Cancer Prevention Supplements

[saggy321]

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, post references. Otherwise, you are making biased claims based on your own opinion.

Difficult to have intelligent discussion with you. As Voltaire said 'It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere'.

I won't even go into how smoking causes cancer and how it is the biggest cause. I won't even mention the toxins contained with cigarettes that are particularly carcinogenic. I won't even talk about rising child obesity and the link with availability of fast food and advertising. The subject is too broad to cite evidence to encompass it all, but below is an extract from a report published in the good old USA almost 10 years ago now...

LOWELL - The University of Massachusetts Lowell today released a report that links dozens of environmental and occupational exposures to nearly 30 types of cancer.
The new study by the University's Lowell Center for Sustainable Production reviewed scientific evidence documenting associations between environmental and occupational exposures and certain cancers in the United States - marking the first time this massive body of material has been summarized in one, accessible document.

"We need to pay attention to environmental and occupational risk factors," said Molly Jacobs, project manager. "Known and preventable exposures are clearly responsible for tens of thousands of excess cancer cases each year. It is unconscionable not to implement policy changes that we know will prevent sickness and death."
"Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer: A Review of Recent Scientific Evidence" shows that many cancer cases and deaths are caused or contributed to by involuntary exposures. These include: bladder cancer from the primary solvent used in dry cleaning, breast cancer from endocrine disruptors like bisphenol-A and other plastics components, lung cancer from residential exposure to radon, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from solvent and herbicide exposure, and childhood leukemia from pesticides.

Now I'd be fool if I continue in this debate with you for I have nor the strength or the means to free you from your chains.

 

[Aleksandar37]

Difficult to have intelligent discussion with you. As Voltaire said 'It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere'.

I won't even go into how smoking causes cancer and how it is the biggest cause. I won't even mention the toxins contained with cigarettes that are particularly carcinogenic. I won't even talk about rising child obesity and the link with availability of fast food and advertising. The subject is too broad to cite evidence to encompass it all, but below is an extract from a report published in the good old USA almost 10 years ago now...

LOWELL - The University of Massachusetts Lowell today released a report that links dozens of environmental and occupational exposures to nearly 30 types of cancer.
The new study by the University's Lowell Center for Sustainable Production reviewed scientific evidence documenting associations between environmental and occupational exposures and certain cancers in the United States - marking the first time this massive body of material has been summarized in one, accessible document.

"We need to pay attention to environmental and occupational risk factors," said Molly Jacobs, project manager. "Known and preventable exposures are clearly responsible for tens of thousands of excess cancer cases each year. It is unconscionable not to implement policy changes that we know will prevent sickness and death."
"Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer: A Review of Recent Scientific Evidence" shows that many cancer cases and deaths are caused or contributed to by involuntary exposures. These include: bladder cancer from the primary solvent used in dry cleaning, breast cancer from endocrine disruptors like bisphenol-A and other plastics components, lung cancer from residential exposure to radon, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from solvent and herbicide exposure, and childhood leukemia from pesticides.

Now I'd be fool if I continue in this debate with you for I have nor the strength or the means to free you from your chains.

My chains? I simply asked you to cite a source. You apparently have google and a thesaurus, so it really shouldn't be that difficult. Obviously you've stepped into a subject that is way beyond you, so you've resorted to name calling. Carry on.

 

[Jiigzz]

Links =/ causes

 

[Aleksandar37]

Links =/ causes

Check out my chains bro.

 

[Jiigzz]

Check out my chains bro.

I bought crash bandicoot the year it got popular, ergo I personally drove it's fame and I deserve royalties

 

[uubiduu]

My chains? I simply asked you to cite a source. You apparently have google and a thesaurus, so it really shouldn't be that difficult. Obviously you've stepped into a subject that is way beyond you, so you've resorted to name calling. Carry on.

The thing with sources and studies is lots of them are manipulated for certain intentions(approval of meds e.g.) just sayin

 

[Aleksandar37]

The thing with sources and studies is lots of them are manipulated for certain intentions(approval of meds e.g.) just sayin

And you know this how? Let me guess, somebody on facebook said it.

 

[uubiduu]

And you know this how? Let me guess, somebody on facebook said it.

I dont use facebook LOL. Keep believing everything you read and you are golden

 

[Jiigzz]

I dont use facebook LOL. Keep believing everything you read and you are golden

The next time you have a headache and pop a painkiller #medicine

The next time you get an infection but don't die #medicine

The next time you need an antibiotic #medicine

Id rather believe the people saving my life than an internet conspiracy theorist



I get what you mean though - the environment does play a role. But its important to know that when you say someone cause something, then its always useful to show where you get that information from. Cause is much more final than "leads to" or "may develop"

 

[Aleksandar37]

I dont use facebook LOL. Keep believing everything you read and you are golden

I create and attend oncology advisory boards. I've also spent the last couple of months writing presentations that a major pharma company uses to train their MSLs on their oncology drugs. Let's stop assuming I'm just reading wikipedia. Stay gold pony boy.

 

[uubiduu]

I create and attend oncology advisory boards. I've also spent the last couple of months writing presentations that a major pharma company uses to train their MSLs on their oncology drugs. Let's stop assuming I'm just reading wikipedia. Stay gold pony boy.

Yes its the same old "in bed with pharma" thing thats the Main Problem here

 

[Jiigzz]

Yes its the same old "in bed with pharma" thing thats the Main Problem here

Its all one big conspiracy.

Does it ever occur to you that your opinion may not actually have any factual backing other than a supoised theory? What youre doing, whether your actively aware of it or not, is assuming Aleks is a money hungry or dishonest person based solely off his career title and position.

