On Alternative Cancer Programs

@High Seas,

The article explains it for me.

@edgarblythe,

The issue isn't if tumors eat and thrive on glucose - we've known that they do, and we've known it at least since at least 1924. The issue is why is this news now? The article must have some new angle somewhere - will have to read the original to make sure. Back next week Smile

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

The article explains it for me.

The article you posted is from Reuters, written by a journalist, not a scientist http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802 and the "it" - the purported conclusion of the actual study referenced - isn't supported in the original study itself or by any of its authors. The dangers of attempting to draw public policy conclusions from experimental results only partially conclusive at best are yet again documented in this example:

Here are the molecules of fructose and glucose:

http://www4a.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP58419bh9i6a2i4diii600003639ag2d3ac62316?MSPStoreType=image/gif&s=62&w=448&h=227

The original study itself found that pancreatic cancer cells in Petri dishes metabolize the 2 substances differently:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.abstract
Nothing surprising in that, since fructose and glucose are different molecules to begin with! That cancer cells feed on glucose (see Warburg effect referenced by me earlier), not oxygen, is knowledge almost a century old. That's exactly how positron emission tomography works - and that's decades-old technology http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/181/2/387 >

Quote:

...tumor cells rely on adenosine triphosphate generated from glycolysis for sustaining rapid replicating tissue......This results in a 19-fold increase in glucose consumption...

> in which pancreatic cancers literally "glow in the dark" on the scan, since they absorb 20 times as much sugar as normal cells.

Scans are in vivo studies, of course, since they're imaging living breathing patients; the referenced study only examined cancer cells growing in Petri dishes, so its results may or may not apply to actual tumors. If the quotes attributed to the researchers in the Reuters article are indeed verbatim those researchers will have to issue clarifications and retractions very soon as biochemists and oncologists have already deluged them with complaints; here's a link to just one blog very critical of the whole popularization effort based on very flimsy scientific evidence:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/fructose_and_pancreatic_cancer.php
Read the long list of comments to this blog page as well - very instructive. Hope that helps, as I know you and others worry about this subject.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

PS sorry the link to the glucose and fructose molecules is dynamic meaning it has to be downloaded separately from the original site:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/
Enter "fructose glucose" in the search box provided, you'll get the images and other statistical data for both molecules.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

PPS nothing in the foregoing is to be construed as meaning that high-fructose-corn syrup (55% fructose, added to the corn during the manufacturing process, and 42% glucose, the balance consisting of larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides) is any better for human consumption than plain table sugar, aka sucrose - any number of studies have demonstrated that it's even more addictive than plain sucrose and even more likely to result in obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease etc. The only reason it's included in so many foods (it's the 2nd ingredient in ketchup and a major ingredient in lots of other items from soda to bread to ham to fruit yogurt to baby food - baby food!) is it costs only about a third as much as table sugar mostly though not exclusively thanks to federal corn subsidies. This is a link to a recent Princeton study (rats fed either plain sucrose or HFCS) finding the same thing as every other study that examined this problem: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

But - to return to the Reuters summary originally linked by Edgar: no conclusion about pancreatic cancer, fructose and HFCS can be drawn from it.

0 Replies

From the article I posted:

"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.

"They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth."

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

That's exactly the part that was wrong - the study shows nothing of the sort. It's not Reuters' fault for misreporting, it's the lead author's.

Pancreatic cancer cells in Petri dishes have been getting killed off for over 50 years; American Cancer Society chief medical officer Dr. Otis Brawley:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/08/08/nope-high-fructose-c.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29
Sadly these treatments don't work in actual humans, only in the Petri dishes. It's amazing that the study's lead author would make such wild claims, let alone try to build on them by making pronouncements on HFCS, which he did in a subsequent interview.

Quote:

I asked Brawley whether there had been any studies done that correlate diets high in high fructose corn syrup to prevalence of pancreatic cancer in humans. There are two, he said. But both show only a very weak statistical relationship. And there are several other studies, looking at the same thing, which found no connection at all. If there is a link, nobody has proved it.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Edgar - and all the rest of you reading this - good news, biochemistry managed to strike paydirt! This article - already published in a journal last year - describes why sugar in fruits and vegetables does not cause us any harm, unlike the artificially added sugars which make us fat or worse:

Quote:

Abstract:
We tested whether the dominant intestinal sugar transporter GLUT2 was inhibited by intestinal luminal compounds that are inefficiently absorbed and naturally present in foods. Because of their abundance in fruits and vegetables, flavonoids were selected as model compounds. Robust inhibition of glucose and fructose transport by GLUT2 expressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes was produced by the flavonols myricetin, fisetin, the widely consumed flavonoid quercetin, and its glucoside precursor isoquercetrin. IC<sub>50</sub>s for quercetin, myricetin, and isoquercetirin were ∼200- to 1000-fold less than glucose or fructose concentrations, and noncompetitive inhibition was observed. The two other major intestinal sugar transporters, GLUT5 and SGLTI, were unaffected by flavonoids. Sugar transport by GLUT2 overexpressed in pituitary cells and naturally present in Caco-2E intestinal cells was similarly inhibited by quercetin. GLUT2 was detected on the apical side of Caco-2E cells, indicating that GLUT2 was in the correct orientation to be inhibited by luminal compounds. Quercetin itself was not transported by the three major intestinal glucose transporters. Because the flavonoid quercetin, a food component with an excellent pharmacology safety profile, might act as a potent luminal inhibitor of sugar absorption independent of its own transport, flavonols show promise as new pharmacologic agents in the obesity epidemic.

Source

Quote:

Inhibition of the intestinal glucose transporter GLUT2 by flavonoids
Authors:
Kwon, Oran1
Eck, Peter1
Shenglin Chen1
Corpe, Christopher P.1
Je-Hyuk Lee1
Kruhlak, Michael2
Levine, Mark1 [email protected]
Source:
FASEB Journal; Feb2007, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p366-377, 12p, 3 Diagrams, 1 Chart, 7 Graphs
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
*GLUCOSE
*FLAVONOIDS
*FRUCTOSE
*XENOPUS laevis
*QUERCETIN
*OBESITY
*POLYPHENOLS
Author-Supplied Keywords:
intestinal sugar transporter
intraluminal flavonoids
polyphenols
Xenopus laevis

If any of you has a moment please send this reference on to the discussion link posted earlier - many people out there have problems with obesity and/or various cancers and being told that cancer cells thrive on all sugars probably spooks them also concerning eating fruits and vegetables. So here's proof, fruit sugar comes with its own natural chemicals that get it processed differently in our bodies than the HFCS junk in sodas.

0 Replies

Thanks for posting that, highseas. This thread has never been the sort to get lots of posts, but a lot of people have taken the time to look at it, and that is what makes it worthwhile. Many of my basic ideas are not shared by everyone, and I accept that. The only rule I try to follow re comments is that it is not an argument thread. Amazingly, people have respected my request, so far.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Thanks for posting that, highseas.....Many of my basic ideas are not shared by everyone,...

As I know you worry about this subject I found another study (also published - am not allowed to post proprietary data) made on hundreds of real patients stricken by pancreatic cancer; these are real humans, not cells in Petri dishes. Fruit sugars were negatively correlated with the cancer, added (concentrated) sugars positively. It will probably be of some practical use to you because listings for GI indices are available for most foods:

Quote:

Abstract:
Purpose: Carbohydrates and dietary glycemic index (GI) influence the secretion of insulin and insulin-related growth factors and may play a role in the development of diabetes and obesity, both of which have been related to pancreatic cancer risk. Methods: We examined the association between dietary GI and glycemic load (GL) and pancreatic cancer by conducting a hospital-based case-control study in Italy in 1991–2008 of 326 cases of pancreatic cancer and 652 control patients. Dietary data were obtained with the use of a validated food-frequency questionnaire. Odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were computed with the use of multiple logistic regression. Results: GI was positively associated with pancreatic cancer, with ORs of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.06−2.30) and 1.78 (95% CI, 1.20−2.62) for the second and third tertiles, respectively, compared with the lowest. No significant association was observed between GL and pancreatic cancer. Consumption of sugar, candy, honey, and jam was positively associated with pancreatic cancer, whereas consumption of fruit was inversely associated. Conclusions: In conclusion, the positive association with high GI, in the absence of an association with dietary GL, fruit, or total carbohydrates, likely reflects the positive association between sweets or refined carbohydrates and pancreatic cancer in this study population.

Source:

Quote:

Dietary Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer: A Case-Control Study.
Authors:
Rossi, Marta1,2
Lipworth, Loren3,4 [email protected]
Polesel, Jerry5
Negri, Eva1
Bosetti, Cristina1
Talamini, Renato5
McLaughlin, Joseph K.3,4
La Vecchia, Carlo1,2
Source:
Annals of Epidemiology; Jun2010, Vol. 20 Issue 6, p460-465, 6p

Correlation isn't causation - but there's a strong statistical significance here, and by combining that with the biochemical data summarized in the other article I linked you see why the Reuters / UCLA article was so very misleading in damning fructose in particular - that's the sugar in fruits!

0 Replies

Dear Friends,

I have often been asked the question, "What makes Two Feathers Healing Formula different than other black salves?"

The formula I have represented for the last twenty two years is still manufactured by the same Native American family that has made the formula for over a hundred years. It contains seventeen herbs that are blended, in perfect harmony, in an age old fashion using a curing technique. These herbs and method of formulation make the compound safe to use internally, where 80% of the healing takes place, and can be applied topically, safely. The other black salves on the market today come from another tribe and was called Indian mud for many years. This Indian mud formula contains Bloodroot, which is an herb that should never be taken internally, it is known among Native Americans, myself included, as a toxic herb and dangerous to the Liver. The Indian mud formula was meant to be used topically, only. But the sites that sell this formula have never stated this important fact. The need to make money, for some people, overrides common sense and morally corrupts their spirit. One such example is a site I found that had copied all my written material and uses my writings to sell this toxic bloodroot formula. Be very wary of people of this nature, they are the shame of society.

I pray daily for God's Healing and Blessing over this Great Nation

Sincerely,

Robert Roy
Two Feathers

0 Replies

NEW YORK – Eating more heart-healthy omega-3 fats provided no additional benefit in a study of heart attack survivors who were already getting good care, Dutch researchers report.

After nearly 3 1/2 years, there was no difference in deaths, heart attacks and other heart problems between those who ate margarine with added omega-3 fatty acids and those who didn't, the study found.

The results don't mean that getting more of the essential nutrient has no value. Several studies have offered evidence that the fats — mostly from fish oil — reduce heart disease.

But for heart patients who are carefully treated "adding a little bit of omega-3 fatty acid does not seem to make a difference," said Alice Lichtenstein, a Tufts University nutrition professor, who was not involved in the research.

Omega-3 fatty acids are thought to help reduce the risk of abnormal heartbeats, slow the growth of plaque that can clog arteries and lower harmful fats called triglycerides.

In recent years, omega-3 has been added to some foods such as margarine and eggs, or labels highlight the omega-3 content of foods like tuna fish.

"Now they're popping up in the most unexpected places," including trail mix, said Lichtenstein.

Two kinds of omega-3s come from wild oily fish such as salmon, mackerel and tuna. A third type comes from plants; sources include walnuts, flaxseed, soybeans and canola oil.

It's generally recommended that people eat one or two servings of fish a week, said the study's leader, Daan Kromhout of Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

"The results of this trial do not change that," he said, noting that there were no harmful side effects. "It's still a good thing to eat fish once or twice a week."
__________________________________________________

Of course the study utilized a processed food product, which is not so great anyway. My take on it is, a diet cannot be judged by just one food substance, but by everything that goes into the body, whether it be called food, drugs or what. I believe the source of the food should be considered. Omega 3 fatty acids from fish and/or flax seeds has got to be superior to a gob of margarine. - edgarblythe

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Full original article: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1003603#ref3
Statistical appendix: http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa1003603/suppl_file/nejmoa1003603_appendix.pdf

The subset of obese / diabetics (about a quarter of the total) did see a slight improvement in avoidance of new cardiac events, but that seems to have come at the cost of an increased risk for cancer. However neither result is statistically significant and both could be due entirely to chance.

0 Replies

http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/budwig_protocol.html
Johanna Budwig died not so long ago. Her work has been very important to me and thousands of others. She was first to alert the world to the dangers of transfatty acids, re cancer and heart problems. She worked to cure through diet, primarily. Her work is being carried on.

1 Reply

Re: fructose and cancer above...

Interesting that Dad, who has cancer, was craving fruit during my recent visit. He wanted strawberries 3-4 times a day minimum, but Gatorade, Sprite and other items were "too sweet."

1 Reply

@squinney,

Only the "free" fructose is deadly - fructose in fruits and vegetables is very good for us. I'll come back and post a biochemical explanation, but meanwhile I'd like to correct an apparent misconception ref. the latest news on omega 3: all 4 margarines tested in the Dutch study were manufactured by Unilever, which stopped using partially oxygenated oils aka trans-fatty acids (deadly stuff!) in all its margarines many years ago.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

Yes, on the natural fruit sugars being good. He is NOT someone that pays attention to his diet. I find it interesting that his BODY does and knew that it wanted real fruit sugar rather than the high fructose / fake sugars in the products he found to now be too sweet.

1 Reply

@squinney,

Sorry to hear about your dad - hope he gets better soon. Link as promised to a 89-minute video worth every millisecond of its duration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Only the "free" fructose is deadly - fructose in fruits and vegetables is very good for us. I'll come back and post a biochemical explanation, but meanwhile I'd like to correct an apparent misconception ref. the latest news on omega 3: all 4 margarines tested in the Dutch study were manufactured by Unilever, which stopped using partially oxygenated oils aka trans-fatty acids (deadly stuff!) in all its margarines many years ago.

Still a processed food product.

0 Replies

http://www.hydrazinesulfate.org/
A paper on hydrazine sulfate.

1 Reply

On Alternative Cancer Programs

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know