JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags alternative medicine , cancer , cancer cure

Reply
Old 16th February 2013, 09:54 AM   #1
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Alternative Cancer Treatment - An unbiased discussion on the basic theories behind.

I invite to participate in this discussion, not with the goal of either promote or attack alternative Methods but to discuss the scientific facts behind the ideas.
Remember great number of currently endorsed orthodox treatments started by either empirical, popular or traditional medicine practices.

It is true there are many dishonest people dedicated to exploit the need for alternative medicine, selling and promoting Altmed without the necessary scientific support. But it is true also there are other propositions which are under consideration in current scientific research.

We must not be destructive as to reject EVERYTHING just because of it's lack of FDA endorsement. It is the ideas behind the treatments what we want to seriously discuss.

Thanks for understanding the thread spirit!

Mike

Last edited by MikeAparicio; 16th February 2013 at 09:57 AM. Reason: Sintax
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 09:56 AM   #2
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Johanna Budwig (flax oil treatment) under science eye.

Independently of Dr. Johanna Budwig defamation campaign, her basic proposition of fatty oils in remission and prevention of cancer, has been considered by many scientists and highly informative tests have been and continues to be done.
Some links:

American Heath Foundation article on Omega fat acids

Europe PubMed Central - Colon Cancer and Omega fats

Mechanisms of omega-3 fatty acid-induced growth inhibition in MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells

Evolutionary aspects of diet, the omega-6/omega-3 ratio
and genetic variation: nutritional implications for chronic diseases



Docosahexaenoic acid regulated genes and transcription factors inducing apoptosis in human colon cancer cells.


Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids attenuate breast cancer growth through activation of a neutral sphingomyelinase-mediated pathway

I can and will publish some more links.

Notice in this articles, most speak of using Omega 3 for post-surgery treatment and for metastasis prevention.

There is no reason why the same ideas can't be applied to alternative methods of treatment in cases where chemo-radio have a limited scope of action. For instance treatment of persons older than 70 years. In old age situations, many oncologist doctors recommend a "watchful coadjuvant process" rather than immediate treatment, because of the collateral effects of conventional treatment, which can contribute to overall patient degradation.
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 10:03 AM   #3
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 27,770
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
It is true there are many dishonest people dedicated to exploit the need for alternative medicine, selling and promoting Altmed without the necessary scientific support. But it is true also there other propositions which are under consideration in current scientific research.

We must not be destructive as to reject EVERYTHING just because of it's [sic] lack of FDA endorsement.
Well "lack of FDA endorsement" includes two broad categories: treatments already proven to be ineffective (or disproportionately dangerous) and treatments not yet through the testing and approval process.

Those two broad categories are very different. It's certainly not "destructive" to reject the former, while we would be foolish to reject the latter.

Anyway, to quote from Tim Minchin, "'By definition', I begin
'Alternative Medicine', I continue
'Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call “alternative medicine”
That's been proved to work?
Medicine.'"
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 16th February 2013 at 10:05 AM.
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 10:14 AM   #4
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,271
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
Independently of Dr. Johanna Budwig defamation campaign, her basic proposition of fatty oils in remission and prevention of cancer, has been considered by many scientists and highly informative tests have been and continues to be done.
Some links:
Anything recent? those range from 5 to 20 years old; you say the work continues to be done, so I was expecting more contemporary publications.

One should also reserve judgement on mouse model studies, after recent indications that they're not suitable for modeling human inflammatory response.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 11:58 AM   #5
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
Anything recent? those range from 5 to 20 years old; you say the work continues to be done, so I was expecting more contemporary publications.

One should also reserve judgement on mouse model studies, after recent indications that they're not suitable for modeling human inflammatory response.
5 years is not old! Accounting for the age of modern medical sciences!

Newer articles should contradict the issues presented in the linked articles, that is, I find no "feature" articles contradicting the findings on omega fat acids, which makes them, no matter "old", valid!

If being not recent makes scientific studies invalid then MOST research would turn invalid just by age! I don't think it is a sound argument to disqualify medical and scientific research just by chronological reasons.

I would like to see some articles solidly arguing against the findings cited above.

About mouse modelling then we would have to bring down many chemotherapy developments which precisely and ordinarily started under such modelling schemes. By the same token, Alternative schemes have not gone through mouse model testing, rather under daring individuals which are trying those.
I notice testimonial proof is not appealing to audiences here as they are not part of an "organized test process", but also it is not justifiable to deny all testimonial proof in one stroke.
We have to search more...
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 12:17 PM   #6
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,531
Wow, talk about a strawman.

Possible approaches to cancer are not ruled out merely because they lack FDA approval. Shoot, there are literally thousands of things being investigated currently that are potentially new treatments of cancer and have not yet been approved by the FDA. The overwhelming majority will fail, so "it's being studied" in fact means little.

The problem with supposed "alternative" treatments is not their lack of FDA approval, but that they are generally blatently wrong. For example, the claim that cancer is a fungus. The only bias is reality.
__________________
"Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay."

(Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

Last edited by pgwenthold; 16th February 2013 at 12:19 PM.
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 12:23 PM   #7
George152
Master Poster
 
George152's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hamilton New Zealand
Posts: 2,405
The word here is 'alternative'
Meaning untested, ineffective, time wasting !
__________________
Unemployment isn't working
George152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 12:24 PM   #8
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 35,647
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
The only bias is reality.
But to some believing only in known, scientifically demonstrated reality is a bias! I am not one of those.

And, to avoid a seperate post, the mouse thing is further discussed in

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=253428
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 01:19 PM   #9
Beelzebuddy
Master Poster
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,427
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
Newer articles should contradict the issues presented in the linked articles, that is, I find no "feature" articles contradicting the findings on omega fat acids, which makes them, no matter "old", valid!

If being not recent makes scientific studies invalid then MOST research would turn invalid just by age! I don't think it is a sound argument to disqualify medical and scientific research just by chronological reasons.

I would like to see some articles solidly arguing against the findings cited above.
No. There aren't time or resources to directly verify or reject even the great science. This isn't even in the "good" category. It's in the slightly patronizing "well, it's not wrong, I guess, but so what?" group. In the dry parlance of the field, the results you've linked to are significant, but not important.

You see, cancer's messy. Everything causes cancer, everything inhibits cancer. I'm not being metaphorical here: literally everything that is metabolized by or otherwise interacts with the body has the capacity to interact with gene expression (and therefore, cancer). Water causes cancer. Twinkies (possibly) inhibit it. Your pet woo also has an effect? That's fantastic. Have a Twinkie.

Notice I said that everything "inhibits" cancer, not "treats" cancer. Cancer inhibitors are not necessarily treatments because, you see, cancer's messy. It's hard to treat, nearly impossible to cure. It's a system of evolution in action. What happens when you only kill part of an evolving population? It evolves! That's why all actual medical practices are so drastic; the goal is to get ALL the cancer at once, before it has time to flip whatever genetic bits are required to metastasize.

And flip they will. Half-measures are often worse than doing nothing at all, because the stress on the surviving portion of cancer cells induces more genetic activity on their part. Miss even a little bit, and it'll come back that much more messy and tough. Hell, some of the genes we know cause cancer just induce apoptosis. Most of the time, sure, the cancerous cell dies. But in the rare case it doesn't, thanks to some other mutation, hold onto your butts because now it's got a whole empty tumor niche just waiting to be proliferated in anew.

So no, I see no need to argue about anything you've raised. Even if your papers are right, they're not really useful. It's not because the big bad FDA is keeping them down, but because the situation is considerably more complicated than they, and you, assume, and misleading people into thinking their naturopathic quackeries are effective substitutes for actual treatments will kill them.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 02:16 PM   #10
Lukraak_Sisser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,981
Drat and here I was hoping for some new insights in a genetic therapy or a way to better target chemotherapy so it poisons less of the rest of the body.

Oh well
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 06:33 PM   #11
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Slowly drifting...

It seems unavoidable, but the thread stars drifting into what I don't intend to!

I suppose some background info on the comment participants would allow to understand better what is intended to be said.

In my case, I am NOT a biologist, doctor, pathology expert or pharmaceutic.
I am an engineer with plenty of education background in physics, chemistry and electronics. But I can also read. I can read unbiased.
I teach my students to abandon encapsulated ideas, not throw them away but put them in a drawer.
The lack of scientific bias, and many times participating in forums, Socratic meetings and such, has shown me a very difficult position is reached whenever scientists or science advocates are present.
To a lay man they inevitably create the impression of wanting to state they possess a higher degree of understanding and right to disqualify other's thoughts.

Here is an example:

When I post some links to articles from reputed scientists and researches, containing even the slightest association with Altmed, Zap! Those articles and authors get invariably disqualified.

To be honest, rather than inducing confidence such attitude produces a reverse action. It is difficult to trust, accept and learn when imposed thoughts are pushed along any discussion, no matter if they are right.

The mouse tests for instance:

It is said "Many times or most of the times, mouse models do not work in humans". We could say also "Human tests do not work in mouse models"...

Being the audience so clever, I suppose my argument is understood. If mouse driven tests prove "the approach does not work" it only means it does not work in rats! By the same: If IT WORKS, it only works in rats...
But also it just as well might work with humans... Unless logic is some form of screwed mind process.

Bluntly rejecting parallel study of Altmed, having tested it only in rats seems to me something is left out or incomplete.

Its like children when asked if they like broccoli. They will answer No! If you ask them when did they try it the answer: Never!