It may surprise you to know that scientists actually work very hard in determining how something is caused and you are essentially saying that what they do is driven by greed.

The next time you get sick and rely on pharmaceuticals for relief or help - remember that at one stage in time NOTHING existed to help you or that the very thing you can get treated so easily (an infection for example) may have easily killed you less a hundred years ago.

People dog on pharma until the point they actually need them. Then they continue after they used pharma to get better.

 

[uubiduu]

Its all one big conspiracy.

Does it ever occur to you that your opinion may not actually have any factual backing other than a supoised theory? What youre doing, whether your actively aware of it or not, is assuming Aleks is a money hungry or dishonest person based solely off his career title and position.

It may surprise you to know that scientists actually work very hard in determining how something is caused and you are essentially saying that what they do is driven by greed.

The next time you get sick and rely on pharmaceuticals for relief or help - remember that at one stage in time NOTHING existed to help you or that the very thing you can get treated so easily (an infection for example) may have easily killed you less a hundred years ago.

People dog on pharma until the point they actually need them. Then they continue after they used pharma to get better.

We NEED pharma thats not the point and there are lots of great New medications out there BUT you should always stay critical.

Just one example:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2096389_2096388_2096385,00.html

And im not saying scientists doesnt work hard. Thats a misinterpretation.

 

[Jiigzz]

We NEED pharma thats not the point and there are lots of great New medications out there BUT you should always stay critical.

Just one example:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2096389_2096388_2096385,00.html

And im not saying scientists doesnt work hard. Thats a misinterpretation.

Misread your tone. My bad.

I agree its not void of corruption or dishonesty, but if you find any industry/ corporation that is, I'm all ears

 

[uubiduu]

Sure you find it in a lot of other industries too!

 

[mr.cooper69]

I aint gon say much, ive shared my point, my story and disease.

I still believe it by heart, Cancer if often triggered by chemicals! I dont care if it is by smoke, medicine, drugs, steroids abuse, eating poluted shiat, and so on.... Wonna live long? Wonna live longest? Wonna live your fullest? Well, its simple be natural... Dont feed yourself through your lungs, dont inject alien-lab-made oil into your glute, dont consume gigantous amounts of alcohol, dont over eat on chem food, and DO EXERCISE. It kinda is logical aint it.

Now, okay, lets be realistic! Some of you, say that Age is the biggest factor. Well let me explain to you that one of the reasons why elderly men develop prostate cancer vs younger males... They are simply exposed to far more chemicals in a longer period of time, now xenochemicals that are in crappy food convert and spike E2, Estradiol, and Estrogene wich is the biggest factor for prostate cancer!!!!!!!!!
Those that say TRT spiked thier PSA are wrong, the abuse and aromatasion of testosterone into estrogene sky rocket E2 / DHT in abnormal levels did create / speed up their case.

Pick a supplement for your health, by bottle or fruit. Its up to you! - We are talking about prevention wich is often the biggest cure there is.
And btw. with the HPV vaccine that alot of women take... We are seeing abnormal side-effects leaving women in wheel-chairs of life!!!!!! Just as a prevention against something they might not even develop, its freaking lame and they use fear to push these women into modifying their bodies.

- Anyways hope ya stop by my new video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20R1pT3meZE
And if ya havent seen my cancer documentary: Search Djuro Vukotic and it´ll pop up.

Nevertheless remember its olympia time! Watch the live stream guys

Look man, I'm sorry you had cancer, but again you are wrong. Cancer isn't caused by chemicals. Certain drugs can increase risk, but cancer occurs at the genetic level, period.

Wrong about prostate cancer. Elderly men are exposed to a longer total dose of hormones that promote growth of prostate cancer cells (DHT/T). Not because they've had "more chemicals" for longer.

And now thinking the HPV vaccine is toxic lol.

You are one of BILLIONS of people who got cancer (and in this case, testicular cancer, which has NOTHING to do with chemicals in almost all cases). Just because you have cancer does not mean you are any more educated than anyone else out there. People with heart disease aren't cardiologists. People with COPD aren't pulmonologists. And people with cancer aren't oncologists. It just means you know how hard it can be to get back on your feet. So please, don't continually post your story in defense of incorrect ideology. And please remember that you overcame your cancer (which again, was more bad luck at a genetic level than environmental factors, as with most cases of testicular cancer) because of doctors and science. Yes, your willpower and adherence to the regimen made it possible, but these oncologists may just know a thing or two that you don't...

 

[mr.cooper69]

Difficult to have intelligent discussion with you. As Voltaire said 'It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere'.

I won't even go into how smoking causes cancer and how it is the biggest cause. I won't even mention the toxins contained with cigarettes that are particularly carcinogenic. I won't even talk about rising child obesity and the link with availability of fast food and advertising. The subject is too broad to cite evidence to encompass it all, but below is an extract from a report published in the good old USA almost 10 years ago now...

LOWELL - The University of Massachusetts Lowell today released a report that links dozens of environmental and occupational exposures to nearly 30 types of cancer.
The new study by the University's Lowell Center for Sustainable Production reviewed scientific evidence documenting associations between environmental and occupational exposures and certain cancers in the United States - marking the first time this massive body of material has been summarized in one, accessible document.

