Wonder who funded THIS study

[Guest guest]

Yeah, RIGHT . . .

* Diet changes may not help fight cancer, studies find:

New research suggests healthy diets have limited benefits in cancer

treatment.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060718_diet.htm

[Guest guest]

Perhaps the researchers of this study should have looked at the results of Dr

in New York who routinely achieves remissions of pancreatic cancer.

Part of his protocol is to design a diet specific for each patient. Or perhaps

the researchers should have read " The China Study " , and " The Okinawa Study "

Since the observer influences the outcome one wonders what influence these

researchers were under.

Capt Dan

robert-blau@... wrote:

Yeah, RIGHT . . .

* Diet changes may not help fight cancer, studies find:

New research suggests healthy diets have limited benefits in cancer

treatment.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060718_diet.htm

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

Groups are talking. We & acute;re listening. Check out the handy changes to

Groups.

[Guest guest]

Although I side heavily on the part of nutritional therapy, I would tend

to agree with what they are reporting, based _*primarily*_ on the two

aspects reviewed. That is excessive amounts of garlic, and many

prepared nutritional supplements in general. Garlic for the gastric

bacteria is not going to work, period. It took ten years for the Dr.

from Australia to be accepted by mainstream medicine that the majority

of ulcers/gastric lesions were the result of bacteria and not other

causes. So yes, I agree that garlic alone is not going to help.

Antibiotics will take care of the cause, but there is also a healing

process that can be obtained by an overall sensible diet.

The slew of supplements out there are all under funded in studies for

the simple reason that no one company wants to front the huge amounts of

money to definitively research supplements for the benefit of other

companies that sell the same generic products. They would not recoup

their R & D costs unless it was proprietary in nature, for example the

Mannatech line of sugar based glyconutrients for which they have a

hundred plus patents and applications pending.

Diet is naturally very important, however it falls in line behind

attitude, or rather the mental and spiritual aspects of a holistic

regimen which are indeed stronger than nutritional aspects alone. So

the overall regimen should be one of a holistic process, and allopathic

medicine does not include this as part of the treatment process. CAM on

the other hand, does take the mental and spiritual it into

consideration, but the attitude of a person seeking alternatives and

supplements is generally representative of the cancer victim who wants

to fight the good fight to survive. The majority of people accept the

verdict as a death sentence and follow the allopathic recommendations of

cut, poison and burn.

Where the alternative therapy society, and people in general are hurting

the industry, is the over use, or overdosing of supplements. There is a

false principle that if this amount is good for you, then xxx times more

is better. What is realistic and what is optimistic are at odds with

each other in this view. The body is only going to use or absorb the

amounts it actually needs. Any form of excess nutritional intake will

not make that much difference, except in the form of expensive urine.

If the body only needs 500 mg of Vitamin C, the other 2000 mg your

taking is simply flushed out of the system. This is where people are

going overboard on supplements, and one reason why the FDA is stepping

in on regulating supplements. Some people are not using common sense

and causing problems for those that do use common sense.

Notwithstanding here, that the exponential growth of CAM, and the amount

of money it is generating, has also got the attention of Big Pharma.

And why not? It only makes sense to move in on that type of economic

largess and try to capture a piece of the action. Truth is, Big Pharma

is the only one that has the bucks and R & D facilities to follow through

on researching nutritional supplements. In return, they also want some

form of guarantee that their R & D money will be recouped.

We can holler about and point fingers towards conspiracy and collusion

between Pharma and the FDA all day long, but at this point it will not

make that much difference. Big Pharma is a well oiled international

political machine. While I do not like the blatant attempts at usurping

vitamins, minerals and supplements into a prescription or controlled

environment, many supplement and nutritional zealots are espousing

incorrect information about dosing and using unqualified herbs based on

scanty empirical evidence. While the use of supplements and related

products should be free and open, a few are harming the many.

The _*real problem*_ I fear, is the false connection being promoted that

viruses and bacteria are the " causes " of cancer. Recently, the FDA

approved the " cancer vaccine " for HPV that may lead to cervical

cancers. The same is being propagated in this article about the

bacteria and the gastric lesions causing cancer. This is blatantly

wrong in all aspects. Cancer is not caused by viral or bacterial

sources. What cancer does do, is it takes advantages of any chronically

weak spot in the body, period. So the lesions represent a weak spot,

but are not the cause of cancer. However, in order to classify and

approve a drug, there has to be a designated disease. Take the new

Restless Leg Syndrome.......now we have a disease, and that is followed

by a new drug for that disease. That is the scam.

Many of the carcinogens are not really carcinogens. Some have been

classified as such for monetary gain, as in the case of cyclamates.

Truth is, Aspartame is much worse than cyclamates across the board, but

not in the carcinogenic sense.

Overall, common sense needs to be applied to nutrition, before, during

and after cancer. It is the immune system that needs the balance and

common sense applications obtained through nutrition. The body is like

a finely tuned engine that can run fine on its own, provided the right

type of fuel is provided. The body (immune system) produces the bulk of

its chemicals and enzymes on its own. Most important point in nutrition

is to follow your cravings, eat all the various grains, vegetables,

fruits, meats and carbs/sugars found in a normal diet. If you crave

chocolate, then eat some chocolate. Sugar and salt are necessary

mainstays of proper body functions, so don't avoid them just because

someone says that cancer cells are driven by sugars. I agree with

avoiding excessive processed sugars found in soft drinks and other

processed fruit drinks, and suggest natural sugars instead. In the end,

most of what you eat winds up as being carbs converted to sugar in the

body, so where did this sugar/cancer cell associative thinking come

from? Cancer cells prefer to cannibalize the richest nutrient source in

the body, which is in fact our red blood cells.

However, the most important aspect of health is your attitude, and the

perception of the food that you eat. Meditate or pray daily, read the

Bible or whatever religious book, but do take the time to relax and

enjoy life. Don't take yourself too seriously, laugh a lot at yourself

and at jokes. Exercise, get out in the sun, it's there for a reason

other than providing daylight. One of the biggest mistakes IMHO that I

read continually in this newsgroup is the details, scheduling and worry

over this or that special diet. Forget all that and enjoy life. If you

have cancer, do not see/foresee yourself one second into the future with

the disease. Replace the current image of yourself with one that

hearkens back to the healthiest point in your life. See and believe

that picture to be the goal, focus on that picture every time you think

of yourself or your health. Demand that this is the end result of your

daily mental imaging whether you are well or ill. Worry is interest

paid before it is due. Find a bigger reason to live life for, and it is

amazing what will follow. Cancer survivors will tell you it wasn't the

treatment or supplements per se that helped them the most, but attitude

and purpose that carried them through in the end.

Chuck

Dan Captain wrote:

> Perhaps the researchers of this study should have looked at the

> results of Dr in New York who routinely achieves remissions

> of pancreatic cancer. Part of his protocol is to design a diet

> specific for each patient. Or perhaps the researchers should have read

> " The China Study " , and " The Okinawa Study "

> Since the observer influences the outcome one wonders what influence

> these researchers were under.

> Capt Dan

>

> http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060718_diet.htm

> <http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060718_diet.htm>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting input.

Especially re' attitude. Here are my observations on wholistic proccesses. I

have a friend who is a 26 year cancer survivor (whipple procceedure) whose

prognosis after the operation was extremely poor. He became a pioneer in

vizualization therapy. It is truly amazing to see photographs of cancer cells

being attacked by T cells. And even more amazing to learn that immune system

cells have receptors to recieve " instructions " via the spinal pathway, and that

we can learn to " fire up " the immune system with specific vizualization

" targets " Thoughts are " things " they have energy, they can do work, we can to a

certain extent create our own reality using mental images. " Whatever the human

mind can concieve and believe, it can achieve " Beatiful concepts, you know and

I know that it works. The key word is BELIEVE. The internet is full of amazing

mind body research, real science, and yes, there are plenty of people who have

been healed by prayer. However, and this is the kicker,

I just recently came across a study that " proves " a positive attitude does not

improve the outcome, or survival times of the cancer patients studied. I wonder

who the patients were and if they had recieved any real help or counselling. I

will try to dig it up again. You can find a study to contradict any study you

want.

And.......there are tons of studies that detail garlic as being completely

inneffective.

But wait a minute.....

" S-allyl cysteine (a derivative of aged garlic)inhibited proliferation and

cell growth of nine human and murine melanoma lines,Takeyama et al 1993

" Garlic stimulates proliferation of lymphoctes comprising 25% of total white

blood cells (Colic et al 2000)

I was one of those who had the pyrlori bacteria years ago and got rid of it

with anti biotics and bismuth. Its true garlic did not help in that case.

And so it goes on. The real issue here is how do we as a group help each other

to find our way through the cancer jungle of egos, dollars, and self interest,

to hope, health and happiness.

We can share our personal experiences, from the heart. In my case I watched my

psa drop from 254 to 201 whithin two weeks of starting a vegetarian/seafood

diet, " with no other treatment " I dont take any supplements. Thats the only

thing I did, and that was enough of a result for me to continue with it. Three

months later my psa had dropped to 105 and the big guns of Intermittent hormone

therapy and immunotherapy were added, and today, a year, later my psa is 30 and

falling. At this rate I should achieve 0-1 in 4 to 5 more weeks. No radiation,

no chemo.

My reasoning diet wise is not to " cure " cancer with diet, but to " unload " my

immune system from having to deal with unecessary invaders, freeing up

rescources to do its job..The best way to do this is through non dairy organic

foods, light, easy to digest, with potent addatives like cayenne pepper and

Tumeric and ...delicious. Lots of great juices, and if I feel like chocolate I

eat some. Same goes for organic meat once in a while. But I really stay away

from the American fast food farce. I travel globally a lot, and I always get a

shock when I return. America is truly the Land of the Fat, does diet have

anything to do with it?????? I live in Maine, cancer has now become the #1

killer in Maine, could diet conceivably have anything to do with it?

For me, the result of my diet change is, I feel better than I have felt for

years, and that I think is what we want to hear. Not debates, results!!!!

Clinical studies have their place, what I really want is to know from memers of

this group is, how are you doing? Is what you are doing helping you? does my

experience help you? Are you afraid? Can I help?

Dan

Misc <misc@...> wrote:

Although I side heavily on the part of nutritional therapy, I would tend

to agree with what they are reporting, based _*primarily*_ on the two

aspects reviewed. That is excessive amounts of garlic, and many

prepared nutritional supplements in general. Garlic for the gastric

bacteria is not going to work, period. It took ten years for the Dr.

from Australia to be accepted by mainstream medicine that the majority

of ulcers/gastric lesions were the result of bacteria and not other

causes. So yes, I agree that garlic alone is not going to help.

Antibiotics will take care of the cause, but there is also a healing

process that can be obtained by an overall sensible diet.

The slew of supplements out there are all under funded in studies for

the simple reason that no one company wants to front the huge amounts of

money to definitively research supplements for the benefit of other

companies that sell the same generic products. They would not recoup

their R & D costs unless it was proprietary in nature, for example the

Mannatech line of sugar based glyconutrients for which they have a

hundred plus patents and applications pending.

Diet is naturally very important, however it falls in line behind

attitude, or rather the mental and spiritual aspects of a holistic

regimen which are indeed stronger than nutritional aspects alone. So

the overall regimen should be one of a holistic process, and allopathic

medicine does not include this as part of the treatment process. CAM on

the other hand, does take the mental and spiritual it into

consideration, but the attitude of a person seeking alternatives and

supplements is generally representative of the cancer victim who wants

to fight the good fight to survive. The majority of people accept the

verdict as a death sentence and follow the allopathic recommendations of

cut, poison and burn.

Where the alternative therapy society, and people in general are hurting

the industry, is the over use, or overdosing of supplements. There is a

false principle that if this amount is good for you, then xxx times more

is better. What is realistic and what is optimistic are at odds with

each other in this view. The body is only going to use or absorb the

amounts it actually needs. Any form of excess nutritional intake will

not make that much difference, except in the form of expensive urine.

If the body only needs 500 mg of Vitamin C, the other 2000 mg your

taking is simply flushed out of the system. This is where people are

going overboard on supplements, and one reason why the FDA is stepping

in on regulating supplements. Some people are not using common sense

and causing problems for those that do use common sense.

Notwithstanding here, that the exponential growth of CAM, and the amount

of money it is generating, has also got the attention of Big Pharma.

And why not? It only makes sense to move in on that type of economic

largess and try to capture a piece of the action. Truth is, Big Pharma

is the only one that has the bucks and R & D facilities to follow through

on researching nutritional supplements. In return, they also want some

form of guarantee that their R & D money will be recouped.

We can holler about and point fingers towards conspiracy and collusion

between Pharma and the FDA all day long, but at this point it will not

make that much difference. Big Pharma is a well oiled international

political machine. While I do not like the blatant attempts at usurping

vitamins, minerals and supplements into a prescription or controlled

environment, many supplement and nutritional zealots are espousing

incorrect information about dosing and using unqualified herbs based on

scanty empirical evidence. While the use of supplements and related

products should be free and open, a few are harming the many.

The _*real problem*_ I fear, is the false connection being promoted that

viruses and bacteria are the " causes " of cancer. Recently, the FDA

approved the " cancer vaccine " for HPV that may lead to cervical

cancers. The same is being propagated in this article about the

bacteria and the gastric lesions causing cancer. This is blatantly

wrong in all aspects. Cancer is not caused by viral or bacterial

sources. What cancer does do, is it takes advantages of any chronically

weak spot in the body, period. So the lesions represent a weak spot,

but are not the cause of cancer. However, in order to classify and

approve a drug, there has to be a designated disease. Take the new

Restless Leg Syndrome.......now we have a disease, and that is followed

by a new drug for that disease. That is the scam.

Many of the carcinogens are not really carcinogens. Some have been

classified as such for monetary gain, as in the case of cyclamates.

Truth is, Aspartame is much worse than cyclamates across the board, but

not in the carcinogenic sense.

Overall, common sense needs to be applied to nutrition, before, during

and after cancer. It is the immune system that needs the balance and

common sense applications obtained through nutrition. The body is like

a finely tuned engine that can run fine on its own, provided the right

type of fuel is provided. The body (immune system) produces the bulk of

its chemicals and enzymes on its own. Most important point in nutrition

is to follow your cravings, eat all the various grains, vegetables,

fruits, meats and carbs/sugars found in a normal diet. If you crave

chocolate, then eat some chocolate. Sugar and salt are necessary

mainstays of proper body functions, so don't avoid them just because

someone says that cancer cells are driven by sugars. I agree with

avoiding excessive processed sugars found in soft drinks and other

processed fruit drinks, and suggest natural sugars instead. In the end,

most of what you eat winds up as being carbs converted to sugar in the

body, so where did this sugar/cancer cell associative thinking come

from? Cancer cells prefer to cannibalize the richest nutrient source in

the body, which is in fact our red blood cells.

However, the most important aspect of health is your attitude, and the

perception of the food that you eat. Meditate or pray daily, read the

Bible or whatever religious book, but do take the time to relax and

enjoy life. Don't take yourself too seriously, laugh a lot at yourself

and at jokes. Exercise, get out in the sun, it's there for a reason

other than providing daylight. One of the biggest mistakes IMHO that I

read continually in this newsgroup is the details, scheduling and worry

over this or that special diet. Forget all that and enjoy life. If you

have cancer, do not see/foresee yourself one second into the future with

the disease. Replace the current image of yourself with one that

hearkens back to the healthiest point in your life. See and believe

that picture to be the goal, focus on that picture every time you think

of yourself or your health. Demand that this is the end result of your

daily mental imaging whether you are well or ill. Worry is interest

paid before it is due. Find a bigger reason to live life for, and it is

amazing what will follow. Cancer survivors will tell you it wasn't the

treatment or supplements per se that helped them the most, but attitude

and purpose that carried them through in the end.

Chuck

Dan Captain wrote:

> Perhaps the researchers of this study should have looked at the

> results of Dr in New York who routinely achieves remissions

> of pancreatic cancer. Part of his protocol is to design a diet

> specific for each patient. Or perhaps the researchers should have read

> " The China Study " , and " The Okinawa Study "

> Since the observer influences the outcome one wonders what influence

> these researchers were under.

> Capt Dan

>

> http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060718_diet.htm

> <http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060718_diet.htm>

>

>

>

>