CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > In Sickness and In Health > Health and Medical Issues
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Health and Medical Issues For other than injuries

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-01-2007, 08:19 PM   #11
Jared Buffie
Member Jared Buffie is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Winnipeg  MB
Posts: 106
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

From Environmental Working Group:

There are 10,500 chemicals in personal care products ALONE! 89% of them have not been evaluated for safety, and only 9 have been removed. They are never looked into until there is a problem. Over a third of all personal care products contain at least one ingredient that is classified as "possible human carcinogens".

This is just he stuff we lather on ourselves, let alone what we ingest and inhale. It's no wonder cancer is the #1 killer for people under 65.

As for chemo:

75% of oncologists income come from chemo drugs, yet a study done by the Los Angeles Times and the McGill Cancer Center in Montreal show that from 75% to 91% of oncologists would refuse chemotherapy as a treatment for themselves or their families - it only works 3% of the time.

Once you start to understand how cancer drugs are classified as "effective" and how the 5 year survival rates have been skewed by early detection campaigns, you would probably start to question the effectiveness of radiation/chemo.

As for alternatives:

Cancer is an immune system problem. A landmark study in JAMA Feb 2003 linked the number of prescriptions a woman filled to her chance of developing breast cancer - the more prescriptions indicated a weaker immune system. Of course your body creates 10000 cancer cells a day but your immune system destroys them. I don't think it's a coincidence that we are seeing jumps in other immune system problems such as RA, asthma, allergies, eczema, hay fever, etc... and cancer at the same time. In other words, anything you do to boost your immune system will reduce your chances of developing cancer. I recommend, probiotics, vit c, good sleep, low stress levels, and a healthy diet (organic/grassfed paleo).
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2007, 10:54 PM   #12
Steven Low
Member Steven Low is offline
 
Steven Low's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: silver spring  maryland
Posts: 12,221
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Can I get some sources with that?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2007, 05:33 PM   #13
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

I'm going to put a couple ideas out there.

One, the phenomena of Spontaneous Remission is almost wholly unresearched. To an unknown extent, people will suddenly cure themselves, in effect, of almost all known cancers. Here is a WFS link on this: http://www.noetic.org/research/sr/faqs.html

Logically, one could further suppose that many so-called "cures" are in fact covering up an actual spontaneous remission. If one is getting treatment that is doing nothing, but then self-heals, that will still get logged as a chemo success.

The list of possible carcinogens is endless, and that is not really where we need to focus our energies. What we are not doing is using anything other than a molecular up to cellular level of analysis, for a phenomena that operates as a system. Until we understand the mechanism for cancer, where and why the flaw occurs, we will have no really good, efficient process for understanding why carcinogens are carcinogens. Right now, our process appears to be in any event inefficient, with only a few compounds clearly and unambiguously responsible, and those results seem to derive mainly from demographics, not a clear chain of cause and effect.

The following link is a bit out there, but given the abject failures of cancer researchers--which I attribute more to looking in the wrong place than any sort of organized or informal corruption, although I don't doubt for a moment that is there too--we need to think outside the box.

This WFS link discusses efforts of German researchers to utilize biophoton emission to diagnose, and to treat cancer (they apparently translated it themselves, to the text and grammar is a bit iffy): http://www.lifescientists.de/publication/pub2002-05.htm

A few words on biophoton research. All living systems emit light, in amounts so small as to be undetectable to the naked eye. The last time this phenomena was assessed outside of Continental Europe, it was assessed by an American and an Australian, both of whom concluded that the phenomena was related to chemical reactions which occasionally released photons in lieu of conserving the energy within the system, which they termed the Incompleteness explanation. The experimental predictions which this explanation would have led to were that the biophoton emission would be tied in a linear fashion to temperature--to the quantity of reactions happening--and that the light would be non-coherent, which is to say randomly distibuted across the spectrum. They assumed that was what they would find, and therefore never followed up. Not only that, but their emphatic rejection of the possibilty of any biological, systemic significance to the phenomena ensured that other researchers in the Anglo-American social field would steer clear of the whole thing as vaguely distasteful and unscientific, even though experiments are what actual scientists do.

Undeterred, the Germans, the Russians, the Armenians, the Chinese, the Japanese and the Kazakhs (among others) continued research, and--among other things--determined that in fact this light IS coherent, and not tied to thermal equilibrium, which falsified the American and Australians objections.

Nobody, of course, commented on this, and the only really good text available is written in German, which I am fortunate enough to be able to read.

It may take ten years, but in my view we are eventually going to have to adopt a systems approach to the problems of illness. And not just illness, in my view, but an understanding of what life itself is.

Whether we ultimately choose to view Mind as an artifact of biochemical processes or not, we need to understand that our selves must be understood as wholes, and that does not just mean chemistry.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2007, 06:31 PM   #14
Steven Low
Member Steven Low is offline
 
Steven Low's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: silver spring  maryland
Posts: 12,221
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Quote:
The list of possible carcinogens is endless, and that is not really where we need to focus our energies. What we are not doing is using anything other than a molecular up to cellular level of analysis, for a phenomena that operates as a system. Until we understand the mechanism for cancer, where and why the flaw occurs, we will have no really good, efficient process for understanding why carcinogens are carcinogens. Right now, our process appears to be in any event inefficient, with only a few compounds clearly and unambiguously responsible, and those results seem to derive mainly from demographics, not a clear chain of cause and effect.
Um, well, I took a class specifically on cancer and we went over a lot of potential carcinogens that I mentioned earlier and how they react with cellular machinery to cause cancer. Namely, a couple things have to happen for cancer to form:

1. inactivation of p53 tumor suppressors and/or any of the other tumor suppressors in cells.
2. activation of telomerase to continually extend DNA (well, prevents the DNA from becoming so short that the cell automatically undergoes apoptosis).
3. deregulation of the certain stopping points in the cell cycle specfically more or less in the S and G phases. This can occur with either increased production of certain metabolites or decreased production depending on what cellular systems have been affected.
4. Pretty much all cancers have some effect in the host cell's DNA and that's where most of the changes that occur since DNA controls mainly what the cell is doing and what it produces and how it runs.. so mutations throughout the DNA are generally the cause.

4 is what the Ames test looks at. Basically they engineering Salmonella Typhimurium to be lacking I think histidine (IIRC) by mutating the genes that produces the enzymes to inactive it. Then they basically plate it with the potential carcinogen without the said amino acid so it cannot grow. So if the compound is a mutagen basically it's going to mutate the cell's DNA pretty much randomly. The greater it's mutagen potential, the greater chance that it will "revert" the certain enzyme back to its active form so the cells and survive and reproduce (and the Salmonella that doesn't have it's histidine mutated back will basically die). Therefore, the greater the chemicals carcinogenic ability, we'll see more Salmonella colonies on the plates.

I mean, a lot of this stuff is really mapped out pretty well down to its biological processes and how it affects the cell as a whole. So I'm not getting why either you guys or a lot of these websites are making these crazy claims that people aren't doing anything about such and such. One of the job interviews I had was for a job working with the Ames test, and they took me through the facility and were testing all sorts of compounds -- makeup, dyes, potential food stuff like sweeteners, etc. -- which go back to the companies and FDA or other governmental regulatory agencies. So it's not like stuff is not getting tested or is getting past the system into our food and other products. I don't see it.

Last edited by Steven Low : 12-02-2007 at 06:34 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2007, 07:05 PM   #15
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

I have no doubt we can reverse engineer--to the satisfaction of the researchers--the process of cancer. Describing something and explaining it are two different things. Your apparent proposal for curing cancer is to eliminate all carcinogens. This would, of course, be a good thing.

But cancer is not fundamentally an industrial disease, as far as I know. It didn't likely kill many people a thousand years ago, but that was only because they died much younger of bacterial and viral infections.

The interesting question, to me is: is there a linear relationship, necessarily, between carcinogen exposure and cancer? Is the carcinogen necessary? I don't think so. Is it sufficient? Again, I don't think so. If I am right, then we are missing something fundamental.

Why do some people smoke--voluntarily expose themselves to carcinogens--for many years and not get cancer? Why do people who are only exposed to occasional second hand smoke still get cancer? It seems clear to me there is non-linear relationship. Why? What are the buffering factors?

My strong suspicion is that even if you accounted for glucose intake, sleep patterns, vitamin intake, etc, etc, you would still not be able to develop a linear pattern, merely a statistical demographic distribution. You wouldn't be able to predict who would get cancer, and you still wouldn't have done a thing to improve the cure rate.

The basic position of the biophoton people is that carcinogens measurably interfere with light transmission in certain frequencies believed to be biologically significant. Within their model, DNA acts as a light receptor and transmitter, and of course within that model, too, damage to DNA would interfere with systemic organization.

Interestingly, though, which I will put here since you are unlikely to read my links, Popp and his colleagues did experiments over ten years ago in which they exposed biopsied tumer tissues to varied chemotherapeutic agents (every "chemo" is unique, and 4 different doctors would mix it up for the same patient 8 different ways, depending on the day, from what I can tell), and those which most affected biophoton emission were considered to be most efficacious, and that basic process appears to have borne fruit. If I'm not mistaken, they patented it.

I see all these scientists offering long, detailed, exhaustingly documented, scientific statements, which yield absolutely nothing of practical value. Reading them, one would assume the situation was under control. But it isn't, and I can't blame solely vastly increased numbers of industrial pollutants.

As far as I can tell, about the only clear reason for declines in the rates of cancer mortality result from an overall reduction in rates of smoking.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2007, 07:27 PM   #16
Steven Low
Member Steven Low is offline
 
Steven Low's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: silver spring  maryland
Posts: 12,221
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
I have no doubt we can reverse engineer--to the satisfaction of the researchers--the process of cancer. Describing something and explaining it are two different things. Your apparent proposal for curing cancer is to eliminate all carcinogens. This would, of course, be a good thing.
Well, I didn't propose it.. but it's indeed a good idea. The less carcinogens you expose yourself to the better. That's why it's not a great idea to spend lots of time in the sunlight.

Quote:
But cancer is not fundamentally an industrial disease, as far as I know. It didn't likely kill many people a thousand years ago, but that was only because they died much younger of bacterial and viral infections.
Cancer rates have gone up especially at the beginning of the industrial age. Right now the rates have more or less leveled off as medicine has gotten better. Incidence increases with age, obviously.

Quote:
The interesting question, to me is: is there a linear relationship, necessarily, between carcinogen exposure and cancer? Is the carcinogen necessary? I don't think so. Is it sufficient? Again, I don't think so. If I am right, then we are missing something fundamental.
Yes and no. I'll explain in your examples later.

Quote:
Why do some people smoke--voluntarily expose themselves to carcinogens--for many years and not get cancer? Why do people who are only exposed to occasional second hand smoke still get cancer? It seems clear to me there is non-linear relationship. Why? What are the buffering factors?
The main buffering factors are underlying genetics as well as environmental factors like your sleep, diet, etc. For example, some people are just born with better immune systems than others just like some people are born with better functioning DNA damage repairing systems (either more overall proteins or better detection or what have you). Also, in some cases, people are born with underlying genetics that already make them susceptible to cancer such as the people with the breast cancer genes. That doesn't mean they WILL get cancer but they are MORE LIKELY to get it. Same with smokers -- some have crappy immune systems and genetics and will develop cancer quicker than others.

Quote:
My strong suspicion is that even if you accounted for glucose intake, sleep patterns, vitamin intake, etc, etc, you would still not be able to develop a linear pattern, merely a statistical demographic distribution. You wouldn't be able to predict who would get cancer, and you still wouldn't have done a thing to improve the cure rate.
If everything that you stated was the same, then yeah. If you want to look at individual risk you'd have to look at someone's genetics, immune system and other such stuff to see if they may already have underlying factors that make them more likely to get cancer.

Quote:
The basic position of the biophoton people is that carcinogens measurably interfere with light transmission in certain frequencies believed to be biologically significant. Within their model, DNA acts as a light receptor and transmitter, and of course within that model, too, damage to DNA would interfere with systemic organization.

Interestingly, though, which I will put here since you are unlikely to read my links, Popp and his colleagues did experiments over ten years ago in which they exposed biopsied tumer tissues to varied chemotherapeutic agents (every "chemo" is unique, and 4 different doctors would mix it up for the same patient 8 different ways, depending on the day, from what I can tell), and those which most affected biophoton emission were considered to be most efficacious, and that basic process appears to have borne fruit. If I'm not mistaken, they patented it.

I see all these scientists offering long, detailed, exhaustingly documented, scientific statements, which yield absolutely nothing of practical value. Reading them, one would assume the situation was under control. But it isn't, and I can't blame solely vastly increased numbers of industrial pollutants.

As far as I can tell, about the only clear reason for declines in the rates of cancer mortality result from an overall reduction in rates of smoking.
Haha, sorry about not reading. Saw that then I had to comment. If I get some time after I go to the hospital I'll check it out.

I can't speak for the efficacy of biophoton treatment or whatever but it does sound intriguing. What doctors or what have you are finding out, ironically, is that the body is pretty complex in that it responds different to things than you generally would suspect because all of the machinery within the cell. If biophoton is indeed a good method of treatment, I am sure it will come to the forefront of medicine in the future.

Most people treat the "systems" whether it be the government, companies or even the medical system where they're wholly corrupt.. which with my dealings with it and learning about how it works I do not believe to be the case. There is always at least some level of corruption though which I hate to admit, but it's not AS prevalent as the naysayers think it is. Thus, I am always pretty skeptical of things especially stuff like the people who believe that the whole HIV/AIDS thing is fake or the WTC wasn't destroyed by terrorists but by Bush with bombs in the buildings and such. Crazy accusations without lots of evidence or knowing a lot of the facts.

edit: well what I was talking about was groups saying there's like 10,500 chemicals that are untested in personal care products and such like that in that previous paragraph. If they are why don't you list them and what they're in and then take it up to a government or better yet you can skip them and raise your own funds to run them through Ames tests. Makes me a bit skeptical especially if they're not listing the chemicals because it seems like people are just making stuff up to be controversial or suspicious of a government conspiracy or whatnot. Same with the oncologists.

Last edited by Steven Low : 12-02-2007 at 07:37 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2007, 07:38 PM   #17
Emily Mattes
Member Emily Mattes is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Baltimore  MD
Posts: 1,015
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Barry, I will be straight: the biophoton stuff sounds like a load of hooey. If it was as ground-breaking as you claimed it would see more press than a couple of "experimental biology" journals--the only places I can find it discussed in Pub Med. The article you linked to is very Time Cube (WFS), a bunch of random, abstract statements barely linked together into a cohesive argument. Reminds me a lot of the fancy water scams (WFS) you see on infomercials advertising "anti-cancer" water.

Cancer is an incredibly complex creature. I do not know as much as Steven clearly does, but from the journalism I've read its many incarnations and many possible instigators (not that there is only one for any cancer) makes it very difficult for scientists to pinpoint the exact reason for which it exists and develop treatments based on that. The current treatments are based on slowing its growth; prevention is attempting to limit risk factors.

Vast conspiracy theory models are very attractive because they are exciting and help explain away phenomena that is upsetting and difficult to understand and control. Rather than think about the history of colon cancer on your Dad's side or watch Relay for Life and despair at all the victims' names, we come up with these "cures" that we think will make everything better if we just latch onto them hard enough. They are presented by people who take advantage of our fear and ignorance with pseudo-scientific language and promises of healing.

Wonder, from a very practical standpoint, what exactly is the advantage to the government perpetuating this kind of conspiracy? Maybe short-term profits from bribes from big companies, but in the end you get a population riddled with cancer and disease, a substandard workforce barely capable of running your nation, and products completely untradeable on an international market because your products have garnered a dangerous reputation. As China is finding out, investments in health, the environment, and food and product quality control are very beneficial in the long run.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2007, 08:17 PM   #18
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

The principle text on this, Biophotonen, is meticulously researched, and "grundlich", to use the German phrase. It goes into detail to the point of pedantry, and includes substantially ALL research done that even remotely touches on the topic for the last 400 years or so. The Bibliography alone is 29 pages. The science is solid, but it conflicts in LARGE ways with everything molecular biology stands for.

With respect to conspiracy theories, large scale failures can readily be deduced from everyday experience. For example, I often deal with large corporations. Corporations like to have meetings, where everyone who might be affected by something is invited to sit in a room and pretend to look interested for an hour or two, or all day.

Now, to combine examples, one company with which I have worked is a large pharamaceutical company. The way it works, is if you want to get promoted, you change jobs within the company every three years or so. All you have to do is bide you time and not screw up, and you get promoted. You do not have long term personal ownership of any project that demands progress.

You have to appear to be making progress, you have to show up to work, work late, and above all, not annoy anyone. The best way to annoy someone is to do something really new, or out of step with what everybody else is doing. Unless you can make it work right away--in which case you get labelled a Wunderkind--you are putting a ceiling on your promotion potential.

So, we sit in this meeting, and you get this bright idea. One side of you says to go ahead an blurt it out, but the other wants to ponder it futher. Both sides have good arguments, but the balance is in favor of doing nothing, and then suddenly the meeting is over, the time is gone.

All it takes for a large system to go awry is for every person within it to have a slightly stronger reason to do nothing, than to do something. This is a basic fact of social psychology, and if its true that many corporations are hiding what they suspect (they may not always know) to be true about chemicals x, y, or z, then it's a bunch of people who are ordinary, who just want to advance in their careers, who are slightly more inclined to say nothing, than something. "Somebody else will out it". It's not really my job, etc. etc.

I have no reason to doubt some of this is going on. I've met far too many of these people. They are not bad, so much as weak.

The same thing applies in the world of science. Anyone who claims that radically new ideas--that are not properly formatted within existing paradigms--are accepted easily, is misunderstanding personal and social psychological reality, in my view.

Again, you have large groups of people trying to decide if saying what they really think is worth the risk, and the fact is that risk takers get punished, and often are not going to be able to work in the fields for which they trained.

A famous recent example was a Smithsonian academic who was drummed out of the organization for publishing a peer reviewed article that did not comply with the existing academic faith. Yet, he followed the process. He had qualified academics look at it, and only after their approval that the piece was sufficiently meritorious to advance to publication for further review and discussion--to facilitate progress--did he publish it. It didn't matter.

The best way to think of this, in my view, is that where thinking should be like water--in that it conforms exactly to whatever material is next to it--too often it becomes clotted in blocks of rigid ice, so that the congruence between possible perceptions and what is actually allowed in is very poor.

I've been reading up on the efficacy of chemotherapy, and as far as I can tell, outside of a couple very specific, relatively rare cancers, the success rates are less than 10%.

I read Lance Armstrong's book "It's not about the bike". Remember they did brain surgery on him? They cut out of him a variety of cancers, then supplemented that with chemo. That's what they do. My strong suspicion is that if you combine early detection with aggressive surgery, you have 90% of whatever progress we may have made in the last 100 years, and it's not at all clear things are not getting worse, which may or may not be because of pollutants.

We need to demand either results or humility.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2007, 01:39 AM   #19
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
I've been reading up on the efficacy of chemotherapy, and as far as I can tell, outside of a couple very specific, relatively rare cancers, the success rates are less than 10%.

. . . My strong suspicion is that if you combine early detection with aggressive surgery, you have 90% of whatever progress we may have made in the last 100 years . . .
Barry,

Do you think you could point us towards some of the data behind this conclusion?

I like your posts, and I don't want to turn your participation here into a homework assignment, but when your ideas are presented like this -- interesting, with allusion to evidence but none actually given -- I have a hard time being compelled.

As the saying goes, there are many things we could imagine being true which are not the case. I've had fever dreams with some really good ones, but that didn't make them reality.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2007, 06:43 AM   #20
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

I looked at a lot of sites, many of them dating back to the 90's. Here is a WFS link that is the first one I came across in a Google search: http://www.healingdaily.com/conditio...treatments.htm

If you click on this WFS link, you get the following quote: http://www.healingdaily.com/conditio...-of-cancer.htm

"Dr. Moss' work documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy on most forms of cancer. However, Dr. Moss is fair in pointing out that there are the following exceptions: Hodgkin's disease, Acute lymphocytic leukemia, and testicular cancer. Also, a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma. But all of these account for only 2% to 4% of all cancers occurring in the U.S.. This leaves 96% to 98% of other cancers, for which chemotherapy doesn't eliminate the disease. The vast majority of cancers, such as colon, breast, and lung cancer are barely touched by chemotherapy."

Think about the people you've known who had cancer. I can't think of one who went through chemo and lived (N=about 5). I can think of quite a few who had operable cancer and survived and are apparently still thriving.

I think it IS very interesting that the people sitting on the boards of the cancer institutes are also the people whose other incomes depend on the creation of profitable new anti-cancer drugs. The chemo industry is a 10 billion dollar industry. That's a lot of money for the dismally poor results they are achieving outside of the 2-4% where odds are decent, and even there results are merely more likely, not guaranteed.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running in the sand Blair Book Fitness 10 11-07-2007 08:46 AM
Sandbag sand? Jason Billows Equipment 14 03-14-2007 12:48 PM
Sand Bags Fiona Muxlow Equipment 16 07-26-2006 11:19 PM
Sand alternative for sand bag Eugene R. Allen Equipment 16 04-22-2005 04:55 PM
SAND BAGS Zach Even - Esh Equipment 4 03-09-2005 08:00 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.