"We need to pay attention to environmental and occupational risk factors," said Molly Jacobs, project manager. "Known and preventable exposures are clearly responsible for tens of thousands of excess cancer cases each year. It is unconscionable not to implement policy changes that we know will prevent sickness and death."
"Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer: A Review of Recent Scientific Evidence" shows that many cancer cases and deaths are caused or contributed to by involuntary exposures. These include: bladder cancer from the primary solvent used in dry cleaning, breast cancer from endocrine disruptors like bisphenol-A and other plastics components, lung cancer from residential exposure to radon, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from solvent and herbicide exposure, and childhood leukemia from pesticides.

Now I'd be fool if I continue in this debate with you for I have nor the strength or the means to free you from your chains.

I know you don't have any formal education, but there are about 20 different kinds of lung cancer (which ones does smoking cause?). You need to know your stuff if you're going to enter a debate...simply reading online basics doesn't make you an expert. And I'm no expert either. Aleksander could teach us all things that would make our heads spin. Cancer is insanely complex and it's sad to see so many people little understanding of the disease just minimizing the complexity and making broad statements.

Let's start with lung cancer. I'll simplify this for you as much as I can. THE MOST COMMON TYPE OF LUNG CANCER IS ADENOCARCINOMA, FOR WHICH SMOKING IS NOT A RISK FACTOR. Please re-read that. Smoking is a risk factor for some lung cancers, yes. But MOST LUNG CANCER IS CAUSED BY PURE GENETICS. And this is the one cancer where we have a really, really good understanding of environmental causes. Cancer is a genetic disease, end of story. To get cancer, you need a bunch of mutations in the right spot of your genome. Environmental toxins can increase mutagenesis, but in most cases, people already have (often from birth) a bunch of the right mutations already in place, and then a mild environmental "hit" can put them over the top.

That article isn't ground-breaking. I learned those risk factors in undergrad ffs, it's very basic stuff. The article is astoundingly misleading though. Besides the bladder cancer correlate, the other toxins have an EXTREMELY minimal effect on cancer rates. Like they're almost non-issues unless exposed to insane doses. So again, misleading science, misleading article, the story goes on.

I'm not saying there isn't misrepresentation of data in medicine. Oh believe me there is. I have friends who work their asses of to make awesome drugs that get shut down, while certain drug combos get approved even though no innovation has been made. There's FDA loopholes that allow this to occur.

But the vast majority of people doing the research and conducting the studies are good people. Professors who aren't bathing in riches but living modest lives and dedicating their time to furthering education of students and providing new avenues for research. I have come across maybe a professor or two out of hundreds who are doing things with ulterior motives. Most science professors are your typical good-hearted nerd. Conversely, most of these alarmists who write articles on the internet are uneducated, "enlightened" people who probably have good intentions but alas:

You're comparing intelligent individuals who have spent 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 40 years working in a topic

vs

Someone who pulled up a few pubmed studies, can write a compelling article, and has some sort of "personal experience"

I mean come on, it's genuinely insulting to people who dedicate their lives to help others. Not only are people unappreciative, but they actually loathe them for it.

And while you can look back and say toxin exposure has increased in the past 150 years, guess what? Lifespan has doubled, medicine has saved people from deadly diseases (vaccines), infections (the advent of antibiotics), heart attacks (now a non-issue with angioplasty), pulmonary embolism (warfarin, the most hated drug ever), a-fib.-induced stroke (warfarin again), diarrheal illness (previous most common cause of death, now virtually wiped out in the 1st world), and the list goes on. How blind can you be to think it's all one big conspiracy? I'm all for having an open mind and free thought, but if we didn't have modern-day chemicals, most posters on this board would be dead right now (just 150 years ago before modern medicine, life expectancy was 35 years old in the USA).

Curse medicine, the only reason you're alive and breathing right now!

 

[donmezsa]

fish oil, Q10

 

[Jiigzz]

I know you don't have any formal education, but there are about 20 different kinds of lung cancer (which ones does smoking cause?). You need to know your stuff if you're going to enter a debate...simply reading online basics doesn't make you an expert. And I'm no expert either. Aleksander could teach us all things that would make our heads spin. Cancer is insanely complex and it's sad to see so many people little understanding of the disease just minimizing the complexity and making broad statements.

Let's start with lung cancer. I'll simplify this for you as much as I can. THE MOST COMMON TYPE OF LUNG CANCER IS ADENOCARCINOMA, FOR WHICH SMOKING IS NOT A RISK FACTOR. Please re-read that. Smoking is a risk factor for some lung cancers, yes. But MOST LUNG CANCER IS CAUSED BY PURE GENETICS. And this is the one cancer where we have a really, really good understanding of environmental causes. Cancer is a genetic disease, end of story. To get cancer, you need a bunch of mutations in the right spot of your genome. Environmental toxins can increase mutagenesis, but in most cases, people already have (often from birth) a bunch of the right mutations already in place, and then a mild environmental "hit" can put them over the top.

That article isn't ground-breaking. I learned those risk factors in undergrad ffs, it's very basic stuff. The article is astoundingly misleading though. Besides the bladder cancer correlate, the other toxins have an EXTREMELY minimal effect on cancer rates. Like they're almost non-issues unless exposed to insane doses. So again, misleading science, misleading article, the story goes on.

I'm not saying there isn't misrepresentation of data in medicine. Oh believe me there is. I have friends who work their asses of to make awesome drugs that get shut down, while certain drug combos get approved even though no innovation has been made. There's FDA loopholes that allow this to occur.

