant. Nobody has proved a single factor causing a single outcome. It does not exist. So any isolated single factor studied for cancer will NEVER provide a yes/no/100% causal answer but a probability, which is convincingly well established, statistically significant, biologically plausible and causally related with animal fat & cancer.
crisology 3 years ago
It's not my hypothesis. It has already been tested thousands of times, beginning w/The China Study. Rats w/cancer initiation were fed varying amts of animal protein. At 20% all rats showed full blown cancer or precursors. At 5% NO cancer promotion. No researcher can ask for more convincing evidence.
"Why doesn't the American Cancer Society focus on controlling toxic substances entering our food, etc"
ACS funded grants for the biggest/most comprehensive disease study of all time-The China Study
crisology 3 years ago
I want you to understand that I do not deny that diet plays a role. What we are debating is which factor dominates the others.
The ACS researchers did not attempt to differentiate between foods produced by industrial methods and foods which are produced without them. There are uncontrolled variables here, and there is a need for further research.
I do not demand "proof." I demand "evidence." The evidence for concluding that diet is the dominant factor is weak.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Incidentally, there's a dark horse candidate still in the race for "most serious cause of cancer" that has not been ruled out.
Viruses.
The best known is the HPV virus, but that may be the tip of the iceberg. The truth is, not a great deal is known about all the viruses in humans or their long-term effects.
For funsies, Google "SV-40."
Urgelt 3 years ago
Our cellular DNA is under constant assault from free radicals, viruses, specific proteins, bacterial toxins, radiation, and carcinogens, many of which are industrially produced. Some of it can be repaired, and repair is more likely with a good diet, avoidance of hormones in food and hormone-mimickers, and lucky genetics. But when damage accrues too rapidly, things can break down in a very large portion of our population.
That's the crux. We're accumulating damage too fast.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Urgelt "Viruses"
Read The China Study, they showed that HBV animals did not develop cancer or precursors from HBV without the 20% animal protein diet. W/5% there were no cases. 100-0 almost unheard of in ANY med studies..
The biggest risk factor AND Promotor of cancer & most diseases is unnatural diet. The last 100 yrs correlates w/the rise in heart disease too. Hint: The same diet that prevents AND reverses cancer, prevents CHD, Alzheimers, anxiety, constipation, cataracts, etc..
crisology 3 years ago
"understand I do not deny that diet plays a role" But u do also want me to understand u feel unable to have the biggest influence on your own cancer risks & that diet is not as big a factor as imagined/vaguely stated although partly accurate contributing factors of industrial pollution in general?
"I do not demand "proof." I demand "evidence."
What special evidence do you demand? I can provide for you. I just need you to be specific. When you obtain the evidence what are you willing to do?
crisology 3 years ago
"What we are debating is which factor dominates the others"
It's not really a debate. I provided numbers & asked for evidence on your "thesis" but haven't seen any- just vague/partly accurate suspicions.
"ACS researchers did not attempt to differentiate between foods produced by industrial methods and foods which are produced without them"
Which study? If the food has seeds, it's an anti-promotor, otherwise it's likely fake food.. If you have to ask what real food is, that is a clue.
crisology 3 years ago
ALL store bought meat is produced by industrial methods, even "organic" flesh. Even the "feedstuff" for factory animals is GMO. To be specific, unnatural H. Sapiens diet is THE biggest cause of cancer.
"There are uncontrolled variables here" w/ALL diseases. Cancer etiology is not as mysterious as many others.
"there is a need for further research" There is a greater need for brutal honesty & using non-grey paint brushes.
"I do not demand "proof." I demand "evidence."
I can provide it.
crisology 3 years ago
You cannot provide the evidence that is needed to prove your assertion, because it does not exist.
I explained the form this evidence must take already: peer-reviewed studies which assess the relative weight of dietary and carcinogenic influences. The issue cannot be resolved by studying diet or carcinogens in isolation.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Urgelt "The issue cannot be resolved" as long as you prefer to philosophize while ignoring scientific available evidence.
You have made a false claim about cancer etiology. u refuse to research the issue. u only want to talk about how much is not known, yet in your mind, u really believe politics provide more solutions than diet. You'll be waiting on your hands for a while w/that deadly philosophy. It's easy to say- 'we don't know this, we don't know that, etc' You're playing in traffic.
crisology 3 years ago
Eh. First, I don't "research." I "read." I do not originate studies or publish articles about science. I am not a scientist, and I do not claim to possess a scientist's rigor.
Second, yes, I believe the industrial spewing of thousands of carcinogens is extremely hazardous to us. I think the body of evidence for those dangers is clear enough to motivate political action.
Urgelt 3 years ago
I think the evidence for the dangers of industrial foods is also clear enough to motivate political action. Though I do not conclude from available data that it is primarily responsible for cancer, I concede it is a player, and it *is* responsible for many other health problems.
And that's as far as I can go based on what I see in the available evidence. I certainly cannot do what you have done, which is to dismiss thousands of studies demonstrating a link between carcinogens and cancer.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"evidence for the dangers of industrial foods is also clear enough to motivate political action" OK, except there aren't enough ppl who care enough about cancer to be influential. Meanwhile, the vast majority of individuals maintain a nationalized diet/standard quo/high cancer rates. Most people vote 3+ times a day for cancer-reflected in poor food choices. How will anyone take you seriously when your dollars support the biggest cancer risk-biochemically incompatible food?
crisology 3 years ago
Most people vote 3+ times a day for cancer - agreed. But it isn't just foods - it's thousands of other consumer products, too.
I consume mostly organic foods, many of which is raw. I'm a vegetarian. I avoid many consumer products which contain carcinogens - but believe me, it's impossible to avoid them all, and I can do nothing about air or water quality as an individual.
Collective political action would help. And yes, I favor political action to improve food quality and safety.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Most people vote 3+ times a day for cancer - agreed. But it isn't just foods- it's thousands of other consumer products" With food being the greatest factor. I used to think I could just eat whatever I wanted too if I did some other healthy things.
"I can do nothing about air or water quality as an individual" Why? There are filters, drink mostly juice. Humans need little water on natural diet.
"I favor political action to improve food quality and safety"
Growing food is the biggest favor
crisology 3 years ago
Ccarcinogens are, to one extent or another, water-soluable. They have to be, in order to enter a cell and alter its DNA. Filters cannot remove them.
You will find industrial carcinogens in juice products. You will find them in almost everything, for that matter.
We can reduce our exposure, but to reach zero exposure, it will be necessary to stop producing them at the source.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"industrial carcinogens in juice products" That's not pure juice then is it? You refer to fake juice.
"You will find them in almost everything, for that matter" No- you will find them in almost every bad food but u find anti-promoters in real food.
"We can reduce our exposure, but" the main thing is to eliminate the unhealthy promoting environment resulting from improper diet (high protein).
crisology 3 years ago
Again, nonsense. Industrial carcinogens have become completely ubiquitous. They are in soils, water, air. They are added to crops as fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides. Plants are even genetically engineered to produce carcinogenic toxins to fight off insects and diseases. Plastics leech carcinogens into the juice.
You can't buy juice that is free of all industrial carcinogens. Even organic brands have some contamination. The entire ecosphere is contaminated.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"I don't "research." I "read."
Then at least you could read research. Without reading the research you make false claims. Even many who dutifully research cancer risks still maintain deathstyles to contribute to cancer. You don't have to be a researcher to act on available information, nor do people doing the research often make dietary choices according to health. There are more powerful socio-illogical/conditioning/addictive factors besides health data that determine diet for many.
crisology 3 years ago
I do reach research - original studies as well as media summaries.
The challenge for nonscientists - and that's you as well as me, Crisology - is to parse the language of science, grasp its limitations, understand what a study is not saying as much as what it is, know when a consensus is or is not present, recognize outliers, recognize bias, and see the big picture (which always has holes).
Most laypersons lack the educational background to do any of this well.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"The challenge for nonscientists" AND scientists-You put them on a pedistal. Scientists usually eat AGAINST genetic instructions too! It's not merely an ethereal intellectual challenge- this cancer issue.
