MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : Why the "war on cancer" can't be won now.
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 1 of 47 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  (Original Message)Sent: 7/24/2006 7:00 PM
Basically, the present situation can be summed up as follows (for "aggressive, common cancers, but we will leave lung cancer aside in this post):

A diet rich in omega 6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and low in antioxidant-rich foods creates the perfect conditions for such cancers (an iron rich diet and some other co-factors also appear to play roles). If you are afflicted with such a cancer, you may be told despite some potentially horrible side effects, one should instead focus on "the positive benefit/risk ratio of Glivec for thousands of patients being treated for cancer and other life-threatening diseases," and that you should take such drugs to "fight the battle against cancer." It is not likely that you will not be told that certain dietary changes may result in complete remission.

Source for that quotation:
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-cancer-drug-heart-disease,0,3991287.story

Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR testing and Nobel Prize winner, has said in his autobiography that he would not take such drugs because of the toxicities involved. One point that I would make here is that the studies that are trumpeted by the mainstream media as great "successes" in the "war on cancer" are short term and are based upon entirely arbitrary criteria. For example, if a tumor shrinks, they say that it's a great success, even if the patient lives a shorter period of time and suffers terrible side effects. This is the "surrogate endpoint" - any time you are told that a surrogate endpoint is involved, I suggest you investigate the claim very carefully.

If a patient lives a month longer than those not taking the drug, but only lives a few months total (after diagnosis), ain, it's a great success, even if it causes terrible pain. And if a patient lives a certain period of time arbitrarily chosen to denote "success," that is the end of the "story" - the person could die the next day, and usually dies much sooner that people who never took such drugs, but that is not told to the public very often. This is also true for those who are give several blood transfusions in a short period of time.


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: Why the "war on cancer" can't be won now.   MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  8/21/2006 11:13 PM
     re: Why the "war on cancer" can't be won now.     12/19/2006 11:21 PM
     re: Why the "war on cancer" can't be won now.   MSN Nicknametaka00381  1/22/2008 3:17 PM
     re: Why the "war on cancer" can't be won now.   Edmund129  6/1/2008 2:20 AM