But the vast majority of people doing the research and conducting the studies are good people. Professors who aren't bathing in riches but living modest lives and dedicating their time to furthering education of students and providing new avenues for research. I have come across maybe a professor or two out of hundreds who are doing things with ulterior motives. Most science professors are your typical good-hearted nerd. Conversely, most of these alarmists who write articles on the internet are uneducated, "enlightened" people who probably have good intentions but alas:

You're comparing intelligent individuals who have spent 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 40 years working in a topic

vs

Someone who pulled up a few pubmed studies, can write a compelling article, and has some sort of "personal experience"

I mean come on, it's genuinely insulting to people who dedicate their lives to help others. Not only are people unappreciative, but they actually loathe them for it.

And while you can look back and say toxin exposure has increased in the past 150 years, guess what? Lifespan has doubled, medicine has saved people from deadly diseases (vaccines), infections (the advent of antibiotics), heart attacks (now a non-issue with angioplasty), pulmonary embolism (warfarin, the most hated drug ever), a-fib.-induced stroke (warfarin again), diarrheal illness (previous most common cause of death, now virtually wiped out in the 1st world), and the list goes on. How blind can you be to think it's all one big conspiracy? I'm all for having an open mind and free thought, but if we didn't have modern-day chemicals, most posters on this board would be dead right now (just 150 years ago before modern medicine, life expectancy was 35 years old in the USA).

Curse medicine, the only reason you're alive and breathing right now!

Cannot rep this enough. And i couldn't because I need to spread it around haha

 

[yiaosen]

i think the general notion of modern medicine being a 'scam' or however you want to put it is partially a problem with how doctors interact with their patients and very selective reporting in media written a) by people who have studied journalism instead of the science they are reporting on and b) for people who have not really studied the topic they are reading up on.

i have friends who say they feel better, have better skin, are less edgy etc when they leave out milk despite their docs telling them that the one test they did came back negative and it is 'completely impossible for that to have any impact whatsoever'. i know people who swear by not eating gluten despite negative celiac tests (have we figured out why that is yet?). i myself have a small problem with my cervical spine (one of the vertebrae seems to be stuck on the very end of its movement spectrum and some days just hurts like hell) which every single physical therapist i have ever seen has picked up on (shoul be about half a dozen people), but all 3 doctors i went to dismissed it as 'psychosomatic' or something equally insulting after some form of imaging technique.
i know many people who lost family to cancer and remember how the oncologists could not save their loved ones. i know several people from my gym who had shoulder issues for which they were supposed to have surgery (10k$++ with several weeks of rehab) which they got under control by some naturopath using some ultrasound/sonic/whatever device to fix them for 2-3 times 200$ without weeks of missing work due to rehab.

this is the stuff that sticks out. the fact that i am alive today because i have had a measles vaccine does not, because no one who did not die because of a vaccination has the opportunity to notice that the vaccine saved them. off the top of my head, my dad got saved at least 3 times in the last decade by various kinds of surgery where he surely would have died - but he still calls doctors out as lazy because he read somewhere that all that cholesterol stuff they've been telling him for years was wrong. also, 'big pharma is not out for cures because they make more money keeping people sick' is hard to refute to someone who does not understand that no, really, metformin is the best we can do for your diabetes right now because it is the best we have, not because we want to suck your wallet dry forever now that you are sick. it is a hard sell to laypeople that it is just impossible to really cure some diseases which plague us, or that it simply has not been done yet because research into those diseases simply takes many years to lead to the kinds of breakthroughs we now see with e.g. the monoclonal antibodies in cancer coop mentioned.

no one who is outside the field really understands what 'risk factor' really means and how random getting many diseases actually is. you want to feel in control. you want to think you could have avoided mutagenic chemicals in your food, water etc because that means you can live a life that does not randomly end whenever you randomly get an incurable cancer. it is just nice to think that i can simply take I3C and thus never get prostate cancer because i am smarter than everyone who does not do that. it would be so nice if it were true and life was not so incredibly random and out of our control as it is. it would be nice if cancer was so simple that you could have a layperson read up on it within a single wikipedia article and expect them to know enough to consider themselves informed. but it is not, and someone who has not studied this disease for years on a professional level will never be able to fully appreciate how hard it is to actually understand what is going on in any disease that does not have the simple 'we found a strain of bacteria, they did something, we kill the bacteria, they stop doing it and you are fine again'-kind of connection.


there are, however, populations that are somewhere in between let down and seriously completely fcked over by the medical establishment. if you take a look at the people today who are sick with fibromyalgia or cfs/me you will find a lot of people who are so sick they can barely move, think or care for themselves, let alone work or enjoy their lives. on 'objective' quality of life tests MEpatients in particular routinely score lower than people with COPD and congestive heart failure. two recent findings on those diseases were small fiber neuropathy (smiliar to that of diabetic people) in fibro, and different fractional anisotropy in the right arcuate fasciculus in people with ME. i have no idea what any of that means, i also do not think that we know enough to even establish what role those findings play in these diseases, all we know is that something is wrong, that we really need more research, and that the afflicted are very sick. but what happens with most of the patients? they are diagnosed as hypochondriacs or with depression because the basic lab tests dont show anything and are treated with behavioural and exercise programs that teach them to ignore their symptoms until they get so bad that they end up bed-bound or killing themselves, and when that happens they are blamed for the 'treatment' not working. big pharma does not work on a drug because there needs to be basic research into what is actually broken first - research that can not be done by companies because there is no profit in doing so. the government does not jump in to help because the psychiatric establishment makes money by keeping those people labeled as hypochondriacs that can be helped by ongoing psychotherapy, and the people who get charged with allocating funds in those diseases are - not surprisingly - often psychiatrists. but what do those people who got hit so hard by the bad side of the medical establishment really need? find the right supplements for them? no, of course not. what they need is proper medicine to target and treat whatever is wrong with them.


