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: Will Peak Oil Cure Cancer ?

Postby hillsidedigger » Fri 29 Oct 2010, 22:57:45

Considering the diet of many in American culture it's a good thing there's temporarily modern medicine.

Fortunately, along with the modern medicine, those diets are not going to last much longer either.
User avatar
hillsidedigger
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 31 May 2009, 22:31:27
Location: Way up North in the Land of Cotton.

Re: Will Peak Oil Cure Cancer ?

Postby Narz » Mon 01 Nov 2010, 16:57:22

Interesting article.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)

Recent Surge in Cancer News?

Postby ColossalContrarian » Wed 01 Jun 2011, 00:24:58

Maybe it's just me but today it seems like there's been a lot of news coverage about cancer. First the cell phones, I thought to myself probably true, holding a computer next to your brain could cause unintended "osmosis". Then on the news tonight they showed how dark skinned people are actually MORE susceptible to deadly forms of skin cancer than fair skinned people. I thought it was the other way around.

Anyway, I got to thinking.....

Maybe cell phones and sunlight are cancerous, but what about Fukushima? Will the long term effects of Fukushima effect people in the US over the next century? Will the MSM try to cover up Fukushima with more "newly found" sources of radiation that are causing more deaths?

Or maybe cell phones are a greater source of radiation to Japanese civilians than Fukushima?
ColossalContrarian
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 03:00:00

Groups want styrene off proposed carcinogens list

Postby bratticus » Wed 01 Jun 2011, 07:39:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Groups want styrene off proposed carcinogens list
Dominion Enterprises / May 26, 2011

The U.S. styrene industry this week appealed to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to remove a proposed listing of styrene in the department’s impending report on carcinogens and schedule it for a review in the next edition, the Styrene Information and Research Center said.

In a letter, Jack Snyder, executive director of the research center, and John Schweitzer, senior director of government affairs for the American Composites Manufacturers Association, asked Sebelius for another review using a rigorous, unbiased, transparent process. ...


Jack Snyder's letter is linked to the web site that article appears on.
User avatar
bratticus
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2368
Joined: Thu 12 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Bratislava

Re: Groups want styrene off proposed carcinogens list

Postby bratticus » Wed 01 Jun 2011, 07:41:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Styrene Industry Accuses HHS of ‘Willful Ignorance’ Over Carcinogen Listing
Environmental Leader LLC / May 27, 2011

U.S. styrene industry bodies the Styrene Information and Research Center and the American Composites Manufacturers Association have written a letter urging secretary of health and human services Kathleen Sebelius to reclassify styrene as non-carcinogenic. ...
User avatar
bratticus
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2368
Joined: Thu 12 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Bratislava

Re: Groups want styrene off proposed carcinogens list

Postby Cog » Wed 01 Jun 2011, 11:06:16

Styrene should be removed since its not carcinogenic. At last some sanity regarding plastics. :shock: Another advance in some rational decision making regarding the overblown cancer risk of practically everything that the tree-hugging hippies hate.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrene

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o date, no regulatory body anywhere in the world has classified styrene as a known human carcinogen, although several refer to it in various contexts as a possible or potential human carcinogen.



http://www.styrene.org/science/human_ca ... icity.html


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')uman Epidemiology Studies

When evaluated together, the most recent collective cohort mortality studies—involving more than 55,000 workers in styrene-related industries in the United States and Europe over a 45-year period—show that styrene exposure does not cause cancer (or any other disease). The styrene levels to which some workers in the past were exposed were much higher than those encountered by workers today. Since workplace exposures to styrene are as much as 10,000 fold higher than environmental levels, a lack of effect in workers is an indicator that general public exposure to current environmental levels of styrene should not cause adverse health effects.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Recent Surge in Cancer News?

Postby dukey » Thu 02 Jun 2011, 14:03:31

Cancer happens when your body becomes acidic. The acidity drives the oxygen out of your cells and in order to survive they essentially become anaerobic. Their metabolic waste is lactic acid, which further increases the problem. You can cut and burn cancer all you like, but unless you address the pH issue, it can keep coming back forever. But I guess that's the beauty of modern medicine, you just treat the symptoms and ignore the cause. Eventually the patient will die because you failed to address the causes, but that's okay because you relieved them of all their money. Now they are dead they will have little use for it anyway.

Otto Heinrich Warburg actually won nobel prizes for his discoveries on cancer. But his work was pretty much ignored because it doesn't fit in with the drug surgery approach to cancer treatment.

Here's a photo of what happened when chemo drugs were accidently spilled on a patients hand.
Image

The amazing part is, they actually hook you up to IV and put that stuff straight into your veins. Yet anyone that speaks out against this obvious quackery is marginalised. Even oncologists wont touch chemo.
User avatar
dukey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Recent Surge in Cancer News?

Postby Fishman » Thu 02 Jun 2011, 15:43:22

OK Dukey, from your logic all a cancer patient should have to do is take a teaspoon of baking soda daily, dramaticly changes the blood ph. Good luck on that plan. Yes, chemo is toxic, thats how it works, rapidly metabolizing cell get whacked first.

Your picture proves nothing, want to see gross stuff, look up alkali burn, then acid burns, both destroy tissue. The alkali burns should cure the cancer by your logic.
Sorry if you feel marginalized, $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 's')peaks out against this obvious quackery is marginalised

You just have to give some rational points for your viewpoint to be considered, you have not.
Obama, the FUBAR presidency gets scraped off the boot
User avatar
Fishman
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Carolina de Norte
Top

Re: Recent Surge in Cancer News?

Postby dukey » Fri 03 Jun 2011, 05:59:48

What good is it treating the symptoms of cancer when you fail to address the underlying causes?
User avatar
dukey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Recent Surge in Cancer News?

Postby Pops » Fri 03 Jun 2011, 07:43:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dukey', 'C')ancer happens when your body becomes acidic. The acidity drives the oxygen out of your cells and in order to survive they essentially become anaerobic.

So you're saying exercise causes cancer? :lol:

You got this all wrong, backwards in fact:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen energy is required to perform exercise, it is supplied from the breakdown of Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP). The body has a limited store of about 85 grms of ATP and would use it up very quickly if we did not have ways of resynthesising it. There are three systems that produce energy to resynthesise ATP: ATP-PC, lactic acid and aerobic.

The lactic acid system is capable of releasing energy to resynthesise ATP without the involvement of oxygen and is called anaerobic glycolysis. Glycolysis (breakdown of carbohydrates) results in the formation of pyruvic acid and hydronium ions (H+)...

If there is insufficient oxygen then NADH cannot release the H+ and they build up in the cell. To prevent the rise in acidity pyruvic acid accepts H+ forming lactic acid that then dissociates into lactate and H+. Some of the lactate diffuses into the blood stream and takes some H+ with it as a way of reducing the H+ concentration in the muscle cell...

...lactate produced by anaerobic glycolysis in the muscles moves via the blood stream to the liver where it it is converted to blood glucose and glycogen.

That last bit in the liver reduces overall blood acidity even though lactate itself is acid - that's why patients in shock and diabetics in keto-acidosis receive "lactated" ringers solution IV.

There are a lot of problems with the medical business and surely "procedures" as the basis of healthcare is the big one, but does it really help anything to spout conspiracy theories that are the exactly the opposite of biology?

Read this
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
Top

Re: Recent Surge in Cancer News?

Postby Fishman » Fri 03 Jun 2011, 09:34:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat good is it treating the symptoms of cancer when you fail to address the underlying causes?

Underlying cause of cancer has been thought to be DNA damage, dysrepair, and multiple DNA hits. Acidity in and of itself explains nothing about cancer. The ph of your blood remains remarkably stable. Those disease states like type one diabetes and diabetic ketoacidosis, where the acidity gets really bad, are NOT hightly associated with cancer, as your premise would argue.
Obama, the FUBAR presidency gets scraped off the boot
User avatar
Fishman
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Carolina de Norte
Top

Re: Recent Surge in Cancer News?

Postby dukey » Fri 03 Jun 2011, 13:21:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar." -- Dr. Otto H. Warburg in Lecture


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')arburg also wrote about oxygen's relationship to the pH of cancer cells internal environment. Since fermentation was a major metabolic pathway of cancer cells, Warburg reported that cancer cells maintain a lower pH, as low as 6.0, due to lactic acid production and elevated CO2. He firmly believed that there was a direct relationship between pH and oxygen. Higher pH means higher concentration of oxygen molecules while lower pH means lower concentrations of oxygen.


Guy won nobel prizes for these discoveries.
User avatar
dukey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Recent Surge in Cancer News?

Postby Pops » Fri 03 Jun 2011, 14:33:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dukey', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar." -- Dr. Otto H. Warburg in Lecture


Wiki says just one sentence later:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he concept that cancer cells switch to glycolysis has become widely accepted, even if it is not seen as the cause of cancer.
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
Top

Re: Recent Surge in Cancer News?

Postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 03 Jun 2011, 15:41:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ColossalContrarian', '
')Maybe cell phones and sunlight are cancerous, but what about Fukushima? Will the long term effects of Fukushima effect people in the US over the next century? Will the MSM try to cover up Fukushima with more "newly found" sources of radiation that are causing more deaths?


The one thing the "real" experts on radiation agreed on where I saw rational discussions on places like the PBS Newshour were that its the overall amount, over time that matters. Damage is cumulative. (It's a statistical risk (cell damage), and clearly the numbers go against you as the damage accumulates).

I got roundly attacked by Cog on the Fukishima thread a while back, when I had the temerity to say I didn't think they really know what's going on and how much exposure/radiation there will be long term. (This was before it became clear there were multiple real core meltdowns).

The bad news is, IMO, we still have no clue about the long term total Fukishima effects -- there are too many variables. The good news for the folks in the U.S. is that as long as imported products are scanned for radiation, we're far enough away that the damage should be relatively minimal for its citizens UNLESS things get to the worst case scenario type of deal.

OTOH, since it (and any leakage to the environment) is relatively close to LOTS of Japanese folks, including Tokyo, I believe to just pretend there is no real risk is pretty damned arrogant and dangerous, IMO.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ColossalContrarian', '
')Or maybe cell phones are a greater source of radiation to Japanese civilians than Fukushima?


Excellent question about whether cell phones cause much radiation damage.

Past articles I've seen about cell phones from unbiased sources like Consumer Reports have stated that the evidence shows that there is some cell reaction to the radiation from cell phones, but that there hasn't been enough detailed long term studies to determine the level of harm. They cited short term experiments which demonstrated measurable effects to cells, BTW.

Naturally, the cell phone industry has been in constant total denial mode, since their profits are at stake.

A balanced cautious approach as more data comes out that says there may be legitimate cause for concern would seem to merit using a headset and keeping the phone well away from your head, or only using the phone very little. As I recall, that's what Consumer Reports has recommended for years -- if you want to be safe rather than sorry until the meaningful studies are completed.

....

Generally, I think we're still, relatively speaking in the Dark Ages as far as medicine goes. In my experience, MUCH of what doctors do in the short run is psychology -- they calm you down and help with symptoms until your body (perhaps with some help from a drug) fix the vast majority of minor illnesses we face. Studies come out often, strictly contradicting earlier beliefs about causes and treatments of diseases.

Hopefully genetics will change a lot of that, but it will take money and TIME. (And given our global resource problems, there may not be enough money to pursue what we learn very aggressively, except perhaps for the very rich).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY
Top

Re: Recent Surge in Cancer News?

Postby Pretorian » Sat 04 Jun 2011, 01:08:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ColossalContrarian', 'M')aybe it's just me but today it seems like there's been a lot of news coverage about cancer.


as population is getting older, cancer becomes more and more popular. People like to talk about their problems and concerns. Its fun.
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4685
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there
Top

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Postby gnwk15 » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 02:10:24

Epidemiologic studies suggest that diet rich in plant-derived foods plays an important role in the prevention of prostate cancer. Curcumin, the yellow pigment in the spice turmeric, has been shown to exhibit chemopreventive and growth inhibitory activities against multiple tumor cell lines. We have shown previously that curcumin and tumor necrosis factor–related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL)/Apo2L interact to induce cytotoxicity in the LNCaP prostate cancer cell line. In this study, we investigated the mechanism by which curcumin augments TRAIL-induced cytotoxicity in LNCaP cells. Subtoxic concentrations of the curcumin-TRAIL combination induced strong apoptotic response in LNCaP cells as demonstrated by the binding of Annexin V-FITC and cleavage of procaspase-3. Furthermore, LNCaP cells express constitutively active nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB), which is inhibited by curcumin. Because NF-κB has been shown to mediate resistance to TRAIL-induced apoptosis in tumor cells, we investigated whether there is a relationship between NF-κB activation and resistance to TRAIL in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. Pretreatment with curcumin inhibited the activation of NF-κB and sensitized LNCaP cells to TRAIL. A similar increase in the sensitivity of LNCaP cells to TRAIL-induced apoptosis was observed following inhibition of NF-κB by dominant negative mutant IκBα, an inhibitor of NF-κB. Finally, curcumin was found to inhibit NF-κB by blocking phosphorylation of IκBα. We conclude that NF-κB mediates resistance of LNCaP cells to TRAIL and that curcumin enhances the sensitivity of these tumor cells to TRAIL by inhibiting NF-κB activation by blocking phosphorylation of IκBα and its degradation.
gnwk15
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2011, 05:13:07

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Postby vision-master » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 11:30:13

Cannabis and Cancer - light up that spliff!
vision-master
 

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Postby PhebaAndThePilgrim » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 13:36:03

I have witnessed cancer up close and personal. I was my Mother's caregiver. She passed away in my home weighing about 68#. She had colon cancer with liver metastasis. According to doctors she had had the cancer at least 10 years by the time she was diagnosed.
Her prognosis was terminal from the beginning: stage 4 colon cancer with advanced liver metastasis. yet, the doctors refused to tell her she was dying.
She underwent several rounds of chemotherapy, even going to a cancer clinic several states away to undergo time-modulated chemotherapy.
The side-effects of the chemo were awful, and did not change the outcome.
According to medical literature, chemotherapy for my Mother's cancer was "palliative". Please explain how poisoning my mother is "palliative".
Pain medication is palliative, as is anti-nausea medication. But chemo.
Maybe the "Palliation" benefit is for the medical industry that was charging 900.00 per week for the chemo, or the cancer clinic that was charging 17,000.00 per month.
Three years later I was diagnosed with endometrial uterine cancer. A full hysterectomy saved my life. Considering my Mom's history I was sent to a cancer specialist. They were considering a genetic study because there is a defective gene; P53, linked to endometrial, colon, and pancreatic cancers.
I declined because the test was $2,600.00, and insurance would not pay.
Besides, what difference does it make. No longer have a uterus, am checked for colon, and if I do have the defective gene, am screwed if I get pancreatic cancer anyway.

My husband's cousin was recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She had one chemo treatment, and died 9 days after diagnosis. I have a neighbor who was just diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

I have been so very sick the past few years, and did not know why. Docs at local university and some research by the pilgrim are helping me to recover.
The culprit is a bacterial infection in small intestine. Bacteria was growing on sugar I consumed, and was consuming all of my nutrients. I was starving.
Completely and totally gave up sugar and gluten, and am feeling better than I have in years and years.
Mental processes are better, pain is going away, shortness of breath going away, hair growing back, skin ulcers gone, bloating, etc. etc. I have lost 16 pounds without trying, and I feel wonderful.

I am wondering how much of our cancer epidemic is related to what we eat. Have been reading some books on sugar and gluten/grain consumption. Not an Atkins diet thing, but more of a genetic thing. I don't think we are genetically suited to be consuming all of this sugar.

Of course our diet and environment are not only causes of cancer. I am an English history buff, especially the Tudors. People get cancer. Queen Catherine of Aragon died of cancer, as did her daughter Mary. The wife of the Earl of Leicester died of breast cancer, etc.

I think there are many causes of cancer, but from my experience I think stress and a poor diet play a part.
Pheba.
PhebaAndThePilgrim
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Show-Me State

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Postby PhebaAndThePilgrim » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 13:40:28

Hi: Just had to post the following: It is a quotation from the book "Rainbow Pie: A Redneck Memoir", by Joe Bageant, a great read:

Bageant is talking in the book about farm dogs:

"All in all, farm dogs had about as much old-age security as modern Americans have today. And certainly a more dignified death--no catheters, feeding tubes, radiation-treatment sickness, or $100,000 medical bills for their final weeks' stay in the intensive-care ward of Conglomerated Medical A$$-Jammers Incorporated"
PhebaAndThePilgrim
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Show-Me State

Re: THE Cancer Thread (merged)

Postby careinke » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 13:57:38

My father died of cancer at 54. Even though it was diagnosed as terminal, the doctors still had him do radiation therapy and chemo. It may have given him another month. He was diagnosed three days before X-mas and died in June.

At 58, I have beat him by four years so far. I can tell you, if I am diagnosed with terminal cancer, I will not take life extending care. Why wipe out your families finances to give yourself another month? Not going to happen. Pain meds on the other hand....
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

PreviousNext

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron