Re: Dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acidspromote colon carcinoma metastasis

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

Francesca,I don't agree that a study is meaningless due to its age, and I

don't understand why you chide people on the basis of the age of a study,

put perhaps I am missing something here. I would like to see some discussion

of the relevance of the age of a study, in scientific research.

My understanding is that sound research is still sound research, regardless

of when it is conducted. New research is based on older research, and the

relevance of a study is often evaluated in terms of how often, and for how

long, it is cited, not just by how new it is.

Many substances have therapeutic thresholds, or other characteristics, which

may be determined early in our history of using the substances, but don't

subsequently change. For example, before a drug can come to market, a

company conducts LD 50 tests. Unless the formulation for that drug is

changed, there is no reason to think that the LD 50 results will ever be out

of date.

In my involvement in research, some of the articles that are most cited are

" old " but still define the basis of the most current thinking. Einstein's

Theory of Relativity is " old " but not currently in danger of being obsolete.

On the other hand, as Kuhn describes in " The Structure of a

Scientific Revolution " , anomolies lying at the edges, or outside, a current

paradigm, are often ignored by those invested in that paradigm. These

anomolies nontheless,require consideration, and are often at the base of a

newly evolving paradigm. So, any study that disagrees with a paradigm may

be ignored, regardless of relevance or merit. Candace Pert talks about this

issue in the field of cell receptor biology, and receptor based therapies

versus often toxic pharmaceutical therapies.

Any many, if not all, substances can be both beneficial and harmful, and a

tendancy for a substance to increase metastases of colon cancer does not

necessarily negate its other therapeutic properties. Both properties may be

simultaneously valid. For example, Vitamin C has been shown to be both a

substance that boosts immune response, and a substance that speeds the

growth of certain cancers.

CRON'ing is itself at the edge of the current paradigm, so I think it

behooves us to be cognizant of the limitations of science as an institution,

as well as of its benefits.

Best,

Kayce

From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

Reply-

< >

Subject: Re: [ ] Dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty

acidspromote colon carcinoma metastasis

Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:37:01 -0400

The age of this article is 1998 or an eternity in terms of nutritional

science. There have been dozens of studies since then promoting the health

benefits of fish and fish oil. Now if you were to come up with a RECENT

study such as this, it might be worth taking note of, but the old age of

this one renders it almost meaningless......

on 7/8/2006 3:49 PM, bill4cr at bill4cr@... wrote:

I haven't seen this association before so I was taken aback by this!

" Rats were kept on either a low-fat diet or on a fish oil (omega-3

PUFAs) or safflower oil (omega-6 PUFAs) diet for 3 weeks before the

administration of colon ......(snippped)

Cancer Res. 1998 Aug 1;58(15):3312-9. Related Articles, Links

_________________________________________________________________

Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®

Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

[Guest guest]

A basic rule of science is that an experiment (or study) is valid only if it can be repeated or verified by other researchers. My husband, a respected scientist and researcher in his field, has drilled this into me.

In fact, Einstein's theories have indeed been verified since he first proposed them, by other scientists through their experiments.

Walford talked about this " show me more " when he mentioned the soy-dementia (one only) study. He said that until he saw further evidence, he was going to continue eating soy.

So show me more recent verification by others, (following this 8 year old study) and perhaps I might change my mind. Until that happens, my previous comments stand.

on 7/12/2006 9:27 PM, kayce cover at k_cover@... wrote:

Hi all,

Francesca,I don't agree that a study is meaningless due to its age, and I

don't understand why you chide people on the basis of the age of a study,

put perhaps I am missing something here. I would like to see some discussion

of the relevance of the age of a study, in scientific research.

My understanding is that sound research is still sound research, regardless

of when it is conducted. New research is based on older research, and the

relevance of a study is often evaluated in terms of how often, and for how

long, it is cited, not just by how new it is.

Many substances have therapeutic thresholds, or other characteristics, which

may be determined early in our history of using the substances, but don't

subsequently change. For example, before a drug can come to market, a

company conducts LD 50 tests. Unless the formulation for that drug is

changed, there is no reason to think that the LD 50 results will ever be out

of date.

In my involvement in research, some of the articles that are most cited are

" old " but still define the basis of the most current thinking. Einstein's

Theory of Relativity is " old " but not currently in danger of being obsolete.

On the other hand, as Kuhn describes in " The Structure of a

Scientific Revolution " , anomolies lying at the edges, or outside, a current

paradigm, are often ignored by those invested in that paradigm. These

anomolies nontheless,require consideration, and are often at the base of a

newly evolving paradigm. So, any study that disagrees with a paradigm may

be ignored, regardless of relevance or merit. Candace Pert talks about this

issue in the field of cell receptor biology, and receptor based therapies

versus often toxic pharmaceutical therapies.

Any many, if not all, substances can be both beneficial and harmful, and a

tendancy for a substance to increase metastases of colon cancer does not

necessarily negate its other therapeutic properties. Both properties may be

simultaneously valid. For example, Vitamin C has been shown to be both a

substance that boosts immune response, and a substance that speeds the

growth of certain cancers.

CRON'ing is itself at the edge of the current paradigm, so I think it

behooves us to be cognizant of the limitations of science as an institution,

as well as of its benefits.

Best,

Kayce

From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

Reply-

< >

Subject: Re: [ ] Dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty

acidspromote colon carcinoma metastasis

Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:37:01 -0400

The age of this article is 1998 or an eternity in terms of nutritional

science. There have been dozens of studies since then promoting the health

benefits of fish and fish oil. Now if you were to come up with a RECENT

study such as this, it might be worth taking note of, but the old age of

this one renders it almost meaningless......

on 7/8/2006 3:49 PM, bill4cr at bill4cr@... wrote:

I haven't seen this association before so I was taken aback by this!

" Rats were kept on either a low-fat diet or on a fish oil (omega-3

PUFAs) or safflower oil (omega-6 PUFAs) diet for 3 weeks before the

administration of colon ......(snippped)

Cancer Res. 1998 Aug 1;58(15):3312-9. Related Articles, Links

_________________________________________________________________

Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®

Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

[Guest guest]

Hi Kayce:

A couple of additional points about this.

First, if a study appears to be INTERESTING, is old, and has not been

repeated one wonders why other serious scientists in the field have

not taken the trouble to check it out. They may have a reason.

Which suggests caution is advised about accepting its findings

without further investigation.

Second, with regard to this particular study, why is it that the

cancer societies do not list this as a cancer risk, even though this

study was published years ago? Again this suggests caution is

appropriate ........ PERHAPS they have a reason for disregarding it

that we do not know about?

Also, biological entities require nutrients for growth.

Unfortunately cancer, a form of biological entity, including the

colon cancer in this study, also requires nutrients for growth.

This may possibly in part explain why caloric restriction has been

shown to dramatically reduce death from cancer in mice (up to human-

equivalent age of 100) ........... where dietary intakes are

restricted there simply is not a hugely excessive nutrient supply on

which a cancer can 'feed'. So, excessive quantities of the healthy

nutrients that cancer happens also to need, will be expected to

promote cancer growth, once it is present, and not only serve their

proper purposes.

This is quite different, as I am sure you realize, from causing

cancer (which, as I understand it, was not the claim of this study in

the first place).

None of the above means we should entirely ignore the study that was

posted. It suggests caution for the reasons Francesca pointed out.

But it may also underline one of the many reasons why dietary

restriction is desirable. And that perhaps restriction should not

only be directed to calories. So the list of nutrients we need to be

especially careful about probably is not confined just to calories

and a couple of types of fat. But this is a field which, as yet, we

don't know much about.

It also hints at the possibility that, because cancer is much more

common as people get older, there may be good reasons why the diet

that best prolongs health of older individuals may be different from

that which is most beneficial for those who are younger ........

and less susceptible to cancer.

Rodney.

>

> I haven't seen this association before so I was taken aback by this!

>

> " Rats were kept on either a low-fat diet or on a fish oil (omega-3

> PUFAs) or safflower oil (omega-6 PUFAs) diet for 3 weeks before the

> administration of colon ......(snippped)

> Cancer Res. 1998 Aug 1;58(15):3312-9. Related Articles, Links

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from

McAfee®

> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney,

I agree that caution is warranted. However, if in doubt, I first analyze

the research design, discussion and conclusions. I have often found things

I thought questionable, even in some oft cited studies.

Second, if a study is possibly important, it may still be overlooked, simply

due to what is getting funded at a particular time, the power of the

Principle Investigator, and a number of other intangibles that may have

little to nothing to do with the validity, or even importance, of the

research.

However, if one checks citations, and sees that the study was examined and

found to be faulty or irreplicable, then one is probably correct in

disregarding it. However, we are not looking to see if that is happening

here. We are simply condemning a piece of information, out of hand, due to

its age and the fact that is it not " popular " at this time.

I agree with you that some intriguing possibilites might be hinted at in

this study, and perhaps for the reasons you suggest.

And, perhaps the researchers do know something, or perhpas the PI on that

paper is a person of little personal influence who simply is not being

heard, and should be.

Best,

Kayce

From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

Reply-

Subject: [ ] Re: Dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty

acidspromote colon carcinoma metastasis

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:27:40 -0000

Hi Kayce:

A couple of additional points about this.

First, if a study appears to be INTERESTING, is old, and has not been

repeated one wonders why other serious scientists in the field have

not taken the trouble to check it out. They may have a reason.

Which suggests caution is advised about accepting its findings

without further investigation.

Second, with regard to this particular study, why is it that the

cancer societies do not list this as a cancer risk, even though this

study was published years ago? Again this suggests caution is

appropriate ........ PERHAPS they have a reason for disregarding it

that we do not know about?

Also, biological entities require nutrients for growth.

Unfortunately cancer, a form of biological entity, including the

colon cancer in this study, also requires nutrients for growth.

This may possibly in part explain why caloric restriction has been

shown to dramatically reduce death from cancer in mice (up to human-

equivalent age of 100) ........... where dietary intakes are

restricted there simply is not a hugely excessive nutrient supply on

which a cancer can 'feed'. So, excessive quantities of the healthy

nutrients that cancer happens also to need, will be expected to

promote cancer growth, once it is present, and not only serve their

proper purposes.

This is quite different, as I am sure you realize, from causing

cancer (which, as I understand it, was not the claim of this study in

the first place).

None of the above means we should entirely ignore the study that was

posted. It suggests caution for the reasons Francesca pointed out.

But it may also underline one of the many reasons why dietary

restriction is desirable. And that perhaps restriction should not

only be directed to calories. So the list of nutrients we need to be

especially careful about probably is not confined just to calories

and a couple of types of fat. But this is a field which, as yet, we

don't know much about.

It also hints at the possibility that, because cancer is much more

common as people get older, there may be good reasons why the diet

that best prolongs health of older individuals may be different from

that which is most beneficial for those who are younger ........

and less susceptible to cancer.

Rodney.

>

> I haven't seen this association before so I was taken aback by this!

>

> " Rats were kept on either a low-fat diet or on a fish oil (omega-3

> PUFAs) or safflower oil (omega-6 PUFAs) diet for 3 weeks before the

> administration of colon ......(snippped)

> Cancer Res. 1998 Aug 1;58(15):3312-9. Related Articles, Links

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from

McAfee®

> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kayce,

What amuses me is how the group description claims:

" We expect all members to respect the views of others and to

maintain a high level of decorum. "

....a high level of decorum....Yes, that amuses me greatly!

As a researcher of Einstein and other genius thinkers, I know that

his criteria for evaluating the value of other people's data did not

include some arbitrary sell-by date, nor did he greet attempts at

helpful dialogue with rudeness and/or veiled condensation.

Perhaps these are ingredients totally unique to modern-day

science...or to CRON. How unfortunate.

In any case, thanks for the 1998 report. I, for one, found it very

helpful.

I'm being rude now, aren't I? Or should I say, " ain't I " ?

Ashuwana

--- In , " kayce cover " <k_cover@...>

wrote:

>

> Hi all,

>

> Francesca,I don't agree that a study is meaningless due to its

age, and I

> don't understand why you chide people on the basis of the age of a

study,

> put perhaps I am missing something here. I would like to see some

discussion

> of the relevance of the age of a study, in scientific research.

>

> My understanding is that sound research is still sound research,

regardless

> of when it is conducted. New research is based on older research,

and the

> relevance of a study is often evaluated in terms of how often, and

for how

> long, it is cited, not just by how new it is.

>

> Many substances have therapeutic thresholds, or other

characteristics, which

> may be determined early in our history of using the substances,

but don't

> subsequently change.