"understand what a study"
But we are not robots & understanding biochemically compatible diet/air, etc are not just a function of analyzing what is natural/healthy but then shedding conditioning that influenced ppl to promote cancer in the first place- a socio-illogical issue.
crisology 3 years ago
Nah, I don't put scientists on a pedestal. I know they can err.
Laypersons are more likely to misunderstand what a study is telling them - and just as important, what it is *not* telling them. But I am not under the illusion that scientists never misunderstand.
According to your reasoning, a study which does not control for carcinogenic variables is able to weight their significance against other variables. That is a fundamental error in interpretation of data.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"I don't put scientists on a pedestal" Then u know most health scientists err in practice if not in research.
Laypersons are more likely to misunderstand what a study is telling them" It's not a question of a particular study that is "misunderstood" by laypeople or scientists, it's a question of addiction/custom/conditioning. Or as you say even a political problem too.
"According to your reasoning, a study which does not control for carcinogenic" No. They try to ctrl variables.
crisology 3 years ago
There are literally thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - of industrial carcinogens entering our bodies every day. Every single one of them has its own chemical properties. Very little is known about exactly what these substances are doing, physiologically, other than that they produce cancer in laboratory animals.
Do you see the size of the problem? Controlling for one or two of these substances in a diet-focused study leaves unanswered questions.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Nutr Cancer. 2008 Mar-Apr;60(2):177-87.
Breast cancer risk increased by 56% for each additional 100 g/day of meat consumption. How does this compare w/industrial toxin data? In the China Study a particular protein (AF) was described as causing liver cancer in 100% of rats fed 20% of this animal protein. At 5% there were no cases that resulted. Humans require proportionately less protein than rats.How much evidence you demand for biochemically incompatible diet & how little for industrial toxin.
crisology 3 years ago
You provide no data or even a hypothesis to support your claims but demand much more from conflicting evidence of your claims.
Everything is not grey! You ignore overwhelming evidence until you are convinced of 100% causation in all cases. Playing in traffic does not cause you to die but it is correlated w/increased risk of dying. This is a game of linguistic semantics. Will you play in traffic & focus on smaller political factors?
crisology 3 years ago
I am not a scientist. It's perfectly clear you are not, either. We are both interpreting the results of other people's studies.
There are literally thousands of studies demonstrating the cancer-producing properties of carcinogens in laboratory animals. Testing for carcinogenic properties is done in dozens of labs around the US and elsewhere.
There is no doubt that carcinogens are a factor - none. The only question is to what extent carcinogens drive the cancer rates.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Statistical population studies which pronounce "too much of this or that causes cancer" make no effort to identify exactly what in the food is responsible. And they almost never attempt to differentiate between foods produced by industrial methods (which rely heavily on chemicals and drugs) and foods which are produced without industrial methods. They do not, in other words, rule out industrial carcinogens as a factor. The studies aren't designed to do that.
Urgelt 3 years ago
You will please note that I am not asserting that food is not a factor. I think there are nutrients which help the body to repair DNA damage or prevent it. A diet deficient in these nutrients increases risk of cancer. But if there is one thing we have learned about cancer, it is that it is multifaceted. You need something to damage the DNA; you need to impair the cellular repair mechanism; you need to disable mitochondria. Over 100 mutations are required for most cancers to get started.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Carcinogens are mutagens which are capable of producing the specific mutations required for cancer to get started. And they are literally everywhere - in every liter of air we breath, in every ounce of food we consume, in lipstick and plastic containers, everywhere. Some are natural. A great deal is industrially produced, and that causes me concern.
Knowing carcinogens produce cancers in laboratory animals, why should we tolerate an industry that produces them? We should not.
Urgelt 3 years ago
I am well aware that the food, drug and chemical industries hire people to "encourage" alternative explanations for cancer, to divert attention away from carcinogens. Your comments lead me to wonder who is paying your salary.
