Cancer and chemo

originally posted by: saadad

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: lavatrance
... you should avoid dr's at all cost. They'll kill you. They're paid assassins for big brother and big corps.

One might want to give this link a read...
10 persistent cancer myths debunked

And you have yet to answer my question - have you ever been diagnosed as having cancer?

Just checked myth 1 and myth 10. Not sure I'll spend my time to debunk this debunking idiotic website.

SHARKS don't get cAcner. The proof they use is so stupid and I would jail the author that write that his zoo shark got cancer. Shark got cancer probably because it was living in 1by1 pool. Damn zoos keepers, they spread cancer to an animal that never had cancer. You know exposing to UV gives cancer, radiation gives cancer and so on.

So we go back to first myth. This idiots write that nan did not created cancer and that is true and they proof us good, but this stupid idiotic website explained it so bad that now people think ohh I m unlucky I got cancer. NO, you are probably 50% or more guilty for cancer, every time you expose your self to sun, radiation or any waves that give you cancer, smoke and eating crap food, meat and other animal products that are rich with hormone growth or just rich in proteins.

Please people use your brain, don't just read what they say without active thinking.

You didn't read it properly did you?
I'm guessing you just skimmed the titles and then posted what you thought.

Myth number 1.
I don't understand why you think it's explained poorly.
It clearly states that environmental factors play a large part in determining a risk of cancer which you' wrote.
What it doesn't state is that it's down to being unlucky.

Myth number 10.
Whilst the first link details an individual shark contracting cancer, the second link (the one that you didn't read) contains a short description of a study looking at cancer in sharks and related animals and a link to the study itself.
cancerres.aacrjournals.org...
Here's a snippet from the results:
"The tumors were widely distributed across at least 21 species in nine families among seven orders, including 24 sharks, 16 skates or rays, and 2 chimaeroids. Most of the animals were collected fortuitously from both offshore and inshore locations in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and a few animals came from public aquaria. Tumors originating from the nervous, digestive, integumentary, excretory, hematopoietic, reproductive, skeletal, and endocrine systems were found, and at least 15 tumors were considered malignant based on invasion into normal tissue."

So whilst it isn't known at what rate sharks get cancer the simple fact is that they do.


It's always a good idea to read things fully before commenting.

originally posted by: lavatrance

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS CANCER! It's a scam!!! You get cancer after you start on chemo or radiation.

Let me ask you something. When do you get cancer? At what percise moment? I'll tell you... when the Dr gives you the diagonosis. That's the persise moment when you get and or have cancer. Not a moment before. Before you were cancer free as far as you knew. So again it's a witch dr scam.

Of course, exactly what happened to this man 4500 years ago, he got cancer because the Big Pharma Doctors done their evil thing and gave him cancer. Chemotherapy was also to blame 4500 years ago.
journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0113919


a reply to: saadad

Animals get cancer too: a hemangioma was found between the vertebrae of an Apatosaurus from 70 million years ago.
How do you explain that? And it's not the only example. And the Apatosaurus was a herbivore.
www.academia.edu...

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Tell me Johnny "sycophant" Canuck, about your myth #4: "Cancer has a sweet tooth" It say:

All our cells, cancerous or not, use glucose for energy.

What do you think of this illustration about cellular respiration?

upload.wikimedia.org...

Specifically about the ability for anaerobic glycolysis to bypass mitochondrion.

And then, compared to the explanation provided here:

users.humboldt.edu...

Specifically at 'Ketone Bodies as Fuel'. Hint: It has absolute requirement to use the mitochondrion.

Another way to express my question is: How a cancerous cell having disfunctionnal mitochondrion would behave either being starved or gaved with glucose? And then how the same cancerous cell would behave in the same situation in the presence of ketone bodies?

It is very easy to parrot countless "authoritative" web site but understanding is more difficult! Do you have the intelligence to understand those things and to comments them for us or will you ressort to your habitual "authoritative" citations. Maybe one of our resident "science buff" "know it all" will come to your help? But I am interested about are you capable to understand what your are talking about or are you simply a colorfull parrot?

a reply to: lavatrance so, your saying a diagnosis is some lie that doctors give? How do they decide who to "give'' a disease to? I found a lump in my breast and went to get a diagnosis. It turned out benign. So, why didn't they ''give'' me cancer? Am I just lucky? One of the ''evil'' doctors didn't feel like ''killing'' me?
The things you are telling people are paranoid and dangerous.
Doctors go to school for many years to study mutated cells that don't self destruct, or whatever cancer is... I'm not a doctor or scientist, but I know cancer is a disease that can kill. There are other diseases that peoples bodies manifest, like Multiple Sclerosis and that too is something doctors spent years studying in school.
The only problem I'll ever have with western medicine is the lack of integration of the ancient eastern medicine traditions. But, I will say this, I would rather have my diagnosis by a western medical doctor and then explore all possible avenues of healing.
I do want to stress how dangerous your line of thinking is. Do you really believe there is no disease in the world and that doctors give people diseases, therefore you don't go to the doctor? What if you got a communicable disease, like hep c or worse and you got a cut on your finger and then someone helping you gets your blood in a cut on their finger!? Because you won't see a doctor, you don't even know you just gave someone hep c! That is an example scenario and could be a worse one.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
But I am interested about are you capable to understand what your are talking about or are you simply a colorfull parrot?

I am not a chemist...I am a survivor. I am 'parroting' an authoritative voice on the subject. If you're so right, why is there not a cancer protocol out there called the 'McFly Cure'?

My doctors said "Here. Do this radiation treatment and it will cure your cancer". I did...it did.
And you? Do you have any personal experience to cite beyond a degree from the University of YouTube?
Say all you want, but until you have stared cancer in the face, you have zero idea of what you will do about it.

Meanwhile, your insolence ill becomes you.

a reply to: Pardon?

Man you don't think while you read. They put a title myth that humans made cancer.

But then they say it is have huge influence environment where people live.
So please answer me did a monkey f#### world environment or maybe lion or cat?

No we humans messed it up, we put all that toxic poison in atmosphere, we cut trees, we polite water, we we we, so please reread your material when idiotic website says that humans did not make cancer, we are making it every time we drive our cars... You and me.

And 10th myth is so stupid that requires it's own topic. In short there is no cancer in sharks that live on open sea because we didn't find it, but we yet need to go and look and we will find. So cancer is not there, but if we look hard we will maybe find one. But with all that polluted water from fokushina I m sure sharks and all other life forms will get cancer and again we humans spread cancer to them with our stupid dangerous nuclear powerplant that was not built right.

originally posted by: saadad
so please reread your material when idiotic website says that humans did not make cancer, we are making it every time we drive our cars... You and me.

...and perhaps you can re-read where it states

Yes, lifestyle, diet and other things like air pollution collectively have a huge impact on our risk of cancer – smoking for instance is behind a quarter of all cancer deaths in the UK – but that’s not the same as saying it’s entirely a modern, man-made disease. There are plenty of natural causes of cancer – for example, one in six worldwide cancers is caused by viruses and bacteria.

Just curious, what are your credentials in deeming the website as 'idiotic'?

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: Pardon?

Man you don't think while you read. They put a title myth that humans made cancer.

But then they say it is have huge influence environment where people live.
So please answer me did a monkey f#### world environment or maybe lion or cat?

No we humans messed it up, we put all that toxic poison in atmosphere, we cut trees, we polite water, we we we, so please reread your material when idiotic website says that humans did not make cancer, we are making it every time we drive our cars... You and me.

And 10th myth is so stupid that requires it's own topic. In short there is no cancer in sharks that live on open sea because we didn't find it, but we yet need to go and look and we will find. So cancer is not there, but if we look hard we will maybe find one. But with all that polluted water from fokushina I m sure sharks and all other life forms will get cancer and again we humans spread cancer to them with our stupid dangerous nuclear powerplant that was not built right.

You're right, I think after I read and not before like it seems you're doing.
And you're right again in saying that we humans have polluted the environment. Well observed.

