Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.

Re: cancer pandemic and fraud

Unread postby jesus_of_suburbia » Sat 06 Aug 2016, 12:12:08

Cancer is a very emotionally charged topic. Most of us have had a friend or family succumb to it. Over 60% diagnosed survive it now. When someone we love doesn't, it's natural to want someone to lash out towards. Direct that anger towards tobacco companies and others who willingly exposed us to carcinogens. Or, direct it towards cancer itself. Cancer can be extremely random and unfair. A habitual smoker and alcoholic can live a cancer free life, while the disease can take a 30 year old mother within a few years of diagnosis.

Don't direct this anger at the researchers and clinicians, who probably have had cancer touch their lives in some way, that work tirelessly and sometimes thanklessly to treat it.

There's plenty of scum out there, but it's not fair to paint everyone with a broad brush.
jesus_of_suburbia
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri 30 Sep 2011, 01:14:00

Re: cancer pandemic and fraud

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 06 Aug 2016, 12:34:43

Cancer took my paternal Grandfather, my paternal Uncle, two Paternal Aunts and half a dozen Maternal cousins in my own generation, so I pay attention. Much more at link below the quote.

Dr. Peter Attia wrote:A couple of weeks ago Tim Ferriss and I were having dinner and the topic of cancer came up. As some of you may know my background is in oncology, specifically in exploring immune-based therapies for cancer by exploiting the properties of regulator T-cells. But that was a long time ago. Like many of you, I expect, I’ve also been personally impacted by cancer having lost a friend to glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). I often describe GBM to people as one of the cancers that gives cancer a bad name. When I went to medical school I planned on becoming a pediatric oncologist, and though I ultimately chose to pursue surgical oncology, my interest in helping people with cancer never wavered.

Over dinner that night, Tim asked me if I could write – in about 1,000 words! – a post on cancer that would be interesting and digestible to a broad audience. “1,000 words?!,” I asked. “How about 30,000 words?,” I responded only half kidding. After explaining why I couldn’t possibly write such an abridged version, Tim talked me into it. And so, I plan to accept the challenge and hope to provide readers with such a post (it will be on Tim’s blog when I do so), hopefully in the next month or two.

For an introduction, however, I’d like take a step back and place this topic in a broader context. I don’t need to say much about cancer that you don’t already know. You probably know that about one in three Americans will develop cancer in their lifetime, and you probably know that about half of them will succumb to the disease. What you may not know, however, is that we have made virtually no progress in extending survival for patients with metastatic solid organ tumors since the “War on Cancer” was declared over 40 years ago. In other words, when a solid organ tumor (e.g., breast, colon, pancreatic) spreads to distant sites, the likelihood of surviving today is about what it was 40 years ago with rare exceptions. We may extend survival by a few months, but not long-term (i.e., overall) survival.

We screen better today for sure, but subtracting lead-time bias, it’s not clear this extends overall survival. We’ve had success in treating and even curing hematologic cancers (e.g., some forms of leukemia and lymphoma). Certainly testicular cancer patients (especially seminomatous) are better off today and those with GI stromal tumors (GIST), too. Surgical control of cancer is much better today and some local treatments (e.g., specific radiation), too. But for the most part, when a patient has metastatic cancer today, the likelihood of living 10 more years is virtually unchanged from 40 years ago.

About a year ago, I was asked to give a talk about metabolic disease to a group of physicians. But before I spoke, a very astute and soft-spoken oncologist, Dr. Gary Abrass, gave the following introduction as a way to frame the context of my talk. After all, I’m sure many in the audience were wondering what could a discussion of insulin resistance have to do with cancer. I have thought often of his words that night in the many months since he so eloquently and informally introduced me.


http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/war-cancer
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: cancer pandemic and fraud

Unread postby dissident » Sat 06 Aug 2016, 16:16:32

Great post, Tanada. So many technotopians and their delusions about easy progress in science and medicine. The people who actually work in these fields don't have such delusions.

The obesity link is clearly a case of correlation is not causation. Something associated with obesity and the general metabological syndrome (heart disease, Type II diabetes, and even Alzheimer's which is a Type III diabetes) is linked to cancer. Instead of telling people to go on a low fat diet, the medical community should establish causal mechanisms. It will likely help to fight cancer.

http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/c ... /1/R1.full

Well, what do you know...insulin resistance is linked to cancer. Of course the medical community still does not understand the mechanisms so we will have all sorts of voodoo peddled for a while longer.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: cancer pandemic and fraud

Unread postby jesus_of_suburbia » Wed 10 Aug 2016, 21:04:11

More like old news. Not that it will matter to dissident.