Looks like an impasse to me.

What I want to see in this thread is expert knowledge explain why "The themes covered in the linked articles are irrelevant or of little importance!"

Is it because they are not done by major Pharma companies? Or because some Altmed protocols have taken the exposed principles and dare to test?

Disregarding "quacks", it is only labs who can do research? Aren't MD doctors graduated as scientists? Where is their science then? Interpreting pharmaceutical guides? Following Pharma instructions and indications?

Please I AM NOT talking about Simoncini! My goodness. We all agree his fungus stuff is totally bizarre. But Budwig is not. She was a highly reputed expert in nutrition and fat involvement in the generation and remission of cancer.

What I see very disturbing is Orthodox Medicine does not ever consider the illness origin in a particular patient. What has he being eating? What is his environment? What chemicals he has swallowed?

I do believe STRONGLY, the human physique is naturally healthy. It has the power of self healing, once the right nutritional and behavioral attitudes are recovered.

Finally: I would like to mention Doctor Hiromi Shinya. Is he "nuts"?
Is the inventor of endoscopy, performer of more than 300,000 endoscopy examinations and thousands of polyps removed, a "quack"?

He speaks of a natural healing process, including cancer and he centers his experience in all the nutritional problems he has encountered during his profession.

Someone will dare to say Dr. Shinya is a "quack"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=han3AfjevOc

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/enzy...nya/1100309915
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 07:06 PM   #12
Beelzebuddy
Master Poster
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,427
You're rambling. I'll pick out the bit that seems most relevant.

Quote:
What I want to see in this thread is expert knowledge explain why "The themes covered in the linked articles are irrelevant or of little importance!"
That's what I gave you. Effects that have only a minor impact on cancer are not sufficient to constitute effective treatment. It isn't a systemic bias against alternative medicine, it's just that cancer's kind of an all-or-none thing. Would that it were otherwise.

As for the conversation being an impasse, well, that's what the research you cited was supposed to overcome. If it doesn't say what you need it to, that's your problem, not mine.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 08:09 PM   #13
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,907
So what to do? What to do?

Possibly you could ask the US Government to establish and fund a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, managed by AltMed supporters and staffed by AltMed supporters, to investigate AltMedicines using the principles of science?

No wait. The US did this in October 1991. Its mission statement declares that it is "dedicated to exploring complementary and alternative healing practices in the context of rigorous science; training complementary and alternative medicine researchers; and disseminating authoritative information to the public and professionals."

And it has been beavering away at fulfilling its mandate ever since then. To date it has "spent more than $800 million on such research but has neither succeeded in demonstrating the efficacy of a single alternative method, nor declared any alternative medicine treatment ineffective. "

National_Center_for_Complementary_and_Alternative_ MedicineWP

Tits on a bull my friend. Tits on a bull.

__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2013, 09:08 PM   #14
stanfr
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 349
I've got nil background in biology or medicine, but i'm not sure that would help me weed through all the conflicting info on 'alt' cancer therapies out there. For example, the infamous Warburg Effect, underlying basis of most nutritional based and many other alt cancer therapies. So, anaerobic metabolism isn't a 'cause' of cancer. Fine. But if cancer thrives on glucose, why do oncologists pump cancer patients full of high sugar diets to counter weight loss? Seems like a simple enough question--either sugar is good or bad for your disease. But try finding a straight answer--it's frustrating.
stanfr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 02:15 AM   #15
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,582
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
Is the inventor of endoscopy, performer of more than 300,000 endoscopy examinations and thousands of polyps removed, a "quack"?

"The inventor of endoscopy"?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 17th February 2013 at 02:17 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 03:46 AM   #16
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 35,647
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Cool catching Truth is hard, Woo is soft and squishy.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 03:55 AM   #17
Lukraak_Sisser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,981
The human body is indeed self healing. The immune system is totally geared to destroy any foreign objects that enter.

But cancer is not a foreign object. It IS the human body. And as far as the immune system is concerned most cancers are totally fine and dandy.
Only when a cancer has mutated to a truly large degree so that its external proteins deviate from the standard will the self healing part of the human body intervene. But by then its usually mestatized to such a degree that the immune system becomes irrellevant.

Food and nutritional approaches have been tried many times. And found lacking in any actual effect.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 08:36 AM   #18
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
So what to do? What to do?
Possibly you could ask the US Government to establish and fund a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, managed by AltMed supporters and staffed by AltMed supporters, to investigate AltMedicines using the principles of science?
My goodness! We have enough wth FDA ruling what we can eat, drink, consume and use for medicine. Soon they will (or maybe they already are) rule what you think and say.... Oh! Tits on a Bull, my friend!
Actually FDA IS ruling what doctors can do, what people can consume and what folks say in a forum. FDA has no money worries because it has all the money from tax payers, plus the "bonus" from Pharma industry!
Yea! Tits on a bull!

Last edited by MikeAparicio; 17th February 2013 at 08:37 AM. Reason: typos
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 08:49 AM   #19
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Stanfr: A relevant feature of pure scientific thought is it is unable to see organisms as a whole, rather seeing a bunch of "parts" (genes, membranes, chromosomes, etc.). Science cannot see a whole man. It sees organs, nerves, chemicals, muscles, microbes, cells, etc. but not a man as a whole.
It is fragmented thought. It is WELL know a man is what he eats. The whole substance in your body has been TOTALLY replaced in the last 10 years. With what? With the food you've eaten!
It is precisely the lack of a whole view which prevents scientists to understand the total interconnection of the human physiology.
That is: Any substance ingested by a person goes through thousands of conversions, mutations, reactions and combinations. There is NO scientific laboratory capable of simulating a small fraction of the complex body lab.
When testing some material effects in rats, or in vitro with a silly line of cells, they just dump a bit of the tested substance and "see what happens".... There is absolutely no correlation to what a substance has to go through the human metabolism.
Ignoring such fact is just the same as saying "food has NOTHING to do with what happens in the body, its reaction to illness and its healing process".
Highly absurd!
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 08:50 AM   #20
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,907
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
My goodness! We have enough wth FDA ruling what we can eat, drink, consume and use for medicine. Soon they will (or maybe they already are) rule what you think and say.... Oh! Tits on a Bull, my friend!
Actually FDA IS ruling what doctors can do, what people can consume and what folks say in a forum. FDA has no money worries because it has all the money from tax payers, plus the "bonus" from Pharma industry!
Yea! Tits on a bull!
Well that certainly is a particularly clueless response.

Did you actually read what Wiki has to say? If you do so, there is a possibility you might actually learn something.

__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 09:02 AM   #21
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
The human body is indeed self healing. The immune system is totally geared to destroy any foreign objects that enter.

But cancer is not a foreign object. It IS the human body. And as far as the immune system is concerned most cancers are totally fine and dandy.
. . . . .
Food and nutritional approaches have been tried many times. And found lacking in any actual effect.
Well! There is "much fabric to cut" with the assertion above....

My friend: What is Lupus then?

The autoimmune system gets to "think" normal tissues are foreign invaders and... Fiercely attack!!!!

Let us get the autoimmune system look at cancer cells as what they really are and it should attack as well... why it does not or does it in a weak fashion? Because the ill person has already put his immune system down with BAD diet, BAD practices, BAD habits, BAD thoughts, BAD poisons, etc. Not to say (do to danger of being attacked) when the patient has his immune system disabled thanks to lots of radiation and chemical poisons.

If by the correct measures, (diet, exercise, sun baths, and supportive complimentary nutrients) the immune system recovers his full strength... Poor cancer!

If the autoimmune system can KILL a person certainly it can also KILL a cancer.

About "diet having no effect" I would ask, where did you read such thing? Does not make any sense.
You will find hundreds of serious articles by health professionals stating the contrary. My personal experience proves it to me.
Curiously I hear such expressions abut food, from people who is very careless about his dietary habits.

Last edited by MikeAparicio; 17th February 2013 at 09:04 AM. Reason: missing text
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 09:16 AM   #22
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Cool catching Truth is hard, Woo is soft and squishy.
There are MANY inventors credited with the endoscope.
Sir Francis Richard Cruise, Philip Bozzini in 1805, Basil Hirschowitz, and MANY others. Each claims to have invented the "endoscope"

My mistake was to incorrectly label the Colonoscope as endoscope,

Dr. Shinya began developing colonoscopic techniques with an esophagoscope from Olympus Optical Co., Ltd.. The instrument was a short fiberscope with a two-way maneuverable tip and was designed for use on the esophagus, but with it, Dr. Shinya was able to reach the splenic flexure--the first bend in the colon—about 50% of the time.


Here is another example of the animosity against scientists who establish correlation between diet and cancer, or between therapeutic substances and cancer. No matter Dr. Shinya is a well know, recognized scientist he is in danger of becoming a (pseudo)"quack", no matter his great contributions to health issues, just because of his observations or for daring to publicize them.

Folks: A change of attitude is higly necessary!!!!!!
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 09:21 AM   #23
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Tits on a bull!!!!

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
Well that certainly is a particularly clueless response.

Did you actually read what Wiki has to say? If you do so, there is a possibility you might actually learn something.

It is just the same sarcastic way, bounced back, my friend! So it isn't funny when it comes back to you?

Could you please post a link to the Wiki where FDA is an "angel"?
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 09:34 AM   #24
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 6,632
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
It is just the same sarcastic way, bounced back, my friend! So it isn't funny when it comes back to you?