Urgelt 3 years ago
The USDA has evolved into a political business w/close ties to policy makers, genetic engineers, large agribusiness, meat & dairy industry interest$ that influence regulatory policy & dominate food production(Just research background of high-level appointees of USDA) Gov subsidies tip the playing field for large, genetically modified agribusiness (cheap grains) for factory farms(eliminating ~8% of feed costs). These meat/dairy & grain industries would not survive in a free market of nutrition.
crisology 3 years ago
"you need to impair the cellular repair mechanism" or avoid ingesting carcinogens.. with enough exposure an unnatural diet also promotes cancer. This has been repeatedly revealed by Campbell. In the case of liver cancer- toxic animal protein initiates, MFO enzyme (which normally detoxifies can activate FA metabolites w/high protein diet of ~20%. At 5% protein NO rats showed cancer promotion.
"Over 100 mutations are required for most cancers to get started" & it can occur in minutes.
crisology 3 years ago
"Statistical population studies"
Epidemiology?
"make no effort to identify exactly what in the food is responsible"
You make no effort to research relevant studies. Natural & synthetic carcinogens have been described across organs, species & carcinogen varieties (genetic/dietary). Even genetic cancer is promoted by high protein. Most cancer IS preventable.
"They do not"
"They" do. Research HCA's, PAH's.
"rule out industrial carcinogens"
Search heme Fe, uric acid, Neu5Gc, etc.
crisology 3 years ago
Epidemiology is a method. It has advantages and disadvantages. Its primary advantage is it isn't invasive - it's difficult to study the effects of carcinogens or other harmful things on humans because of ethical concerns, and epidemiology gets around that. But it gives up a great deal in certainty and uncontrolled variables. At best it's a method for pointing the way to further research. At worst it's misleading.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Statistical studies can find a correlation between high protein food intake and cancer. But there are a ton of uncontrolled variables - including whether drugs and toxins were used to produce the foods.
Your certainty is not warranted by the body of evidence which supports it.
Urgelt 3 years ago
In EVERY degenerative disease study there are "a ton of variables". You will NEVER find a single cause for cancer or ANY disease. There is no such thing. Cancer initiation, promotion & progression are all very complex with many causal agents working in concert & many anti-promoters. Yet it is dangerous to dismiss such a causal related agent (diet) as merely being correlated since the main problem with the cancer battle is that many ppl are unaware of the fact cancer is mostly preventable.
crisology 3 years ago
I did not dismiss diet as cause. I dismissed your assertion that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that diet is the primary cause.
You can site some studies which show correlations between foods and cancer, but those studies do not tease out the effects of industrial carcinogens present in those foods.
Further, you aren't interested in thousands of laboratory animal studies correlating carcinogens to cancer, in which the diet of the animals is held constant.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"I dismissed your assertion that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that diet is the primary cause" while avoiding to provide counter-evidence.
If it's industrial manufactured, it's not "food" The China Study provided convincing evidence for high protein being the NECESSARY criteria for cancer development, regardless of initation.
crisology 3 years ago
"studies do not tease out the effects of industrial carcinogens present in those foods"
Across nations, across species of fruit/meat, the evidence is unrefuted/convincing that even though fruit/veg are exposed to the various industrial carcinogens, they still show the high ratios of (anti)promotor effects on carcinogens, while across industrial effects both on meat & fruit, meat/dairy/processed foods show proportionately the higher cancer risk.
u are mixing the concepts of diet & industry.
crisology 3 years ago
The China study shows a correlation. So do thousands of studies of carcinogens. Now, I do not contend that sheer numbers of studies will settle the question as to which factor dominates (though if they did, carcinogens would win hands-down); but to say there is no evidence for carcinogenic involvement is an act of willful ignorance.
I will not spoon-feed you studies of carcinogens. That information is readily accessible via any search engine.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"China study shows a correlation" of 100-0- more than you'll see or reasonably expect for any other cancer promotion agent. It provides quantitative & qualitative evidence almost unheard of in the medical or nutritional fields of research. The China Study is the largest epidemiology study ever w/a team of some of the most reputable researchers in the world & is unparalleled in the amount of quality research it provides.
crisology 3 years ago
"to say there is no evidence for carcinogenic involvement is an act of willful ignorance" Which is what u just did. I don't know where that came from. But until you provide any viable hypothesis for your claims or some evidence, you aren't even wrong yet.. And by not quoting me & claiming I made statements I didn't, you are only arguing with yourself rather than maturely debating with honesty.
crisology 3 years ago
"I will not spoon-feed you studies of carcinogens" nor do I ask, just consider what u demand others to spoon feed you, while minimizing the effects of a government subsidized, inherited, biochemically incompatible diet of natural & synthetic carcinogens. You refuse to take an honest look at the best evidence, no matter how rationally convincing. You make up suspicious claims without sufficient evidence & demand others spoon feed you an imaginary, single/100% causal event.
crisology 3 years ago
To place as much blame on less controllable, more vague industrially manufactured toxins while glazing over the far greater effects of volitional, unnatural diet in general is deceitful.
Running out in 8 lanes of traffic (diet-induced cancer) correlates w/higher mortality rate than running out in 1 (synthetic-industrial-induced cancer) lane & is evidence there is another psychological motive besides an honest search for natural health.
crisology 3 years ago
William Harris, M.D.-
Of these variables, the highest correlation ( R=.76, p<.001) with breast cancer incidence was from animal source"
33% of cases are preventable w/ diet. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 81, No. 2, 341-354, February 2005
Therefore: 8.3% of population eat themselves to death just via dietary induced cancer. Yet cancer is just 1 of many diseases caused by poor diet.
crisology 3 years ago
According to available evidence all acquired cancer require excess protein environment. The most scientifically credible sources provide a range of 33-100% cancer development depending on diet alone. Your response?
crisology 3 years ago
Food and cancer rates correlate in statistical population studies. That's evidence, though not of the strongest scientific kind.
The body of evidence for carcinogens is much stronger, relying on thousands of peer-reviewed double-blind studies.
But the scientific strength of laboratory evidence alone does not prove carcinogens are dominant. All it means is that the lens of scientific attention is selectively focused.
Urgelt 3 years ago
In science, the ability to frame what we do not know, and how it might affect our interpretation of what we do know, is critical.
There is a lot we do not know. We do not know if carcinogens in food are driving the China Study results. We do not know everything about how cancer cells form and what it takes for them to thrive, biochemically. But we do know that cancer patterns in the population are not entirely random.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Are you aware of cancer clusters? Google it.
Clusters often form around areas known to be heavily contaminated with carcinogens. A classic example is "Love Canal." You can Google that, too.
Urgelt 3 years ago
One last point. In statistics, the "r" value is an indication of the likelihood that a correlation exists. A value of 1.0 means certainty. A value of .5 or less means noise.
An "r" value of .76 is not a strong correlation. The correct way to interpret it is "there may be a relationship in the data."
"r" values say nothing about the relative strengths of different causes.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Saw some cancer clusters in The China Study.. They ate more protein..
crisology 3 years ago
And you think eating more protein explains Love Canal? Or Midland?
Or are you too sure of your position to bother looking at the evidence for carcinogens?
Urgelt 3 years ago
There is no need to explain your feelings of "scientific strength does not prove carcinogens"
Your refusal to respond to the evidence available indicates that you are uncomfortable facing the facts.
crisology 3 years ago
I'm uncomfortable facing your strangely truncated subset of the facts or your very strange usage of statistical measures.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Pharm Res. 2008 Jul 15; [Epub ahead of print]
"5-10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects..The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25-30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30-35% are linked to diet"
Your response??
It may seem "strangely truncated" to isolate variables & categorize cancer incidence risk but that's how science works. You're just philosophizing & refuse to isolate a single type of cancer or study to begin analyzing.
crisology 3 years ago
The words "can be attributed to" means that there are statistical population studies which attempt to assign portions of the cancer epidemic to single causes.
There is no scientific consensus for a single-cause model for all cancers.
In a single individual, there are many factors at work leading to cancer. Bad diet ups the risk; so does exposure to carcinogens, specific viruses, radiation, and possibly even bacterial infections. Even injuries can be positively correlated to cancer onset.
Urgelt 3 years ago
And heredity, of course.
In a multi-mode model of cancer, preventing cancer becomes a question of removing risk factors. Diet is a good place to start, simply because the individual has more control over diet than many of the other risk factors. Avoiding carcinogenic products, protecting skin from sunlight, not smoking, avoiding broken bones or trauma, and safe sex are also helpful.
I said before that I will not spoon-feed you studies. You can find what you need via Google.
Urgelt 3 years ago
I'm still waiting for your answer to my question: "do you think protein consumption explains cancer clusters such as Love Canal and Midland?"
Urgelt 3 years ago
"do you think protein consumption explains cancer clusters such as Love Canal"
As stated before (unrefuted). In order to have full blown cancer you need to be exposed to a carcinogen, then enzymatic activity mediates (contingent upon health variables & proper diet), then you need an environment to promote the cancer. According to trials in The China Study, 5% protein diet did not promote the deadly toxin AF while 20% promoted every cancer initiation.
crisology 3 years ago
I do *not* refute a link between diet and cancer.
You, on the other hand, seem to think the China Study rules out carcinogens as a dominant cause. It does no such thing, because it does nothing to control for carcinogenic variables. The study was never designed to support the conclusions you are drawing from it.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"heredity" was covered & accounts for <5% of cancer.
"a question of removing risk factors" What about anti-promoters? Remove risk factors as u say, then reverse cancer not w/pasta, overcooked veg but raw fruit.
"Diet is a good" Just the best according to abundant research.
"protecting skin from sun" I haven't focused on skin cancer as it isn't usually terminal.
"I will not spoon-feed you" but u will demand others spoon feed u.
"what you need via Google" Not Pubmed scientific database?
crisology 3 years ago
PubMed is very useful. So are summary articles in science publications intended for a more general audience, accessible through Google.
The role heredity plays in cancer cannot be said to be understood well, nor will it be understood well until we fully understand cellular biochemistry. That goal is many years away.
Estimates are just that - estimates. They will undergo frequent revision in coming years as our knowledge improves.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"The role heredity plays in cancer cannot be said to be understood well" u can say that about anything. What is understood is heredity plays a minor role (<5%)
crisology 3 years ago
Nonsense.
You can say that cancers which recur in familial bloodlines play a minor role. What you cannot say is that heredity plays a minor role. We don't know that.
Heredity is the foundation for all cellular biochemistry. We appear to be inheriting a vulnerability, some more than others. We don't yet know if anyone is immune.
We may very well find that tinkering with the human genome will protect us against almost all cancers.
The role of heredity is a big fat question mark.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Whoops, just ignore me so you said that already-nothing goes over your head, does it?
sognodoro 3 years ago
That is most certainly an exaggeration, I'm afraid.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"can be attributed to" means there are statistical population studies which attempt to assign portions of the cancer epidemic to single causes" No, it means evidence confirmed an observed independent variable has a correlation, linear relationship, etc. As research accrues hypothesis is accepted/rejected, retested-theory may develop, then a law. In health there are few isolated causes. Smoke hasn't been identified as causing cancer either. That doesn't mean smoke (run in traffic or ingest meat).
crisology 3 years ago
There *are* no independent variables in cancer. The single-mode model of cancer is, given what is known, extremely unlikely.
You can study a variable in isolation, and that can yield useful insights. But studying a variable in isolation does not magically transform it into an independent variable.
Contrary to your assertion, smoke - not just from cigarettes, but any kind of smoke - contains carcinogens which have been linked to cancer in animal experiments.
Urgelt 3 years ago
There *are* no independent variables in cancer" That's my line. There are independent variables (IV) in a standard research design so although you don't realistically isolate all variables scientists isolate as best they can. After repeatedly running trials w/different populations, patterns emerge.
Contrary to your assertion, smoke- not just from cigarettes, but any kind of smoke- contains carcinogens which have been linked to cancer in animal experiments" How is this contrary to what I said?
crisology 3 years ago
Yes, indeed, patterns emerge when you treat variables as though they were independent.
And those patterns are useful information.
But they do not tell us very much about which variables dominate.
Urgelt 3 years ago
"How is this contrary to what I said?"
Crisology, you wrote: "Smoke hasn't been identified as causing cancer either."
That sentence is astonishing in its inaccuracy, and deserved rebuttal. So I wrote, "...smoke - not just from cigarettes - contains carcinogens..."
You do not see that these ideas are opposites?
Urgelt 3 years ago