so in the end, yes, modern medicine is probably the most valuable technology humanity has ever developed. but that does not mean there are no problems with which drugs are developed, how findings are reported, how studies are funded, how communication is handled towards patients and laypersons (which is not only the docs' fault, mind you - their job is to treat as many people as effective as possible, not waste their time to educate people to the point where they could become doctors themselves). in some areas it takes literally decades until research findings are translated into standard medical care outside of university clinics. in some areas, there are financial incentives to deliver substandard care. in some areas, research grant money is not remotely what it should be.
but that does not mean 'pharma is evil', 'the medical establishment does not want you to know' or any of those things. people will probably always get sick in some way, there will always be a lot of money to be made. i realize this post is not really entirely on the topic of 'cancer supplements' and way too long, but i do feel like it does have a place in the discussion considering the way the thread has developed.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Again, it's an issue of simply lacking understanding, which again I do not blame you for. This isn't your field and that's ok.

It doesn't need to be my field, to see that the medical community has *some* shady people with ulterior motives, but that was a nice back-handed compliment, LOL.

And again, I'm not anti-vaccine. But just like almost 100% of the people on this board (when it comes to what their doctor tells them about taking Shift or Target A2, for example) the knowledge sometimes leaves a lot to be desired and should be questioned - I know MDs hate that.

The Swine Flu "Panic" was a stellar example how the community needs to be kept an eye on.

My HPV = Cervical Cancer rates were from the CDC... I know it sounds good when you tell people that almost EVERYONE gets "HPV" (True - many sub types and we have been since...forever?) And my figures for RotaVirus were correct for the US, as well, according, again, to the CDC.

Why was RotaShield pulled? What's Intussusception? Did RotaTeq and Rotarix ever contain (ie. contaminated with) Porcine Circovirus Types 1 and 2 (PCV1 and PCV2) These are all rhetorical.

Did Baxter ever engineer an H3N2 and H5N1 "Hybrid" and then have it "escape" from Orth-Donau via a vaccine (animal in this case)? How about Anthrax (which I've been vaccinated against, LOL!) from Dugway (and a few other places)? Rhetorical again.

Since we're all about saving the world, how's antibiotic research going? Klebsiella Pneumoniae Carbapenemase is killing people all over the country (fancy a stay at NIH? - 11 dead), yet I hear there is no money in antibiotics, there are only 4 companies that are still in the biz, and Pfizer thinks fighting 'Superbugs' is such a high priority, that they moved AB Research out of Groton, to China?

I get it, you're "In the biz" and defending one's life work is normal - especially when it is questioned - especially by "regular Joes". And again, I'm not against all vaccines, I'm just saying you should probably take at least as much care in researching your child's vaccines, as you do what protein powder, and how much, you consume each day. Or, just do what the RDA says, and take in 70g total

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Coop is speaking sense here and being a lot more polite about it then he should. I have learnt over the years that one of the most frustrating obstacles I experience in life is that "you can't put brains in an idiot". If I here "36 needles" one more time I'm going to slit my wrists. Do you really believe your child would be injected 36 times? Really? Even if it were the case, which it is NOT, it is a damn site less invasive than the procedures we would be required to perform on your child using the medical science you are so quick to refute in order to save your child's life. I struggle to see how this is even up for debate. It shakes my faith in humanity.

'Appeal to Authority' is fine for some, not me though. I'm sorry, I was wrong, it's 27 not including yearly influenza. Unless I'm reading this incorrectly: It's a PDF.

w w w.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf

 

[saggy321]

I bought crash bandicoot the year it got popular, ergo I personally drove it's fame and I deserve royalties

Its quite amusing when amateur academics like yourself discredit recognised research institutions when they claim something different from your beliefs. I have just cited a study that states not only are their strong links but modern environmental factors cause cancer. Read the full text. And what I found really amusing is that most of what your company puts out and charges money for has no scientific basis for it, at least in humans anyway. When it suits you guys, only the gold standard in research can be used as evidence but if its one of your supplements some abstract study done on a special breed of rats by unknown authors becomes acceptable as proof that the supplement works. Hence I go back to my original point....ignorance masquerading as knowledge.

 

[saggy321]

I know you don't have any formal education, but there are about 20 different kinds of lung cancer (which ones does smoking cause?). You need to know your stuff if you're going to enter a debate...simply reading online basics doesn't make you an expert. And I'm no expert either. Aleksander could teach us all things that would make our heads spin. Cancer is insanely complex and it's sad to see so many people little understanding of the disease just minimizing the complexity and making broad statements.

Let's start with lung cancer. I'll simplify this for you as much as I can. THE MOST COMMON TYPE OF LUNG CANCER IS ADENOCARCINOMA, FOR WHICH SMOKING IS NOT A RISK FACTOR. Please re-read that. Smoking is a risk factor for some lung cancers, yes. But MOST LUNG CANCER IS CAUSED BY PURE GENETICS. And this is the one cancer where we have a really, really good understanding of environmental causes. Cancer is a genetic disease, end of story. To get cancer, you need a bunch of mutations in the right spot of your genome. Environmental toxins can increase mutagenesis, but in most cases, people already have (often from birth) a bunch of the right mutations already in place, and then a mild environmental "hit" can put them over the top.

That article isn't ground-breaking. I learned those risk factors in undergrad ffs, it's very basic stuff. The article is astoundingly misleading though. Besides the bladder cancer correlate, the other toxins have an EXTREMELY minimal effect on cancer rates. Like they're almost non-issues unless exposed to insane doses. So again, misleading science, misleading article, the story goes on.

I'm not saying there isn't misrepresentation of data in medicine. Oh believe me there is. I have friends who work their asses of to make awesome drugs that get shut down, while certain drug combos get approved even though no innovation has been made. There's FDA loopholes that allow this to occur.

But the vast majority of people doing the research and conducting the studies are good people. Professors who aren't bathing in riches but living modest lives and dedicating their time to furthering education of students and providing new avenues for research. I have come across maybe a professor or two out of hundreds who are doing things with ulterior motives. Most science professors are your typical good-hearted nerd. Conversely, most of these alarmists who write articles on the internet are uneducated, "enlightened" people who probably have good intentions but alas:

You're comparing intelligent individuals who have spent 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 40 years working in a topic

vs

Someone who pulled up a few pubmed studies, can write a compelling article, and has some sort of "personal experience"

I mean come on, it's genuinely insulting to people who dedicate their lives to help others. Not only are people unappreciative, but they actually loathe them for it.

And while you can look back and say toxin exposure has increased in the past 150 years, guess what? Lifespan has doubled, medicine has saved people from deadly diseases (vaccines), infections (the advent of antibiotics), heart attacks (now a non-issue with angioplasty), pulmonary embolism (warfarin, the most hated drug ever), a-fib.-induced stroke (warfarin again), diarrheal illness (previous most common cause of death, now virtually wiped out in the 1st world), and the list goes on. How blind can you be to think it's all one big conspiracy? I'm all for having an open mind and free thought, but if we didn't have modern-day chemicals, most posters on this board would be dead right now (just 150 years ago before modern medicine, life expectancy was 35 years old in the USA).

Curse medicine, the only reason you're alive and breathing right now!

Actually I have a BSc and a Masters from a top three university in the UK. I guarantee you that I have a better CV than you. That's not the point. I have never criticised medicine....my sister is a general practitioner and one of my best friends is a consultant in general medicine, specialising in diabetes. My original post was quite simple. Modern life, including our environment contribute to chronic illnesses. I'm just saying we have to recognise that. On a separate point how many articles have you published in recognised journals? I'm curious because you seem to think you somehow have a certain authority to criticise any research that doesn't agree with your point of view. Finally can you say that every ingredient you include in your supplements has been proven to work in humans?

 

[Jiigzz]

Its quite amusing when amateur academics like yourself discredit recognised research institutions when they claim something different from your beliefs. I have just cited a study that states not only are their strong links but modern environmental factors cause cancer. Read the full text. And what I found really amusing is that most of what your company puts out and charges money for has no scientific basis for it, at least in humans anyway. When it suits you guys, only the gold standard in research can be used as evidence but if its one of your supplements some abstract study done on a special breed of rats by unknown authors becomes acceptable as proof that the supplement works. Hence I go back to my original point....ignorance masquerading as knowledge.

Yes, attack me and my credentials then bring the company I represent into a debate where it has no place. Good work!

You didnt cite a study, you copy and pasted an exert from a paper. A link would be useful

So if I cite a study that states fat makes you fat, that makes the study "correct" because its a study? Grow up man and apply your credentials here. Its correlation - if something happens at the same time something else happens it could just be coincidence OR it might contribute in some way. Does that mean cause, or be a part to? Does smoking cause cancer, or does it increase the risk of developing?

I was only making a point about your choice of words

Learn why you cant draw conclusions from ONE observational study and then you can go back to calling me an amateur.

 

[Jiigzz]

Actually I have a BSc and a Masters from a top three university in the UK. I guarantee you that I have a better CV than you. That's not the point. I have never criticised medicine....my sister is a general practitioner and one of my best friends is a consultant in general medicine, specialising in diabetes. My original post was quite simple. Modern life, including our environment contribute to chronic illnesses. I'm just saying we have to recognise that. On a separate point how many articles have you published in recognised journals? I'm curious because you seem to think you somehow have a certain authority to criticise any research that doesn't agree with your point of view. Finally can you say that every ingredient you include in your supplements has been proven to work in humans?

I agree it contributes as well. FWIW. I find cause to be a little more definite.

Fat causes heart disease

Sugar causes diabetes

Protein causes kidney failure

 

[saggy321]

Yes, attack me and my credentials then bring the company I represent into a debate where it has no place. Good work!

So if I cite a study that states fat makes you fat, that makes the study "correct" because its a study? Have you ever heard of an observational study? The idea of the study is to find correlation, not causation and the endevour to study it further (my argument was an observational one after all).

Learn why you cant draw conclusions from ONE observational study and then you can go back to calling me an amateur.

But that is exactly what you are doing. I found a paper, quite easily, just prove a point and that point being that modern lifestyle and environment contributes to cancer as well as other conditions and diseases. You just ignored this study and implied it was poor even though it was written by authors who had published hundreds of research papers between the. And a sample of what they say...

This report chronicles the most recent epidemiological evidence linking occupational and environmental exposures with cancer. Peer-reviewed scientific studies published from January 2005-June 2007 were reviewed, supplementing our state-of-the-evidence report published in September 2005. Despite weaknesses in some individual studies, we consider the evidence linking the increased risk of several types of cancer with specific exposures somewhat strengthened by recent publications, among them:

'brain cancer from exposure to non-ionizing radiation, particularly radiofrequency fields emitted by mobile telephones;
breast cancer from exposure to the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) prior to puberty;
leukemia from exposure to 1,3-butadiene;
lung cancer from exposure to air pollution;
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) from exposure to pesticides and solvents; and
prostate cancer from exposure to pesticides, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metal working fluids or mineral oils'

Do the authors say these chemicals cause cancer - no. But do they say that there is a strong link which is increasing in strength and many of these chemicals, individually, are carcinogens - yes.

The study maybe observational, but it has considered almost 150 peer reviewed papers when forming its conclusion. It isn't quite the same thing as citing one study that make a claim about fat making people fat.

I call you an amateur because compared to these authors you are - are you not? If you as an amateur can criticize their research then you should be open to the same. As far as I'm aware you have no certified / recognised authority to speak on this, so like me you are an amateur.

I make the point about the company you represent because it is relevant. You ask me to cite studies that show causation because that is the only evidence that is worth considering and acting upon, but all the whilst promoting supplements that have no such studies backing them. You don't think there is any sort of conflict here?

Finally, I really don't understand what your problem is with what I'm saying. I'm not saying modern medicine is evil nor am I saying that those in the field are part of some big conspiracy to harm mankind for personal gain. I fully recognise there are good, intelligent people working extremely hard to make the world a better place; most of my family and friends are in the medical field and I know how hard they work for little pay. My point, if you go back to the original post, was that our modern lifestyle and environment contribute to chronic illnesses, so technological progress is a double edged sword! For some reason you think of my posts as attacking the scientific and medical community.

 

[Jiigzz]

But that is exactly what you are doing. I found a paper, quite easily, just prove a point and that point being that modern lifestyle and environment contributes to cancer as well as other conditions and diseases. You just ignored this study and implied it was poor even though it was written by authors who had published hundreds of research papers between the. And a sample of what they say...

This report chronicles the most recent epidemiological evidence linking occupational and environmental exposures with cancer. Peer-reviewed scientific studies published from January 2005-June 2007 were reviewed, supplementing our state-of-the-evidence report published in September 2005. Despite weaknesses in some individual studies, we consider the evidence linking the increased risk of several types of cancer with specific exposures somewhat strengthened by recent publications, among them:

'brain cancer from exposure to non-ionizing radiation, particularly radiofrequency fields emitted by mobile telephones;
breast cancer from exposure to the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) prior to puberty;
leukemia from exposure to 1,3-butadiene;
lung cancer from exposure to air pollution;
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) from exposure to pesticides and solvents; and
prostate cancer from exposure to pesticides, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metal working fluids or mineral oils'

Do the authors say these chemicals cause cancer - no. But do they say that there is a strong link which is increasing in strength and many of these chemicals, individually, are carcinogens - yes.

The study maybe observational, but it has considered almost 150 peer reviewed papers when forming its conclusion. It isn't quite the same thing as citing one study that make a claim about fat making people fat.

I call you an amateur because compared to these authors you are - are you not? If you as an amateur can criticize their research then you should be open to the same. As far as I'm aware you have no certified / recognised authority to speak on this, so like me you are an amateur.

I make the point about the company you represent because it is relevant. You ask me to cite studies that show causation because that is the only evidence that is worth considering and acting upon, but all the whilst promoting supplements that have no such studies backing them. You don't think there is any sort of conflict here?

Finally, I really don't understand what your problem is with what I'm saying. I'm not saying modern medicine is evil nor am I saying that those in the field are part of some big conspiracy to harm mankind for personal gain. I fully recognise there are good, intelligent people working extremely hard to make the world a better place; most of my family and friends are in the medical field and I know how hard they work for little pay. My point, if you go back to the original post, was that our modern lifestyle and environment contribute to chronic illnesses, so technological progress is a double edged sword! For some reason you think of my posts as attacking the scientific and medical community.

I think you're arguing what I believe as well, lol.

I don't know much about cancer other than what I have learned through four papers at uni - and that only touched on the surface. I was only saying that links =/ causes. It may contribute to, but cause is a strong term.

My only reason for disliking the term is that people start to fear things OR go around giving broad advice that doesnt help anyone. My apologies if It seemed like I didnt agree with what the paper actually said - thats not true

I work with people who develop genuine fears around food - I don't blame them either. There is so much misinformation out there that sorting through what is real vs. what isn't is a hard task for anyone not actively studying in the field.

 

[saggy321]

I think you're arguing what I believe as well, lol.

I don't know much about cancer other than what I have learned through four papers at uni - and that only touched on the surface. I was only saying that links =/ causes. It may contribute to, but cause is a strong term.

My only reason for disliking the term is that people start fear things OR go around giving broad advice that doesnt help anyone. My apologies if It seemed like I didn't agree with what the paper actually said - thats not true

Sorry if I came across hostile. The start of it really was a post by someone else who misconstrued what I was saying and I felt their response was unnecessarily condescending. I do think however that those of us here that have a more scientific bent do over-react and think that whenever someone makes a statement about the modern world and some of the consequences of industrialisation that they are attacking science and scientific research. You're one of the best guys on here and I do regret writing some of what I wrote - but we are human and sometimes the narcissist in all of us makes us do or say things that we shouldn't!

 

[Jiigzz]

Sorry if I came across hostile. The start of it really was a post by someone else who misconstrued what I was saying and I felt their response was unnecessarily condescending. I do think however that those of us here that have a more scientific bent do over-react and think that whenever someone makes a statement about the modern world and some of the consequences of industrialisation that they are attacking science and scientific research. You're one of the best guys on here and I do regret writing some of what I wrote - but we are human and sometimes the narcissist in all of us makes us do or say things that we shouldn't!

I don't blame you! Its easy to get passionate about what you're saying, so no harm no foul haha.

I enjoy these discussions and interjecting myself in them - even if I don't understand a topic completely, the more I am involved, the more I get out of it. Even if I am wrong haha.

Apologies also for doing the same I enjoy a good read so I will be reading that FT today.

 

[Blergs]

CBD and other cannabinoids and some are legal in alot of places, here is massive info on them > http://grannystormcrowslist2014.webs.com/

also turmeric might be

dont underestimate my link...... ^^^

 

[Blergs]

also people can bitch all they want how vaccines are 100% safe. fact is you dont know long term effects to this sort of manipulation... and although in short run looks good. dont fool yourself, you dont know. just like i do not. but i sure know i wont take all the ones they offer... unless I FOR MYSELF see an immanent threat locally or am travailing or working in health care or child care.. **** off with it..... period...

 

[mr.cooper69]

also people can bitch all they want how vaccines are 100% safe. fact is you dont know long term effects to this sort of manipulation... and although in short run looks good. dont fool yourself, you dont know. just like i do not. but i sure know i wont take all the ones they offer... unless I FOR MYSELF see an immanent threat locally or am travailing or working in health care or child care.. **** off with it..... period...

That's your choice. Personally I'd chance the 1 in 50,000-100,000 adverse effect rate of most vaccines in exchange for immunity to various diseases and illnesses.

 

[mr.cooper69]

Actually I have a BSc and a Masters from a top three university in the UK. I guarantee you that I have a better CV than you. That's not the point. I have never criticised medicine....my sister is a general practitioner and one of my best friends is a consultant in general medicine, specialising in diabetes. My original post was quite simple. Modern life, including our environment contribute to chronic illnesses. I'm just saying we have to recognise that. On a separate point how many articles have you published in recognised journals? I'm curious because you seem to think you somehow have a certain authority to criticise any research that doesn't agree with your point of view. Finally can you say that every ingredient you include in your supplements has been proven to work in humans?

On the CV point, what kind of post is that lol? My point was Aleksander is an expert in the field. Your CV has nothing to do with this lol, and neither does mine. Most people with accomplished CVs don't need to go on a message board and tell someone, they just quietly keep it to themselves .

And I don't want to make this about me but you seem to be geared towards the "I did this, you did that" approach so I'll have to respond. I am very well published actually, thank you. For a student, mind you, but I've been doing fairly dedicated research for going on 8 years now, which is certainly more than most people here. I'm not an expert, but I certainly believe I know a thing or two more than armchair scientists, pubmed gurus, authors of alarmist articles, etc. Being involved in the research process teaches one a lot that simply reading a study can't do.

 

[saggy321]

On the CV point, what kind of post is that lol? My point was Aleksander is an expert in the field. Your CV has nothing to do with this lol, and neither does mine. Most people with accomplished CVs don't need to go on a message board and tell someone, they just quietly keep it to themselves .

And I don't want to make this about me but you seem to be geared towards the "I did this, you did that" approach so I'll have to respond. I am very well published actually, thank you. For a student, mind you, but I've been doing fairly dedicated research for going on 8 years now, which is certainly more than most people here. I'm not an expert, but I certainly believe I know a thing or two more than armchair scientists, pubmed gurus, authors of alarmist articles, etc. Being involved in the research process teaches one a lot that simply reading a study can't do.

I haven't ever mentioned CV before. But neither have I called someone uneducated. My response was to this particular comment of yours. It was never going to be personal but you shifted the discussion by opening your post with a comment directed at my level of education without even knowing anything me. So at least take some responsibility for that. Yes you are an intelligent guy, yes you work hard and yes you are very knowledgeable. But does that mean others are not more qualified to write about this than you even though they have a different view - no.

 

[alwaysfirst]

So as a brief comparison, life extension two-per-day tabs has a slight advantage. Why?

Multigenics vit D dose is too low, dose of vitamin E is too high, form(s) of niacin are less than ideal, combined calcium + mag dose is too high (mag absorption will be blocked), there's iron (which is never really beneficial for males...hazardous, in fact), low zinc dose, low copper dose, and the add-ons are fairly useless due to being drastically underdosed.

LEF is better, but still has only one form of vit E (vs. the 8 total), suboptimal niacin forms, terrible magnesium form, and is lacking trace minerals like copper/vanadium. The add-ons, while pretty, are again underdosed.

The problem right now is I have a tough time recommending a good multi, because they all tend to have flaws one way or another. I take orthocore when I take a multi, but the cost precludes daily use. I'll definitely do a little writeup, but the bottom line here is:

More is not better, when it comes to doses.
Forms matter.
If you're gonna use add-ons, dose them properly.
There are no good "sports" multis besides orange triad and anavite...that is, multivitamins that seek to replete vits/mins lost to intense activity, plus ancillaries that address actual sports needs at proper doses

What do you think about "natural" vitamins like Alive and Adam?

 

[mr.cooper69]

I haven't ever mentioned CV before. But neither have I called someone uneducated. My response was to this particular comment of yours. It was never going to be personal but you shifted the discussion by opening your post with a comment directed at my level of education without even knowing anything me. So at least take some responsibility for that. Yes you are an intelligent guy, yes you work hard and yes you are very knowledgeable. But does that mean others are not more qualified to write about this than you even though they have a different view - no.

That's not how it was intended. My point was that if something isn't your area of formal education, it can be tough to truly understand what's going on. Not meant as an insult. I don't really understand law at all, despite feeling that I know more than most people. Or about computers. Etc. There's a difference between dedicating one's life to the field vs being an intelligent individual who draws reasonable conclusions. A lifetime of experience is often hard to trump...for anything

 

[jgntyce]

So, any other supps in preventing cancer?

 

[storm 011]

Yes, la figa..

 

[Gutterpump]

Good ol Mary Jane