Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Cannell on CLO

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Hey! Thanks to our uber-Chapterleader's efforts, Cannell is

going to be speaking at the WAPF Westside chapter meeting 21 Jan.

What am I going to ask him? I mean, I know what I'm going to ask him

but you guys are sharper than me.

Tersa B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suze-

>The " primitive " undifferentiated cancer cell

>is the " primitive " embryo. Although I guess that's a really, really rough

>ananalogy.

Yeah... I think " primitive " obscures more than it reveals, honestly.

To be extremely brief and over-compressed, subscribes to the

theory that like many other species, humans actually reproduce

through alternating sexual and asexual generations, and that

embryonic stem cells are actually from the asexual stage of

reproduction. As the embryo develops into a fetus, the fetus is

" seeded " with a stock of these undifferentiated asexual cells which

can be used for tissue repair and regeneration as needed, but

sometimes the governing mechanisms fail to kick in and these cells

run amok, turning into cancers. Most cancers share a wide variety of

capabilities with embryonic cells, such as the abilities to stimulate

angiogenesis and to implant themselves by dissolving endothelial barriers.

The signal that turns off unchecked growth in fetal development is

actually the first production of pancreatin enzymes, which is what

leads to the idea of treating (endothelial) cancers with pancreatin.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

>Hey! Thanks to our uber-Chapterleader's efforts, Cannell is

>going to be speaking at the WAPF Westside chapter meeting 21 Jan.

>What am I going to ask him? I mean, I know what I'm going to ask him

>but you guys are sharper than me.

What specifically his evidence is for his assertion that vitamin A

interferes with the VDR and with any other aspect of D absorption,

production or utilization in the body would be a start, but can

probably provide a much better and more specific list of questions.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> 's answer was correct. Just think of a rough analogy to embrionic cells

> that lectured about. The " primitive " undifferentiated cancer cell

> is the " primitive " embryo. Although I guess that's a really, really rough

> ananalogy.

Well I understand what an undifferentiated cell is, which I think is

quite similar to the undifferentiated tissues/cells in an embryo, but

it is NORMAL to have undifferentiated cells, so I still don't

understand the relation to the cancer process.

By the way, I didn't see 's lecture, although I got the rough

runover from you and . I was thinking of ordering the video of

it. Do you think the video would have benefit over the audio at all?

It seemed to me like the one lecture definitely worth paying for, by

your and 's description.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris-

>Do you think the video would have benefit over the audio at all?

>It seemed to me like the one lecture definitely worth paying for, by

>your and 's description.

There weren't any visual aids that I can recall, so you might as well

go with audio.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris-

>It seemed to me like the one lecture definitely worth paying for, by

>your and 's description.

The only problem with the lecture is that needed to have

about twice as much time as he did, if not more.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> What specifically his evidence is for his assertion that vitamin A

> interferes with the VDR and with any other aspect of D absorption,

> production or utilization in the body would be a start, but can

> probably provide a much better and more specific list of questions.

Well Cannel has all sorts of great things to say, besides his

anti-A quackery.

So, local folks who aren't in the know would be interested in things

like, how much D to take? How do I get D from food? What's the

difference between vitamin D2 and vitamin D3? and so on.

With respect to the A thing, I should be done with my article by that

point, and if it isn't published, I can send it along to you ,

and you might be able to draw questions comments or talking points

from the article.

I intend to send it to Dr. Cannel as well. If I can do that sooner it

would be better as it would be better to convince him privately than

to publicly confront him at what he would assume to be a friendly

gathering, I'd think.

, in some tissues vitamins A and D compete for the retinoid X

receptor, which is necessary to bind to either vitamin complexed to

its primary receptor (one of the RARs (retinoic acid receptors) and

the VDR (vitamin D receptor)), in order to allow the vitamin/receptor

to alter gene expression, but it depends on the tissue because it only

matters if the retinoid X receptor comes in short supply. There are

also various interactions in which one vitamin might induce the

release of the other from a gene. There are also many interactions in

which the opposite is true and they enhance each other.

None of those interactions involving the VDR are likely to be related

to the three studies Cannel posted in his newsletter, which are mostly

likely, in my view, mediated by the 1,25,D3-MARRS (membrane-associated

rapid response steroid-binding protein), although none of the studies

actually elucidate that, in part because they all were conducted

before its discovery last year, and ALL of which indicate CLEARLY that

the absolute amount of vitamin A is irrelevant. One of the studies

even used vitamin D2 as the form of vitamin D, which in the very same

newsletter Cannel says competitively inhibits D3 from reachign the VDR

and doesn't carry out the effect of vitamin D, which makes me yet more

curious as to why he connects those studies with the Vitamin D

receptor.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris-

>Well Cannel has all sorts of great things to say, besides his

>anti-A quackery.