Could you please post a link to the Wiki where FDA is an "angel"?
Straw Man argument. Strike one.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 10:08 AM   #25
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Straw Man argument. Strike one.
Straw man? Ha,ha,ha! So the "tits on a bull" post was serious and with a subject?

You missed to read where I ask for the link about FDA !!!!

P-S- Strike taken! I found the NCCAM link. It really exists! OK Tits on a bull to me!
But I also found: The government is actually spending the money, creating an "institute" to hidden disprove whatever CAM exists. Big deal!
They only working measuring how much money is "spent" in CAM. the 31 billion greens seem to be a little needle in the huge pie chunk eaten by "reimbursed" traditional medicine.

Last edited by MikeAparicio; 17th February 2013 at 10:18 AM. Reason: acknowledgement
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 10:43 AM   #26
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,582
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
No matter Dr. Shinya is a well know, recognized scientist...

...his ideas still need to be judged on their merits.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 11:07 AM   #27
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,531
Linus Pauling had two Nobel prizes, including one for his scientific accomplishments. His vitamin C crap was still lunacy.
__________________
"Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay."

(Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 11:54 AM   #28
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,907
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
Straw man? Ha,ha,ha! So the "tits on a bull" post was serious and with a subject?

You missed to read where I ask for the link about FDA !!!!

P-S- Strike taken! I found the NCCAM link. It really exists! OK Tits on a bull to me!
But I also found: The government is actually spending the money, creating an "institute" to hidden disprove whatever CAM exists. Big deal!
They only working measuring how much money is "spent" in CAM. the 31 billion greens seem to be a little needle in the huge pie chunk eaten by "reimbursed" traditional medicine.
Your train is so far off the tracks I doubt you will ever find you way back to the rails.

NCCAM (or, more strictly, its predecessor) was established by Woo-Woos, set up by Woo-Woos, managed by Woo-Woos, staffed by Woo-Woos and funded to date to the tune of about $1,000,000,000 by the taxpayers of the US of A.

It was set up to address exactly what you asked for in your OP:

Quote:
I invite to participate in this discussion, not with the goal of either promote or attack alternative Methods but to discuss the scientific facts behind the ideas.

Remember great number of currently endorsed orthodox treatments started by either empirical, popular or traditional medicine practices.
by people who believe as you do. The NCCAM has been testing away for more than a decade. To date they have found nothing that works.

Go figure.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 12:58 PM   #29
Lukraak_Sisser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
Well! There is "much fabric to cut" with the assertion above....

My friend: What is Lupus then?

The autoimmune system gets to "think" normal tissues are foreign invaders and... Fiercely attack!!!!
Yes. It's a disease where the immune system can no longer discriminate between host cells and foreign cells. However it then attacks everything, not just part of the body. But that doesn't mean that the immune system normally recognizes cancer, as otherwise the disease would not exist.

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
Let us get the autoimmune system look at cancer cells as what they really are and it should attack as well... why it does not or does it in a weak fashion? Because the ill person has already put his immune system down with BAD diet, BAD practices, BAD habits, BAD thoughts, BAD poisons, etc. Not to say (do to danger of being attacked) when the patient has his immune system disabled thanks to lots of radiation and chemical poisons.
No it doesn't because the immune system works by recognizing the membrane proteins present on the outside of a cell. If these do not match the hosts membrane proteins a cell will get attacked. Since cancer cells are host cells the immune system does not respond to them. Bad diet can indeed affect the immune system, but to do that you need to reach levels of malnutrition normally only found in victims of starvation. Tje rest of your claims are a bit unsubstantiated and quite vague. What are bad thoughts? And how do they affect the immune system?

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
If by the correct measures, (diet, exercise, sun baths, and supportive complimentary nutrients) the immune system recovers his full strength... Poor cancer!
Again, unless the mutations in a cancer cell happen to alter the outer membrane protein the immune system does absolutely nothing, as it's never triggered to respond. There is a rather substansive amount of literature on this subject, I'd suggest you read up on how it actually works.

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
If the autoimmune system can KILL a person certainly it can also KILL a cancer.
Yes, but only IF it is actually triggered, and most people are not that lucky

