UKC

Just watching this Bear Grylls TV circus and a promo came on that 1 in 2 of us will get Cancer within our lifetime. Obviously this is utter BS and so how on earth does this shit get broadcast?

In reply to Dominicandave:

Cancer.gov say around 40 percent and cancerresearch say around 50 percent so fairly accurate.

In reply to Dominicandave:

What makes you say it's bs? I'll admit it's gone up a bit in the last few years from 1 in 3. Cancer is very common and we tend to live a long time these days. Not all cancers kill. In fact an insane number of men will have prostate cancer when they die, it's just not that which had killed them as it is often very slow growing.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Seems likely as we all live longer.

In reply to Dominicandave:

100% of us die of something. Since we're getting much better at stopping people dying from strokes and heart disease, the other stuff we die from makes up a bigger slice of the total.

I just don't believe that, unless they are putting cancer in a wider bracket now.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I agree, but have half the people you know died of cancer? Like me no. Infact I know about 6 people who got the C and died from it in 43 years. And I have known about 10 times that + have died, that I knew and much much more 100x that I didn't know but know that didn't die of cancer.

What a ridiculous claim.

In reply to Dominicandave:

1/2 of people will get cancer isn't the same as half will die of it. Lots of people these days get cancer and it's treatable.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Sorry to say, yes, including a number of family members, Dave. I think you are letting your personal experience override the reality of the matter. Also puzzled by the level of hostility you seem to have to this ('utter BS/shit/ridiculous').

In reply to marsbar:


Good point, so the numbers of recoveries must be pretty good. I must admit I initially jumped on the negative and didn't consider most cancers are recoveries these days. Still quite a claim, that I'm as likely to get cancer as anyone else.

In reply to marsbar:

Exactly. I have had cancer as have may people I know. Most are still alive.

About 50% is accurate. Cancer Research are in one of the best positions to make such a prediction. Why do you say it's wrong?

Because of improved early diagnosis, coupled with ever improving treatments cancer is generally no longer the feared death sentence that it used to be.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Yeh, I understand why you may feel my hostility is overkill, I guess it is. I'm still adjusting to being connected.

In reply to Dominicandave:

So will it be Dominic(an) or Dave, or could it just be stats and both are affected?(Or not?)

In reply to Dominicandave:

I am 34, and I already know 5 people my age who have had (and survived) cancer. As well as those my own age, I have just lost my Grandpa (last night) who had lung cancer. My Father-in-Law has leukaemia, and my friend's wee boy also got leukaemia aged 2 and a half (he now has the all clear). As I get older, I expect to know a much greater number of people affected with a cancer, as these things tend to increase with age. Maybe I will be lucky and not get it, or maybe I will draw the short straw.
I can believe the statistic.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Added to the number of recoveries, there's a wide range of cancers which don't kill people very quickly and so which are present when we die of other things. IIRC most men with bowel and prostate cancers never have it diagnosed and die of something else entirely.

In reply to girlymonkey:

I had a friend who came as a locum nurse from Oxford where she was told by the GP there that the mass in her breast was just a cyst and not of concern.Consequently she went to the GP in Stamford who referred straight away, but the time factor was lost.So the worry is finding the neoplasm at an early stage, especially when there is probably still a lot of ignorance out there.
Abigail died at the age of 38 when her immune system attacked her nervous tissue in her brain as the antigens on the nervous tissue were similar to the tumours' antigens. So she died in a degenerative state that left her paralysed, blind and going deaf.All could possibly have been avoided if the original GP had been more informed and not so ignorant.

In reply to girlymonkey:



Sorry to hear that. Condolences, and I hope you're as OK as you can be in the circumstances.

In reply to Trangia:

Why do you say it's wrong?



I guess it depends where you live. Thankfully being in the UK you have a far better chance of surviving than if you are from a developing country. I guess the claim is based on UK statistics.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Yes sorry, and condolences for the loss of your grandpa.

In reply to veteye:


Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me. Try again if you truly want a reply.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Cancer rates are increasing too, as well as the likely hood of developing it increasing as people stay alive for longer.

I understand that alcohol is a biggie for women to do with developing cancer , and isn't so great for men. More than moderate alcohol consumption, that is, and look at how a lot of people drink. I'd probably be drinking similarly if it hadn't started making me glum, a silver lining I guess.

There's the 'cancer corridors' either sides of motorways too (and also main roads I guess)...

In reply to Dominicandave:



If you live in the UK you stand a greater chance of dying of cancer than if you live in the developing world.

In reply to Dominicandave:


No worries. Some interesting figures in this link:
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/2016-02-...

In reply to Dominicandave:

I am splitting you up into Dominic and Dave.So with a 1 in 2 chance of cancer, perhaps 1 of you will get it, but then again in a sample size of 2(or in fact 1) both may get it or neither may get it.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It's ok, he was ready to go. He was 85, so had a good innings. He was reasonably active until the last 6 months or so when he just started having more and more health problems. How much of his failing health was due to the cancer, and how much was just old age alongside the cancer, I guess we will never know. But whichever, the deterioration in the last 6 months or so made it such that he was no longer able to live a fulfilling life, and he was in a lot of discomfort for the last few weeks. I was glad when I heard this morning that he had gone, he is no longer suffering

In reply to DaveHK:

I am completely aware of that, as the chances of getting cancer are so slimmer if you live in a developing region. Yet if you have cancer in a developing region you are 99% more likely to die of it than if you live in the UK.
I have spent the last 20 years of my life in developing regions and although most people are more likely to die of cancers as there is no treatment, far far fewer actually have cancer come across them.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Sorry for your loss, hope the family are appreciating his life. Bless x

In reply to Dominicandave:

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-cancer-rates-inc...

In reply to Monk:


75% of men will have prostate cancer when they're 65, was the statistic I heard. But though it's a killer it is, as you say, normally so slow to grow that men usually die of something else first.

The overall situation is that since life expectancy is increasing and medicine keeps improving, the things that used to kill people at a younger age don't do that so much any more. So other things that used not to be a problem now kill people at an older age and so account for a greater proportion of deaths.

Cheerful subject...

T.

In reply to DaveHK:


Is that not due to people in the developing world dying of malnutrition, war and all sorts of horrible illnesses before cancer gets a chance to develop?

In reply to Dominicandave:


So the thread starts with you getting overly excited about a statistic, then you pull this out of no-where... irony?

LD

In reply to Dominicandave:


It says get cancer... look at how many men die with prostate cancer, not of it, just have it.

I'd say a true statement.

In reply to Dominicandave:


No, its not recovery.. My gran got cancer at 73 and was told she had 5 years or she could fight it, she took the 5, got 6.. she could have faught it and made it 8 and died of something else.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Just in my immediate family, my mum had bowel cancer, my dad stomach and prostate cancer, my brother died of leukaemia, my sister had breast cancer, my nephew had retinoblastoma and my niece Ewing's sarcoma.

In reply to Timmd:



Good article indeed. The graph showing risk by age against life expectancy says it all.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Cancer research and treatment is a highly profitable commercial machine, so whether its true or not, 50% is a v powerful figure to wield - because it helps generate further funds.

There's a lot of references in this thread to the chances of getting cancer and statistically this may be correct. However, developing cancer for any one of us need not just be down to chance. So if you're shocked by '50%' turn it into motivation to not be in that group - clean-up on your act and live with greater confidence.

Your body has the capability to deal with mutant cancer startups - which for some will be happening on a manageable ongoing basis; check this out and get a grip !

https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/ketogenic-diet-weakens-cancer-cells/

In reply to Dominicandave:

You are obviously lucky in your friends and family. I am lucky in that none of my grandparents had or have cancer. Talking to my OH's gran last week though, she and her brothers all lost their partners to cancer and my 2 widowed neighbours lost their wives to cancer. In the next generation, My uncle lost his ear to melanoma and his wife is currently on chemo for a blood cancer.

In reply to LeeWood:


I believe [in my ignorance] that you are right, or rather, Cancer Research UK say 4 out of 10 cancer cases could be prevented, and also say "through scientific research, we know that our risk actually depends on a combination of our genes, our environment and aspects of our lives, many of which we can control". Here's the link to their website about that:

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/can-cancer-be...

