 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / July 2005Orthomolecular Treatment of Cancer
http://www.islandnet.com/~hoffer/ Any opinions? TC You can find all kinds of things, for example, selenium deficiency in cancer and "AIDS" patients, but the root cause is oxidative stress. Go to pubmed.com and search for lipid peroxidation, oxidiative stress, reactive oxygen species etcetera. The only thing missing from current scientific knowledge (as opposed to the nonsense people like "nutritional experts" spout) is that arachidonic acid is said to be "essential," when in fact it makes the body a very biochemically unstable entity. The "nutritionists" made this claim based upon the (at best) preliminary work of Burr & Burr around 1930, but the evidence of the last decade or so is conclusive and overwhelming. Get the arachidonic acid out of your body, while avoiding oxidative stress as much as possible (no oxidized cholesterol or food that contains a lot of fatty acids with double bonds) and you don't have much to worry about, except for things like workplace toxins. >>The only thing missing from current scientific knowledge (as opposed to the nonsense people like "nutritional experts" spout) is that arachidonic acid is said to be "essential," when in fact it makes the body a very biochemically unstable entity. << COMMENT: Straw man argument. Nobody, including "nutritional experts" thinks arachidonic acid is "essential". Unless you're some kind of cat. SBH ::Montygram wrote: :::: The only thing missing from current :::: scientific knowledge (as opposed to the nonsense people like :::: "nutritional experts" spout) is that arachidonic acid is said to be :::: "essential," when in fact it makes the body a very biochemically :::: unstable entity. :: Straw man argument. Nobody, including "nutritional experts" thinks :: arachidonic acid is "essential". Unless you're some kind of cat. :: :: SBH Or unless you are an infant. Annu Rev Nutr. 2004 May 21; [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links The Role of Essential Fatty Acids in Development. Heird WC, Lapillonne A. Children's Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030-2600 wheird@bcm.tmc.edu. The presence of (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) in human milk but not in infant formula, coupled with lower plasma and brain lipid contents of DHA in formula-fed than in breast-fed infants and reports of higher IQ in individuals who were breast-fed versus formula-fed as infants, suggest that exogenous DHA (and ARA) may be essential for optimal development. Thus, since 1990, several studies have examined the impact of formulas containing DHA or DHA plus ARA on visual function and neurodevelopmental outcome. Some of these studies have shown benefits but others have not. These results leave largely unanswered the question of whether these fatty acids are beneficial for either the term or preterm infant. However, evidence that preterm infants might benefit is somewhat more convincing than that for term infants. Despite the limited evidence for efficacy, formulas supplemented with DHA and ARA are now available and appear to be safe. Expected online publication date for the Annual Review of Nutrition Volume 25 is July 17, 2005. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pub_dates.asp for revised estimates. PMID: 15871657 It seems that DHA and arachidonic acid are conditionally essential in certain phases of life.  SignatureJuhana > ::Montygram wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > It seems that DHA and arachidonic acid are conditionally essential in > certain phases of life. No, this study states: "These results leave largely unanswered the question of whether these fatty acids are beneficial for either the term or preterm infant. " Arachidonic acid's presence doesn't prove it's essential or beneficial. :: Juhana Harju wrote: ::: Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] :: Arachidonic acid's presence doesn't prove it's essential or :: beneficial. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2005 Jan;72(1):21-8. Related Articles, Links Lower fetal status of docosahexaenoic acid, arachidonic acid and essential fatty acids is associated with less favorable neonatal neurological condition. Dijck-Brouwer DA, Hadders-Algra M, Bouwstra H, Decsi T, Boehm G, Martini IA, Boersma ER, Muskiet FA. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Groningen (DAJD-B, FAJM), Hanzeplein 1, 9714 GZ Gronigen, The Netherlands. d.a.j.brouwer@lc.azg.nl Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, notably arachidonic (AA) and docosahexaenoic (DHA) acids are abundant in brain and may be conditionally essential in fetal life. We investigated umbilical artery (UA) and vein (UV) fatty acid compositions and early neonatal neurological condition in 317 term infants. Neurological condition was summarized as a clinical classification and a 'neurological optimality score' (NOS). Neurologically abnormal infants (n=27) had lower UV DHA and essential fatty acid (EFA) status. NOS correlated positively with AA (UV), and EFA (UV) and DHA status (UV and UA) and negatively with 18:2omega6 and omega9 (UV), and 20:3omega9, omega7 and C18 trans fatty acids (UV and UA). UV DHA, AA, saturated fatty acids, gestational age and obstetrical optimality score explained 16.2% of the NOS variance. Early postnatal neurological condition seems negatively influenced by lower fetal DHA, AA and EFA status. C18 trans fatty acids and 18:2omega6 may exert negative effects by impairment of LCP status. PMID: 15589396 SignatureJuhana > :: Juhana Harju wrote: > ::: Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > 18:2omega6 may exert negative effects by impairment of LCP status. PMID: > 15589396 The first study you posted clearly contradicted your assertion that it showed these fatty acids to be beneficial. The second one just as clearly states only correlations. Correlations do not prove a cause/effect relationship. Example: The total number of priests, rabbis and ministers positively correlates with the number of alcoholics in a city. This does not prove that priests, rabbis and ministers cause alcoholism. Both of these counts correlate with the population (size) of the city. Cities with 100K+ populations tend to have more alcoholics and clergy than cities with populations of a few hundred etc. The abstract states that these "may be conditionally essential". It didn't make any stronger claim because the study didn't show anything stronger. >>It seems that DHA and arachidonic acid are conditionally essential in certain phases of life. << I'm not ruling it out, but the case for DHA is considerably stronger than for AA. Mainly because DHA is the major brain fat, and AA is fairly rare by comparison. There have been a number of studies which have found benefits of supplementing DHA in infants, also, but I cannot find any which found that for AA. Do you know of any? SBH :::: It seems that DHA and arachidonic acid are conditionally essential :::: in certain phases of life. << [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: have found benefits of supplementing DHA in infants, also, but I :: cannot find any which found that for AA. Do you know of any? No. Having read studies about DHA and AA I just suspect that both dietary DHA and AA are beneficial if not necessary in pregnancy and infancy. But I have no proof. SignatureJuhana > http://www.islandnet.com/~hoffer/ > > Any opinions? Hoffer, who is clearly a fossil, probably is suffering from senility. Recently published research strongly suggests that cancer patients can increase their probability of surviving cancer by 50%, simply by exercising. >>Recently published research strongly suggests that cancer patients can increase their probability of surviving cancer by 50%, simply by exercising. << COMMENT: Retrospective epidemiology cannot "strongly suggest" anything at differences of 50%. Just thought you'd like to know, Gohde. SBH > >>Recently published research strongly suggests that cancer patients can > increase their probability of surviving cancer by 50%, simply by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Retrospective epidemiology cannot "strongly suggest" anything at > differences of 50%. That is because you guys don't have any balls, like I do. :) Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. > Retrospective epidemiology cannot "strongly suggest" anything at > differences of 50%. >>That is because you guys don't have any balls, like I do. :) COMMENT: Possibly you think we don't have them because we don't try to think with them? Gohde, I hate to tell you this, but that's not what they're for. SBH > > Retrospective epidemiology cannot "strongly suggest" anything at > > differences of 50%. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Possibly you think we don't have them because we don't try to think > with them? I hate to tell you this, but I do 45 minutes of high-intensity aerobics exercise on a fullbody elliptical trainer 3 times a week. I am in the 12 METs exercise intensity range for 10 to 15 minutes in each of these workouts. Like I said before, you guys don't have any balls. It is a well known fact that research MDs, such as yourself, are too yellow to every put their names on the line when it comes to research. I just did, but you never have and never will. Just thought that you might want to know. :) >>Like I said before, you guys don't have any balls. It is a well known fact that research MDs, such as yourself, are too yellow to every put their names on the line when it comes to research. I just did, but you never have and never will. << COMMENT: You just did *WHAT* What is it you think you just did, Gohde? It appears you're a legend in you own mind. >That is because you guys don't have any balls, like I do. :) You mean they didn't fall out like your teeth? rr > > http://www.islandnet.com/~hoffer/ > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > increase their probability of surviving cancer by 50%, simply by > exercising. I have publically announced this fact on smn, Google, Yahoo, as well on my web site. It is certainly one of the lesser reported news stories. Naturally, that makes it one of the most important news stories of the year, IMHO. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Natural-Health/msg/5c5f601b57462685 Of course, this news story went by totally unnoticed by the idiots on smn. :( >> > http://www.islandnet.com/~hoffer/ >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Of course, this news story went by totally unnoticed by the idiots on > smn. :( the study might as well be seen from the other side: people who feel worse (and die sooner) simply walk and move less than others with fewer symptoms and pain. and about the "50%".. here is a quote from the actual abstract of the study (not the butchered news article): "The benefit of physical activity was particularly apparent among women with hormone-responsive tumors. The RR of breast cancer death for women with hormone-responsive tumors who engaged in 9 or more MET-hours per week of activity compared with women with hormone-responsive tumors who engaged in less than 9 MET-hours per week was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.74). Compared with women who engaged in less than 3 MET-hours per week of activity, the absolute unadjusted mortality risk reduction was 6% at 10 years for women who engaged in 9 or more MET-hours per week" > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Natural-Health/msg/5c5f601b57462685 > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people who feel worse (and die sooner) simply walk and move less than others > with fewer symptoms and pain. Stupid negative people always can come up an excuse NOT exercise and to die. As Jack LaLanne likes to say: Any fool can die. But, it takes work to live. Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :( |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.