Pancreatic cancer cells find unique fuel sources to keep from starving

The current study is the first to reveal that pancreatic cancer cells send signals to stellate cells (a type of cell in the pancreatic environment that can secrete substances that provide structural support), causing them to break down their own cell parts into various building blocks, including the amino acid alanine. Cancer cells then take up the alanine into their cell powerhouses, called mitochondria, and use it as a fuel source in place of glucose.


Scientists Breakthrough to Better Understanding of Fatal Brain Tumor Growth
Dr. Elizabeth Stoll from Newcastle University’s Institute of Neuroscience is the lead author of the study. She says patients with malignant glioma currently receive a poor prognosis, and new interventions are desperately needed to increase the survival and quality of life for patients with the condition. Their results provide new insight into the fundamental biochemistry of cancer cells, with exciting implications for patients in the future. Most cells within the adult brain require sugars to produce energy and sustain function. Interestingly, they have discovered that malignant glioma cells have a completely different metabolic strategy as they actually prefer to break down fats to make energy. These findings provide a new understanding of brain tumor biology, and a new potential drug target for fighting this type of cancer.
jesus_of_suburbia
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri 30 Sep 2011, 01:14:00

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby PeakOiler » Thu 06 Oct 2016, 11:23:36

Salinksi mentioned in the 2016 po.com Oil Price Challenge thread that he has been diagnosed with cancer. This was not a joke as he confirmed in a PM to me.

Lung cancer. He will be posting less in the forums as he undergoes chemo, etc. over the next few months.

I hope everyone will project well wishes, prayers, positive energy and good thoughts for him as he goes through this challenge.

Get well soon, Salinski!
There’s a strange irony related to this subject [oil and gas extraction] that the better you do the job at exploiting this oil and gas, the sooner it is gone.

--Colin Campbell
User avatar
PeakOiler
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu 18 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Central Texas

Re: Study lists dangerous chemicals linked to breast cancer

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 01 Nov 2016, 12:34:28

Ferretlover wrote:“Certain chemicals that are common in everyday life have been shown to cause breast cancer in lab rats and are likely to do the same in women, US researchers said Monday.
The paper in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives lists 17 chemicals to avoid and offers women advice on how to minimize their exposure.
They include chemicals in gasoline, diesel and other vehicle exhaust, flame retardants, stain-resistant textiles, paint removers, and disinfection byproducts in drinking water.
Some of the biggest sources of mammary carcinogens in the environment are benzene and butadiene, which can come from vehicle exhaust, lawn equipment, tobacco smoke and charred food.
Other concerns are cleaning solvents like methylene chloride, pharmaceuticals used in hormone replacement therapy, some flame retardants, chemicals in stain-resistant textiles and nonstick coatings, and styrene which comes from tobacco smoke and is also used to make Styrofoam, the study said.
Carcinogens can also be found in drinking water, researchers said.
"Every woman in America has been exposed to chemicals that may increase her risk of getting breast cancer," said co-author Julia Brody. MSN


People have no idea about the chemicals they are drenched with 24/7/365 in our modern world.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 18 Jun 2017, 17:23:30

Stay away from Carbs and especially white sugar. They are a path to get Cancer. In 3 ways. They weaken your immune system, they feed directly cancer cells and they make your PH levels more acidic.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 27 Oct 2017, 12:21:39


In August of 2016, the New England Journal of Medicine published a striking report on cancer and body fat: Thirteen separate cancers can now be linked to being overweight or obese, among them a number of the most common and deadly cancers of all — colon, thyroid, ovarian, uterine, pancreatic and (in postmenopausal women) breast cancer.

Earlier this month, a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added more detail: Approximately 631,000 Americans were diagnosed with a body fat-related cancer in 2014, accounting for 40% of all cancers diagnosed that year.

Increasingly, it seems not only that we are losing the war on cancer, but that we are losing it to what we eat and drink.

These new findings, while important, only tell us so much. The studies reflect whether someone is overweight upon being diagnosed with cancer, but they don’t show that the excess weight is responsible for the cancer. They are best understood as a warning sign that something about what or how much we eat is intimately linked to cancer. But what?

Sugar Causes Cancer
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 17:29:54

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... use-of-ca/
Air Pollution Is a Leading Cause of Cancer

Asked why it had taken so long to reach the conclusion, he said that one problem was the time lag between exposure to polluted air and the onset of cancer.

"Often we're looking at two, three or four decades once an exposure is introduced before there is sufficient impact on the burden of cancer in the population to be able to study this type of question," he said.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 19:04:58

Sugar is not I believe a direct carcinogen. I do however totally accept that it plays numerous roles in damaging the body in various ways that make it more vulnerable to other diseases like cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. That of course is a rehash of remarks made in this thread previously. But I DO have an original contribution.

The US federal government pays about $24,000,000,000 per year in corn subsidies to major corporate farmers. They also benefit in other ways such as tax subsidies for agricultural fuels, tax exemptions for "staple crops", and tax exemptions for - wait for it - corn sweetener. That last was put in place when the mandated the addition of ethanol to motor fuels, but you can qualify for it just by producing that corn sweetener, and only about a third of it is used for ethanol, the other two thirds is used as food additives.

I was reminded of this when I made and consumed some delicious breakfast sandwiches this morning. The ham was cured with sugar among other things, the delicious brioche buns turned out to have sugar as the third listed ingredient.

My doctor has just called me "pre-Diabetic" and prescribed Metformin, just in time for Christmas. The great American diet includes lots of sugar, and our Federal Government is subsidizing corn sweeteners to the tune of $24,000,000,000 a year. With our own tax monies as well.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 20:40:25

That helps keep the population in check while feeding the medical industry. Win/win.

(Sarc)
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 22 Dec 2017, 22:34:11

KaiserJeep wrote:Sugar is not I believe a direct carcinogen. I do however totally accept that it plays numerous roles in damaging the body in various ways that make it more vulnerable to other diseases like cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. That of course is a rehash of remarks made in this thread previously. But I DO have an original contribution.

I was reminded of this when I made and consumed some delicious breakfast sandwiches this morning. The ham was cured with sugar among other things, the delicious brioche buns turned out to have sugar as the third listed ingredient.

My doctor has just called me "pre-Diabetic" and prescribed Metformin, just in time for Christmas. The great American diet includes lots of sugar, and our Federal Government is subsidizing corn sweeteners to the tune of $24,000,000,000 a year. With our own tax monies as well.


The fructose half of the table sugar sucrose molecule, the same fructose as you find in high fructose corn syrup, is about 150% as sweet as glucose and is made from the said glucose through a simple chemical reforming process discovered by Japanese scientists back in the 1970's. Current research shows that Fructose is the cause of NAFLD, Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, the precursor to liver Cirrhosis and cancer.

NAFLD in turn causes fatty accumulations to spread into the Pancreas tissues and when they build up past a moderate point you get fatty Pancreas which causes the beta cells that produce insulin to become encased and less responsive to blood sugar because the receptors that respond to high blood sugar are partially occluded. This leads to chronic high blood sugar which develops into Type 2 Diabetes over a period of about a decade.

But wait there's more! Fructose also has the effect of blocking Leptin signalling in the brain. If you don't know Leptin is the hormone that tells your brain you has consumed an adequate number of calories and suppresses appetite. When you eat any food sweetened with Fructose, high Fructose Corn Syrup, table Sugar or any of the multiple names meaning the same chemical substance that the packaged food industry has invented to make their products sound less sweetened the Fructose damages your liver, suppresses your beta cell insulin production chronically, and tells your brain to keep eating.

But wait there is still more! PET and MRI type scans of the human brain while consuming addictive substances like Opioids or Cocaine or even Alcohol are nearly indistinguishable from brain scans of people consuming Fructose or table sugar that your enzymes break down into Fructose nearly instantly. This place fructose in the same addictive endorphin response category as a host of known addictive substances. Fructose doesn't make you 'high' per se, it makes you hungry and it also makes you crave more fructose.

The World Health Organization made recommendations that fructose/sugar consumption be limited to very low quantities on a daily basis because of all these effects. The first time WHO recommended steep cuts in consumption the American Sugar Growers Association lobbied the White House and the government informed the UN that if they made too strong of a case against added sugar their funding of WHO would be sharply curtailed. WHO knuckled under and kept their safe levels low, but do not widely push those levels in their literature or training programs for poor people to keep them from becoming the same kind of sugar HFCS addicted individuals as the EU and North American citizens already are.

WHO wrote: 4 March 2015 ¦ Geneva - A new WHO guideline recommends adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. A further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (6 teaspoons) per day would provide additional health benefits.

Guideline on sugars intake for adult and children

Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates.

“We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay,” says Dr Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development. “Making policy changes to support this will be key if countries are to live up to their commitments to reduce the burden of noncommunicable diseases.”

Much of the sugars consumed today are “hidden” in processed foods that are not usually seen as sweets. For example, 1 tablespoon of ketchup contains around 4 grams (around 1 teaspoon) of free sugars. A single can of sugar-sweetened soda contains up to 40 grams (around 10 teaspoons) of free sugars.

Worldwide intake of free sugars varies by age, setting and country. In Europe, intake in adults ranges from about 7-8% of total energy intake in countries like Hungary and Norway, to 16-17% in countries like Spain and the United Kingdom. Intake is much higher among children, ranging from about 12% in countries like Denmark, Slovenia and Sweden, to nearly 25% in Portugal. There are also rural/urban differences. In rural communities in South Africa intake is 7.5%, while in the urban population it is 10.3%.
Reducing sugars intake to less than 10% of total energy: a strong recommendation

The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase. In addition, research shows that children with the highest intakes of sugar-sweetened drinks are more likely to be overweight or obese than children with a low intake of sugar-sweetened drinks.

Based on the quality of supporting evidence, these recommendations are ranked by WHO as “strong”. This means they can be adopted as policy in most situations.
Further reduction to less than 5% of total energy intake: a conditional recommendation

Given the nature of existing studies, the recommendation of reducing intake of free sugars to below 5% of total energy is presented as “conditional” in the WHO system for issuing evidence-based guidance.

Few epidemiological studies have been undertaken in populations with a low sugars intake. Only three national population-wide studies allow a comparison of dental caries with sugars intakes of less than 5% of total energy intake versus more than 5% but less than 10% of total energy intake.

These population-based ecological studies were conducted during a period when sugars availability dropped dramatically from 15kg per person per year before the Second World War to a low of 0.2kg per person per year in 1946. This “natural experiment”, which demonstrated a reduction in dental caries, provides the basis for the recommendation that reducing the intake of free sugars below 5% of total energy intake would provide additional health benefits in the form of reduced dental caries.

WHO issues conditional recommendations even when the quality of evidence may not be strong on issues of public health importance. A conditional recommendation is one where the desirable effects of adhering to the recommendation probably outweigh the undesirable effects but these trade-offs need to be clarified; therefore, stakeholder dialogue and consultations are needed before the recommendation is implemented as policy.

Updating the guideline on free sugars intake is part of WHO's ongoing efforts to update existing dietary goals to prevent NCDs. The sugars guidelines should be used in conjunction with other nutrient guidelines and dietary goals, in particular those related to fats and fatty acids, including saturated fat and trans-fat.

In March 2014, WHO opened a public consultation on the then draft sugars guideline to seek inputs from all stakeholders. More than 170 comments were received from representatives of government agencies, United Nations agencies, nongovernmental organizations, industries and academic institutions as well as other interested individuals. An expert peer review process was also undertaken in 2014. The final guideline was prepared taking into account comments received from the public consultation and expert peer review.

Countries can translate the recommendations into food-based dietary guidelines that consider locally available food and customs. Additionally, some countries are implementing other public health interventions to reduce free sugars intake. These include nutrition labelling of food products, restricting marketing to children of food and non-alcoholic drinks that are high in free sugars, fiscal policies targeting foods and beverages high in free sugars, and dialogue with food manufacturers to reduce free sugars in processed foods.


WHO Sugar Guidlines

If you want to stop your diabetes from progressing further the first step is to eliminate as much of the pre processed food from your diet as possible. Nearly all of it from the Ketchup to the bread to the hot dogs has fructose added. Why? Because the food processing industry learned decades ago that Fructose increases appetite so people eat more, and the more you eat the more you buy from them.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 28 Jun 2018, 17:26:51

The cutting edge genetic medical advances can and will it seem head off diseases like Cancer and personalize the treatment

DNA 'barcode' delivering personalised breast cancer care
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44455354
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 23 Jul 2018, 18:44:36

Shocking New Study Shows Half of Cancer Patients are Killed by Chemotherapy, Not Cancer


http://ushealthmagz.com/2018/06/30/shoc ... ot-cancer/
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby longpig » Sat 18 Aug 2018, 23:21:12

If you want to avoid cancer, you must avoid food that contain cholesterol or fat. Consuming cholesterol or the types of foods that raise cholesterol can increase risk of cancer 100 times. You need to avoid eggs, dairy, meat, seafood, any fried food, any food with added fat or oil. You need to follow a Vegan diet 100% to avoid the risk of cancer.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/cholesterol-diet-cancer-tumours-link-faster-ucla-saturated-fat-colon-intestinal-a8177551.html

High-cholesterol diets send cancer cells into overdrive and cause tumours to grow 100 times faster, according to new research.


https://newsok.com/article/2059792/federal-study-findings-add-weight-to-pritikin-promise

"The primary cause of breast, colon and prostate cancer is the ordinary amount of fat in the diet . . . Animal studies show a direct rise of colon cancer if you use butter and lard."

The chances of lung cancer, even among smokers, are also reduced on a low-cholesterol diet, Pritikin said.

"Lung cancer is more affected by cholesterol levels than how long you have smoked or the number of cigarettes smoked."

The reason, he explained, is due to the inhibiting effect cholesterol has on the white blood cells that destroy cancer cells. "Cancer runs rampant with nothing to destroy it," he said.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true - by the wise as false - and by the rulers as useful."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
User avatar
longpig
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 17:31:50

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 01:50:05

Complete and utter rubbish misinformation. Over 80% of cholesterol (both LDL and HDL) is produced by the body itself and is not a dietary intake. Thus people with cancer are f*cked regardless if they eat any eggs, fat and the usual boogyman foods. Then we have the fact that cancer cells need glucose to survive. Normal cells can function in a ketosis regime (like the heart muscle does all the time) but cancer cells cannot. So all the suckers that swallow these lies will continue to eat their "fat free" cookies and get more LDL (via triglycerides) and glucose to stoke the cancer.

The current cancer pandemic is correlated with the high carb diets (both sugar and starches) that swept into fashion after the 1970s and with the the accumulation of a vast array of polycyclic aromatic organic compounds in the environment (e.g. drinking water and air). This is thanks to industry and transport. All the laminated powder board furniture and plywood construction in new houses contributes a lot to the supply of carcinogens.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby longpig » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 03:56:11

Hey dissident, the meat, dairy and pharmaceutical industries have completely misled the public in order to enrich themselves. From the mid 70's with the accumulated animal and human studies, it was found the sole reason for all degenerative diseases was animal products and vegetable oils. People began switching to low fat diets and increasing their carbohydrate and they got healthy and saved money too when buying food. The meat, dairy and pharmaceutical industries didn't like this so they bought off the scientific literate and funded their own studies turned everything around. Now we are at the point where people think eating eggs and meat is good for you, eat that coconut oil to lose weight....etc.

Currently 66% of Americans are overweight or obese and by 2030 they estimate 85% of Americans will be overweight or obese. The meat and dairy industry is making a lot of money selling the high protein, high fat and cholesterol foods and the pharmaceutical industry is making a killing selling to Americans on this diet drugs and surgeries to treat their diabetics, heart disease, artery closure, high blood pressure, cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, dementia, kidney disease and a number of other diseases which is all caused primary by diet.

All primates studied in the wild consume a mostly vegetarian diet. When someone is overweight or obese, they are sick, there is no healthy fat overweight person, very much like a dog that is fat it will die of a degenerative disease nearly always before it's time and age much faster.

Now with cholesterol, when you eat fat, the body has to produce up to 10 times more bile than someone who is on a low fat fat diet. Cholesterol is made in the production of bile, the body excretes this cholesterol into the colon where 10% of the cholesterol is reabsorbed and this cholesterol builds up over time in the blood, heart, arteries where it causes enormous damage, and dietary cholesterol adds further to this problem.

Then we have the fact that cancer cells need glucose to survive. Normal cells can function in a ketosis regime (like the heart muscle does all the time) but cancer cells cannot. So all the suckers that swallow these lies will continue to eat their "fat free" cookies and get more LDL (via triglycerides) and glucose to stoke the cancer.


It's not about starving cancer cells, if you try to starve cancer cells through diet, you are just starving all your other cells. Fats and cholesterol weaken the immune system. You need a strong immune system so the white cells can identify, attack and consume the cancer. Consuming a vegetarian low fat diet is the best diet to achieve real health.

