Opinions? Curing Cancer From The Inside Out

Any queries about vegan diet, nutrition, dieting, bulking and healthy eating in general. Diets and food from vegan perspective.

Moderators: hardcore iv, bronco, fredrikw, JP, Rochellita

Postby ObiWanKenobi » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:00 pm

The Duke wrote:Obiwan ... ...

You have lost the debate from where I stand man.

You have not only lost but been whipped.

Gelert is trying desperately to walk away from you and leave you with some dignity but you keep snapping at his ankles.

Walk away man. It's over!! :D
Big letters from gelert don't impress me at all.
ObiWanKenobi
Active Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:16 am

Postby ObiWanKenobi » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:07 pm

Gelert wrote:You're plainly wasting my time. If you read the fucking paper you will see NOTHING CHANGED THEIR PROSTATE CANCERS.

Some genes which MAY be involved in protein metabolism (but perhaps aren't) changed their transcription profiles. The authors conceeded many of them were "badly annotated" so we have no idea what they do. Some of them won't have even changed their profiles, but are subject to a type I error (RTFM). And all we can tell is the profiles "changed" - not whether they changed for better or worse. Those changes could represent anything, including nothing.

The men felt better, lost weight, their cholesterol went down etc.

Like I said, this is all nice and good, but did it actually change their cancer, or did it just have the same kind of effect you'd expect from putting sedentary guys on a diet and exercise programme?



But because the trial lasted only three months, and the men only had low-risk prostate cancer, we have no way of knowing whether their cancers improved or not. The paper doesn't report anything about whether their cancers advanced

Other than the PSA data

Which didn't change.

First, there was no significant change in total PSA, and second the percent free PSA change was insignificant in the group where it could be a indicator of prognosis.

All this study shows is that if you make men do an hour's yoga, half an hour's walk and improve their diet, their cholesterol goes down, they lose weight, some genes go on and off, but it doesn't actually do anything for the prostate cancers they have. Morbidly, they could end up being slim, low cholesterol people who also died of cancer.

So read this, and read it again

IT DID NOTHING THAT WE CAN TELL FOR THEIR CANCERS. FOR ALL WE KNOW THEIR CANCERS GOT WORSE


I prefer listening to clinical professor of medicine at the University of California:

This is accoring to Dr Dean Ornish, founder and president of the non-profit Preventive Medicine Research Institute and clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Inspired by studies that show prostate cancer is rarer in parts of the world where people eat a predominantly low-fat plant-based diet, he devised a vegan diet for patients, along with exercise, and a resulting "striking" effect on the way genes are used in the body is reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Prof Ornish, working with Dr Christopher Haqq and Prof Peter Carroll. ... [vegan diet, exercise] showed it may stop or perhaps even reverse the progression of their illness. ...


Wasting only my time, there are true scientist out there, try to listen to them.

(Oh yes, I know - Prof. Ornish is another secret member of the world nutritionist conspiracy ... uuh)
Last edited by ObiWanKenobi on Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ObiWanKenobi
Active Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:16 am

Postby Gelert » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:10 pm

ObiWanKenobi wrote:
The Duke wrote:Obiwan ... ...

You have lost the debate from where I stand man.

You have not only lost but been whipped.

Gelert is trying desperately to walk away from you and leave you with some dignity but you keep snapping at his ankles.

Walk away man. It's over!! :D
Big letters from gelert don't impress me at all.


Well, I tried logic and factual correctness first.

And if big letters ain't going to work, we iz gunna go to pixshures

Image
User avatar
Gelert
Active Member
 
Posts: 6935
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 pm

Postby ObiWanKenobi » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:13 pm

Yes pseudo-science, only seeing that what you want to see. Ignoring the general anti-cancer effect of a vegan / plant based diet.
ObiWanKenobi
Active Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:16 am

Postby The Duke » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:17 pm

ObiWanKenobi wrote:
The Duke wrote:Obiwan ... ...

You have lost the debate from where I stand man.

You have not only lost but been whipped.

Gelert is trying desperately to walk away from you and leave you with some dignity but you keep snapping at his ankles.

Walk away man. It's over!! :D
Big letters from gelert don't impress me at all.


Man, it's up to you; but you were TKO'd posts ago! :wink: :) :D
User avatar
The Duke
Active Member
 
Posts: 3379
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:05 pm

Postby ObiWanKenobi » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:24 pm

Let's sum up the facts of today briefly:

(A) red meat increases cancer risk (according to a very big NIH-funded study)
(B) every gram of dairy protein (casein) increases ovarian, prostate and breast cancer risk (according to several studies)
(C) many plants have ingredients with more or less strong anti-cancer activity
(D) there are indications showing that this beneficial effect for health from plants (green tea and oral cancer) e.g. are totally blocked by dairy products
(E) animal products have a much higher concentrations of carcinogens like saturated fats, dioxins, hormones, viruses etc.
---------------------------------------
A + B + C + D + E = anti-cancer combination = vegan diet
Last edited by ObiWanKenobi on Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ObiWanKenobi
Active Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:16 am

Postby Gelert » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:24 pm

ObiWanKenobi wrote:I prefer listening to clinical professor of medicine at the University of California


No, you prefer listening to a sensationalist press release which is completely undermined by the details of their paper.

And I suppose "Clinical Professor of Medicine at UC" sounds more useful than "President and founder of the nonprofit Preventive Medicine Research Institute, Sausalito", "Board Advisor to PCRM, a front organization for PETA" or "Bestselling author of several books on the The Ornish Diet"

Like the fact that they only used normal, healthy tissue for the microarray samples - not the tumour tissue. So any changes in expression are in *healthy* tissue. It's a bit like trying to tell why you're getting the blue screen of death on your PC by testing the power cable's fuse.

Another reason why the paper tells us the cube root of zero about prostate cancer and how to treat it.

The more I read of that paper, the more I feel PNAS should be ashamed of publishing it. Don't get me wrong, I like PNAS. But this paper is almost as much of a crock of shit as the one Linus Pauling put in to PNAS about vitamin C in the 70s.


ObiWanKenobi wrote:Let's sum up the fails of today briefly:
A. OWK doesn't understand what "confounding factor" means
B. OWK keeps going on about Ornish et al. which tells us nothing.
C. OWK thinks that not putting milk in your green tea means you must go on a vegan diet
D. OWK still thinks the Daily Mail and 30 second segments on CNN reposted on Youtube constitute credible scientific reports
E. OWK thinks that meat is the sole cause of cancer, and that far stronger risk factors which we can mitigate against are of no importance
F. OWK thinks that animal studies are an argument winner on a vegan website
A+B+C+D+E = F for Fail.


Corrected that for you.

I'm glad The Duke, for one, sees where I'm coming from.
User avatar
Gelert
Active Member
 
Posts: 6935
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 pm

Postby ObiWanKenobi » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:45 pm

Findings are not bound to any special institution and this is not pointing to that special study conducted there or there delivering any definite proof for this or that (quite hard to do), it is rather that very interesting overall picture - tendencies of predominately meat and plant food consumption. And this big picture impression is much more stronger than any of these studies.

And 32g dairy protein a day is definitely NOT worth an additional 30 percent higher CaP risk for any man. That's the point.
Last edited by ObiWanKenobi on Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ObiWanKenobi
Active Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:16 am

Postby ObiWanKenobi » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:51 pm

Gelert wrote:B. OWK keeps going on about Ornish et al. which tells us nothing.


Not Ornish, rather European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition ...
ObiWanKenobi
Active Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:16 am

Postby ObiWanKenobi » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:53 pm

Gelert wrote:Corrected that for you.
You have nothing corrected, just ignored some very interesting facts.
ObiWanKenobi
Active Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:16 am

Postby Gelert » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:53 pm

ObiWanKenobi wrote:Findings are not bound to any special institution and this is not pointing to that special study conducted there or there delivering any definite proof for this or that (quite hard to do), it is rather that very interesting overall picture - tendencies of predominately meat and plant food consumption. And this big picture impression is much more stronger than any of these studies.


