somebody forwarded me something on cancer. While I thought it had a lot of good information, I was a bit skeptical and found that on snopes it was discounted as complete crap because it claims to be from Johns Hopkins and Johns Hopkins says it is not.
I got to thinking that it is possible that it did originate from Johns Hopkins, only not through an official channel. Therefore, some could be profound truth and some could be somebody's less-than-endorsed opinion.
I think that a lot of stuff is not advocated because there is nobody to
profit from it. And there is a lot of stuff that is advocated mostly because there is profit, and not so much because it is best. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for paying heaps of good money for stuff that is heaps of good - and for folks to get big time rich on their damn good inventions.
Well ... back to cancer ...
I have a friend, Mike, that worked for a long time as a cancer
researcher. So I forwarded to him and asked for feedback.
I submit to you all, FWIW, the original document and Mike's comments:
----
Executive summary: This article is selling Veganism, not cancer
prevention. It uses trueish sounding statements to make
unsubstantiated claims in support of an agenda.
Commentary is inline:
Paul Wheaton wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Snopes says that this is not an official statement from JH. I suspect that that is true, but I wouldn't be surprised if it came, unofficially, from somebody there.
>
> What do you think of it?
>
> AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE THAT CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY AND
> ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN
> ALTERNATIVE WAY .
>
> Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins
>
> 1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show
> up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When
> doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their
> bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the
> cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
>
> 2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's
> lifetime.
>
> 3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be
> destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.
Good so far...
> 4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional
> deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and
> lifestyle factors.
No. Cancer is the unregulated growth of a cellular subtype. In essence
a cell line has become 'immortalized' such that it ignores apoptotic
regulation, and it masks itself from immunoregulation. The final stage
in a 'healthy' tumor is that it can support anaerobic (oxygen free)
conditions in which the center of the tumor can continue to dundergo
mitosis in an oxygen free and nutrient poor state.
So to say that cancer is the result of nutritional deficiency it seems
true but it is also completely nonsensical. How can you attribute a
nutritional deficiency to a transcription error that removes a
metabolic regulator from proper expression in subsequent generations?
Or what about the metabolic processes that detect and repair natural
O2- genetic damage (a proicess helped by antioxidants, hence their
popularity)?
There are to many natural causes for cancer to solely attribute it to
'nutritional deficiencies'. Cancer is, at the end of the day, a
natural result of cellular division and replication. It is completely
and absolutely unavoidable. That being said, poor nutrition can make
the environment that gives ride to cancerous mutations much more
likely.
> 5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and
> including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
Trueish
> 6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also
> destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal
> tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs
> etc.
Completely accurate. Therefore, Chemotherapy is a part of the 'Dark
Ages' of medicine we are trying to move out of this techniques like
targeted genetic trigging of natural cellular apoptosis in cancerous
cells, or using modified viroids to reintroduce damaged protein
expression which can repair subverted metabolic machinery.
> 7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages
> healthy cells, tissues and organs.
True. Again, see above.
> 8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor
> size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in
> more tumor destruction.
Nonsense. The point of chemotherapy and Radiotherapy is that both are
predominately absorbed by cells undergoing rapid cellular mitosis
(hence why you loose your hair). The entire *point* of chemo and
radiotherapy is to not quite kill you.
> 9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation
> the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can
> succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
See above. The immune system is dependent on random differentiation of
cellular markers to identify invading proteins. Ergo, it is subject to
the same uptake rules as your hair.
> 10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become
> resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to
> spread to other sites.
Both are 'trueish' statements.
> 11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not
> feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.
Yes. But again, this misses the 'big picture'.
> WHAT CANCER CELLS
FEED ON:
>
> a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one
> important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like
> NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful.
> A better natural substitute would be Manuka
honey or molasses but only in
> very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it w h i te in
> colour. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.
Sugar powers glycolysis in all cellular mitosis. What is the point of
this statement?
> b.
Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the
> gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and
> substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells are being starved.
What?! Beyond absolute rubbish.
> c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet
> is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little
chicken rather than
beef > or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and
> parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
No. Cells which have resistance to low pH environments thrive in low
pH environments. An immortalized cell line with multiple regulatory
mutations is more likely to develop resistance to low pH in subsequent
generations due to accumulating mutations.
> d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains,
> seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline
> environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh
> vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach
> down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of
> healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and
> drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat
> some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at
> temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).
This is good advice in general, although it doesn't really have much
to do with carcinogenesis.
> e. Avoid
coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine.
> Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties.
> Water-best to drink purified
water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and
> heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.
I am unaware of any studies directly linking caffeine to
carcinogenesis. Purified water lack the natural minerals we need to
survive. Helloooo supplements. Why would distilled water be 'acidic'?
Green tea is suggested to be a 'cancer fighter' because it contains
higher than normal load of antioxidants. No more, no less.
> 12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive
> enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrified and
> leads to more toxic buildup.
Nonsense.
> 13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or
> eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer
> cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
Nonsense.
> 14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac,
> anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own
> killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are
> known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method
> of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
>
All true, but again, not relevant from a metabolic standpoint.
> 15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and
> positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger,
> unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic
> environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and
> enjoy life.
Trueish. Stress alters your metabolism. I'm not certain how it woul
make your fauna 'acidic' though.
> 16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising
> daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular
> level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.
Nonsense. Some cellular mutations thrive an aerobic rich environments,
as it increases glycolysis.