When researchers went to developing countries many years ago to study disease, they couldn't find any of the main diseases that plagued the western nations, the researchers could find no cases of heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, breast cancer, stroke etc. Things have changed a lot over the recent decades and many in the 3rd world are eating high fat diets, becoming obese and sick.

https://www.pritikin.com/healthiest-hearts-diet

The Healthiest Hearts On Earth
What is remarkable about the Tsimane people is that they have the lowest reported levels of coronary artery disease of any population examined to date.

In a new study1 published in Lancet, researchers took CT scans of the hearts of 705 Tsimane men and women ages 40 to 94 to measure the extent of the calcification of their coronary arteries. Essentially, the less calcification one has, the better. A lot of calcium deposits denotes a lot of plaque build-up and blockages of arteries, which means greater risk of heart attacks, angina (chest pain), and other heart-related challenges.

Tsimane CT Scores
Here is what the CT scans of the Tsimane villagers revealed:
85% had no heart disease risk. Their CT scans showed a score of zero, which indicates no evidence of advanced coronary artery disease.
13% had low risk (a score less than 100)
3% had a moderate-to-high risk (a score of more than 100).
American CT Scores
By contrast, a similar study2 of more than 6,000 people ages 45 to 84 in the U.S. had the following calcification results:
Only 14% of the Americans had no risk (a CT score of zero)
36% had low risk
50% had a moderate-to-high risk
“These findings are very significant,” stated cardiologist Randall Thompson, MD, FACC, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute. He presented the results of the study at the American College of Cardiology 2017 meeting.
“Put another way, the arteries of the Tsimane are 25 to 30 years younger than the arteries of sedentary urbanites. The data also show that the Tsimane arteries are aging at a much slower rate.”

Indeed, the healthy arteries of the Tsimane villagers continued into old age. Among those who were over the age of 75, fully two-thirds had a CT score of zero. Only 8% had a moderate- or high-risk score of more than 100.


Dissident, you have been lied to and deceived. Make no mistake you will not survive the economic collapse which may soon occur if you continue eating an American type diet high in animal protein and fat. You will need to be as healthy as you can to survive what may come, you may have to live outside under the elements for a long period of time, you may have to fight gangs and other people who are after you and you likely will have to eat very marginal food and drink from questionable water sources. You won't survive if you are needing to take medication for diabetes, heart disease or you are obese.

You need to change your diet to a plant based low fat diet so your body can heal and you can begin stocking healthy dried foods which you can also consume as well, this is dried beans, corn, rice, grains, chick peas, potatoes well stored or dehydrated, dried herbs and condiments. Eating these stored foods will get you and keep you in perfect health and they are cheap.

Did you know you can live on just potatoes and be in perfect health? potatoes contain all the vitamins and minerals you will need. Please refer to here. https://spudfit.com/f-a-q This man Andrew only ate potatoes and he went from unhealthy to very healthy.

Eating Animal food and fats will make you very unhealthy, fat, sick and kill you. Do not fall for the low carb high protein and fat diet, it will kill you.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true - by the wise as false - and by the rulers as useful."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
User avatar
longpig
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 17:31:50

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 15 Dec 2018, 19:03:53

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 9Zextux_fU

"Whole Foods Ranked Worst on Cancer-Linked Package Chemicals"
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Unread postby Pops » Mon 17 Dec 2018, 18:21:33

KaiserJeep wrote: The ham was cured with sugar among other things, the delicious brioche buns turned out to have sugar as the third listed ingredient.

My doctor has just called me "pre-Diabetic" and prescribed Metformin, just in time for Christmas.

It ain't the sugar.

It's off topic here so I'll be quick, I looked up brioche and got
Total Carbohydrate 35g,
Dietary Fiber 1g
Sugars 5g


The thing to know is starch in flour, rice, potatoes is just as bad if not worse than sugar at increasing blood glucose levels. In this recipe there is 29 grams of "non-sugar" carbs that will raise your BG level just as fast as the sugar... and 6 times higher.

There is a scale, glycemic index, that rates foods based on the speed at which they can affect BG, and another formulation called glycemic load that rates food on how high it can raise BG. Good things to become familiar with.

Better yet, buy a blood glucose test kit at wallyworld for $20 and see for yourself. Test before a normal meal, then every half hour for a couple of hours then every hour for a couple more. As with everything guidelines of "normal" vary but I think the middle of the road numbers would be: Fasting BG <100, 2 hours post meal<140, never more than 200.

(OTOH if you're 65 or 70, a slightly elevated number likely isn't all that big of a deal)
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

PreviousNext

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests