jts Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 This is from chrisbeatcancer.com.article here -- pictures and links to articles and studiesMy understanding is this claim probably has some truth to it. Maybe 65% or whatever of cells that turn into cancer do so by random mutations. But I don't see that as a big deal.A normal healthy body has plenty of defenses against a few cells turning into cancer by a random mutation. In order for cancer to become a problem, the number of cancer cells must overwhelm the body's defenses. That is not going to happen purely by bad luck.The luck theory of cancer has an advantage for the medical industry: it relieves patients of responsibility for their own health. It increases business for the cancer industry. The cancer industry is not in the business of putting itself out of business. In tobacco science or cancer science or medical science, the purpose is not necessarily truth.The luck theory of cancer is contrary to Objectivism, which has the BUP, the benevolent universe premise. To a fully consistent Objectivist, the luck theory of cancer, taken in the serious version of it, means that the universe is irrational.Read the article for more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerian Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 This is from chrisbeatcancer.com.article here -- pictures and links to articles and studiesMy understanding is this claim probably has some truth to it. Maybe 65% or whatever of cells that turn into cancer do so by random mutations. But I don't see that as a big deal.A normal healthy body has plenty of defenses against a few cells turning into cancer by a random mutation. In order for cancer to become a problem, the number of cancer cells must overwhelm the body's defenses. That is not going to happen purely by bad luck.The luck theory of cancer has an advantage for the medical industry: it relieves patients of responsibility for their own health. It increases business for the cancer industry. The cancer industry is not in the business of putting itself out of business. In tobacco science or cancer science or medical science, the purpose is not necessarily truth.The luck theory of cancer is contrary to Objectivism, which has the BUP, the benevolent universe premise. To a fully consistent Objectivist, the luck theory of cancer, taken in the serious version of it, means that the universe is irrational.Read the article for more information.I thought everyone knew that you can just get cancer by bad luck, and that you can only minimize your risks, not eliminate them. A number of 65% doesn't surprise me too much. If you study the cell cycle, it's amazing it doesn't happen more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 I thought everyone knew that you can just get cancer by bad luck, and that you can only minimize your risks, not eliminate them.I didn't know that.Cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, all can be reversed nutritionally. Then the same method that reverses them should be expected more easily to prevent them, with 100% effectiveness.For example if a man reverses type 2 diabetes in 30 days on a Dr. Fuhrman kind of diet, then do you think he is going to get diabetes on that same diet? Zero chance, I would expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 What cancers? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 What cancers?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 When I asked "what cancers" I was not referring to the linked study you started this thread with, but your claim that "cancer" could be reversed with nutrition. Your claim as is is too broad to address. There is good reason to know that some cancers might be accelerated with nutrition. An oncologist telling a patient to pack on the calories irrespective of where those calories come from might be ruining his chances for beating the cancer. The simple idea that that's the best way to counter wasting from the cancer and the treatments is shameful in modern medicine. The art of medicine over the decades and centuries is finding fewer and fewer ways to kill or damage the patients. The arrogance of medicine is not understanding there's a ratio between art and science therein. Third party payer medicine is even worse by tossing the art and converting the science into dogma plus rationing and pushing up prices for almost everything. When government pushes in money the prices expand to absorb as much of it as possible. Take higher education--please. There's an inverse ratio between the value and the price. It's almost worthless on the one hand and all but unaffordable, in the aggregate, on the other. Secondary education has become almost a complete joke. It certifies incompetence and excludes competence. One good teacher could probably teach one to two hundred students at a time. I'm sure most people involved professionally or even abstractly with teaching don't have the slightest idea what I am talking about. Again, however, it's expensive what they do, mostly for the kids who graduate as close to illiterate--maybe even illiterate--from high school as is imaginable for the 12 years spent warehoused in jejune prisons. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 What cancers?--BrantWhat cancers?--BrantThere are people who eat healthy, live healthy, exercise, watch their weight, have no bad habits and still they get cancer.I would call that bad luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 Mere assertion. No examples. Even with examples, you would need to show that you have all the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 This is from chrisbeatcancer.com.article here -- pictures and links to articles and studiesMy understanding is this claim probably has some truth to it. Maybe 65% or whatever of cells that turn into cancer do so by random mutations. But I don't see that as a big deal.A normal healthy body has plenty of defenses against a few cells turning into cancer by a random mutation. In order for cancer to become a problem, the number of cancer cells must overwhelm the body's defenses. That is not going to happen purely by bad luck.The luck theory of cancer has an advantage for the medical industry: it relieves patients of responsibility for their own health. It increases business for the cancer industry. The cancer industry is not in the business of putting itself out of business. In tobacco science or cancer science or medical science, the purpose is not necessarily truth.The luck theory of cancer is contrary to Objectivism, which has the BUP, the benevolent universe premise. To a fully consistent Objectivist, the luck theory of cancer, taken in the serious version of it, means that the universe is irrational.Read the article for more information.Radiation can cause a cell to become cancerous. And we all are exposed to high energy radiation from the Cosmos. Various stars and novas emit cosmic rays, charged particles that travel at nearly the speed of light. To avoid them entirely would require living inside a lead shelter that is at least ten feet thick. Most of the Cosmic rays do not cause cells to become cancerous but some do. People who live at high altitudes are more likely to get zapped which accounts for the higher cancer rates in high altitude cities like Denver. This is not to say there are not health habits we can practice to low the probability of a cell becoming cancerous, but the hazard cannot be entirely eliminated, no matter how healthy we live. We are made of Star Stuff and we are also (sometimes) killed by what comes from stars. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 This is from chrisbeatcancer.com. article here -- pictures and links to articles and studies My understanding is this claim probably has some truth to it. Maybe 65% or whatever of cells that turn into cancer do so by random mutations. But I don't see that as a big deal. A normal healthy body has plenty of defenses against a few cells turning into cancer by a random mutation. In order for cancer to become a problem, the number of cancer cells must overwhelm the body's defenses. That is not going to happen purely by bad luck. The luck theory of cancer has an advantage for the medical industry: it relieves patients of responsibility for their own health. It increases business for the cancer industry. The cancer industry is not in the business of putting itself out of business. In tobacco science or cancer science or medical science, the purpose is not necessarily truth. The luck theory of cancer is contrary to Objectivism, which has the BUP, the benevolent universe premise. To a fully consistent Objectivist, the luck theory of cancer, taken in the serious version of it, means that the universe is irrational. Read the article for more information.Radiation can cause a cell to become cancerous. And we all are exposed to high energy radiation from the Cosmos. Various stars and novas emit cosmic rays, charged particles that travel at nearly the speed of light. To avoid them entirely would require living inside a lead shelter that is at least ten feet thick. Most of the Cosmic rays do not cause cells to become cancerous but some do. People who live at high altitudes are more likely to get zapped which accounts for the higher cancer rates in high altitude cities like Denver. This is not to say there are not health habits we can practice to low the probability of a cell becoming cancerous, but the hazard cannot be entirely eliminated, no matter how healthy we live. We are made of Star Stuff and we are also (sometimes) killed bu what comes from stars. Ba'al Chatzaf We all are suffused with background radiation and it appears necessary for normal health through hormesis. My understanding is you've got it ass-backwards about altitude and cancer. There is a health-tipping point for radiation exposure, but you'll have to go a lot higher than Denver. Higher than your airplane will be flying. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 This is not to say there are not health habits we can practice to low the probability of a cell becoming cancerous, but the hazard cannot be entirely eliminated, no matter how healthy we live. We are made of Star Stuff and we are also (sometimes) killed by what comes from stars. Ba'al Chatzaf You seem to think that all it takes to get cancer is one single cell to become cancerous. Not so. The body has defenses. Cancer becomes a problem only when it overwhelms the body's defenses. This does not happen from merely a single cosmic ray photon from a star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The Rational Optimist (Matt Ridley) viewpoint on cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The Rational Optimist (Matt Ridley) viewpoint on cancer. This article is also an endorsement of rationing British medicine by delaying cancer treatment by its NHS. It doesn't straight out say so, but it's there. Good luck with using this approach to find moral and practical rationing of kidney dialysis of people in their sixties over there. That's the nature of British medicine: please drop dead so we don't have to treat you if you're old. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The Rational Optimist (Matt Ridley) viewpoint on cancer.This article is also an endorsement of rationing British medicine by delaying cancer treatment by its NHS. It doesn't straight out say so, but it's there. Good luck with using this approach to find moral and practical rationing of kidney dialysis of people in their sixties over there. That's the nature of British medicine: please drop dead so we don't have to treat you if you're old.--BrantFrom the article:"It is certainly bad luck to be British and get cancer, relatively speaking. As The Sunday Times reported yesterday, survival rates after cancer diagnosis are lower here than in most developed and some developing countries, reflecting the National Health Service’s chronic problems with rationing treatment by delay. In Japan, survival rates for lung and liver cancer are three times higher than here."I read that as criticism rather than endorsement. Pessimism about cancer eventually becoming the major killer of people after most other diseases are conquered doesn't equal endorsement of non treatment of old people. You could be just slightly less cynical and it wouldn't kill you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The Rational Optimist (Matt Ridley) viewpoint on cancer. This article is also an endorsement of rationing British medicine by delaying cancer treatment by its NHS. It doesn't straight out say so, but it's there. Good luck with using this approach to find moral and practical rationing of kidney dialysis of people in their sixties over there. That's the nature of British medicine: please drop dead so we don't have to treat you if you're old. --Brant From the article: "It is certainly bad luck to be British and get cancer, relatively speaking. As The Sunday Times reported yesterday, survival rates after cancer diagnosis are lower here than in most developed and some developing countries, reflecting the National Health Service’s chronic problems with rationing treatment by delay. In Japan, survival rates for lung and liver cancer are three times higher than here." I read that as criticism rather than endorsement. Pessimism about cancer eventually becoming the major killer of people after most other diseases are conquered doesn't equal endorsement of non treatment of old people. You could be just slightly less cynical and it wouldn't kill you. C'mon, now. I referred to the whole article, not a snip. --Brant I wonder if they withhold treatment for cynicalism too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Dr. Rhonda Patrick weighs in: "Debunked: 2/3rds of Cancer "Just Bad Luck"[Eat your leafy greens][Magnesium saves your mitochondria] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 When I asked "what cancers" I was not referring to the linked study you started this thread with, but your claim that "cancer" could be reversed with nutrition.chrisbeatcancer youtube videos, oldest firstln addition, thegersoninstitute videos, oldest firstThese 2 links will provide you with enough videos to keep you out of mischief for a long time.Those who think doing it is not evidence that it can be done, this is not for you.Plus some by Charlotte Gerson, not included in the above links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I'll give the vids a try, but I'll be looking for "what cancers"--not your "cancer." --Brant as for "luck" I'm lucky with genes from both sides--I've only been cursed with hay fever--no longer a problem but as a child and adolescent it was Tucson hell--but the hair situation has come out of left field as it's only meeeee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now