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
About "diet having no effect" I would ask, where did you read such thing? Does not make any sense.
You will find hundreds of serious articles by health professionals stating the contrary. My personal experience proves it to me.
Curiously I hear such expressions abut food, from people who is very careless about his dietary habits.
Ok, lets start with the fatty acid claim then. What results does eating different kinds of fatty acids have on cancers compared to a placebo? By what mechanism do certain fatty acids kill cancer cells? How is the distrubution troughout the body and how is it prevented that they are just metabolized into energy?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2013, 08:00 PM   #30
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 35,647
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
Stanfr: A relevant feature of pure scientific thought is it is unable to see organisms as a whole, rather seeing a bunch of "parts" (genes, membranes, chromosomes, etc.). Science cannot see a whole man. It sees organs, nerves, chemicals, muscles, microbes, cells, etc. but not a man as a whole.
It is fragmented thought. It is WELL know a man is what he eats. The whole substance in your body has been TOTALLY replaced in the last 10 years. With what? With the food you've eaten!
It is precisely the lack of a whole view which prevents scientists to understand the total interconnection of the human physiology.
That is: Any substance ingested by a person goes through thousands of conversions, mutations, reactions and combinations. There is NO scientific laboratory capable of simulating a small fraction of the complex body lab.
When testing some material effects in rats, or in vitro with a silly line of cells, they just dump a bit of the tested substance and "see what happens".... There is absolutely no correlation to what a substance has to go through the human metabolism.
Ignoring such fact is just the same as saying "food has NOTHING to do with what happens in the body, its reaction to illness and its healing process".
Highly absurd!
With no offense, your material is immaterial. And mostly, if not completely, at it's best only vaguely and unimportantly related to the claims being made by you and by others through you. It is pretty much entirely woo - and it's most important claims - the one's that mislead desperate unfortunates to death or worse- are completely woo. Steve Jobs, among too many others, found that one out the hard way.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2013, 04:02 AM   #31
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,435
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
Stanfr: A relevant feature of pure scientific thought is it is unable to see organisms as a whole, rather seeing a bunch of "parts" (genes, membranes, chromosomes, etc.). Science cannot see a whole man. It sees organs, nerves, chemicals, muscles, microbes, cells, etc. but not a man as a whole.
It is fragmented thought. It is WELL know a man is what he eats. The whole substance in your body has been TOTALLY replaced in the last 10 years. With what? With the food you've eaten!
So what? The polysaccharides you eat are broken down to monosaccharides in the digestive tract and elsewhere (the liver) rebuilt to other polysaccharides. The proteins you eat are broken down into individual amino acids that are then used to build new proteins. Ever hear about the Krebs cycle? Or about ATP:
Quote:
Metabolic processes that use ATP as an energy source convert it back into its precursors. ATP is therefore continuously recycled in organisms: the human body, which on average contains only 250 grams (8.8 oz) of ATP, turns over its own body weight equivalent in ATP each day.
BTW, that's all high-school stuff, nothing fancy. Your body continuously synthesizes needed chemicals, and breaks down others. To say that your body is being replaced by the food you eat is thus totally meaningless.

Of course, there are chemicals the body can't synthesize (like vitamins); and others that are VERY BAD (tm) for your body (they're called "toxins"); and others with which the body doesn't cope to well with in excess (like fats) and all that is also well studied by science, so I fail to see why you say that science can't see "the whole man".
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2013, 04:45 AM   #32
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,271
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
5 years is not old! Accounting for the age of modern medical sciences!
...
If being not recent makes scientific studies invalid then MOST research would turn invalid just by age! I don't think it is a sound argument to disqualify medical and scientific research just by chronological reasons.
Wait, whut? You said the work was continuing, so it seems reasonable to expect some recent articles.

I haven't criticised, invalidated, or called the stuff you linked to 'old' at all. That's all in your head.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2013, 05:03 AM   #33
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,271
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
Stanfr: A relevant feature of pure scientific thought is it is unable to see organisms as a whole, rather seeing a bunch of "parts" (genes, membranes, chromosomes, etc.). Science cannot see a whole man. It sees organs, nerves, chemicals, muscles, microbes, cells, etc. but not a man as a whole.
Not sure what 'pure scientific thought' really means (perhaps you could explain?), but there are scientific fields dealing with large populations, small groups, individuals, parts of individuals, and the constituents of those parts, all in many different ways.

What aspects of man 'as a whole' do you feel science can and should address that it does not?
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2013, 09:53 AM   #34
Akuma Tennou
Thinker
 
Akuma Tennou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post
Newer articles should contradict the issues presented in the linked articles, that is, I find no "feature" articles contradicting the findings on omega fat acids, which makes them, no matter "old", valid!
lolwut http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1357266
even the ads for butter-like spreads have instantly stopped talking about omegas and the like
__________________
"Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species" − E. O. Wilson
Akuma Tennou is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2013, 11:17 AM   #35
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by stanfr View Post
I've got nil background in biology or medicine, but i'm not sure that would help me weed through all the conflicting info on 'alt' cancer therapies out there. For example, the infamous Warburg Effect, underlying basis of most nutritional based and many other alt cancer therapies. So, anaerobic metabolism isn't a 'cause' of cancer. Fine. But if cancer thrives on glucose, why do oncologists pump cancer patients full of high sugar diets to counter weight loss? Seems like a simple enough question--either sugar is good or bad for your disease. But try finding a straight answer--it's frustrating.
Good question! It demonstrates most oncologists work by, issuing tests and more tests to match the findings to a particular chemo or radio therapy.
There is no interest in them to understand the physiology behind the illness. Their role mostly is to convey Pharma instructions, matching the "proper" treatment to the type of neoplastic findings.

Prescribing lots of sugar to ANYBODY is an indirect attack to the almost vanishing health of the patient.

I would post another question: If PET scans are based on tumor cells voracity for glucose, then isn't it to prescribe lots of sugar a nice way to FEED the tumor, generously? Or is it that tumors like only "radioactive glucose"? I don't think so!

If you check Dr. Shinya's findings on food and illness you would see the correlation.

You just brought to the light one of the main objections to oncology practices!
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2013, 11:22 AM   #36
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,907
Originally Posted by MikeAparicio View Post

Good question! It demonstrates most oncologists work by, issuing tests and more tests to match the findings to a particular chemo or radio therapy.
There is no interest in them to understand the physiology behind the illness. Their role mostly is to convey Pharma instructions, matching the "proper" treatment to the type of neoplastic findings.

Prescribing lots of sugar to ANYBODY is an indirect attack to the almost vanishing health of the patient.

I would post another question: If PET scans are based on tumor cells voracity for glucose, then isn't it to prescribe lots of sugar a nice way to FEED the tumor, generously? Or is it that tumors like only "radioactive glucose"? I don't think so!

If you check Dr. Shinya's findings on food and illness you would see the correlation.

You just brought to the light one of the main objections to oncology practices!
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2013, 11:24 AM   #37
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
FDA confidence?

If as supposed, FDA is really performing exhaustive tests on ANY medicine then why there are so many which needed to be banned later?

Some of them: (not all of course)

Thalidomide 1950s–1960s Withdrawn because of risk of teratogenicity; returned to market for use in leprosy and multiple myeloma under FDA orphan drug rules
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) 1950s–1960s Marketed as a psychiatric drug; withdrawn after it became widely used recreationally
Diethylstilbestrol 1970s Withdrawn because of risk of teratogenicity
Phenformin and Buformin 1978 Withdrawn because of risk of lactic acidosis
Ticrynafen 1982 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatitis
Zimelidine 1983 Withdrawn worldwide because of risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome
Phenacetin 1983 An ingredient in "A.P.C." tablet; withdrawn because of risk of cancer and kidney disease
Methaqualone 1984 Withdrawn because of risk of addiction and overdose
Nomifensine (Merital) 1986 Withdrawn because of risk of hemolytic anemia
Triazolam 1991 Withdrawn in the United Kingdom because of risk of psychiatric adverse drug reactions. This drug continues to be available in the U.S.
Terodiline (Micturin) 1991 Prolonged QT interval
Temafloxacin 1992 Withdrawn in the United States because of allergic reactions and cases of hemolytic anemia, leading to three patient deaths.[1]
Flosequinan (Manoplax) 1993 Withdrawn in the United States because of an increased risk of hospitalization or death
Alpidem (Ananxyl) 1996 Withdrawn because of rare but serious hepatotoxicity.
Chlormezanone (Trancopal) 1996 Withdrawn because of rare but serious cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis
Fen-phen (popular combination of fenfluramine and phentermine) 1997 Phentermine remains on the market, dexfenfluramine and fenfluramine – later withdrawn as caused heart valve disorder
Tolrestat (Alredase) 1997 Withdrawn because of risk of severe hepatotoxicity
Terfenadine (Seldane, Triludan) 1998 Withdrawn because of risk of cardiac arrhythmias; superseded by fexofenadine
Mibefradil (Posicor) 1998 Withdrawn because of dangerous interactions with other drugs
Etretinate 1990s Risk of birth defects; narrow therapeutic index
Tolcapone (Tasmar) 1998 Hepatotoxicity
Temazepam (Restoril, Euhypnos, Normison, Remestan, Tenox, Norkotral) 1999 Withdrawn in Sweden and Norway because of diversion, abuse, and a relatively high rate of overdose deaths in comparison to other drugs of its group. This drug continues to be available in most of the world including the U.S., but under strict controls.
Astemizole (Hismanal) 1999 Arrhythmias because of interactions with other drugs
Grepafloxacin (Raxar) 1999 Prolonged QT interval
Levamisole (Ergamisol) 1999 Still used as veterinary drug; in humans was used to treat melanoma before it was withdrawn for agranulocytosis
Troglitazone (Rezulin) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatotoxicity; superseded by pioglitazone and rosiglitazone
Alosetron (Lotronex) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of fatal complications of constipation; reintroduced 2002 on a restricted basis
Cisapride (Propulsid) 2000s Withdrawn in many countries because of risk of cardiac arrhythmias
Amineptine (Survector) 2000 Withdrawn because of hepatotoxicity, dermatological side effects, and abuse potential.
Phenylpropanolamine (Propagest, Dexatrim) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of stroke in women under 50 years of age when taken at high doses (75 mg twice daily) for weight loss.
Trovafloxacin (Trovan) 2001 Withdrawn because of risk of liver failure
Cerivastatin (Baycol, Lipobay) 2001 Withdrawn because of risk of rhabdomyolysis
Rapacuronium (Raplon) 2001 Withdrawn in many countries because of risk of fatal bronchospasm
Rofecoxib (Vioxx) 2004 Withdrawn because of risk of myocardial infarction
Co-proxamol (Distalgesic) 2004 Withdrawn in the UK due to overdose dangers.
mixed amphetamine salts (Adderall XR) 2005 Withdrawn in Canada because of risk of stroke. See Health Canada press release. The ban was later lifted because the death rate among those taking Adderall XR was determined to be no greater than those not taking Adderall.
hydromorphone extended-release (Palladone) 2005 Withdrawn because of a high risk of accidental overdose when administered with alcohol
Thioridazine (Melleril) 2005 Withdrawn from U.K. market because of cardiotoxicity
Pemoline (Cylert) 2005 Withdrawn from U.S. market because of hepatotoxicity
Natalizumab (Tysabri) 2005–2006 Voluntarily withdrawn from U.S. market because of risk of Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Returned to market July, 2006.
Ximelagatran (Exanta) 2006 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatotoxicity (liver damage).
Pergolide (Permax) 2007 Voluntarily withdrawn in the U.S. because of the risk of heart valve damage. Still available elsewhere.
Tegaserod (Zelnorm) 2007 Withdrawn because of imbalance of cardiovascular ischemic events, including heart attack and stroke. Was available through a restricted access program until April 2008.
Aprotinin (Trasylol) 2007 Withdrawn because of increased risk of complications or death; permanently withdrawn in 2008 except for research use
Inhaled insulin (Exubera) 2007 Withdrawn in the UK due to poor sales caused by national restrictions on prescribing, doubts over long term safety and too high a cost
Lumiracoxib (Prexige) 2007–2008 Progressively withdrawn around the world because of serious side effects, mainly liver damage
Rimonabant (Acomplia) 2008 Withdrawn around the world because of risk of severe depression and suicide
Efalizumab (Raptiva) 2009 Withdrawn because of increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy; to be completely withdrawn from market by June 2009
Sibutramine (Reductil/Meridia) 2010 Withdrawn in Europe, Australasia, Canada, and the U.S. because of increased cardiovascular risk
Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg) 2010 Withdrawn in the U.S. due to increased risks of veno-occlusive disease and based on results of a clinical trial in which it showed no benefit in acute myeloid leukemia (AML)
Propoxyphene (Darvocet/Darvon) 2010 Withdrawn from worldwide market because of increased risk of heart attacks and stroke.[1]
Rosiglitazone (Avandia) 2010 Withdrawn in Europe because of increased risk of heart attacks and death. This drug continues to be available in the U.S.
Drotrecogin alfa (Xigris) 2011 Withdrawn by Lily worldwide following results of the PROWESS-SHOCK study that showed lack of efficacy.

If someone comes here and says "Oh! Those are Altmed products which sneaked in and passed the tests" I am going to start jumping and screaming!
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2013, 11:26 AM   #38
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Duplicate

Deleted

Last edited by MikeAparicio; 18th February 2013 at 11:30 AM.
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2013, 11:34 AM   #39
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Isn't it funny?

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2013, 11:46 AM   #40
MikeAparicio
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 304
Why Omega 3 tests did not work as expected?

This is a complex question or maybe a complex answer.

Usual traditional test order goes by trying first a substance with a line of cancer cells. A very simple test. Put some cells, drop the substance, look at them: If the cells start laughing and dancing it means the substance is "no good". If they go to a side it means the substance stinks. If they collapse for a while, then start going in circles it means it is somewhat "good". If they die then !!!!!

Next test: get rats!

Do the same. Rats either laughing, dancing, hiding or fainting for a while!

Oh! they will say: "We have thoroughly tested the substance and it is good for rat recreational purposes only". Cancelled! Reviewed! Trash!

Omega 3 and 6 fat types are highly INSOLUBLE in water so taking it raw, applying it as a bath or ointment, pour it in petri plates or deep rats in it won't work!

This oils need to be made H2O soluble! How?

By intimately mixing the oils with a sulfonated (surfactant) protein. Once this is done the oils are highly absorbed by cells, rats or screaming folks!

Concluding: Like the indissoluble property of omega fats was not even considered by analysts, NOTHING happens. Or very little happens.

Dr. Budwig explains it clearly for those who can read without colored glasses, and she also explains how the changes to omega oils can be performed at home to make it work!
MikeAparicio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.