I'm having a hard time deciphering your post into something readable here, but I don't think I'm far off getting your gist that a "big picture impression" is more important than what all the data tells us.

Saddest bit is that your idea of the "big picture" is just the fragment of the canvas dealing with diet, not the overwhelming majority of it dealing with age, genetics and other lifestyle factors (even a good wank now and again would save more lives from prostate cancer!) - things we can deal with to save far more lives.

I should let The Duke officiate really, but I'm happy to call game, set and match.
User avatar
Gelert
Active Member
 
Posts: 6935
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 pm

Postby ObiWanKenobi » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:01 pm

I am trying to discuss a subject here, and not to fight a match... you miss the point.
I think you are not really interested in that what your interlocutor has to say, you want only to show how "clever" and "knowledgeable" you are ... but this does not interest me at all :lol: (due to compensating a inferiority complex?)
If you are interested in normal discussion so begin, if not let it be.

Sorry for my english I am not from an english speaking country, i try my best.
ObiWanKenobi
Active Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:16 am

Postby LMM » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:02 pm

ObiWanKenobi, your criteria for claiming something as fact seems to be that a study, any study, appears to confirm it.

A 2001 Norwegian study, which followed 48,844 pre-menopausal women ages 34 to 49 for six years during which time 317 cases of breast cancer occurred, indicated that the consumption of milk beginning in childhood and continuing into the adult years may provide protection against the occurrence of breast cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11519053

Well it's a study. A large one too.

And certainly a lot more credible than the Gwyheth Paltrow ramblings you linked to earlier.

What do you think?
LMM
Active Member
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:49 am
Location: UK

Postby ninearms » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:05 pm

WTF?!!! Who puts milk in green tea???
“Begin at the beginning,” the King said gravely, “and go on till you come to the end. Then stop.”
User avatar
ninearms
Perked Member
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:07 pm
Location: Leicester, UK

Postby ObiWanKenobi » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:27 pm

LMM wrote:ObiWanKenobi, your criteria for claiming something as fact seems to be that a study, any study, appears to confirm it.

A 2001 Norwegian study, which followed 48,844 pre-menopausal women ages 34 to 49 for six years during which time 317 cases of breast cancer occurred, indicated that the consumption of milk beginning in childhood and continuing into the adult years may provide protection against the occurrence of breast cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11519053

Well it's a study. A large one too.

And certainly a lot more credible than the Gwyheth Paltrow ramblings you linked to earlier.

What do you think?


Look what Gwyheth Paltrow has to say on this:
... Intakes of both saturated and monounsaturated fat were related to modestly elevated breast cancer risk. Among food groups contributing to animal fat, red meat and high-fat dairy foods were each associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Conclusions: Intake of animal fat, mainly from red meat and high-fat dairy foods, during premenopausal years is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. ...
Link

Or here, again Gwyheth:

... Our analysis shows a consistent, statistically significant, positive association between breast cancer risk and saturated fat intake in postmenopausal women (relative risk for highest vs. lowest quintile, 1.46; P <.0001). A consistent protective effect for a number of markers of fruit and vegetable intake was demonstrated ... If these dietary associations represent causality, the attributable risk (i.e., the percentage of breast cancers that might be prevented by dietary modification) in the North American population is estimated to be 24% for postmenopausal women and 16% for premeno-pausal women. [J Natl Cancer Inst 82:] ...
Link

And again Mrs Paltrow:
... Higher intakes of several individual red meat items were also strongly related to elevated risk of ER+/PR+ breast cancer. ...
Link

A have already mentioned that it is quite hard to proof anything definitely, especially when industries worth billions like dairy industry fund counter-"studies".
ObiWanKenobi
Active Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:16 am

PreviousNext

Return to Vegan Diets, Nutrition and Healthy Eating

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests