Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 12,751
Only one poster me thinks.
Cancer.
- Thread starter Tummy
- Start date
Only one poster me thinks.
Yes I read that as well. Also I believe there is doctor in Sweden or somewhere that claims certain cancers can be killed by injecting the affected area/cells with bicarbonate of soda. You wonder where the hell he got that idea from.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
When my mam was in hospital with a heart attack I read an article on Japanese cancer rates.
They have one of the highest smoking rates in the world yet they have very low lung cancer cases.
Breast cancer is rare and prostate cancer is almost non existent.
Good diet and green tea is one of the theories.
They have one of the highest smoking rates in the world yet they have very low lung cancer cases.
Breast cancer is rare and prostate cancer is almost non existent.
Good diet and green tea is one of the theories.
Is that a medical fact, or just what you think?
It makes sense really. In the West we consume immense amounts of processed food, junk, sugar etc. One intriguing hypothesis from Dr William Li surrounds angiogenesis. That is, the process of growing blood vessels. If a cancer doesn't have food, it dies. He reckons (see 'Can we eat to starve cancer?') that certain foods inhibit angiogenesis and others encourage it.
In cancer, he says, this balance is overridden and cancers are able to extort the body into supplying vessels to feed them etc. Those on highly anti-angiogenic diets (including, without surprise, those of the Okinawans, Japanese, Chinese etc) suffer correspondingly low incidences of cancer.
His lab work on the subject is quite intriguing and the short talk I linked above is well worth watching.
I was a long time advocate of the Take Off and Nuke the Cancer from Orbit treatment method.
Unfortunately the patient survival rate didnt turn out to be very high
Did anyone think to try mustard?
Mustard?! Its cancer, not a cheeseburger!
It makes sense really. In the West we consume immense amounts of processed food, junk, sugar etc. One intriguing hypothesis from Dr William Li surrounds angiogenesis. That is, the process of growing blood vessels. If a cancer doesn't have food, it dies. He reckons (see 'Can we eat to starve cancer?') that certain foods inhibit angiogenesis and others encourage it.
In cancer, he says, this balance is overridden and cancers are able to extort the body into supplying vessels to feed them etc. Those on highly anti-angiogenic diets (including, without surprise, those of the Okinawans, Japanese, Chinese etc) suffer correspondingly low incidences of cancer.
His lab work on the subject is quite intriguing and the short talk I linked above is well worth watching.
Very interesting video, cheers
Very interesting video, cheers
Good isn't it?
I love the photos of the lab-work, some of them are astounding. On a side-note, I actually went on something of an anti-angiogenic diet for two months after watching this video, and lost 2 and a half stone without trying. I simply ate more anti-angiogenic foods while still enjoying the stuff I'd normally eat and drink, and the weight fell off. 
Definitely more work to be done on this front. Also for anyone thinking of posting something along the lines of 'just another quack with a new pet theory', Dr Li doesn't sell anything (the foods are in your own local shops) and it was his team who discovered and marketed cancer drugs like Avastin. In other words, he knows what he's talking about.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,812
- Location
- Falling...
It's not fact, just a summation of what I've picked up from looking at human biology and reading books on evolution etc...
I'd never be so bold to state that, I have no authority on such matters (just interested in it
) - it does make sense to me though - certainly if you believe in evolution, that our bodies will over time, become affected or unaffected by certain contaminents and diseases. The expression "what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger" is directly related to the fact that our immune systems adapt and "learn" to cope with certain diseases once infected and once it has conquered the contamination/infection/disease. Clearly we'll never be able to prove if we will ever irradicate all diseases, but purely in the way that our species, and that of other species have developed/adapted/survived over the last few million years is related to cell mutation/survival and so on, it seems safe enough to make the assumption that diseases will continue to be part of our lives.
I know... to assume is bad, but I'm being risky!!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,812
- Location
- Falling...
It makes sense really. In the West we consume immense amounts of processed food, junk, sugar etc. One intriguing hypothesis from Dr William Li surrounds angiogenesis. That is, the process of growing blood vessels. If a cancer doesn't have food, it dies. He reckons (see 'Can we eat to starve cancer?') that certain foods inhibit angiogenesis and others encourage it.
In cancer, he says, this balance is overridden and cancers are able to extort the body into supplying vessels to feed them etc. Those on highly anti-angiogenic diets (including, without surprise, those of the Okinawans, Japanese, Chinese etc) suffer correspondingly low incidences of cancer.
His lab work on the subject is quite intriguing and the short talk I linked above is well worth watching.
I've read similar articles before and it makes sense to me. Cancers tend to be surrounded by a fungus and mould which holds it in an acidic state, getting your body into a more alkaline state can only help.
Old age.
As the body grows older the efficiency drops, to the point where the body literally cannot provide for itself. It gets to the point where the body can only metabolise enough energy to survive for 23 hours, and the metabolisation process would take 24 hours for example. Probably a bad example, but what it boils down to is that the body will not simply live on forever if there are no diseases, as the stuff we are made of is only meant to last for around 100 years.
As for cancer, a very good friend and ex-girlfriend of mine has suffered from Leukaemia badly. She is remission from her second bout at the tender age of 17. She is the kindest soul I know, and one of my greatest regrets is that I am not with her now. Makes you think, if there is indeed a god, how can anyone call him benevolent for affecting people like Mel with such a debilitating and horrible disease like cancer.
Note: this is not religion bashing, this is simply me venting my anger and frustration at a situation that I cannot do anything about. It simply isn't fair. I donate monthly to cancer research UK, and I fold, and if I could do anymore, I would be trying my hardest.
In a really dispassionate way, you're right. If you're treating a guy in his 80s for prostate cancer only so he can die a couple of years later from some other age related condition it can leave you wondering. That said, if you successfully treat a guy in his 20s for testicular cancer, or a lady in her 30s for breast cancer in order to enable them to go on and have a full life then you can see the value in all of the hard work.
I remember having a lecture from a pretty veteran pathologist who said that everyone will get cancer, it's just a question of whether or not something else kills you before you've got the chance to develop it.
He also said that if you autopsy men over 80, pretty much all of them have prostate cancer.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,219
From someone who had researched cancer in the past (probably the most fulfilling job I have had), I can tell you there will be no single cure. Many people in the field believe a number of cancers will be cured by the end of the century, but nothing in the short term. Screening techniques and treatments are improving though.
From what I remember reading about a while ago they found a definitive cure a few years back. They treated various rats with cancers and after a few weeks/months the where fully cured. The only reason the cure hasn't been put into production was because no one wanted to pay to put research into it. One of the quotes I remember hearing was "curing cancer isn't profitable".
I wouldn't expect one soon if I'm honest, but I haven't read a lot.
I wouldn't expect one soon if I'm honest, but I haven't read a lot.