But where you're wrong is by suggesting that pollution is the only cause.
It's not. You've been shown that but you're still insistent.
That's not good thinking on your part. That starts moving into the realms of belief rather than science.

As for your stance on sharks not getting cancer, again you're wrong but you refuse to admit it.
So you move further into the realms of belief.

One admirable trait in a person is when they'll admit that they're wrong.
Do you agree?

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Tell me Johnny "sycophant" Canuck, about your myth #4: "Cancer has a sweet tooth" It say:

All our cells, cancerous or not, use glucose for energy.

What do you think of this illustration about cellular respiration?

upload.wikimedia.org...

Specifically about the ability for anaerobic glycolysis to bypass mitochondrion.

And then, compared to the explanation provided here:

users.humboldt.edu...

Specifically at 'Ketone Bodies as Fuel'. Hint: It has absolute requirement to use the mitochondrion.

Another way to express my question is: How a cancerous cell having disfunctionnal mitochondrion would behave either being starved or gaved with glucose? And then how the same cancerous cell would behave in the same situation in the presence of ketone bodies?

It is very easy to parrot countless "authoritative" web site but understanding is more difficult! Do you have the intelligence to understand those things and to comments them for us or will you ressort to your habitual "authoritative" citations. Maybe one of our resident "science buff" "know it all" will come to your help? But I am interested about are you capable to understand what your are talking about or are you simply a colorfull parrot?

As I asked earlier, how do you go about starving individual cancer cells of fuel whilst still providing normal cells with it?

If you're hinting at what I think you are I'm afraid ketogenic diets don't help people with cancer.

a reply to: Pardon?

Huh. I said sharks don't get cancer, not sharks can't get cancer. If you radiate any mater it will change.

And I agree with you that pollution, life of style and environment where we live are causing cancer. But big part us also genetics. But radiation can change genes and we humans again gave spread more radiation on the earth than nature it self.

Radiation, sun are the things why people got cancer 200 000 Years ago.

And sharks love clean water and stay away from polluted and that is main reason why they have no disease, not some miracle in their blood. And we humans did not polite oceans so bad except Fukushima were it will be very interesting to research if sharks around it got cancer. If they didn't get cancer then that would be weird.

a reply to: Pardon?

You can starve cancer cells to death, but not with diet. You need to starve your self to death, then cancer will be gone and if you survive starvation you are cured, but few people can starve them to death and many who do that will die in process, so hmmm... Well... Not sure if starving is good idea, but in theory cancer cells will be gone if you starve to death, but mist probably u be gone with them.

Ketigenic duet six like all types if modern diets do. Eat what is healthy and infirm your self about where did thus food come.

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: Pardon?

Huh. I said sharks don't get cancer, not sharks can't get cancer. If you radiate any mater it will change.

And I agree with you that pollution, life of style and environment where we live are causing cancer. But big part us also genetics. But radiation can change genes and we humans again gave spread more radiation on the earth than nature it self.

Radiation, sun are the things why people got cancer 200 000 Years ago.

And sharks love clean water and stay away from polluted and that is main reason why they have no disease, not some miracle in their blood. And we humans did not polite oceans so bad except Fukushima were it will be very interesting to research if sharks around it got cancer. If they didn't get cancer then that would be weird.

This is simply untrue.



www.livescience.com...

Scientists have known for more than 150 years that sharks get cancer. And yet the belief persists that the animals don't suffer from the disease.

That misconception is promoted in part by those who sell shark cartilage, who claim that the substance will help cure cancer, said David Shiffman, a shark researcher and doctoral student at the University of Miami. But no studies have shown that shark cartilage is an effective treatment, and the demand for the material has helped decimate shark populations, researchers say: Humans kill about 100 million sharks per year, according to a March 2013 study (although many factors contribute to the killing of sharks, including demand for shark-fin soup).

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I am not a chemist...I am a survivor. I am 'parroting' an authoritative voice on the subject.

As I said:

It is very easy to parrot countless "authoritative" web site but understanding is more difficult!

And you? Do you have any personal experience to cite beyond a degree from the University of YouTube?