For some reason I thought we were talking specifically about his

vitamin A recommendations, but of course you're completely right --

in a venue like this, it's much more important to have him

disseminate useful information to the lay public than to get into

some kind of confrontation which might harden his support of a single

mistaken position.

>I intend to send it to Dr. Cannel as well. If I can do that sooner it

>would be better as it would be better to convince him privately than

>to publicly confront him at what he would assume to be a friendly

>gathering, I'd think.

Completely right, and I obviously wasn't thinking at all. If anyone

broaches the issue at all at that event, it should doubtless be

privately, either beforehand or afterwards.

>, in some tissues vitamins A and D compete for the retinoid X

>receptor, which is necessary to bind to either vitamin complexed to

>its primary receptor (one of the RARs (retinoic acid receptors) and

>the VDR (vitamin D receptor)), in order to allow the vitamin/receptor

>to alter gene expression, but it depends on the tissue because it only

>matters if the retinoid X receptor comes in short supply. There are

>also various interactions in which one vitamin might induce the

>release of the other from a gene.

I remember you mentioning this before, come to think of it. Do you

know which tissues? And under what conditions does the retinoid X

receptor express insufficiently? Is it due to genetic or

environmental factors?

>One of the studies

>even used vitamin D2 as the form of vitamin D

Really? Odd that he'd cite it, then.

>, which in the very same

>newsletter Cannel says competitively inhibits D3 from reachign the VDR

>and doesn't carry out the effect of vitamin D, which makes me yet more

>curious as to why he connects those studies with the Vitamin D

>receptor.

I've definitely got to catch up with his newsletters, starting with

the one forwarded me.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....With respect to the A thing, I should be done with my article by that

> point, and if it isn't published, I can send it along to you ,

> and you might be able to draw questions comments or talking points

> from the article.

This is what I was hoping you would say!

> I intend to send it to Dr. Cannel as well. If I can do that sooner it

> would be better as it would be better to convince him privately than

> to publicly confront him at what he would assume to be a friendly

> gathering, I'd think.

Oh dear no, no confronting--not me! I really enjoyed his presentation

at the conf., I'm just hoping to find out more information.

I remembered him saying to take clo and supplemental D to add up to

4000IU daily in absence of sun exposure so it surprised me when he

flipped on the clo in his newsletter.

B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

>Oh dear no, no confronting--not me! I really enjoyed his presentation

>at the conf., I'm just hoping to find out more information.

You don't think you should roundly castigate him for occasionally

feeding his 3yo son Mcs? I mean, wouldn't public shaming help

change his behaviour? <g>

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> You don't think you should roundly castigate him for occasionally

> feeding his 3yo son Mcs? I mean, wouldn't public shaming help

> change his behaviour? <g>

,

He has a three-year old son? I thought he had a two-year old daughter

to whom he gives 2000 IU of D daily?

I must have been off with Suze somewhere?

B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

>He has a three-year old son? I thought he had a two-year old daughter

>to whom he gives 2000 IU of D daily?

I could be wrong, but I remember him mentioning that he's very

conscious of the bad stuff in a Mcs meal on those rare

occasions when he feeds one to his 3yo son.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> >, in some tissues vitamins A and D compete for the retinoid X

> >receptor, which is necessary to bind to either vitamin complexed to

> >its primary receptor (one of the RARs (retinoic acid receptors) and

> >the VDR (vitamin D receptor)), in order to allow the vitamin/receptor

> >to alter gene expression, but it depends on the tissue because it only

> >matters if the retinoid X receptor comes in short supply. There are

> >also various interactions in which one vitamin might induce the

> >release of the other from a gene.

> I remember you mentioning this before, come to think of it. Do you

> know which tissues?

In thyroid (of whatever animal was studied) competition for the RXR

was one mechanism of antagonism; in healthy human bone marrow cells,

there was a dominant negative effect of D on A-mediated gene

alteration (meaning D inhibited A but not vice versa), but RXR was in

large enough supply that it did not mediate the antagonism. There are

other studies and I haven't read them all. I don't think that most of

them have to do with bone and this particular issue.

> And under what conditions does the retinoid X

> receptor express insufficiently? Is it due to genetic or

> environmental factors?

I'm not sure that we even know it has any in vivo relevance. These

studies are generally in vitro, and I'm not sure you can always

compare doses when incubating a cell line in a vitamin or hormone to

the dose it experiences in vivo.

In any case, it might not be " insufficiently. " The fact that there is

a mechanism for D and A to antagonize each other could indicate a need

for that antagonistic effect rather than a malfunction, and if the

total amounts of the activated vitamins exceed the needs of the cell,

then the limiting of RXR supply could be a mechanism to protect the

cell from excess effects of the activated vitamins.

> >One of the studies

> >even used vitamin D2 as the form of vitamin D

>

> Really? Odd that he'd cite it, then.

Not particularly. D2 quite clearly protects against rickets and

possesses D3's property of increasing calcium absorption, even if it

doesn't possess effects mediated by the VDR. So it is relevant to the

fact that A and D antagonize each other with respect to calcium

absorption (and apparently phosphorus absorption, since one study

found combining A with D decreased D-induced serum calcium increase

but increased phosphorus levels), which was the point of the other two

studies too, all likely to be independent of the VDR.

> >, which in the very same

> >newsletter Cannel says competitively inhibits D3 from reachign the VDR

> >and doesn't carry out the effect of vitamin D, which makes me yet more

> >curious as to why he connects those studies with the Vitamin D

> >receptor.

>

> I've definitely got to catch up with his newsletters, starting with

> the one forwarded me.

Unfortunately he doesn't offer a citation for this like he does for

virtually everything else in the newsletter. I need to ask him for a

citation.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn

>

>Not particularly. D2 quite clearly protects against rickets and

>possesses D3's property of increasing calcium absorption, even if it

>doesn't possess effects mediated by the VDR. So it is relevant to the

>fact that A and D antagonize each other with respect to calcium

>absorption (and apparently phosphorus absorption, since one study

>found combining A with D decreased D-induced serum calcium increase

>but increased phosphorus levels), which was the point of the other two

>studies too, all likely to be independent of the VDR.

do you recall what the ratio of A to D was? I'm currently reading

research on kidney disease because Mokie might have chronic kidney disease.

Phosphorus needs to be limited in kidney disease apparently, and so I have

to decide how much A and D to give in what ratio with this in mind. I'm

currently giving her Blue Ice CLO but wonder if the 10:1 ratio of A to D is

too high. Or even if her total amounts are healthful considering her

condition.

Any thoughts?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >Not particularly. D2 quite clearly protects against rickets and

> >possesses D3's property of increasing calcium absorption, even if it

> >doesn't possess effects mediated by the VDR. So it is relevant to the

> >fact that A and D antagonize each other with respect to calcium

> >absorption (and apparently phosphorus absorption, since one study

> >found combining A with D decreased D-induced serum calcium increase

> >but increased phosphorus levels), which was the point of the other two

> >studies too, all likely to be independent of the VDR.

>

> do you recall what the ratio of A to D was? I'm currently reading

> research on kidney disease because Mokie might have chronic kidney disease.

> Phosphorus needs to be limited in kidney disease apparently, and so I have

> to decide how much A and D to give in what ratio with this in mind. I'm

> currently giving her Blue Ice CLO but wonder if the 10:1 ratio of A to D is

> too high. Or even if her total amounts are healthful considering her

> condition.

In the study that used D2? There were many ratios. The one that

detected a rise in serum phosphorus coinciding with a decrease in

D3-induced rise in serum calcium had to use high doses of A and doses

of D3 so small that their serum levels of calcitriol were below the

level of detection in order for the effect of A to be activated.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>-----Original Message-----

On Behalf Of Masterjohn

>In the study that used D2? There were many ratios. The one that

>detected a rise in serum phosphorus coinciding with a decrease in

>D3-induced rise in serum calcium had to use high doses of A and doses

>of D3 so small that their serum levels of calcitriol were below the

>level of detection in order for the effect of A to be activated.

Do you have a copy of the study? And if so, would you mind sending it to me?

I just want to get a sense of the amount of A used to raise phosphorus

levels in ratio to D, and would like to see the absolute amounts used as

well.

The other two studies DIDN'T raise phosphorus levels by increasing A though

right? It wasn't clear to me what the purpose of the studies was...

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> Do you have a copy of the study? And if so, would you mind sending it to me?

> I just want to get a sense of the amount of A used to raise phosphorus

> levels in ratio to D, and would like to see the absolute amounts used as

> well.

>

> The other two studies DIDN'T raise phosphorus levels by increasing A though

> right? It wasn't clear to me what the purpose of the studies was...

The other two studies didn't measure it I don't think. They are with

chickens, rats, and humans respectively and none with dogs, and it is

the rat one that measured serum phosphorus levels, which may or may

not have to do with intestinal absorption of phosphorus. The minimum

dose of A that they tested raised phosphorus levels, which was 759.24

IU/kg bodyweight every three days, or 253.08 IU/kg bodyweight per day.

Vitamin D lowers this response substantially, but the highest dose

they report of vitamin D is 61.92 IU/kg/3 days or 20.64 IU/kg/day.

They said they had to use very low levels of D to see the effect take

place, so that's what they report on. It's not particularly useful, I

don't think, for your purposes.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...