In reply to Dominicandave:
Its very interesting (not!) how people mix and match statistics for there own ends, depending on their needs.
Prostate cancer does not kill many men, however once is has spread, especially into bone, thats when the serious complication starts,causing a poor outcome.

Not all cancers have the same survival rates.
50% of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the bronchus (lung) will die in the first 12months of diagnosis.
I was diagnosed with the above 6 months ago( well on Weds!)...and despite surgery x2 (which had a70% success rate..I was in the 30%) and then followed up by a large dose of radiotherapy, I am still awaiting an outcome.
Although I am in reasonable physical shape, the mental aspects of focus and trying to stay strong are very difficult.
All I am trying to say is the if you dont like the message, turn over channels, if you want to give money to the donkey sanctuary thenfeel free to do so. But please dont pass this off as bullshit..because to me and all the others I see and here going through it is far from the truth.
Hope the advert didnt spoil your viewing of Mr Grylls.
Cheers
Nick B

In reply to LeeWood:


You can pretty much guarantee that any website called thetruthabout... is anything but.

A quick look at this one confirms this, it's a typical conspiracy site with an anti-business, anti-conventional medicine agenda peddling quack diets and vitamin pills. You are barely into the 'Cancer Causes' section before they've mentioned Nazi death camps (Bayer), the evil that is the CDC's vaccination strategy, the cancer risk from wifi and sun screens and masterly piece on how cancers are all caused by 'toxins' ignoring the fact that mostly it's caused by living longer and not dying of something else.

There's the occasional nugget of truth (eating and drinking things that are too hot does increase the risk of mouth and oesophageal cancer, for instance), but it's mostly political and profit-driven half-truths and pseudoscience.

In reply to LeeWood



A quick look at that website and it is obvious that it is a sort of unscientific/ conspiracy/alternative medicine load of dangerous bollocks preying on the vulnerable.

In reply to Timmd:


This proves the point of the OP, rather than explaining it.

It's a very poorly written article.

"Our new figures today demonstrate the impact of cancer on society with more accuracy.

Half of us will hear the words “you have cancer” at some point in our lives."

This isn't true, the new figures are for anyone born in or after 1960, so not half of us.

Also it is a forecast, partly based on a (hopefully) improved forecasting model, in fact the researchers point out that it isn't factual.

I can't see why they don't simply say that 'New forecasts suggest cancer rates could rise to 1 in 2 by 2025'.

The caveats of the researchers have been lost to the tabloid style headline.

In reply to winhill:
I don't agree that it's as bad as you say. At points the wording could be better, but they go into a lot of detail and provide statistics showing (among other things) the link between living longer and there being more chance of developing cancer. If one actually wants to know the related statistics and caveats, they're there to be found.

Everybody has their own opinion - so each to their own...

In reply to Dave Garnett & Robert Durran:

Its a sure thing there will be a commercial motive - which may simply be exposure to the adverts which accompany - in no way promoted by the text.

However the text of this presentation does not peddle any product - the advice contained relates to a strategy of basic nutrition which is increasingly well known in sporting circles. It allies with the acid/alkali theory of health/healing and I personally attest that this kind of diet promotes my health & well being - I didn't pass it on lightly.

In all events lets not lose sight of the principal objective - prevention of cancer. Do you believe you can minimise your risks of cancer (do you dispute the commercial interests of the page passed on by 'abseil') ? How can you do this ?

In reply to Dominicandave:

Sounds about right to me. My best mate and climbing partner died of cancer, my current climbing partner has cancer, my wife has had cancer, and my mum has cancer.

In reply to LeeWood:


Just had another quick look - it's mostly laughable pseudoscientific garbage. Found "no doctor has ever healed anyone of anything" within about thirty seconds.


No. Cancer Research UK is extremely reputable.

In reply to LeeWood:

youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg&

especially the bit at about 2.55 onwards.

In reply to LeeWood:


This quote and your link reminds me of the old travelling medicine shows ( http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php/Traveling_Medicine_S... ). The patter seems to be very similar, although nowadays you throw in some pseudoscience about toxins, acid/alkali or the four humors.

The author of the article gained his chiropractor degree from the "life university". His commercial interests include promoting his alternative medicine books, public speaking and recruiting gullible patients. The first paragraph from his bio:
"Many years ago God spoke into me and gave me a vision of my life. He put a passion inside my heart to clean the living temple of God by creating a powerful resource for community health and clean, principled living. As I pursued this vision, God blessed me with the knowledge, skills, and education to instruct, encourage and empower individuals to have more faith in their own God-given ability to heal naturally."

In reply to Robert Durran:

>

I believe there is some serious research into the effect of that type of diet on certain cancers. Obviously that website isn't it though.

In reply to Dominicandave:
also...

'The Emperor of all Maladies' by Siddhartha Mukherjee is an excellent read for anyone wishing to improve their understanding of cancer.

In reply to DaveHK:

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/cs/c5cs00705d#!divAbstra...

This will give you a good grounding on the prevention of cancer.

In reply to GregCHF:


"If science had all the answers it would have stopped"

Genius

In reply to Dominicandave:

It's complicated: http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/comparing-more-less-developed-...

In reply to GregCHF:

As it happens I have no faith in homeopathy. But interestingly this alternative therapy is the ONLY one which is refundable nationwide in France - under doctor's recommendation ie. the entire french system credits it. Some french doctors also practice acupuncture. Osteopathy is widely respected (though not re-embursed).

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Can you explain exactly how thois profit is generated ?

In reply to Robert Durran:


Absolute nonsense.

In reply to LeeWood:


Can you offer any evidence of the dodgyness of Cancer Research UK?

In reply to LeeWood:

So when you succumb to the 50/50 probability of getting cancer, I take it you'll be refusing any treatments pioneered by said organisation?

In reply to LeeWood:


Can you explain why? Actually, on second thoughts, don't bother. The opinion of anyone who takes that criminal TTAC website seriously clearly isn't worth bothering with.

In reply to LeeWood:

For a start this is the bollocks website of the clinic which the charlatan "Dr" Jockers, who wrote that ketogenic diet article, runs to make a profit by preying on the ignorant, sick and vulnerable: http://drjockers.com/clinic/

In reply to Robert Durran:

I still don't understand whu you name the site as criminal. In that page there was only dietary advice and explanation. Actions which informed folk can make for themselves without assistance from specialists. I didn't actually acquaint myself with the author - nor did I read into the rest of the site - which may not otherwise have worthwhile content.

In reply to LeeWood:

Well I did spent a couple of minutes looking at the site..........!

Oh, and by the way, the acid/alkali thing is bollocks. The food recommended is pretty healthy but its health benefits have got absolutely nothing to do with acidity/alkalinity.

And you still havn't explained what is disreputable about Cancer Research UK. I had assumed you were just a victim of the conspiracy theory about cancer research pedalled by TTAC.

In reply to DaveHK:


I'm taking this as 'cancer research in the UK' - I don't have knowledge of individual companies.

Doctors start out with good intentions but are beaten into submission by the following.

>> time/client pressure (in consulatation)
>> extravagent treating by medical reps
>> reluctance of clients for self responsibility

The result of this is that doctors need quick solutions to handout - which happily are abundant. I assure you that the pharmacalogical industry is v v commercial even though you don't see it direct on abseil's page. I have heard the tales of extravagent persuasion which are plied - not just on doctors but nurses - at all levels of seniority.

Anyway - if you have specific objections to the author or the word ketogenic (incidentally I've never tried ) then I'd be happy to stick with my assertions, as presented by abseil's web-choice.

All of the suggested ways to prevent cancer - theres a lot to be going on with

not smoking
keeping a healthy bodyweight
cutting back on alcohol
eating a healthy, balanced diet
keeping active
avoiding certain infections (such as HPV)
enjoying the sun safely
occupation (avoiding cancer risks in the workplace)

In reply to LeeWood:


Well, ok, it's not what you were asked but go on.........

......... but then you say absolutely nothing about cancer research - just cancer treatment.



All of which are very widely known, no doubt in some part due to the good work of Cancer Research UK.

In reply to LeeWood:

>> extravagent treating by medical reps

I'm intrigued to know what you think happens here, I'd pretty much guarantee it's wrong.

In reply to LeeWood:


...and yet you recommend we acquaint ourselves this utter bollocks and believe in your crazy conspiracy nonsense.

In reply to LeeWood:





Cancer Research UK is an independent research charity which funds academic and clinical research. It's completely reputable. I've worked in their Birmingham labs and it's as academically rigorous as any research, anywhere.

I think you have a picture of cancer treatment and the malign influence of commercial companies which has more to do with US healthcare than anything that happens here (UK, I mean, I don't know about Spain).

Underneath some of the nonsense and right-wing paranoia of anything government-organised on that website, I can see something behind it that I do understand. There's a feeling that cancer patients are being conned (ironically, they certainly are by some of the advertisers on the site) and that people should take more responsibility for their own health and not rely on others (whether that's evil Big Government or evil Big Pharma) to cure them.

This last part I completely agree with, and I wouldn't quibble with any of the factors on your list. The problem comes when all this very sensible healthy living tips over into swallowing a whole lot of woo pseudomedicine based on misunderstood (or cynically misexplained) physiology (especially nutrition and metabolism) - and this is nearly always being pushed by discredited (or just plain fake) experts with a big vested interest. Especially in the US the potential target market of gullible worried well (or, sadly, desperate sick) is huge and if you can persuade just a small percentage to sign up for $100 worth of antioxidants or a new diet fad or self-help book, you can become very wealthy.

I'm always suspicious of anyone selling something who has PhD in large font after their name, but without any attribution as to where it's from.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Actually the second most common form of fatal cancer in men in 2014:
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/stati...

In respect of the OP's issue - both parents, ex mother in law ( bravest passing I've seen, given 3 months to live she had a farewell party for her friends and developed a bucket list with her family.) sister (30 years ago, breast cancer, still going strong) son(testicular, in remission) numerous colleagues and friends - no, I believe the 1 in 2 stat.

But, guys, look after your man bits!




Agreed!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Unfortunately I have to admit - I cherry-picked this article for the nuggets of sense which fit into my framework of understanding - and it wasn't a great choice to pass on for you - sorry. Fact is that I'm equally suspicious of anyone peddling expensive supplements.

My focus is TOTALLY on home-based lifestyle choices which can elevate basic health - and render a person less susceptible to disease of all kinds. Some of this is blatant (not smoking) and some trickier to grasp.

Otherwise, I have no hard facts to offer in respect of cancer research (which as you say I'm probably confusing with treatment BUT tell me - is reseatch funded ONLY by generated charity funds? How can we be certain that funding does not come from pharma with its commercial bias and agenda ? What is cancer research currently trying to prove - other than discovery of a new drug - which would inevitably open opportunity for commercial exploitation ?

In reply to Lemony:

I have personally known those who work in the health system. It happens.

In reply to LeeWood:

Gosh, that settles it. We're lucky to have the benefit of your uniquely privileged position.

In reply to LeeWood:

Unfortunately Cancer Research UK are extremely clandestine and they've hidden their annual report and accounts where nobody could possibly find it (so EVIL). Fortunately I'm such an elite hacker I've found a way to hack into the matrix and expose the truth (be careful the Illuminati will be onto you as soon as you click on this link):
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cancer+research+uk+annual+report

Now you've uncovered the truth behind cancer research I think you should move onto the faked moon landings.

In reply to colinakmc:

If you want the most informed info on prostate cancer this is the organisation to consult (and support)

http://prostatecanceruk.org/research?gclid=Cj0KEQjwvIO_BRDt27qG3YX0w4wBEiQA...

I had a radical prostatectomy in 2012

In reply to Lurking Dave:



Yes I did pull that stat out of my arse, but i think it is pretty likely that those not receiving treatment are more likely to die than those who do. I did not think I needed to produce specifics to make a point that is so obvious.

In reply to LeeWood:


Thanks for being so frank. It's certainly true that healthier lifestyles are going to have a much greater impact on incidence and prevalence of most forms of cancer than any pharmaceutical intervention.

I've been an academic researcher (only tangentially cancer-related, I was an immunologist) and before that I did work in sales and marketing for a couple of pharmaceutical companies (again, not directly oncology, but I had friends who did). Whilst I don't share the commonly held belief that everything pharma does is cynical and evil, I think it is true that, especially in the area of oncology, for quite a while there was been a lot of competitive effort wasted in me-too marginal improvements and some pretty questionable non-publication of unhelpful data generated privately.

However, there have been moves towards forcing the publication of all data, positive or not and anyway the world has moved on with the arrival of genomics, a much better understanding of oncogenesis and the failure of tumour suppression at a molecular level and, especially, some real progress with immunotherapy.

The real answer to your question about what you can believe lies in our system of peer-reviewed research applications and publications. Independent research is funded from a mixture of charitable foundations like the Wellcome Trust and CRUK - originating from the merger of ICRF (as in the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, not the characters sponsoring the web page we were discussing) and the Cancer Research Campaign, and government-funded research counsels, like the Medical Research Counsel. Between them, the charities and government fund research centres (like the MRC unit I worked in) and pay researchers in the form of studentships and fellowships (like the Wellcome trust which kindly funded me). Additionally, many medical researchers will be academic scientists or clinicians paid by universities and/or the NHS. None of these people will be reliant on funding from the pharmaceutical industry for their living. Where pharma does help fund studies, there are strict codes of conduct ensuring they can't bias the results or prevent publication.

I'm sure there will be somebody along with more current experience but, although you are right to cautious about all research findings, you're wrong to be cynical about all of it.

In reply to Trangia:


Obviously that sounds terrible and all and I hope you're doing well with it but can I just say, whenever I hear the phrase "radical prostatectomy" I mentally append the word "Duuuuuuuude" onto the sentence.

In reply to Dominicandave:

These are the 'lifetime risks'.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk/...

In reply to Lemony:


Glad it's not just me! I always wonder what the way radical prostatectomy would be.

In reply to Dominicandave:

As above, this is far from BS. I imagine the real figure would be closer to 100% incidence. If one looks at data from animal studies, the controls often have some lumps and bumps, described by the pathologist as a tumor. However, these studies go to great lengths to identify all neoplastic lesions, large or small. If we went to the same lengths in humans, I suspect we would turn up many more tumors, which is why I imagine the real cancer incidence in humans may well be closer to 100%.

This doesn't mean it will be the cause of death.

In reply to Lusk:


Absolutely. My philosophy of health is to do all in my power to avoid major problems, and accept that life is finite. Its well known that many cancer treatments are not successful and end without dignity. This happened to our friend recently - victim of lung cancer. At the point she accepted treament she was in pain but coherent and mobile. Within weeks she was then confined to hospital - where she died - probably from the treatment.

In reply to LeeWood:

Can I have a reference for that.

Such as a government website, national health service web site or reputable publication.

Blogs don't count.

In reply to LeeWood:

Also can you please explain this acid/alkali thing.

Proper references welcomed here too.

In reply to LeeWood:


But many others are successful, leading to total cure, especially if the cancer is caught early, or at least extending good quality life by years. Would you also turn down palliative medical care pioneered by the Cancer Research UK which would allow you to die with dignity rather than in prolonged pain (which is the "natural" end game with cancer).

In reply to LeeWood:


Do you also refuse anti-biotics?

Not all treatments are so agressive.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


To be consistent and non-hypocritical he would have to refuse all evidence-based medicine.

In reply to LeeWood:
Are you sure your not confusing cancer treatment with palliative care?

Would you similarly object to the use of cancer vaccines, which work with the body's immune system? Something tells me you are an anti-vaxer.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I'm not aware of latest techniques which translate research results into treatments. For me a lot of chronic health treatment classifies as immoral, when little attempt is made in prevention and when the treatments involve great expense. ex. if for my treatment alone 100, 1000 (pick a number) persons in the third world could be made well or saved from dying - that opens a big question-mark.

The point is - for many cancer comes at close of life - as many posters have noted - its only possible because we live longer. So comes the question why attempt to prolong life (often of a lower quality) on an over-crowded planet. Of course there are plenty of other leads which suggest its NOT just end-of-life, but distinctly western lifestyle. The content of abseil's reposted list makes that clear (eg. obesity).

Back to my original intervention. If the result of cancer research is that it better informs the populace to prevent they're hospitilisation the I'll be happy. Actually only yesterday on French national radio there was discussion of a new initiative to do just that.

