Cancer Is Top Killer Of Thais Among All Diseases

[laislica]

In support of the above, once for a week I ingested nothing but red wine and did not get cancer. Further than that, I am speechless.

Any signs of headache?

5 5 5 5 5 5 5

[SundayAfternoon]

Comments please

Just 1 snippet of data available for al to read.

We can all find snippets of data, studies and 'evidence' to prove we are right, and the other is wrong, but ultimately we'll just be chasing our tails and proving nothing. I'm sure for every study you could find claiming they died younger, I oculd find just as many claiming the opposite.

I do however believe that cutting back on sugar (even fruit, despite it being 'natural') is a step in the right direction.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/29/is-this-simple-sugar-a-major-factor-in-the-failure-of-the-war-on-cancer.aspx

[partington]

Comments please

Just 1 snippet of data available for al to read.

We can all find snippets of data, studies and 'evidence' to prove we are right, and the other is wrong, but ultimately we'll just be chasing our tails and proving nothing. I'm sure for every study you could find claiming they died younger, I oculd find just as many claiming the opposite.

I do however believe that cutting back on sugar (even fruit, despite it being 'natural') is a step in the right direction.

http://articles.merc...-on-cancer.aspx

The site you link to is a quack site run by a man who has been legally required to limit his fraudulent claims by the FDA in the US:

Read it all here http://www.quackwatc...nd/mercola.html

FDA Orders Dr. Joseph Mercola to Stop Illegal Claims Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Joseph Mercola, D.O., who practices in Schaumburg, Illinois, also operates one of the Internet's largest and most trafficked health information sites. Mercola states that his site has over 300,000 pages and is visited by "millions of people each day" and that his electronic newsletter has close 1,500,000 subscribers [1]. The site vigorously promotes and sells dietary supplements, many of —which bear his name..... according to an article in Chicago Magazine, Mercola stopped practicing medicine to focus on his Web site [3]

Many of Mercola's articles make unsubstantiated claims and clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations. For example, he opposes immunization [4] and fluoridation [5], and mammography [6]; claims that amalgam fillings are toxic [7]; and makes many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements

You have to know that not everything everyone tells you is true. So you have to have a way to recognise untruth. If you don't know or understand much about science or medicine it is very easy to be taken in by tricksters, because you don't have the necessary tools to analyse their statements correctly.

There is a very useful site called "Quackwatch", that identifies and explains out the most common of the fraudulent and baseless health claims and theories made by pundits who range from the well-meaning delusionals to the frank conmen after a buck.

http://www.quackwatch.org

At the very least, if you see some website informing you of a fantastic cure, or cause of, a serious disease (especially if they claim conspiracy: "Big Pharma doesn't want you to know!!!!!), look it up on this site and find out how far their claims stand up to the light of current scientific knowledge.

This is the same scientific knowledge that, for example, eliminated smallpox from the earth, and turned AIDS from a fatal disease into a condition that can now be survived almost indefinitely. These and similar advances are accomplished through evidence-based medical research, contributed to by hard work, scepticism and respect for the truth in universities and hospitals all over the world. This is how medicine advances, not by exclamation mark-peppered websites accusing everyone of suppressing their amazing theories.

Reputable scientists are sceptical even of their own findings. Any other attitude is a warning.

[Artisi]

Comments please

Just 1 snippet of data available for al to read.

We can all find snippets of data, studies and 'evidence' to prove we are right, and the other is wrong, but ultimately we'll just be chasing our tails and proving nothing. I'm sure for every study you could find claiming they died younger, I oculd find just as many claiming the opposite.

I do however believe that cutting back on sugar (even fruit, despite it being 'natural') is a step in the right direction.

http://articles.merc...-on-cancer.aspx

If the average death for Inuit Greenlanders is 10 years less than the Canadian average, can't see there is any argument or need to prove anything - a fact is a fact.

[Robby nz]

Was wondering what all you experts would do if you were diagnosed with cancer?

As I was 5 years ago. Early stage 3 colo rectal.

I went down the recomended medical track of radiation and chemo to shrink the tumour then an Op to remove it followed by more chemo.

The fact that I'm still alive, fit and healthy today would appear to me a good indication that I did the right thing.

I would suggest that its all well and good to talk or post about these things but when it happens to you its a completly different thing.

[GentlemanJim]

Partington

Your blood pressure must be getting awfully high, perhaps you should take a supplement to help.

Mercury fillings given to millions of Britons every year can be dangerous, the world's biggest health regulator has warned.

Simply chewing could release harmful mercury vapour from the fillings which could be breathed into the lungs, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said.

The regulator had previously advised U.S. dentists that the fillings are safe.

Despite the warning, the British Department of Health issued its own statement yesterday that it continued to believe mercury fillings posed no danger.

Patients in Britain have about eight million mercury fillings a year, a million of which are in children and young adults.

Campaigners blame the highly toxic mercury found in amalgam fillings for a range of ailments.

These include fatigue, depression heart conditions and Alzheimer's disease.

Earlier this month, the U.S. regulator dropped much of its reassuring language on the fillings from its website.

Instead it now says: 'Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and foetuses.'

It adds that mercury vapour is released when amalgam fillings are placed or removed, and during the chewing of food.

The FDA is now carrying out an urgent review of its rules and may end up banning mercury fillings.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1030417/Mercury-fillings-ARE-dangerous-say-regulators--British-health-bosses-refuse-action.html#ixzz2K1M7jqY7

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-p-connelly-dds/mouth-health-fluoridated_b_641767.html

..............

Since the late 1990s, the United States Food and Drug Administration has made it mandatory for toothpastes to carry a warning in regards to fluoride usage. But why would the FDA post a warning on a toothpaste ingredient? Doing research on what fluoride is reveals that the chemical is now considered a potential toxic drug, and ingesting enough of the ingredient could be harmful..................

Adding fluoride has been a standard in many countries for years. However, several countries (mainly Europe) have taken an active stance on banning fluoride from their drinking water.............

Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009, at 6:11 PM ET

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended Monday that women without risk factors for breast cancer wait until their 50s before going in for regular mammograms.........

.....In 2001, US health officials began recommending women over 40 get regular mammograms. The Lancet wrote in July 1995 that 'the benefit (of mammograms) is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous.'

............

Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography: Breast Examination is a Safe, Effective, and Practical Alternative

Samuel S. Epstein, Rosalie Bertell, and Barbara Seaman

International Journal of Health Services, 31(3):605-615, 2001.

Mammography screening is a profit-driven technology posing risks compounded by unreliability. In striking contrast, annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained health professional, together with monthly breast self-examination (BSE), is safe, at least as effective, and low in cost. International programs for training nurses how to perform CBE and teach BSE are critical and overdue.

Contrary to popular belief and assurances by the U. S. media and the cancer establishment- the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS)- mammography is not a technique for early diagnosis. In fact, a breast cancer has usually been present for about eight years before it can finally be detected. Furthermore, screening should be recognized as damage control, rather than misleadingly as "secondary prevention."

for more: http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/ijhs_mammography.htm

Perhaps you should report the Lancet to quackwatch!

Quackwatch has been involved in a number of lawsuits and apparently Stephen Barrett had lost one or more lawsuits where the judge made him pay the opposing attorneys fees.

http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html - 'Quackwatch review - Is Stephen Barrett a Quack? Is he fair, balanced, or biased, by Ray Sahelian, M.D

Stephen Barrett owner and author of Quakwatch is a retired Psychiatrist just how does he pay those multi million dollar law suits he loses?

Edited February 5, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[GentlemanJim]

Was wondering what all you experts would do if you were diagnosed with cancer?

As I was 5 years ago. Early stage 3 colo rectal.

I went down the recomended medical track of radiation and chemo to shrink the tumour then an Op to remove it followed by more chemo.

The fact that I'm still alive, fit and healthy today would appear to me a good indication that I did the right thing.

I would suggest that its all well and good to talk or post about these things but when it happens to you its a completly different thing.

Robby, I am absolutely delighted for you. I haven't seen any post on here where anyone has suggested not having standard medical treatment for cancer. There are some alternative approaches which say, do in conjunction with normal treatment.

[laislica]

Comments please

Just 1 snippet of data available for al to read.

We can all find snippets of data, studies and 'evidence' to prove we are right, and the other is wrong, but ultimately we'll just be chasing our tails and proving nothing. I'm sure for every study you could find claiming they died younger, I oculd find just as many claiming the opposite.

I do however believe that cutting back on sugar (even fruit, despite it being 'natural') is a step in the right direction.

http://articles.merc...-on-cancer.aspx

The site you link to is a quack site run by a man who has been legally required to limit his fraudulent claims by the FDA in the US:

Read it all here http://www.quackwatc...nd/mercola.html

FDA Orders Dr. Joseph Mercola to Stop Illegal Claims Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Joseph Mercola, D.O., who practices in Schaumburg, Illinois, also operates one of the Internet's largest and most trafficked health information sites. Mercola states that his site has over 300,000 pages and is visited by "millions of people each day" and that his electronic newsletter has close 1,500,000 subscribers [1]. The site vigorously promotes and sells dietary supplements, many of —which bear his name..... according to an article in Chicago Magazine, Mercola stopped practicing medicine to focus on his Web site [3]

Many of Mercola's articles make unsubstantiated claims and clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations. For example, he opposes immunization [4] and fluoridation [5], and mammography [6]; claims that amalgam fillings are toxic [7]; and makes many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements

You have to know that not everything everyone tells you is true. So you have to have a way to recognise untruth. If you don't know or understand much about science or medicine it is very easy to be taken in by tricksters, because you don't have the necessary tools to analyse their statements correctly.

There is a very useful site called "Quackwatch", that identifies and explains out the most common of the fraudulent and baseless health claims and theories made by pundits who range from the well-meaning delusionals to the frank conmen after a buck.

http://www.quackwatch.org

At the very least, if you see some website informing you of a fantastic cure, or cause of, a serious disease (especially if they claim conspiracy: "Big Pharma doesn't want you to know!!!!!), look it up on this site and find out how far their claims stand up to the light of current scientific knowledge.

This is the same scientific knowledge that, for example, eliminated smallpox from the earth, and turned AIDS from a fatal disease into a condition that can now be survived almost indefinitely. These and similar advances are accomplished through evidence-based medical research, contributed to by hard work, scepticism and respect for the truth in universities and hospitals all over the world. This is how medicine advances, not by exclamation mark-peppered websites accusing everyone of suppressing their amazing theories.

Reputable scientists are sceptical even of their own findings. Any other attitude is a warning.

Well Partington, I suggest you actually read all the topics that quackwatch publish.

Then you will see that many of his justification are "to be added later".

He is well known for his support of bigPharma.

But just believe what you like.

It's all about the money.

I find it interesting that Mercola gives information away for free that you otherwise have to pay for to get from other sources.

We all know about the corruption in the FDA and the revolving doors between the BigBoys and the regulatory agencies.

A friend of mine was killed by the radiation therapy, they cooked her lungs, but guess what, she didn't die from anything other than pneumonia..... Go figure.....

[partington]

Partington

Your blood pressure must be getting awfully high, perhaps you should take a supplement to help.

Mercury fillings given to millions of Britons every year can be dangerous, the world's biggest health regulator has warned...

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2K1M7jqY7

Since the late 1990s, the United States Food and Drug Administration has made it mandatory for toothpastes to carry a warning in regards to fluoride usage. But why would the FDA post a warning on a toothpaste ingredient? Doing research on what fluoride is reveals that the chemical is now considered a potential toxic drug, and ingesting enough of the ingredient could be harmful..................

http://www.huffingto...d_b_641767.html

Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009, at 6:11 PM ET

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended Monday that women without risk factors for breast cancer wait until their 50s before going in for regular mammograms.........

.....In 2001, US health officials began recommending women over 40 get regular mammograms. The Lancet wrote in July 1995 that 'the benefit (of mammograms) is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous.

Perhaps you should report the Lancet to quackwatch!

Quackwatch has been involved in a number of lawsuits and apparently Stephen Barrett had lost one or more lawsuits where the judge made him pay the opposing attorneys fees.

http://www.raysaheli...quackwatch.html - 'Quackwatch review - Is Stephen Barrett a Quack? Is he fair, balanced, or biased, by Ray Sahelian, M.D

Stephen Barrett owner and author of Quakwatch is a retired Psychiatrist just how does he pay those multi million dollar law suits he loses?

How do you find the truth? You go to the evidence. In medicine evidence is produced by scientific research. If you want to understand the science issues involved in health care you cannot use the sources you quote. The Daily Mail is not a scientific source, scientific truth is not communicated through newspapers.

A cosmetic dentist writing an article on fluoride on the Huffington Post is not a scientific source. CNN is not a scientific source.

A Doctor (Ray Sahelian MD) who has been accused of false claims about his health supplements by Quackwatch and writes a diatribe against them on his website is not a scientific source.

The Lancet publishes reputable science. I do not know whether the quote you give about the Lancet in 2005 is accurate, because it doesn't give any information on what is being quoted ( journal citation to editorial or original paper) so it cannot be checked. There is current debate on how many lives are saved by mammography, the consensus of the UK and US health authorities is still that it saves lives.

In science it is never the opinion of one person, one blogger, a pundit, a newspaper, that is important, but the accumulated knowledge of many scientists over time, doing studies to test and prove what they claim. The truth isn't a matter of "belief". It is a matter of evidence - that is crucial.

As a general principle distrust people who claim to have found miracle cures, and profound insights that no-one else has stumbled on, because scientifc knowledge is not gathered that way. Just treat the claims of these websites as you would treat the claims of a dodgy mechanic .

And incidentally never ever read the Daily Mail under any circumstances, it will turn you into a small-minded xenophobic sexist boor, plus they supported Hitler in the 1930s.

[OzMick]

In support of the above, once for a week I ingested nothing but red wine and did not get cancer. Further than that, I am speechless.

Any signs of headache?

I have proved by scientific experimentation (with repeatable results) that hangover headaches are caused by sobriety. I have never had one while intoxicated.

BTW Singha beer and Mekong (together or separately) are permanently off my drinks list.

[tominbkk]

That is not the point of my post. Grape juice, like other fruit juice is "good for you". I drink it myself. This is not what the post I was objecting to was saying.

Freshly squeezed or extracted juice has some health benefits. Any juice from a can, bottle, or carton is no better than glorified sugar water with a bit of vitamin c thrown in. You're better off taking a vitman c!

[laislica]

That is not the point of my post. Grape juice, like other fruit juice is "good for you". I drink it myself. This is not what the post I was objecting to was saying.

Freshly squeezed or extracted juice has some health benefits. Any juice from a can, bottle, or carton is no better than glorified sugar water with a bit of vitamin c thrown in. You're better off taking a vitman c!

Not quite:

A man rowed a boat across the Atlantic and got scurvy .

Next time he did it he took Vit C and still got scurvy.

Next time he took a whole food source of Vit C and didn't get scurvy.

When you eat the whole fruit, it has fibre that slows down the carb conversion plus hundreds of other chemical components that work together to make the C bio available.

I agree that freshly squeezed is not so bad but the whole fruit is the thing to eat.

The BigBoys just look to see how they can cheaply make the required chemical and sell it as a pill, even though there is no scientific proof that the chemical - alone, will actually do the job.

The job the pill does is make profit for the body who hold the patent.

What about vitamin D? It's actually a growth hormone, needed by every cell in the body, but it was wrongly classified as a vitamin and it is cheap to make and does a fantastic job. Do you think that the bigBoys and Doctors dish it out and cure many problems? Of course not, where's the money in that?

Vitamin D2 is the cheapest to make but not so good as D3, so what do they add to dairy products, D2 of course.....

PARTINGTON talks about fluoirde but he doesn't mention that it was BAD SCIENCE that says the fluoride is good for your teeth. The bigBoys had some toxic waste to get rid of and they invented a BS story that is so good (the cost in TV (etc) advertising was millions back in the day), that they were even able to sell the toxic waste and make even more profit....

PARTINGTON thinks that the only reliable test is scientific but he forgets that there are lies, dam_n lies and statistics.

Scientists are clever people and can "make" any data say what they want it to say.

Trust me, I'm a scientist! or is that Trust me I'm a Doctor? or Trust me I'm a policeman, a politician, a regulatory body, a government agency........

I only have to omit test results that don't support the way I want the data to be interpreted.

Then construct another test with different criteria until I get the result I am being paid to show.

Easy eh?

This will make me very rich, how nice?

I wonder where PARTINGTON gets his funding from or is he such a misguided person that he blindly believes and follows the BS that is fed to him without using his own brain?

It could be that because one of the primary functions of Fluoride in a human body is to change the configuration of the synapses in a way that dumb the person down and makes them more compliant.....

Edited February 6, 2013 by laislica

[GentlemanJim]

Partington

Your blood pressure must be getting awfully high, perhaps you should take a supplement to help.

Mercury fillings given to millions of Britons every year can be dangerous, the world's biggest health regulator has warned...

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2K1M7jqY7

Since the late 1990s, the United States Food and Drug Administration has made it mandatory for toothpastes to carry a warning in regards to fluoride usage. But why would the FDA post a warning on a toothpaste ingredient? Doing research on what fluoride is reveals that the chemical is now considered a potential toxic drug, and ingesting enough of the ingredient could be harmful..................

http://www.huffingto...d_b_641767.html

Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009, at 6:11 PM ET

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended Monday that women without risk factors for breast cancer wait until their 50s before going in for regular mammograms.........

.....In 2001, US health officials began recommending women over 40 get regular mammograms. The Lancet wrote in July 1995 that 'the benefit (of mammograms) is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous.

Perhaps you should report the Lancet to quackwatch!

Quackwatch has been involved in a number of lawsuits and apparently Stephen Barrett had lost one or more lawsuits where the judge made him pay the opposing attorneys fees.

http://www.raysaheli...quackwatch.html - 'Quackwatch review - Is Stephen Barrett a Quack? Is he fair, balanced, or biased, by Ray Sahelian, M.D

Stephen Barrett owner and author of Quakwatch is a retired Psychiatrist just how does he pay those multi million dollar law suits he loses?

How do you find the truth? You go to the evidence. In medicine evidence is produced by scientific research. If you want to understand the science issues involved in health care you cannot use the sources you quote. The Daily Mail is not a scientific source, scientific truth is not communicated through newspapers.

A cosmetic dentist writing an article on fluoride on the Huffington Post is not a scientific source. CNN is not a scientific source.

A Doctor (Ray Sahelian MD) who has been accused of false claims about his health supplements by Quackwatch and writes a diatribe against them on his website is not a scientific source.

The Lancet publishes reputable science. I do not know whether the quote you give about the Lancet in 2005 is accurate, because it doesn't give any information on what is being quoted ( journal citation to editorial or original paper) so it cannot be checked. There is current debate on how many lives are saved by mammography, the consensus of the UK and US health authorities is still that it saves lives.

In science it is never the opinion of one person, one blogger, a pundit, a newspaper, that is important, but the accumulated knowledge of many scientists over time, doing studies to test and prove what they claim. The truth isn't a matter of "belief". It is a matter of evidence - that is crucial.

As a general principle distrust people who claim to have found miracle cures, and profound insights that no-one else has stumbled on, because scientifc knowledge is not gathered that way. Just treat the claims of these websites as you would treat the claims of a dodgy mechanic .

And incidentally never ever read the Daily Mail under any circumstances, it will turn you into a small-minded xenophobic sexist boor, plus they supported Hitler in the 1930s.

Partington

The Daily Mail was quoting an article and information from the the US FDA about which which you said Dr Stephen Barrett had made a statement saying amalgam fillings were not harmful. Clearly Barrett did not read the findings of the US FDA. I could extend my google search and find the same new story in the Times if that satisfies you.

A Dentist, (who you try to disrespect by labeling him 'cosmetic' ) is a far more trustworthy source of information concerning flouride and teeth than a retired Psychiatrist.

There is no evidence to date that says mammograms are saving lives. There is evidence to say they are likely doing more harm than good.

The Doctor (Ray Sahelian MD), writes a very balanced and thoughtful view on Barrett and Quackwatch and raises some valid points even positive ones!. Barrett claims all supplements to be completely negative, he NEVER balances his argument by writing of the positive aspects of any of the supplements he attacks. Why does Barrett not truly protect the misguided consumer by writing of the total waste of money spent each year on Big Pharma cough mixtures and medicines, many of which are absolutely useless and some are downright harmful? The money wasted each year is in the hundreds of millions and it lines the bank vaults of Big Pharma. Are you starting to pick up a trend yet with 'Quackwatch'?

Just who does fund Barrett? Who does pay the many millions that have been successfully claimed from him in class actions? He is a retired Psychiatrist, writing on his own and you label him as a source of good science. Just who has been reading the Daily Mail here (and I doubt it still has the same editor and owner that it had in 1930)?

[partington]

I wonder where PARTINGTON gets his funding from or is he such a misguided person that he blindly believes and follows the BS that is fed to him without using his own brain?

It could be that because one of the primary functions of Fluoride in a human body is to change the configuration of the synapses in a way that dumb the person down and makes them more compliant.....

I used my own brain to get a degree in Biochemistry at university in England. That took three years. I then used my own brain to get a research degree, a Ph.D in Biochemistry involving experimental cell biology. That took four and a half years. I then completed my scientific training by doing four years post-doctoral research in a major research lab the US. After nearly twelve years I was considered to have just about completed enough training to get a job conducting my own research back in the UK.

That taught me a degree of objectivity, that I think you lack, together with some analytical skills. All the "facts" you cite are ignoramus fictions.

For example, why do you parrot the myth that Vitamin C doesn't cure scurvy if it's in tablet or supplemental form? It is an easily soluble and completely bioavailable compound that cures scurvy when administered in any form whatsoever. Even a few minutes looking up different research papers produced by many different research groups, in different countries at different periods in time, would demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that this is true and has been proved countless times.*

The problem is that you don't really want to know. You want to grind your axe.

It's fine by me. If evidence doesn't convince you, nothing will. You have a view that want to believe in spite of evidence, and you will go on doing so.

*If you want to read about one of the most famous vitamin C supplement experiments, carried out by the UK Medical Research Council on conscientious objectors during the Second World War (volunteers, but yes it's a bit ethically questionable, which is why it's famous) go here http://ije.oxfordjou.../35/3/556.full.

Essentially they fed the volunteers Vitamin C free diets and gave only some of them vitamin C supplements (non-food pure vitamin C) as well. They observed how long it took for the men to develop scurvy and what doses of pure Vitamin C supplement (the thing that this poster says "doesn't work") prevented scurvy. It was called the 'shipwreck experiment', and is just one of many many studies that show laislica's unsourced, uncredited, story about a man rowing the Atlantic is just made up, to try to "prove" a falsehood.

I can justifiably ask : where is his evidence, to compare with the evidence I have supplied?

[GentlemanJim]

Partington

There is one thing that makes me doubt your level of intellect....................... you read ThaiVisa It's far worse than the daily mail you know.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

I have never heard an explanation why Fluoride is such a deadly poison while the food with the highest amount of Flouride (Green Tea) is so healthy and anti cancer.

Green Tea is thought to be very Anti Angiogenesis food. Angiogenesis is where a tissue like a tumor gets a growing blood supply.

Seems a strong contradiction.

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

[BradinAsia]

I agree with the man-made fake foods, the industial seed oils, the copious amounts of empty calorie foods, soda and white bread. BUT, HOW does meat cause cancer???

Eating meat is not necessarily associated with all types of cancers, but...

The top 20 countries with the highest rates of colorectal cancer are also

at the top of the list of countries with high meat consumption. Coincidence?

Only 2 Asian countries make the top 20 colorectal cancer list -- Japan and

S. Korea. The other 18 are all European countries plus N.Z. and Oz.

It's easy to find -- just Google "colorectal cancer incidence by country"

[saroq]

Listening to 'The Cure', avoiding grey balls, getting an HPV jab and eating grapes, or this:

Not a lot of analysis out there on the role of glucose and its fueling of most (but not all) tumors.

All carbohydrates increase glucose levels... Thai's and most cultures sure love sweet tastes and their carbs like rice.

http://www.canceract...se feeds cancer

The human body is only 2-3% glucose but humans sure like to eat a lot carbs even if they are not active enough to deplete it.

Spot on Cobra.

Aaaah, now we get somewhere, you are all thinking. Glucose does indeed play a massive part in feeding tumour cells. There is a toxin contained in grape seed that cause a communication break in the link between the two mitochondria in cancer cells (healthy cells have only one mitochondria). When the link is severed between the two in a cancer cell, the cell will die. The problem has always been how to get the toxin into the cancer cell, which will reject it under normal circumstances. Bring in the humble grape !!! The purple variety being the most potent. The grapes must be eaten either whole or mulch up a glass full in the blender and take every two hours, between 0830 and 2000 hrs ONLY. After 8pm nothing at all but water must be consumed.

In the first few days you are taking this nectar of nature, all the cells in your body will become addicted to the sweet, sugary, easy source of glucose. By fasting for 12 hours at night you literally cause the cells to become ravenous with hunger for this grape concoction. Cancer cells are stronger and more hungry than normal cells (think of them as the cuckoo in the robins nest). With your first few glasses or meals of grape mulch/grapes the cancer cells will take all the nutrients first, so hungry they ignore their normal fussy checks. In the grape mulch are the many toxins that we need to get in to the cancer cells (these chemicals are NOT toxic to normal cells), and these are swallowed up in the early morning feeding frenzy by the cancer cells.

Result cancer cells completely eradicated in 5 weeks. This method kills only cancer cells/bad cells it causes no harm to healthy cells. Chemo kills all cells, thats why you get so ill. For serious stage cancer such as 4+ it may be necessary to do 5-6 weeks, then break for 2-4 weeks then do another 5-6 weeks. I know many people that have followed this procedure strictly and every single one now has no trace of cancer left. This is a huge dichotomy for Big Pharma, the humble grape at $3-4 a kilo kills cancer! All BP can do is spread disinformation about real alternative cures to their own.

An adult male will need about 2.5 kilos a day and a woman about 2 kg. Please remember to wash the grapes in warm water with lots of baby soap (you can use baby soap for washing vegetables..look at the bottle), use a soft brush and wash then properly, no need doing all that good to you and then ingesting all the sprays and insecticides is there. Whop them in the fridge and when very cold...wow! awesome as they are or simply blended. Remember to crush and eat the seeds (and no, grape seeds do NOT cause appendicitis ) Good luck!

My mother died of cancer so I understand the desire to cling to the belief that there's some cure out there that "Big Pharma" don't want the ordinary people to know about, and I don't for one second think that "Big Pharma" have any other motivation than making money from people who are sick. But if this actually worked it would be the standard treatment for cancer patients. How many people with cancer who have tried this treatment do you actually know, personally?

[tominbkk]

I agree that freshly squeezed is not so bad but the whole fruit is the thing to eat.

That I agree with totally. If you are going to have fruit, don't just squeeze the juice out. Blend it into a smoothie or eat it whole. Get the fiber with it as well!!!

[SundayAfternoon]

I agree with the man-made fake foods, the industial seed oils, the copious amounts of empty calorie foods, soda and white bread. BUT, HOW does meat cause cancer???

Eating meat is not necessarily associated with all types of cancers, but...

The top 20 countries with the highest rates of colorectal cancer are also

at the top of the list of countries with high meat consumption. Coincidence?

Hm, seems like a long shot to me, after all, they also eat more processed foods, spend longer hours working in front of computers, and are more prone to depression (among countless other things). Why single meat out as the ONE single defining factor...?

And, not industrial seed oils, not sugar, and not aspertame? (for example)

Did you look at the link I posted before, about liver?

http://chriskresser.com/natures-most-potent-superfood

So which is more healthy? 'meat' or processed rubbish laden with manufactured, unpronouncable ingredients?

Vegetariansm / veganism is a GREAT moral choice. It is not necessarily a great HEALTH choice.

(As many ex vegans are now coming to realise, given how much eveidence is coming to light that avoiding meat and veganism is NOT as healthy as many think).

[xylophone]

Some great discussion going on here and a lot of it is most informative.

For the record I am a believer in some health supplements and also in the fact that modern medicine practices ensure that we know more about our diseases than we ever have before and indeed how to treat them. So I try to keep an open mind on causes and treatment of diseases by mainstream medicine and also by "natural" means.

If I had to place my life in the hands of one or the other I would put it in the hands of doctors and modern medicine/science, with perhaps trying one of the "natural cures" as a last resort. I know people who have been cured of cancer (by mainstream medicine and radiation/chemotherapy) and who are alive many years later (one family member still alive after 40 years) however I know none who have been cured by the ingestion of such things as grape juice or apricot kernels or the like.

I like the way that doctors/scientist/modern medicine delve into their subjects, over a long period of time with much testing, to find out as much about it as possible before even attempting to advertise a "cure", so that's where I put my faith.

The original subject was about cancer in Thailand and as one poster has pointed out, if we try and eliminate the "known carcinogens" from our diet then we will go a long way towards being healthier.

I also concur with the posters who mentioned the street carts with bowls full of hot oil which have been used to cook things in for days/weeks before being changed; the little pork balls which consist mainly of fat of which the Thais are so fond; the half cooked/raw fish which is made into a paste and eaten and which causes the highest incidence of a type of liver cancer anywhere in the world. The list could go on because I am of the opinion that the Thai diet in general is not a healthy one, not only because of the above but because of the additives or preservatives which it contains.

Generally, I am afraid for all of us when we understand that the largest user of antibiotics (and anti-parasitics) in the USA is the farming Industry which feeds these to their livestock and it remains in the food chain until we eat it. Not to mention of course the hormone additives and the colourings. This is probably a worldwide practice and cannot be doing any of us any good whatsoever.

When you add to the above the fact that more sprays are used on our food/fruit/vegetables than ever before then we are at the forefront of the battle against carcinogenic substances than we ever were before. All the more reason to try and live a healthy life if one can, but that becomes harder the more we know about the way our food is produced.

Yes, cut out the things we know are bad for us and we stand a better chance.

Finally, and not to fully support the poor poster who was ridiculed for posting about "eating at irregular times", but to put it into some perspective, eating last thing at night (an irregular time to eat?) can put a strain on the oesophagus with regards to subjecting it to acids and enzymes which would it not normally come into contact with for long periods of time, thereby possibly causing gastric reflux, which can lead to a more serious condition which is life-threatening.

I for one will be trusting my doctors and modern medicine/science now and in the future.

[GarryP]

Steve Jobs certainly didn't benefit from alternative therapies.

[Finnegan]

Steve Jobs certainly didn't benefit from alternative therapies.

And from being fruitarian too. :\

[Briggsy]

Lack of detailed data here. In developed nations accurate figures are published regularly.

[laislica]

Steve Jobs certainly didn't benefit from alternative therapies.

And from being fruitarian too. :\

When ya gotta go, ya gotta go.

We all gonna go sooner or later.

I liked much of what xylophone said in his post except the bit about trusting doctors.

Trust no one, that's me. I'll make my own mind up because the last one I trusted insisted that mercury fillings were totally harmless, so I let him use it. This was despite my then dentist of a decade or two earlier, advising me to have the mercury fillings that I had be carefully removed.

I recently had shingles and a Thai Dr gave me antiviral meds and I took them and I'm sure they helped to lessen the severity of the disease.

What I didn't take were the pain relief and help you sleep pills.

Amitryptylline, Gabapentin and Tramadol. Addictive narcotics with side effects of increasing sucide risk amongst other not nice effects.

I figured I could put up with a bit of pain and get on with my life. I know that they were trying to help me avoid the pain but I felt that the risks of their cures were too high.

Wind the clock back to 1980, I had slightly elevated BP and the Dr immediately put me on beta-blockers and I was on em for years. Until I lost weight and my BP eventually corrected it'self.

The Dr had neglected to advise me that the cause may be due to obesity and that a change in life style could be a cure. Then I would not have suffered from the nasty side effects........

See where I'm going?

We should take personal responsibility for our health, not abdicate it to someone else like a doctor.

We should also realise that the wrong type of thinking is toxic and can contribute to an early death.

We have all heard how a witch doctor can kill a tribesman.....

Well New Scientist March 2009 (I think) explained some research that suggests doctors should be more careful about what they tell their patients. They talked about a Nobo effect being the opposite of Placebo.

So to minimise the risk of cancer, our TV posters suggest that:-

We clean up our environment.

We clean up food production, both plant and animal.

Cut out things that we know are bad for us, particularly sugars, artificial sweeteners.

Take regular exercise.

Attain a "normal" weight/BMI/shape.

Reduce stress, be it emotional, financial, physical, whatever.

So how about we get off TV and go and start to clean up the environment?

Write letters to the food manufacturers and outlets about our needs.

Write to our politicians.

Nothing will change unless someone does something about it.

[lahgon29]

when nobody ever checks the road side food stalls about their oils, maximise profit = use them way to many days and times, that you as a customer gets sick or cancer, that is your problem, i guess, their way of thinking...

what about those people eating spicy everyday = stomac cancer, but hey, they are addicted...

medicine you buy over the counter, antibiotics and others for a cold... no use but can do severe damage, etc...

let's not forget all the chain smokers and drinkers

goodnight

Where did you come up with this idea that Chili causes Stomach cancer??? The 1994 Mexican study? it was discredited. mak mak. Only good comes from chilis, mate. read the serious research. Stomach cancer in countries like Mexico and Thailand emanate from Helicopter pylori, mostly. The rest of what you say is mostly right.

#

Helcobactor Pylori causes Duodenal Ulcers,and nowadays a course of Medication can cure,with no major operation necessary.Please show your evidence that said Helicobactor Pilori causes Cancer,which I have never heard of??? though I did have the Duodenal, Major operation.

Helcobactor Pylori is linked to stomach cancer. There seems to be a lot of evidence of the link.

Helicobacter pylori

(H. pylori) infection is considered one of the most important risk factors for stomach (or gastric) cancer with as much as 65% of all cases linked back to the bacteria, although exactly how this occurs is not fully clear.

http://www.science20.com/catarina_amorim/new_clues_link_between_helicobacter_pylori_and_stomach_cancer

This is one link. Google the connection. There are many more. My GP in Brisbane used to check me annually due to my time here in LOS, because of the link to Gastric cancers. The duodenal surgery would have not been nice. My sympathies on that one.

[partington]

I liked much of what xylophone said in his post except the bit about trusting doctors.

Trust no one, that's me. I'll make my own mind up because the last one I trusted insisted that mercury fillings were totally harmless, so I let him use it. This was despite my then dentist of a decade or two earlier, advising me to have the mercury fillings that I had be carefully removed.

Without wishing to hound you, perhaps bear in mind that some dentists, like all humans, can be ill-informed, and some can just be greedy. Removing all amalgam fillings and replacing them with alternative materials is an unnecessary, but very costly, procedure. Some dentists would like to buy a yacht. Suggesting unnecessary procedures to patients is one way of saving up to do this.

I totally agree that individuals in all professions can be dishonest, and scepticism about what you are told, by anybody, is absolutely essential. So then you fact check.

To evaluate a suggestion like the one your individual dentist gave you about amalgams being removed, it would probably be a good idea to look at the health advice given by professional associations representing all dentists, or all health authorities, within a country or countries. These represent the public statements of current scientific knowledge accepted by the vast majority of the professionals in that particular field, avoiding the incompetent, ill-informed, or merely greedy.

Doing this would show that, as of 2013, the EEC public health consortium, the British Dental Association, and the FDA in the US, representing the most advanced medical systems in the world,

all publicly state that there is no evidence that any danger is posed by mercury in amalgam fillings, and give references where interested patients can actually look up the research and read it for themselves.

THE EEC http://ec.europa.eu/...dental-amalgam/

6. Conclusion on health effects of dental amalgams and their alternatives on users

6.1

Both

dental amalgams

and various alternative materials are considered effective and safe to use. They are associated with a very small proportion of local effects in the mouth and there is no evidence that they can cause disease. The relative risks and benefits of using different tooth filling materials should be explained to patients and the public at large.

More...

6.2

Dental amalgam

fillings can, in rare cases, cause local allergic reactions and related conditions. However, current evidence does not support any link between

dental amalgams

and diseases – neither diseases of the urinary,

neurological

, reproductive and immune systems nor any psychological conditions.

The FDA (US Food and Drug Administration)

http://www.fda.gov/m...m/ucm171094.htm

Potential Risks:

Dental amalgam contains elemental mercury. It releases low levels of mercury vapor that can be inhaled. High levels of mercury vapor exposure are associated with adverse effects in the brain and the kidneys.

FDA has reviewed the best available scientific evidence to determine whether the low levels of mercury vapor associated with dental amalgam fillings are a cause for concern. Based on this evidence, FDA considers dental amalgam fillings safe for adults and children ages 6 and above. The amount of mercury measured in the bodies of people with dental amalgam fillings is well below levels associated with adverse health effects. Even in adults and children ages 6 and above who have fifteen or more amalgam surfaces, mercury exposure due to dental amalgam fillings has been found to be far below the lowest levels associated with harm. Clinical studies in adults and children ages 6 and above have also found no link between dental amalgam fillings and health problems.

BDA (British Dental Association) http://www.bda.org/p...es/amalgam.aspx

..... The recent preliminary report by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health risks (SCENIHR) concluded that no increased risks of adverse systemic effects exist and they do not therefore consider that the current use of dental amalgam poses a risk of systemic disease....

...No evidence supporting amalgam removal for supposed health benefits has been found. There is no clinical justification for removing clinically satisfactory amalgam restorations, except in those patients suspected of having allergic reactions to one of the amalgam constituents.

[xylophone]

laislica quote: "What I didn't take were the pain relief and help you sleep pills.

Amitryptylline, Gabapentin and Tramadol. Addictive narcotics with side effects of increasing sucide risk amongst other not nice effects".

Firstly, thank you for your support on my post, much appreciated and although I do "trust" my doctors I am always of the opinion that I have to take responsibility for my own illnesses and therefore I write out a list of questions I want to ask before I go to see them in order to probe what alternatives are available and what the side-effects are. That way at least I am sure I am doing all I can to assist myself as well as assist the Dr.

I was about to write that Thai doctors in general seem to over prescribe medications for something very simple, and I stick by that statement. However to put it in perspective I remember being prescribed amitriptyline (amongst other drugs) in New Zealand when I had RSI/OOS and could hardly use my right hand. Now that drug put me in Lala land for two weeks and I had no idea what I was doing in my everyday home or working life so I asked to come off of it and also asked as to why it was prescribed because I was no better. Apparently one of the side-effects for its main use which I believe is an antidepressant type drug, is that it helps repair nerve endings or similar and the doctor in New Zealand thought it would help with my condition, which it didn't.

To my way of thinking I was a bit of a guinea pig – – a suck it and see mentality which I was not keen on. Having said that, I still have to put my faith in doctors and medicine in general PROVIDED I take much responsibility for my condition and I ask questions and probe as to why they think such and such is going to work, so I will continue that faith.

I particularly like partington's posts and I think he makes many valid points, all of which I totally support.

[laislica]

I liked much of what xylophone said in his post except the bit about trusting doctors.

Trust no one, that's me. I'll make my own mind up because the last one I trusted insisted that mercury fillings were totally harmless, so I let him use it. This was despite my then dentist of a decade or two earlier, advising me to have the mercury fillings that I had be carefully removed.

Without wishing to hound you, perhaps bear in mind that some dentists, like all humans, can be ill-informed, and some can just be greedy. Removing all amalgam fillings and replacing them with alternative materials is an unnecessary, but very costly, procedure. Some dentists would like to buy a yacht. Suggesting unnecessary procedures to patients is one way of saving up to do this.

I totally agree that individuals in all professions can be dishonest, and scepticism about what you are told, by anybody, is absolutely essential. So then you fact check.

To evaluate a suggestion like the one your individual dentist gave you about amalgams being removed, it would probably be a good idea to look at the health advice given by professional associations representing all dentists, or all health authorities, within a country or countries. These represent the public statements of current scientific knowledge accepted by the vast majority of the professionals in that particular field, avoiding the incompetent, ill-informed, or merely greedy.

Doing this would show that, as of 2013, the EEC public health consortium, the British Dental Association, and the FDA in the US, representing the most advanced medical systems in the world,

all publicly state that there is no evidence that any danger is posed by mercury in amalgam fillings, and give references where interested patients can actually look up the research and read it for themselves.

THE EEC http://ec.europa.eu/...dental-amalgam/

6. Conclusion on health effects of dental amalgams and their alternatives on users

6.1

Both

dental amalgams

and various alternative materials are considered effective and safe to use. They are associated with a very small proportion of local effects in the mouth and there is no evidence that they can cause disease. The relative risks and benefits of using different tooth filling materials should be explained to patients and the public at large.

More...

6.2

Dental amalgam

fillings can, in rare cases, cause local allergic reactions and related conditions. However, current evidence does not support any link between

dental amalgams

and diseases – neither diseases of the urinary,

neurological

, reproductive and immune systems nor any psychological conditions.

The FDA (US Food and Drug Administration)

http://www.fda.gov/m...m/ucm171094.htm

Potential Risks:

Dental amalgam contains elemental mercury. It releases low levels of mercury vapor that can be inhaled. High levels of mercury vapor exposure are associated with adverse effects in the brain and the kidneys.

FDA has reviewed the best available scientific evidence to determine whether the low levels of mercury vapor associated with dental amalgam fillings are a cause for concern. Based on this evidence, FDA considers dental amalgam fillings safe for adults and children ages 6 and above. The amount of mercury measured in the bodies of people with dental amalgam fillings is well below levels associated with adverse health effects. Even in adults and children ages 6 and above who have fifteen or more amalgam surfaces, mercury exposure due to dental amalgam fillings has been found to be far below the lowest levels associated with harm. Clinical studies in adults and children ages 6 and above have also found no link between dental amalgam fillings and health problems.

BDA (British Dental Association) http://www.bda.org/p...es/amalgam.aspx

..... The recent preliminary report by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health risks (SCENIHR) concluded that no increased risks of adverse systemic effects exist and they do not therefore consider that the current use of dental amalgam poses a risk of systemic disease....

...No evidence supporting amalgam removal for supposed health benefits has been found. There is no clinical justification for removing clinically satisfactory amalgam restorations, except in those patients suspected of having allergic reactions to one of the amalgam constituents.

So the bodies you mention - all of which have a huge vested interest in keeping amalgam fillings, say they are OK?

Remember many years ago, certain doctors actually recommended certain smoking products because of the way the tobacco was processed. It was toasted.

The tobacco industry insisted that there was no link with any cancer and they were supported by all the regulatory bodies you can mention.

However, we now know they LIED!

They suppressed the results of studies that showed that there was indeed a problem.

Let the buyer beware.....

As to the cost of the removal of my amalgam fillings, it was minimal because when work needed to be done on a tooth with an amalgam filling, he removed the filling and replaced it with ceramic or other stuff, and it was on the national health - in the 80's in the UK.

They were not all removed in one go either, it took years to steadily complete the work.

My then dentist, an Iranian gentleman, told me that he believed that amalgam fillings were a low level but constant source of damage to our immune systems.

He also said that certain mouth bacteria was responsible for heart problems.

I do not feel hounded at all and I love reading your posts. Sometimes you mention something that is new to me and it awakens my interest - thank you for that.

I also love the fact that this thread has not turned into the sort of slanging match that often seems to occur on TV.

@xylophone,

The first doctor I saw gave me the Amitryptylline, I had no idea what it was or what it did until good old Google told me. That was when I decided that 7 pills, one per day wouldn't do anything good. The doctor had said that she wanted to help me get a good sleep at night.

The second doctor prescribed the Gabapentin and Tramadol and we had a lengthy discussion about them, their side effects etc. The Dr insisted that they would make me feel better. However, there was no discussion to establish if I was now or had ever been a drug addict or alcoholic etc. The notes on some of the prescribed drugs stated that they should not be taken by anyone who....

As to some of PARTINGTON's points, of course it is valid to quote what government agencies have reported, or what a website like Quackwatch have reported, but why then does PARTINGTON deride quotations sourced from the mercola website? - cmmon, fair's fair?

I have to say that I think Mercola genuinely want's to help (as he makes a buck or two) but sometimes he may be too quick off the mark with his info.

​An example of this is that when he decided to have his amalgam fillings removed in one go, he didn't understand the care necessary to ensure that the materiel was removed safely. I understand that he sustained kidney damage that is taking years to recover from.

[Artisi]

Vegetariansm / veganism is a GREAT moral choice. It is not necessarily a great HEALTH choice.

(As many ex vegans are now coming to realise, given how much eveidence is coming to light that avoiding meat and veganism is NOT as healthy as many think).

Would you like to back that with some facts or at least some creditable research / reading / reports.