Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned

[Stoked]

They have tested laetrile. It didn't work. The person who explained the primitive science to you was some combination of deluded and and dishonest.



No such mechanism exists.



Nothing about dosage here: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/laetrile-pdq

Since the toxicity of any poison is in part a factor of dosage compared to body weight, it's not a surprise you could exceed a potentially lethal dosage.

No one has clinical evidence for the effectiveness of laetrile, even when they go looking for it.



I suppose it depends upon how much you enjoy living. Conventional treatments will generally prolong your lifespan, occasionally by decades, in return for several months of discomfort during therapy.



So would taking lots of baths, but that doesn't cure cancer, either.



They are not "probably just as good", they are much worse. This has been studied. This is a known fact. By repeating the lie, you are encouraging other people to shorten their lives based on a lie. Doesn't that bother you?



Yes, it is my prerogative to state what all scientific studies have revealed to be true, and to encourage people to understand that their lives are likely to be shorter if they use alternative therapies. Now, if people want to choose a probably shorter life, that is their call. However, it should be a properly informed call on their part.



I understand you are on the side of having a shorter life. I'm just asking you to be honest with yourself about this consequence.

Didn’t bother him when he was trying to link vaccines and autism.

 

[LogGrad98]

Chemo and radiation extended my life, by nearly 2 decades now (treatment ended 20 years ago this coming October), but as I have documented in here quite a bit, it did not leave me unscathed. I deal with severe clinical depression brought on by PTSD from a year of brutal treatments, multiple surgeries, and entirely too many prescription narcotics. I'll live with that and permanent low- to mid-level pain the rest of my life, and right now they are looking at possible skin graft onto my back where they did 2 surgeries and the skin is too thin so I'm having metal plates starting to poke through the skin. But the alternative was a less than 15% chance of living, and considering my tumor was growing into my spinal column and had started to encroach against the dura of my spinal cord it would have killed me outright before long. I'm very grateful for modern medicine. I have a fantastic daughter because of it (conceived and born after my treatments ended), I got to see my kids grow up and have a beautiful grand daughter. Thanks to actual medicine. I really worry about people who put their faith in these alternative treatments and risk their lives, but I also get the pain and despair of traditional treatments and why people would so desperately want another choice. But there is no magic bullet. It's all a very dangerous, if appealing, lie.

 

[Hotdog]

They have tested laetrile. It didn't work. The person who explained the primitive science to you was some combination of deluded and and dishonest.



No such mechanism exists.



Nothing about dosage here: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/laetrile-pdq

Since the toxicity of any poison is in part a factor of dosage compared to body weight, it's not a surprise you could exceed a potentially lethal dosage.

No one has clinical evidence for the effectiveness of laetrile, even when they go looking for it.



I suppose it depends upon how much you enjoy living. Conventional treatments will generally prolong your lifespan, occasionally by decades, in return for several months of discomfort during therapy.



So would taking lots of baths, but that doesn't cure cancer, either.



They are not "probably just as good", they are much worse. This has been studied. This is a known fact. By repeating the lie, you are encouraging other people to shorten their lives based on a lie. Doesn't that bother you?



Yes, it is my prerogative to state what all scientific studies have revealed to be true, and to encourage people to understand that their lives are likely to be shorter if they use alternative therapies. Now, if people want to choose a probably shorter life, that is their call. However, it should be a properly informed call on their part.



I understand you are on the side of having a shorter life. I'm just asking you to be honest with yourself about this consequence.

Im not going to pretend to know anything about this science, but Im curious to what you think about fasting for trying to cure cancer or even just taking sugar out of your diet. Ive watched some Ted talks and read some articles about this, and seems to make some sense. Its believed by some that sugar is causing cancer and if you starve the cells of sugar you can reverse cancer.

I practice fasting as much as possible. I still have yet to go on a really long prolonged fast such as a week or two, but Im trying to build up to it. Im also doing as much as I can to not eat any sugar. I dont have any current medical issues. Its more of just preventative measures.

Im just wondering if you consider this quak science as well?

 

[Hotdog]

Chemo and radiation extended my life, by nearly 2 decades now (treatment ended 20 years ago this coming October), but as I have documented in here quite a bit, it did not leave me unscathed. I deal with severe clinical depression brought on by PTSD from a year of brutal treatments, multiple surgeries, and entirely too many prescription narcotics. I'll live with that and permanent low- to mid-level pain the rest of my life, and right now they are looking at possible skin graft onto my back where they did 2 surgeries and the skin is too thin so I'm having metal plates starting to poke through the skin. But the alternative was a less than 15% chance of living, and considering my tumor was growing into my son's column and had started to encroach against the dura of my spinal cord it would have killed me outright before long. I'm very grateful for modern medicine. I have a fantastic daughter because of it (conceived and born after my treatments ended), I got to see my kids grow up and have a beautiful grand daughter. Thanks to actual medicine. I really worry about people who put their faith in these alternative treatments and risk their lives, but I also get the pain and despair of traditional treatments and why people would so desperately want another choice. But there is no magic bullet. It's all a very dangerous, if appealing, lie.

Thats brutal Log. Sorry you had to go through that. What do you think about what I just asked Brow?

 

[LogGrad98]

Thats brutal Log. Sorry you had to go through that. What do you think about what I just asked Brow?

I've been reading a lot about fasting the last few years. There are a lot of studies out of Russia about it, including DNA analysis, measuring changes in hormones, blood studies, etc. I think there is real promise there, but I seriously doubt the efficacy against something like cancer, especially localized tumors. I just don't think the body can generally be spurred to produce the antigens or antibodies or whatever the mechanism would be that would be necessary to actually stop cancer growth and remove tumor tissue.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think sugar is a straight up toxin, especially in the way it triggers insulin response and all the other attendant ills. Sugar is a bane imo.

 

[One Brow]

Im not going to pretend to know anything about this science, but Im curious to what you think about fasting for trying to cure cancer or even just taking sugar out of your diet. Ive watched some Ted talks and read some articles about this, and seems to make some sense. Its believed by some that sugar is causing cancer and if you starve the cells of sugar you can reverse cancer.

I practice fasting as much as possible. I still have yet to go on a really long prolonged fast such as a week or two, but Im trying to build up to it. Im also doing as much as I can to not eat any sugar. I dont have any current medical issues. Its more of just preventative measures.

Im just wondering if you consider this quak science as well?

Table sugar is made of a glucose-fructose pair, and your body will convert the fructose into glucose. Glucose is the energy transfer medium of your body. It powers the neurons in your brain and the muscles everywhere else.

If you don't eat any type of sugar, your body will still produce glucose. It convert starch into glucose easily. It can convert fat into glucose (that seems to be a major reason we store fat in the first place), or as a last resort, protein. Converting fat or protein into glucose uses up energy and has some other biological side effects. Going without sugars/starches is biologically risky.

However, if you are simply avoiding table sugar (I was not sure what you meant by "taking taking sugar out of your diet", you are probably eating plenty of other types of sugars. Fruit, dairy products, etc. all have sugars; grains and tubers have starches, etc. So, you might be eating plenty of sugar or starch without using table sugar, and then giving up table sugar is probably a good thing (most of us in the US eat too much sugar).

Regarding cancer specifically, the glucose in your blood doesn't get tagged for one part of the body or another. If you drop the level of glucose in your blood (called the blood sugar level) to the point where cancer cells can't find glucose in the blood to use, then that would mean your brain cells and muscles cells would also be running on little or no sugar. The muscles can do that for a little while, the brain is very bad at running without glucose.

That said, I may have misunderstood something or just missed something. I would take what you presented with a very skeptical eye, and insist on it being researched pretty thoroughly before I tried to starve a cancer by not eating any sugars/starches at all. There are good reasons to cut back on sugar, but I find it unlikely cancer is one of them.

 

[One Brow]

I think sugar is a straight up toxin, especially in the way it triggers insulin response and all the other attendant ills. Sugar is a bane imo.

The way we use it in the US, you are correct. As with almost anything else, the poison is in the dosage.

 

[One Brow]

Chemo and radiation extended my life, by nearly 2 decades now (treatment ended 20 years ago this coming October), but as I have documented in here quite a bit, it did not leave me unscathed. I deal with severe clinical depression brought on by PTSD from a year of brutal treatments, multiple surgeries, and entirely too many prescription narcotics. I'll live with that and permanent low- to mid-level pain the rest of my life, and right now they are looking at possible skin graft onto my back where they did 2 surgeries and the skin is too thin so I'm having metal plates starting to poke through the skin. But the alternative was a less than 15% chance of living, and considering my tumor was growing into my spinal column and had started to encroach against the dura of my spinal cord it would have killed me outright before long. I'm very grateful for modern medicine. I have a fantastic daughter because of it (conceived and born after my treatments ended), I got to see my kids grow up and have a beautiful grand daughter. Thanks to actual medicine. I really worry about people who put their faith in these alternative treatments and risk their lives, but I also get the pain and despair of traditional treatments and why people would so desperately want another choice. But there is no magic bullet. It's all a very dangerous, if appealing, lie.

I'm fairly sure the world is better for you still being in it.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm fairly sure the world is better for you still being in it.

Thank you

 

[fishonjazz]

Table sugar is made of a glucose-fructose pair, and your body will convert the fructose into glucose. Glucose is the energy transfer medium of your body. It powers the neurons in your brain and the muscles everywhere else.

If you don't eat any type of sugar, your body will still produce glucose. It convert starch into glucose easily. It can convert fat into glucose (that seems to be a major reason we store fat in the first place), or as a last resort, protein. Converting fat or protein into glucose uses up energy and has some other biological side effects. Going without sugars/starches is biologically risky.

However, if you are simply avoiding table sugar (I was not sure what you meant by "taking taking sugar out of your diet", you are probably eating plenty of other types of sugars. Fruit, dairy products, etc. all have sugars; grains and tubers have starches, etc. So, you might be eating plenty of sugar or starch without using table sugar, and then giving up table sugar is probably a good thing (most of us in the US eat too much sugar).

Regarding cancer specifically, the glucose in your blood doesn't get tagged for one part of the body or another. If you drop the level of glucose in your blood (called the blood sugar level) to the point where cancer cells can't find glucose in the blood to use, then that would mean your brain cells and muscles cells would also be running on little or no sugar. The muscles can do that for a little while, the brain is very bad at running without glucose.

That said, I may have misunderstood something or just missed something. I would take what you presented with a very skeptical eye, and insist on it being researched pretty thoroughly before I tried to starve a cancer by not eating any sugars/starches at all. There are good reasons to cut back on sugar, but I find it unlikely cancer is one of them.

I'm taking from this that I shouldn't drink much soda pop

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[One Brow]

I'm taking from this that I shouldn't drink much soda pop

As with everything, that depends on your life style, the rest of your diet, and how much sugar is in the soda you do drink. It's very easy to drink too much.