Headline: '40% of all cancers avoidable'
http://actu.orange.fr/france/40-de-cancers-evitables-lancement-d-une-campag...

Key messages propsed in the campagne include - 'No thanks I don't smoke any more', 'I would rather take a fruit juice', and ' For me that will be just a salad'. Action distintcly anti-commercial - Hurray !!

In reply to snowmore:

Yes indeed - never had one vaccine. Took antibiotics on ONE occasion for Lyme's - never apparent whether it worked because I still have some symptoms.

In reply to Robert Durran:

hahahahahaha, consistency? Is that not a conspiracy dreamed up by big pharma to make it look like they are the good guy, when really they are being subversive and taking all you money!!

I mean they produce drugs and immunisations to try and help keep the population health, what bastards!!!

In reply to LeeWood:

Your original statement was about how "ketosis" and how the french were funding the diet.

This web page does not address this point at all. It effectively says stop smoking and reduce your cancer risk.

I mean this is ground breaking stuff. I'm glad you shared it with us, but is does not support the original thesis you put forwards

In reply to LeeWood:

Cancer treatment is difficult and discussions like this, using "cancer" to cover every variation of cancer leads to lots of anecdotal tales that don't help an informed discussion. Full disclosure, my wife is a medical oncologist (cancer doctor who gives chemo). She also has a PhD, which was funded by a university, CRUK and a pharma company.

Lots of people have made decisions/lifestyle choices that will have increased their chances of getting some form of cancer. This may be for a variety of reasons, from lack of knowledge/information/education to an escape from the difficulties of life. Some people are just dealt a a bad hand/are unlucky. I don't really think any should be denied treatment. Its's great you're taking responsibility for your own health, as should everyone, but that won't safeguard you, just tip the balance slightly in your favour.

Not all cancer treatments end with you dying without dignity, some end up with you being cured, other extend the time you can lead a fullfilling and active life. Don't write them all off on the back of a personal experience. Lung cancer is pretty bad, survival rates are poor so I imagine your friend was not in a good way. There will always be differences of opinion in how to treat these things and doctors in the same field will disagree at times (whether to treat to cure, to palliate etc) and I'm sure some doctors do push to treat when maybe that's not the right thing but, in general, we are heading in the right direction.

(Apologies for the rambling post. I had a lot of things to say and failed to get most of them down but have to get back to work!)

In reply to LeeWood:

So to summarise your position:
Cancer treatment = Bad
Vaccinations = Bad
Antibiotics = Ok (sort of)

However, your entire research has consisted of cherry-picked "...nuggets of sense which fit into my framework of understanding". I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are trying to be helpful, but your input is ill-though-out, deleterious and could be harmful to vulnerable individuals.

Good, honest people have spent years of their lives devoted to helping those far less fortunate than yourself. Please credit them with a little intelligence and don't belittle their contributions.

In reply to LeeWood:

I rather agree with you about quality of life vs miserable prolongation with increasingly desperate chemotherapy but it doesn't need to be like that. I think you've ended up with a rather extreme conclusion based on well-intentioned moral scruples.

A few things to ponder.

1. Cancer treatment, or indeed any medical treatment, isn't a zero sum game. You getting an expensive treatment in the Europe or USA doesn't mean 10 people in the third world not getting it. In very many cases the third world directly benefits from drug development in the developed world. How long do you think it would have taken to develop effective antiretrovirals if AIDS was just an African problem? We can argue about the priorities and pricing but you denying yourself life-prolonging chemotherapy isn't going to help anyone in the third world.

2. It isn't just old people who get cancer, or indeed, just people who deserve it. I have worked briefly with two groups (Bristol and Oxford) whose main focus was childhood cancers and leukaemia. The kids affected aren't sick because of lifestyle choices. Indeed, globally, many people die of cancer not directly related to smoking or eating too much. What about cervical cancer (and, especially, what do you think of the HPV vaccination strategy that promises to make so much difference to the incidence)? What about all the cases of liver cancer caused by hepatitis viruses?

3. You are being pretty judgemental about lifestyle choices you don't approve of (I tend to be too), but do you expect the NHS to expend scarce resources on your self-inflicted injuries if you have a climbing accident?

In reply to LeeWood:


My dad has been fit and healthy all his life, and has done absolutely nothing that you might think would put him at risk of getting cancer. Yet he now has Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The chemo treatment he's receiving is having a *dramatic* positive effect on his strength and quality of life. We've been informed there's a high chance he will make a full recovery.

No amount of wish-washy 'avoiding major problems' or 'accepting life is finite' would have dodged this bullet, yet the medication you clearly despise is having a tangible impact for the better.

Sorry, but I think you're talking complete rubbish.

In reply to LeeWood:


Did you grow up outside the UK?
I would have thought you would have had a few in childhood as part of various programmes.

In reply to LeeWood:










Not sure about "prevent", more "may minimise the risk of certain cancers " in the same way that none of those activities will "prevent " death.

In reply to LeeWood:

Forgot to ask, do none of your miracle cures work for Lymes? It would seem odd that they work for every one of the hundreds of different forms of cancer but nothing else?

In reply to off-duty:


Why do you (and many others here) shirk the idea of prevention ?

According to your own approved CR site the figure is 42%

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk/...

and according to the french news link I earlier posted its 40% (ie. broad agreement)

Lets focus on what we CAN do rather than what we can't !!

In reply to Lemony:

Sorry, I'm being a bit dim here, but I don't really understand what you are saying?

Yes, I'm fine thanks - PSA pre op was 11, post op .002, and still is, so the long term prognosis is good.

But the op is quite traumatic, as are the side effects, but as I have thankfully discovered, with time they can be overcome.

In reply to LeeWood:

I don't shirk the idea of prevention. Vaccination being an excellent example of prevention of disease.

These are all risk factors. If you eliminate them then your chance of that specific cancer may be minimised.

It certainly a good idea to do some/all of what they suggest (incidentally suggestions based on CRC and other funded scientific research that you appear to disagree with) - but unfortunately whilst they can minimise risk, nothing can guarantee prevention of cancer.

In reply to LeeWood:


An individual cannot prevent themselves from, say, getting lung cancer by not smoking; they can just lower the risk.


That is for a large population; it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that many cases of lung cancer would not happen if nobody smoked (and so, in that sense, they would be prevented) but you would not be able to tell which individuals did not get cancer who otherwise would have.

By the way, if you were diagnosed early with a highly curable cancer such as testicular cancer and were told that you, say, had an 80% chance of complete cure with treatment, but, say, a 75% chance of dying within 5 years without, can you honestly say that you would you refuse the treatment?

In reply to bouldery bits:

Yes, think I agree with what you say. As other posts say not all cancers kill and we are getting better at treating them. Still a long way to go though. Used to work in small molecule drug discovery in cancer therapy for one of the big pharma companies.

In reply to LeeWood:

My (very limited) understanding of cancer is, the older we get, cell division degrades introducing errors, of which some become cancerous. So, as we all live longer, I can see where the 1 in 2 figure is coming from. It's just a fact of life.

With cancer treatment having now reached the >50% duccess rate, if you want to refuse treatment, more fool you.
You keep on with your hippy, tree hugging (I know, want of a better phrase) attitudes.

In reply to kipper12:



I was going the other way. As stats may well be taken on the number of individual cases of cancer, including one person who may have several different types of cancer and some who may get cancer over and over, I was thinking the true number of people, individuals getting cancer would be less. It's complicated as I've read so much on it now, but this I mention above does seem to be a reason why I was shocked by the stats. I can't get away from the fact I was oblivious to the severity of the problem, but I still find 50% of people hard to believe.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Yes 50% of us will get cancer. Thats a statistical fact. However not all who get it will die of it, if it is slow growing or they will be effectively cured.

In reply to Dominicandave:


1: why are you watching Bear Grylls TV, have you got brain cancer?
2: It's a mystery how BG BS gets on TV in the first place.

In reply to Dominicandave:



Not ridiculous at all in my estimation. I think nearly half the people I knew of my own generation who have already died did so of cancer, and that includes 5 who died in mountaineering accidents. My wife had cancer and fortunately survived. Looking at my parent's generation the proportion is probably more than half. As others have said it's largely the result of us now being much better at curing or preventing other life-threatening conditions.

I believe one day we will find a cure for cancer. If we had spent as much on the research as we have on, for example, weapons we would probably be there already. But when that day comes another disease or condition will jump to pole position in the statistics. And average life-expectancy will take a big leap with a lot of unforeseen social problems.

Martin

In reply to Dominicandave:


Hopefully, as a UKC contributor you are less likely to die of cancer than a random "anyone else". I would guess you don't smoke, aren't obese and eat reasonably healthily. But it could still get you, none-the-less.

Martin

In reply to LeeWood:

Why do you think it was from the treatment? My Mum went down hill quite rapidly towards the end as well, and that was without treatment (she was too ill for it).

Some cancer treatments 'are' successful, like my late family friend who was given treatment for breast cancer and stayed around for another 20 odd years - before a very rare form of cancer killed her. It's your choice of course, but probably make sure it's a well informed one for something as serious.

In reply to Trangia:

Hey, sorry, it's the use of the word "Radical", makes it sound like something done by a 90s surf bum.

In reply to LeeWood:







I like the morals behind this post.

In reply to Timmd:

I don't like it. It's unscientific and a bit victim blaming.

In reply to marsbar:
I was thinking about his pondering about whether he'd take the treatment himself, when it could pay for something which helped lots of people in Africa, rather than the rest, with how some people have the odds stacked against them to do with their genes and where they grow up & live and might breath in polluted air. I see what you mean about it being unscientific and victim blaming.

In reply to Timmd:
I see what you mean, but the sad reality is we don't move money about like that.
All that would happen is the money would go elsewhere here.

In reply to Trangia:

That's a really helpful link, thanks for sharing that. Do you feel inclined yto share your outcomes from your surgery? (I have this feeling that men are more likely to go for the check early if they actually know that something can be done about it!)

In reply to colinakmc:

Yes, if anyone is concerned and wants to PM me in confidence I am happy to share if I can, bearing in mind that no two cases are necessarily the same and there is a range of options/treatments for dealing with prostate cancer. What was suitable for me may not be suitable for someone else.

In reply to Dominicandave:


That's not what the statistic means. You were always as likely to get cancer as anyone else (anyone else in the same general risk brackets as you, that is, eg family history, lifestyle, environmental factors etc). It's just that the likelihood is higher than you thought.

The odds of winning the lottery are about 14 million to one. If I buy one ticket a week then I'm just as likely to win it as anyone else who buys one ticket a week. If the odds were six to one, that wouldn't make any difference: I'd still be just as likely to win as the other guy.

In reply to LeeWood:

You are right about prevention and lowering your risks. But aside from a couple of well knows examples, risk promoting factor require so much more research.

You are getting hammered on here because you posted a spurious site, the only goal of witch is to extort desperate and vulnerable people out of money.

The original post was about ketosis and acid/alkali diet as a cancer treatment, both of which are BS and have not basis in science.

You are also appear to be anti big pharma. Again please look in to the drug development pathway. You will then understand how much money is required in the industry to be able to fund research in to new treatment.

It is very short sited to say industry shouldn't make profit on the drugs they are selling. Just to recoup the costs of getting a drug to market requires that drug to make millions in profit.

If drug companies can't recoup costs, then the will have to close down. If you support that, then you are supporting the death of millions of not billions of people world wide every year.

In reply to GregCHF:

A lot of money is available for research - so why should it matter that 'prevention needs a lot'. If it can result in the correct knowledge it is by far favorable to avoid cancer in the first place. Otherwise - to you and other posters - there are a whole bunch of us out here who don't need the official bodies to spend billions - its far too OBVIOUS! All of the factors on the Prevention list relate to western living - which can be summed up as follows:

>> processing of foodstuffs and factory farming
>> presence of chemicals in food farmland buildings cars ... you-name-it
>> contamination with radiation - from radiowaves to wifi to portables
>> contamination of our water supply with divers chemicals and drug residues
>> acceptance of sedentary lifestyles
>> use and overuse of medications - among humans and livestock

There's ample motivation to go live like a hippy - if thats how you wish to categorise!

So why - if someone sells a few supplements (and for which the client has accepted willingly) - is this extorsion, while the pharma's making money be honorable. I assure you far more is made with pharma.

Have you heard of chinese medicine? I know v little about it and to me its unscientific. They talk about foods being cooling and warming - BUT - a vast nation has thrived on this 'nonsense' for millenia. Now - I can find no scientific basis for acid/alkali theory of foods - but this does not mean it doesn't work. In the acid alkali theory alkali foods are said to be healing - and it just happens that these are all mineral/vitamin rich - and likely to boost potassium levels. Sounds great to me; western diet is heavy on calories, protein, fat and sodium. I don't need to understand the precise biochemistry for lemon being alkali.

In reply to LeeWood:


Of course it is. Nobody is saying otherwise. Loads of money is spent on making people aware of ways of reducing their risk of getting cancer.


Until you are unlucky enough to get cancer despite a healthy lifestyle and need medicine (unless of course you'd prefer to just die an inevitable painful medicine free death).


Because the supplements pedalled in that evil (I choose the word carefully) website don't work whereas evidence based medicine does. The supplement paedallers prey on the desperation of dying people to make money.


Apparently the foods recommended for the acid/alkali diet do happen to constitute a pretty healthy diet but its got absolutely nothing to do with ph.

In reply to LeeWood:

Every post you make reinforces the rationale behind not taking medical advice from "someone on the internet".

Leaping out of the incoherence here is :

>> contamination with radiation - from radiowaves to wifi to portables

So you are coming across as an anti-vaxxer, who believes a " healthy" (self-defined ) life can prevent them getting cancer and thinks Wi-Fi is harmful.

Hmmm.

In reply to LeeWood:


53rd on the list of countries by life expectancy. 3 biggest causes of death: stroke, heart disease, lung disease.

Sounds like they've nailed it to me.

Who's top of the list? Mostly western countries practising evidence based medicine.

In reply to LeeWood:


Weeell, perhaps you could do with understanding it just a little bit better.

In reply to LeeWood:


That's ironic given that, you yourself have repeatedly stated that you have made no effort to understand the topic. Nobody in this thread has ever denied that prevention is better than cure. It's a fundamental tenet of medicine.








This is an exceedingly poor summary and it is certainly not "All of the factors...". At least one of these is nonsense and, apart from the sedantry lifestyle bit, they are all tiny factors in comparison to smoking and drinking.


That will save ~40% of you hippies, but the unfortunate majority will still get cancer no matter what you do. Again nobody is arguing against living a healthy lifestyle. Spreading this message is one of Cancer research UK's primary activities.


NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN CURED BY THE CRAP YOU ARE PROMOTING! However, people on death's door have been robbed of their life savings by charlatans with false promises and the same kind of pseudo-science bullshit you seem to have fallen for. Offering false hope and profiteering from the most vulnerable in society is just about the closest thing to evil I can imagine.
Meanwhile more than half the people diagnosed with cancer in the UK will survive thanks to the cancer treatments you would deny them.


Well that is a surprise! Is there anything you know anything about, in relation to what is being discussed?

In reply to LeeWood:


It's not often that I'm an outright asshole to someone I've never met. It's your lucky day.

Tell you what, it's 50/50 that you're going to get cancer. If you do, and you decide to treat it with Chinese "medicine" alone, kindly report back to this forum on your progress. Just don't leave it to long.

In reply to snowmore:

Just realised I got my numbers slightly wrong on the hippy kill count and can't edit the post. Nonetheless, the main take away is that lots of hippies will die

In reply to snowmore:


I know what civil exchange is. You (and others) have weakened your argument by resort to mud-throwing.

In reply to LeeWood:

Nah, they believe in evidence based arguments and on the evidence you've presented so far you're fantastically ignorant - not to say so would seem hypocritical.

In reply to LeeWood:


Like Muhammad Ali with one hand behind his back, compared to a small child.

Your argument doesn't hold up. It's based on made up pseudoscience.

In reply to LeeWood:


Are you really an anti-vaxxer who thinks WiFi makes you ill?
Or have I just misread what you have written.

In reply to off-duty:
are you (along with snowmore GregCHF and 'marsbar') really climbers - there's csant evidence on your profile so it seems you're on here just to argue

In reply to LeeWood:


Yep, I'm a climber.
Are you an anti-vaxxer ? Or is this a discussion about bolting stanage ?

In reply to off-duty:


Argh, you barsteward, had to look up anti-vaxxer and wasted an hour looking at loony stuff!

In reply to LeeWood:

Yes. But even if i was not, it does not invalidate what I have said. My not being a climber does not change the science behind what has been said.

Sorry in advance for the rambling post but I have completely lost my scene of humour here.



Please read the article that I posted from the RSC. I strongly support research in general, let alone in to chemoprevention. In fact I have actually produced drug molecules to be tested for chemoprevention properties.


>Otherwise - to you and other posters - there are a whole bunch of us out here who don't need the official bodies to spend billions

Really, f**king really? You have effectively just said we should not treat people with cancer (or other diseases) because you don't need to be treated yourself. Should we just let them die?



I don't know, I would ask you to define this but i'm sure you would just come up with bollocks. If you are prepared to do some reading and critical thinking please read the article on celery cured bacon in chemistry world.



No chemicals in food? Really? For a laugh look up the E numbers in a banana.



Out of interest, do you ever know what radiation is? Let alone which types of radiation are ionising? To get a better idea of how radiation effects humans, please look up the unit called Grays.



Please give me the money and I will live that life style.



You are correct about over use of medication, especially antibiotics. Please see the news on the UN and antimicrobials yesterday (21/09/16). However, you don't get chemotherapy if you don't need it. Also, cancer does evolve to be resistant to chemotherapy, it is just poison.



Again, give me the money.



Phara actually is regulated and required to go through thorougher testing. It also produces drugs that works. The stuff you are pushing has no regulation, has no research done on it and almost certainly does not work. It promises a cure to desperate and gullible people just to extort money out of them.



What is great about science is that it is true now mater what you think or what your world view is. It is just truth produced by people smart enough to understand the research. Just because your opinion is different, it does not mean it should be treated with any kind of respect at all. It is wrong.


Shocking.

Also guys are we just glossing over the fact that he just said a lemon is an alkali fruit. Lee could you please google citrus fruit or citric acid in general.

In reply to GregCHF:


What are you waiting for there are jobs galore in organic agriculture !


I named this example specifically for the enigma it presnts in this philosophy - which names pH of end reaction at celleular level. This is the bit (to my knowledge which is unscientific) which may not be testable directly but I assur you it brings results.

In reply to LeeWood:

So just glossing over the nastier bits of what you said then?


I have literally no idea what this means. Are you suggesting that by eating lemons you as a being become more alkaline?

In reply to LeeWood:


I appreciate you will struggle to explain that scientifically, but could you at least try and explain it in English ?

In reply to off-duty:

In acid/alkali speak acidity at cellular level pre-disposes disease ranging from inflammation to cancer. The human body is constantly juggling (buffering) pH levels as well as sodium/potassium levels - but this mechanism gets stressed.

So, certain foods will assist your body in its mission to stay healthy ie. the alkali ones NB. alkali end reaction. These will all be rich in mineral/vitamins and if you eat this food raw - enzymes too.

In reply to DaveHK:




Thats interesting - so they are more successful because they don't live long enought to get cancer - and we are better off because we do ???

In reply to LeeWood:


I presume he was just making the general point that people in countries where evidence based medicine is prevalent tend to live longer. Despite the wifi.

In reply to Robert Durran:


There's cancer in my family on my Mum's side, my great uncle died from it, and so did she. It didn't register at the time, but I can see where marsbar is coming from in calling his point of view victim blaming. There's families where a higher number of the females than one would statistically expect end up getting breast cancer too.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Good. What interests me is this 42% - just how real is it? Even within the limits of western society I reckon we could do a lot better. Here are the given cats:

Lifestyle factors
>> Be smoke free
>> Keep a healthy weight
>> Eat fruit & Veg
>> Drink less alcohol
>> Be sunsmart
>> Eat less processed & red meat
>> Eat a hi fibre diet
>> Be active
>> Eat less salt

Other factors
>> Minimise risks at work such as asbestos
>> Minimise infections such as HPV
>> Minimise radiation eg. x-rays
>> Breastfed if poss
>> Minimise time on HRT

All are elements of lifestyle *within* western society. ie. they result from comparisons between groups who broadly live under the same ciscumstances. Do we have stats for people who live chemical-free lives ?? When you look at the above lists most of you are thinking 'yeh I don't smoke and I don't drink a lot - and the other items aren't so consequential so ...

Instead of which - see the lists as the iceberg-tip of western living and think how much more you could do. get an active job, cut down your travelling, eat organic & local. Throw out all your household & cosmetic chemicals. Minimise turnover of consumer disposables.

After a significant number of people have done this it must follow that there will be less chemicals present in our *accepted* food and environment - that which is taken as base-norm for the comparisons made.

In reply to LeeWood:


This acid / alkali business is not a thing. Your body pH does not change depending on what you eat.


So food with plenty vitamins is good for you? who knew?

In reply to LeeWood:


I once caught a brain tumour from a peruvian plum. True story.

In reply to LeeWood:

Ohh my god chemicals!!!!!

Also organic means nothing.

In reply to wintertree:


That's incorrect. A 50% incidence of cancer in a population does not mean a 50/50 risk for an individual in that population.

In reply to LeeWood:


Sorry, but this simply isn't a correct understanding of the impact of diet on cellular pH, and the suggestion that cellular pH is a precursor to "inflammation and cancer" is simply wrong - infection and disease might alter the pH of cells but not the other way round.
In adddition it appears that you are attempting to anthromorphise the buffering process with some sort of human "stress"
The buffering process is entirely natural and largely driven by functioning kidney and respiratory systems.


Obvs - you are aware that "acid" doesn't mean bad, just as "alkali " doesn't mean good. Similarly you are aware of the functioning of the stomach? Eat raw food for whatever reason you want, but don't expect plant enzymes to survive your own digestive system.

In reply to LeeWood:

I use a solution of ethanoic acid to clean. Should I throw this away?

In reply to LeeWood:


F**ing cats. Make me wheeze. Probably give me brain cancer too.





Good, it looks like you've looked up a reputable source this time rather than a bollocks one.


Eh?


My local or your local carrot?

In reply to Robert Durran:

That's been my response to of most of LeeWood's points.

In reply to LeeWood:



By vaccination presumably...

In reply to DaveHK:


I know that, but in the absence of access to medical and lifestyle histories for the poster concerned it is my least worst estimate.

Kind of besides the point; for an individual it's either 0% or 100% by the time you're dead, and short of travel within a parallel multiverse or a much much better DNA analysis, modelling and monitoring of an individual's entire life there is no way to put a percentage on one person.

In reply to off-duty:


Not quite true, there is good evidence in many systems that the metabolic state of a cell (for which cellular pH is a good proxy) regulates (or misregulates in a disease state) cellular proliferation and the activation of signalling pathways involved in inflammation (the other way round of course also happens). The regulation of stem cell activity by the cellular sugar metabolism is actually something my lab is currently working on. Your other points stand, the whole acid/alkaline food stuff is clearly pseudoscience.

Ironically, a healthy, largely vegetarian diet, is indeed one of the best things you can do for your health (other than quitting drinking and smoking) and will also reduce your cancer risk, just not for the reasons peddled by the various esoteric factions.

CB

In reply to wintertree:


If you knew that why did you put a percentage on it? I think if we're going to hammer someone for their unscientific approach we should do so with some degree of rigour. People in glass houses and all that.

In reply to cb294:


Cheers for the correction. I guess a question might be - how does the cellular metabolism get knocked out of kilter - is it as a result of eating too many/not enough lemons....?

In reply to off-duty:

Lemons, unlikely. Too many sugary soft drinks, easy!

CB

In reply to DaveHK:

I would have thought it could be correctly interpreted as a chance of 50% that, if you choose a person from the population at random, they will get cancer, or that a given person will get it given no other information about that person.

Though, to be fair LeeWood's odds are probably better than 50% since it sounds like he has a healthy lifestyle, but if he does get it he's f***** (though I expect he would actually swallow his principles and accept life saving treatment if it came down to it).

Just to link to another thread on turmeric - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=650037#bottom - there is a program on TV tonight on this spice and whether it can prevent cancer.

In reply to DaveHK:


Yes I could have been more precise about the lack of precision. I was going to say "let's assume it's 50/50" but culled the words to try and not sound pompous.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Is it that simple? If you - by healthy living - side-step heart disease and strokes etc to live much longer, you've got much more old age in which to develop cancer.

I'd be interested to see a breakdown on this.

In reply to wintertree:


Good point. There's a good slogan: "Go Vegan, Get cancer!"

In reply to LeeWood:


What we really need is an independent charity which could put money and resources into researching that? Pfft. won't ever happen.... bloody government.


Statistics for that are hard to come by since most people die without H2O.

ps I do climb, but thanks for caring.

In reply to off-duty:


OK so supposing 'for some reason' that they can't achieve. You agree that health depends on good diet but somehow you don't want to make the connection ??

In reply to LeeWood:


There is, as numerous people have pointed out, a link between good diet and health.
However that link does not involve raw food enzymes resistant to stomach acid and magic alkali lemons that alter intracellular pH balance.

In reply to LeeWood:
The problem in that thread is that you have many good points to make, which people would heartily support if you would not invalidate them by trying to underpin them with clearly bogus scientific arguments!

For example, a more healthy, veggie biased diet is a definitely good thing, and will definitely reduce the risk of developing cancer (especially colon cancer, but the main effect will be on cardiovascular disease, which ironically may indeed lead to a higher lifetime cancer risk simply because you live longer!). However, the whole acid/alkali food theory you cite in support is rubbish: The pH of your body is indeed tightly buffered, and as a climber you may actually have experienced the feeling when this buffering goes wrong: This happens when you hyperventilate at height and exhale too much CO2. To rebuffer you must excrete bicarbonate through your kidneys, which is why drinking a lot is essential for acclimatizing. For the same reason, your body pH will go off (which will actually kill you rather quickly) if you suffer from kidney failure, but it has nothing to do with your diet. Claiming that such a link exists and can explain cancer totally discredits your otherwise useful recommendation.

It anyway makes no sense to reduce a complex topic like cancer to a single aspect like diet. To quote Mencken's law: "There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong"

Same with "organic" or "chemical free" farming, both are unfortunate choices of words that have unfortunately become established in the community but are essentially devoid of meaning (all food is organic as long as you don't eat sand, everything is made of chemicals, and all live matter contains genes....). I buy most of my food from farms not using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, but calling this mode of farming "organic" just opens a good idea to ridicule.

Similarly I despair at the criticism leveled against genetically modified food. The little genetic changes are irrelevant, the massive industrial use of herbicides and insecticides that leave our countryside as dead, lifeless agro-deserts is the actual disaster. Again, by picking the wrong target the green movement disarms itself.

Hope that makes sense,

CB


edit: About a year ago there was a huge controversy about the which fraction of cancer cases is genetic bad luck, and which fraction can be explained by things you did in your life (diet, smoking, etc.). In principle this question has become amenable to experimental testing because genome sequencing has become so cheap that you can sequence lots of matched tumour/control tissue genomes from individual patients. Still, interpretation is tricky, and the argument about the precise percentages degenerated into an amazing academic bitch fight. Most of it was published in Science, where the initial article was published, and is hence hidden behind a pay wall, but I am sure you can find some free review articles from end of 2015 / early 2016 that discuss the issue. Obviously both genetics and lifestyle play a role, but since I am not a cancer biologist I don't care enough to stay up to date with the latest discussion. I rather wait for the definitive review....

In reply to wintertree:

Fair dos.

In reply to off-duty:



No, no, no. You don't understand.
Big Pharma are spending billions promoting wifi and food made of chemicals so we will get the cancer and spend money on their vaccines (which they are using to read our thoughts by the way). The only way to ensure the wifi doesn't kill us is to eat lemons. I don't understand the science but I'm sure you will agree that eating a lemon is healthier than eating chemicals.

I propose a new healthcare message:
Eat a magic lemon and stick it to the man!

In reply to snowmore:



Careful now!

In reply to cb294:

I appreciate your going into some detail here - but evidently there is a fundamental problem in the way we see things. You are what you eat. The contents of your guts will be mirrored in your bloodstream - and so on in your cells. If you eat the wrong things at the wrong moments you can help or hinder all processes - whether it be climbing stamina or healing.

We are collectively burdened with too much calories, fat sodium,and protein - and not enough of the micro-nutrients. The List's recommendations are not just about roughage - those recommendations go deeper and all reflect the well known problems of western diet.

If anyone doubts the immediacy of ingestion w r t your blood - next time you go cragging take strong salty water to drink (but not enough to puke) and see how long you last. Your body cannot iron out all of the problems you present it - which accounts for much of our illness.

In reply to cb294:

The following text is nicked from this page:

https://www.trainingbeta.com/delay-muscle-fatigue/

/quote
If you remember your basic chemistry courses, then you may remember the term “sodium-potassium pump” or Na/K pump. If you think about shooting a slingshot, then you know that the further you pull back, the harder and faster the slingshot will shoot forward.
The further you remove the slingshot from its state of equilibrium, the more energy it generates surging forward. In the same way, the sodium-potassium pump in your cells generates a powerful electrical charge needed to trigger muscle contractions.

When your Na/K pumps become exhausted, that crucial electrical signal gets weaker and weaker, leading eventually to muscle fatigue. Luckily, this is something that you can improve with diet and proper training.

Consume plenty of potassium on a daily basis

/quote

A potassium rich (incl lemons!) diet is fundamental to acid/alkali; does this make more sense ??

In reply to LeeWood:










No. Unless you are potassium deficient. Then maybe. But nothing to do with acid/alkali diet. Or magic alkali lemons.

In reply to off-duty:


The reason sodium is in The List is because we are collectively potassium deficient.

In reply to LeeWood:

That doesn't make any sense in the context of your previous post which recommends intake of potassium.
If we are potassium deficient then intake of sodium would further unbalance the Na/K pump you appear to be worried about.

I'm not sure anybody recommends increased salt intake (unless you are dehydrated - by exercise, heat etc )

Edit to add - may have misread - is "the list" things NOT to eat ?

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


It kills roughly similar numbers of men to the figures for women and breast cancer.
Admittedly, the average age when these deaths occur is older for men. That does not mean it is something only old men get, and die when old. Unfortunately though, that is what many do believe, and spout.

Sadly, there are more than a few GPs whose clinical reasoning is tainted with the commonly held notion that you don't need to treat prostate cancer if its diagnosed in middle age- because very old men die with it. Somehow, I doubt they'd be as cavalier with other cancers.
Here are some figures, trying to make sense of the massive disparity between breast and prostate cancer research funding. The best that the author can do to explain this is to cite limited resources and younger onset in females. as justification for sidelining Prostate cancer and thus aiding the perpetuation of so much claptrap.

https://katatrepsis.com/2012/10/30/why-does-breast-cancer-research-receive-...

In reply to LeeWood:

Hi,

I totally agree that we are what we eat. If at all possible my wife and me will cook for our family from quality ingredients rather than buy processed or frozen stuff from the supermarket. Almost all vegetables we buy are bought at a farmers' market and are fresh, seasonal, and local, thus having little CO2 footprint from transport or storage. Same goes for meat, where we try to buy from small, local farms rather than industrially produced meat from the supermarket. So I totally agree with you about the importance of quality food, both for taste, health, and the environment.

However, the text you quote about the Na+/K+ pump is, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli "not even wrong". I am a molecular cell biologist and geneticist, but I still know a bit of physiology, even if this is not my immediate specialty. So while I don´t particularly like to argue from authority, please take my word for it that visualizing the Na+/K+ pump as a "slingshot" and attributing fatigue to pump exhaustion is pure bullshit.

The authors take some buzzwords that sound highly scientific but then combine them in a way that does not make any sense at all. This may give their theories some veneer of respectability to a lay public, but completely discredits them in the eyes of someone who can spot this strategy.

Again, this is a real shame because they do get something right: Our diet, especially processed food, indeed tends to contain too much sodium, and fruit such as bananas can be a valuable source of potassium (not sure about lemons without looking it up, but probably this is true as well), but the purported reason why eating fruit is supposedly good for your fitness is way off the mark.

Your example of drinking salt water is neither here nor there, I could counter it by arguing that the "healthy" potassium chloride is used to execute people by lethal injection in the US. Neither example is in any way relevant for the connection between diet and cancer that started this discussion off, or even for the benefits of a balanced diet for fitness.