It seem to me it is YOU that got a degree from the University of YouTube with your semi-journalistic regurgitation you call "authoritative".

And here is the definition of sycophancy since you seem not so gifted at understanding:

"Sycophancy is flattery that is very obedient, or an indication of deference to another, to an excessive or servile degree. A user of sycophancy is referred to as a sycophant."

Alternative phrases are often used such as:

xss kissing
xss licking
bootlicker
brown nosing
crawler
...

Dunning Kruger is an often used description here.
It's very applicable to some too.

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: Pardon?

Huh. I said sharks don't get cancer, not sharks can't get cancer. If you radiate any mater it will change.

And I agree with you that pollution, life of style and environment where we live are causing cancer. But big part us also genetics. But radiation can change genes and we humans again gave spread more radiation on the earth than nature it self.

Radiation, sun are the things why people got cancer 200 000 Years ago.

And sharks love clean water and stay away from polluted and that is main reason why they have no disease, not some miracle in their blood. And we humans did not polite oceans so bad except Fukushima were it will be very interesting to research if sharks around it got cancer. If they didn't get cancer then that would be weird.

So the only sharks which get cancer have swam in polluted waters?
How do you know this?
More importantly, how can you prove this?

And radiation and/or the sun caused the first cancers?
Again, proof please.

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: Pardon?

Huh. I said sharks don't get cancer, not sharks can't get cancer. If you radiate any mater it will change.

And I agree with you that pollution, life of style and environment where we live are causing cancer. But big part us also genetics. But radiation can change genes and we humans again gave spread more radiation on the earth than nature it self.

Radiation, sun are the things why people got cancer 200 000 Years ago.

And sharks love clean water and stay away from polluted and that is main reason why they have no disease, not some miracle in their blood. And we humans did not polite oceans so bad except Fukushima were it will be very interesting to research if sharks around it got cancer. If they didn't get cancer then that would be weird.

This is simply untrue.

www.livescience.com...

Scientists have known for more than 150 years that sharks get cancer. And yet the belief persists that the animals don't suffer from the disease.

That misconception is promoted in part by those who sell shark cartilage, who claim that the substance will help cure cancer, said David Shiffman, a shark researcher and doctoral student at the University of Miami. But no studies have shown that shark cartilage is an effective treatment, and the demand for the material has helped decimate shark populations, researchers say: Humans kill about 100 million sharks per year, according to a March 2013 study (although many factors contribute to the killing of sharks, including demand for shark-fin soup).

Ah yes !

But ... how have sharks responded to chemo and radiation - as opposed to holistic or naturopathic - or new age treatments ?

Which protocols applied to which specie of sharks ? Results and compararisons etc. would be good to see !

Surely CBD would not be part of their possible cure ... nor would vinchristine as this is a plant derivative ( a staunch chemo drug ) so what should they take .. shark cartilage ?

So much grey space ! It is sad and treatable.

Check out the top ten financial giants ...

Disgusting !

a reply to: cuckooold

I m not native English speaker but I know difference between don't an can't.

Don't means that sharks can get cancer but they don't get and can't means they are impossible for them to get cancer. So reread what I write then reply...

a reply to: Pardon?

Ohh so u are saying perfectly healthy shark in perfectly healthy environment do get cancer, yes by genetics.

But please don't tell me God give cancer to the shark, that is stupid on so many levels.

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: Pardon?

Ohh so u are saying perfectly healthy shark in perfectly healthy environment do get cancer, yes by genetics.

But please don't tell me God give cancer to the shark, that is stupid on so many levels.

No, I'm not saying that at all.
You're saying sharks don't get cancer if they swim in unpolluted waters.
Prove it.

And I don't believe in gods.

a reply to: Pardon?

Why would I need to prove it?
You prove it that they get!

So now you see how unproven both facts are... All we know sharks are healthy animals just like all other animals that live in healthy environment.

Same can be said for humans.

And once again I m not saying u can't get cancer, there is genetics and natural radiation...


But what I m saying that high percentage on the cancer development is external influence.