I will sign off from this thread for now, the weekend weather forecast for the Alps looks just too good, but am happy to continue at a later point.

Cheers,

CB

In reply to cb294:

Top post and hopefully CB will not mind me doing a quick tl;dr.

Lee is right about a heath diet making you feel better. To have a better diet try to eat more Veg and less meat and reduce salt (sodium or potassium) intake to a safe level. It is very easy to have to much salt if you eat things like ready meals.

Lee you are wrong about why. Please don't just believe any BS internet blog you come across. Reputable sources are NHS or pear reviewed journal publications. I am sorry to say, even articles from major news outlets (BBC, The Times etc.) should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Also anyone interested in (a possible very floored) list of ingredients for a lemon please have a look at the following link.

https://jameskennedymonash.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/ingredients-of-an-all-n...

In reply to GregCHF:


Does that count as one of your 5 a day?

In reply to DaveHK:

Yes it does. It is a good source of potassium and turns your cells alkali.

In reply to cb294:



v interesting to hear your opinion - a shame that the article isn't entirely correct; I don't know enough to go into the detail; however - since we agree on sodium heavy diet which may be remedied by eating potassium rich foods - do we need to know the exact biochemistry - in order to do the right thing ?

The point here w r t cancer (and any other illness) is that if your body is operating at sub-optimal efficiency (due to poor balance of electrolytes) - then it will also be hindered in dealing with ANY function - from repair to inflammation to defence.

Have a good trip

In reply to off-duty:

The List is in my post at 14:19 Thurs

In reply to LeeWood:

No, the answer to a sodium rich diet is to eat less sodium. Your potassium intake has nothing to do with it. If you eat too much of both, you will still end up doing your self damage.

I have never heard of a poor electrolyte balance effecting cancer rates. I am not denying it is a thing, but we have got no reputable evidence here that it is.

I would also point out that your body does not just do one thing at once. Just because it has a kidney infection (and potential a elelectrolyte imbalance) does not mean it will start making mistakes in cell replication.

That is not to say specific disease don't lead to cancer. We have discussed the merits of the Hpv vaccine already.

As you say a healthy lifestyle and diet, including avoiding risk factors and consuming chemopreventive drugs will help reduce the risks. However, the research I am aware of its so far off, it is impossible to make any concrete assertions. You will certainly not find the answer on a blog on the Internet.

I am signing off too, going to London to watch New Scientist Live.

In reply to snowmore:
Chinese medicine. Yikes.
We have done many liver transplants in our hospital on people who have used Chinese medicines. Many are downright dangerous and certainly not scientifically tested for efficacy and safety.

In reply to LeeWood:

Drink Brawndo. It's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

In reply to cb294:





Agreed. A good counterexample that organic == safe is ricin.


You raise mostly a fair point. However it is not correct to say that our little genetic changes are irrelevant - we are simply hoping they don't have an effect. We can only culture 1% of all known bacteria in the lab (probably far less) - the other 99%, who knows what their roles and effects are. We are discovering whole new classes of organisms regularly - lokiarcheota, mimiviruses, multicellular anoxic organisms, to name a few. What are the effects on these?
Secondly there is the known error rate of scientific publication. For pharmaceutical related, some estimates place it as high as 30%, social science - 60%. Biotechnology? Some figure quite high, and probably vastly higher in GM focused studies due to the conflicts of interest (i.e. nobody can make billions from random archaea discovered in oceanic sediment, but companies can profit by proclaiming certain proteins are safe in certain contexts with insufficient and or cherrypicked data). Chaos theory / nonlinearity is much closer to reality than our little linear models - and implies we can't predict the outcomes of our meddling for more than a short-term - where a gene ends up and what it does, cannot be known.
This is not just speculation - it's been found that a corn nematode has developed resistance to Bt in as little as 10 years. There was a study about GM corn genes entering the wild corn genome, it was retracted, but a new study has confirmed some of the findings of the original in something like 2/10 populations of Mexican wild corn.
In short, releasing transgenic organisms into the wild must be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny and for only maximum benefit (e.g. perhaps Golden rice would fit, but Bt corn would not IMO). Personally, I think GMOs are far too risky for the majority of circumstances, when the future of the world's food supply is at risk (even if only a vanishingly small possibility, the severity of some possible problems would be unprecedented and catastrophic). GM is best saved for yeasts and fungi that can be grown in contained environments, while we gather more understanding.

In reply to SenzuBean:


Do you think there's such a thing, especially for organisms like fungi where there are many extremophiles?

In reply to Everyone:
please list exactly what you'd like to die from

In reply to wilkie14c:



a surfeit of lampreys

gorgeousness

pterodactyls

In reply to wilkie14c:


Alkali lemon poisoning.

In reply to SenzuBean:

I have no doubt that there are risks of GMO crops spreading unwanted mutations but the larger well known and immediate risk for us all is that GMO crops are made thus to work WITH the -icides (esp glyphosate) - so this becomes our prime worry.

In reply to Root1:



^^^ This LeeWood is why we are ripping your posts to shreds (+fun!).

If you are really interested in "balance" it would be worth researching some of the harm caused by alternative medicine. The url below links to lots of reputable scientific publications:
http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2012/08/the-harm-complementary-and-alternative-med...

John Diamond has a couple of terrific books which are worth a read entirely in their own right.

In reply to snowmore:

So glad to hear you're having fun

In fact anyone who believes I advocate chinese medicine has misunderstood my mention of it. I do not ally myself with that or any other treatments which might swindle an honest person. I'm interested in health from first principles - diet, exercise, air, sunlight, exercise, sleep and all such fundamentals. Good luck attempting to put a badge on me

In reply to wilkie14c:

Laughter.

On 24 March 1975 Alex Mitchell, a 50-year-old bricklayer from King's Lynn, England, died laughing while watching an episode of The Goodies, featuring a Scotsman in a kilt battling a vicious black pudding with his bagpipes. After twenty-five minutes of continuous laughter Mitchell finally slumped on the sofa and expired from heart failure. His widow later sent the Goodies a letter thanking them for making Mitchell's final moments so pleasant.

In reply to SenzuBean:

OK, back from the Alps, time to wade back in....

I totally agree that GMO release must be extremely tightly regulated. My worries are, again, that those interested in regulation present the wrong arguments (resistance is a good one, industrial pesticide use another), making it much too easy for industrial lobbyists to shoot the proposed regulation down in the political process.
E.g., one more gene (in the 30.000 present anyway) will not change the allergy risk of GMO soybeans. Similarly, the introduction of antibiotic resistance markers (largely obsolete in times of Crispr/Cas anyway) poses no risk due to a potential transfer to soil bacteria: That is where all these genes come from anyway, and the bacteria are amazingly promiscuous!
IMO, targeted gene deletions or point mutations (e.g. to remove or enhance the activity of an endogenously present enzyme) are the safest bet for trials, as in a way that is exactly what you hope to get by breeding (where you select for an event that happened by chance), just in a directed way. Indeed, there are discussions in the regulatory bodies whether a variant of wheat that lacks one gene but has no remnant (such as a selection marker) from the genetic surgery used to generate it should count as a GMO.
This is an interesting topic, but maybe one that runs a high risk of derailing this thread.

CB

In reply to LeeWood:



Exactly.

CB

In reply to wintertree:


Well that's an interesting question. The answer is sort of
Recent evidence has found that what we like to think of contained environments fall quite short. The bacteria found in the clean rooms as NASA being a recent example. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-319

By contained environments, I meant vats in facilities with bio-locks (is that what they're called?). As per the link above, we need to develop better technology to provide this with more security, especially to do it at low cost for food production.

In reply to LeeWood:

If you do your research, you'll see that it's not actually glyphosphate that's bad. It's the co-formulants in RoundUp. If I remember correctly it's one of the mysteriously labelled 'surfactants' that was found to be highly toxic and mutagenic.

Anyway, as cb points out - the issue in that case is not the fact the organism has been genetically modified to be glyphosphate resistant. But rather that we're using pesticides and fungicides wantonly.

In reply to SenzuBean:

That's heartening to hear having accidentally ingested a small amount while using some once ( I forget how, but it was tree stump treating while not kitted up).


Yes.