Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: profound on 14/07/2017 11:37:23
-
For decades everyone has suspected that Chemotherapy causes more cancer and causes the cancer to spread but the mainstream medical establishment in cahoots with the money making Big Pharma always denied this even though all the "anti" cancer drugs actually come with these warnings.
For example tamoxifen causes cancer oncologic side effects including numerous endometrial abnormalities have been reported with tamoxifen use. These have included both endometrial adenocarcinoma.
Research by scientists last week have confirmed what smart and informed people knew all along that Chemotherapy causes cancer to spread.
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/health-and-wellbeing/100717/chemotherapy-may-lead-to-metastatic-cancer.html
http://www.einstein.yu.edu/news/releases/1254/test-ties-chemotherapy-to-possible-breast-cancer-spread/
[MOD EDIT - THREAD TITLE CHANGED TO COMPLY WITH FORUM POLICY]
-
A number of anti-cancer treatments (including chemotherapy and radiotherapy) try to kill fast-dividing cells by damaging DNA or by interfering with DNA copying.
This causes further mutations to the already-damaged cancer cells, killing many of them.
But a few cancer cells may survive the treatment, and some of these further mutations may be in areas of DNA that allow metastasis.
The pharmaceutical trials will indicate the extent of life extension as a result of the medication - and in some cases these are quite significant.
What they cannot predict for an individual is whether the period of disability due to the treatment is outweighed by the extension of healthy life.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_cancer
-
For decades everyone has suspected that Chemotherapy causes more cancer and causes the cancer to spread but the mainstream medical establishment in cahoots with the money making Big Pharma always denied this even though all the "anti" cancer drugs actually come with these warnings.
For example tamoxifen causes cancer oncologic side effects including numerous endometrial abnormalities have been reported with tamoxifen use. These have included both endometrial adenocarcinoma.
Your post makes no sense.
You say "mainstream medical establishment in cahoots with the money making Big Pharma always denied this"
And then you say that they don't deny that the drugs can cause cancer- they even put a warning on them saying that they do.
That isn't denying the problem, is it?
-
Your question is a bit silly. Being alive causes cancer. Your cells are constantly dividing (replicating). Mutations happen all the time, and eventually, one of these mutations will cause cells to multiply uncontrollably. The risk goes up as you age because the number of mutations accumulates. Everyone eventually dies of cancer if they do not die of something else before that. Things which damage the body increase the likelihood of mutations. Chemotherapy damages the body, but it is often necessary to treat the cancer to prevent the patient dying. Note that once a person develops cancer, they are at increased risk of developing another cancer even after the initial tumor is removed.
Also, please note there is no conspiracy between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities. This is a conspiracy theory popular among those who know little about the medical regulatory process. Although some pharma companies occasionally do dodgy things like many businesses, the regulatory authorities are not engaged in any kind of "deal" with pharmaceutical companies to profit from the sale of inappropriate medications. When pharma companies do the wrong thing, they are soundly punished, and regulations are becoming stricter, more precise, and more effective each year.
-
Your question is a bit silly. Being alive causes cancer. Your cells are constantly dividing (replicating). Mutations happen all the time, and eventually, one of these mutations will cause cells to multiply uncontrollably. The risk goes up as you age because the number of mutations accumulates. Everyone eventually dies of cancer if they do not die of something else before that. Things which damage the body increase the likelihood of mutations. Chemotherapy damages the body, but it is often necessary to treat the cancer to prevent the patient dying. Note that once a person develops cancer, they are at increased risk of developing another cancer even after the initial tumor is removed.
Also, please note there is no conspiracy between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities. This is a conspiracy theory popular among those who know little about the medical regulatory process. Although some pharma companies occasionally do dodgy things like many businesses, the regulatory authorities are not engaged in any kind of "deal" with pharmaceutical companies to profit from the sale of inappropriate medications. When pharma companies do the wrong thing, they are soundly punished, and regulations are becoming stricter, more precise, and more effective each year.
I am afraid you are unaware of how the regulatory authorities have been infiltrated by big pharma staff in a revolving door scam
Also the staff have been offered inducements to get dummy 'consultant' jobs after they leave their posts.Most iof them conflicts of interest already.
I have done actual research on this while you just watch the 10.00 news which is highly edited to keep you asleep or distract you with terrorism related scare mongering to keep you in a constant state of fear and terror.
So do you actually work for big pharma?
Just google 'big pharma dirty laundry' for thousands of articles from many diverse sources on the massive amounts of bribery,fraud and corruption.
-
Chicken and egg problem.
By the time you have been diagnosed and prescribed chemotherapy, it's quite likely that secondaries have already been seeded.
If the chemo is successful in removing the primary and all the secondaries, you may live long enough to develop another cancer. Indeed as your cells have already shown a predisposition to mutate, it is the most likely cause of your next illness or death.
-
@profound So if you develop cancer you will be refusing all medical assistance. What else is there? Cross your fingers and make a wish perhaps? My mother died of cancer many years back. In those days they thought it best not to inform the patient of the terminal nature of their malady. They did tell my father. But my mother guessed anyway. No treatment just pain relief as and when. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
-
@profound So if you develop cancer you will be refusing all medical assistance. What else is there? Cross your fingers and make a wish perhaps? My mother died of cancer many years back. In those days they thought it best not to inform the patient of the terminal nature of their malady. They did tell my father. But my mother guessed anyway. No treatment just pain relief as and when. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
I personally would refuse chemotherapy if that would be the only choice being offered to me. The ignorance of people in modern biology is just silly. There's plenty of alternative medical options to chemotherapy being discarded by doctors. Research about the anti-cancer properties of curcumin and green tea for example.
Can chemotherapy cause cancer? I guess it can increase the cancer progression by weakening the immune system of the patient and cause permanent (cytotoxic) damage to cells.
Just my 2 cents... ;)
-
I have done actual research on this while you just watch the 10.00 news which is highly edited to keep you asleep or distract you with terrorism related scare mongering to keep you in a constant state of fear and terror.
Did you really do research; or did you just surf the net?
-
... There's plenty of alternative medical options to chemotherapy being discarded by doctors. Research about the anti-cancer properties of curcumin and green tea for example.
So you're asking us to "Research" your assertion ...http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research)
Re: Tea ...
(https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4TEEadAyajx-WHVwvMsni0gOBbQ=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3523382/Medical_studies-05.0.png)
https://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8264355/research-study-hype (https://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8264355/research-study-hype)
The strength and purity of "alternative" herbal products is not regulated. (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/teen-girl-develops-hepatitis-drinking-green-tea-bought/story?id=34045993)
-
I am afraid you are unaware of how the regulatory authorities have been infiltrated by big pharma staff in a revolving door scam
Also the staff have been offered inducements to get dummy 'consultant' jobs after they leave their posts.Most iof them conflicts of interest already.
I have done actual research on this while you just watch the 10.00 news which is highly edited to keep you asleep or distract you with terrorism related scare mongering to keep you in a constant state of fear and terror.
So do you actually work for big pharma?
Just google 'big pharma dirty laundry' for thousands of articles from many diverse sources on the massive amounts of bribery,fraud and corruption.
Actually I'm well informed of the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities because I work in the industry. Googling conspiracy theories is not what I would call "research". There are thousands of articles about all kinds of conspiracy theories on the web, none of which constitutes evidence of any kind. I would also like to call attention to a recent study of people who believe conspiracy theories, which found they perform significantly lower than average on analytical thinking tasks. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25217762
-
I am afraid you are unaware of how the regulatory authorities have been infiltrated by big pharma staff in a revolving door scam
Also the staff have been offered inducements to get dummy 'consultant' jobs after they leave their posts.Most iof them conflicts of interest already.
I have done actual research on this while you just watch the 10.00 news which is highly edited to keep you asleep or distract you with terrorism related scare mongering to keep you in a constant state of fear and terror.
So do you actually work for big pharma?
Just google 'big pharma dirty laundry' for thousands of articles from many diverse sources on the massive amounts of bribery,fraud and corruption.
Actually I'm well informed of the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities because I work in the industry. Googling conspiracy theories is not what I would call "research". There are thousands of articles about all kinds of conspiracy theories on the web, none of which constitutes evidence of any kind. I would also like to call attention to a recent study of people who believe conspiracy theories, which found they perform significantly lower than average on analytical thinking tasks. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25217762
Who financed that?
Well nearly every conspiracy theory has COME TRUE.
Your assertion that everyone is lying and you are the sole teller of TRUTH sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.POT KETTLE BLACK.
-
Well nearly every conspiracy theory has COME TRUE.
Name a few.
Here are plenty to choose from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
-
Well nearly every conspiracy theory has COME TRUE.
If someone cannot recognize an unfeasible conspiracy-theory (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Conspiracy_theory_checklist), they'll believe in all conspiracy-theories (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism).
-
Well nearly every conspiracy theory has COME TRUE.
Name a few.
Here are plenty to choose from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory smear phrase thrown at someone in an attempt to paint them as a lunatic. It's a tactic frequently used by modern-day thought police in a desperate attempt to demand "Don't go there!"
a "conspiracy" is simply when two or more people plot to commit an act of deceit (or a crime).
Thus, when three hoodlums plan to rob the local Quickie Mart, they are engaged in a "conspiracy" and will likely be charged with a "conspiracy to commit armed robbery" in addition to the different crime of "armed robbery." The fact that they planned it with several friends makes it a "conspiracy" worthy of additional felony charges, you see. When these charges are brought up in court, the judge doesn't look at the prosecutor and say, "You are a conspiracy theorist!" That would be absurd.
-
The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory smear phrase thrown at someone in an attempt to paint them as a lunatic. It's a tactic frequently used by modern-day thought police in a desperate attempt to demand "Don't go there!"
I agree. Too often mainstream media (msm) will use deceitful tactics in labeling some entity doing independent research a "conspiracy theorist". I don't know why independent research is being systematically discarded on the internet by msm trolls.
In reality, the ignorance of people in science is the reason mainstream media is falsely accepted as the truth. @profound, please continue your investigations. I respect people asking insightful science questions independently of the msm trolls seeking to hijack your thread with spam.
-
The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory smear phrase thrown at someone in an attempt to paint them as a lunatic. It's a tactic frequently used by modern-day thought police in a desperate attempt to demand "Don't go there!"
a "conspiracy" is simply when two or more people plot to commit an act of deceit (or a crime).
Nice try
However the grown-ups will realise that
" conspiracy theory"- which is what you said
is not the same as " conspiracy " which is something else.
Did you somehow think we wouldn't recognise that you moved the goalposts there?
-
Too often mainstream media (msm) will use deceitful tactics in labeling some entity doing independent research a "conspiracy theorist". I don't know why independent research is being systematically discarded on the internet by msm trolls.
you say "I don't know why independent research is being systematically discarded on the internet by msm trolls."
Do you have any evidence that this is happening?
And, for the record, pointing out that you are foolish to claim that NASA went back in time to put contrails in a Constable painting from centuries ago is not "the mainstream media" discarding research.
It's common sense.
In any event, you still miss the point.
Many drugs used as treatments for cancer (especially some of the older ones) are likely to cause cancer.
Many of them are mutagens, some are known carcinogens.
That's perfectly well documented in all the literature.
The OP says " Big Pharma always denied this"
and that's simply not true.
-
There's plenty of alternative medical options to chemotherapy being discarded by doctors.
No.
Research about the anti-cancer properties of curcumin and green tea for example.
You are confusing the results of in-vitro and/or animal research with human first-line treatment.
Here's what you'll end up with in terms of any peer-reviewed data suggesting that curcumin or green tea can be used as a first-line anti-oncogenic:
* nothing *
~
-
The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory smear phrase thrown at someone in an attempt to paint them as a lunatic. It's a tactic frequently used by modern-day thought police in a desperate attempt to demand "Don't go there!"
a "conspiracy" is simply when two or more people plot to commit an act of deceit (or a crime).
Nice try
However the grown-ups will realise that
" conspiracy theory"- which is what you said
is not the same as " conspiracy " which is something else.
Did you somehow think we wouldn't recognise that you moved the goalposts there?
Well people like you always are always disparaging anything which is different or might change the status quo.
This is usually due to personal gain of some or inducement.I would not be surprised you were a 'consultant' to this or that as so many are nowadays.
The other reason would be impose your moribund viewpoints on others.
Not much different from religious zealots.
People who are not skeptics of "official stories" tend to be dull-minded. To believe everything these institutions tell you is a sign of mental retardation. To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.
What is a "conspiracy theorist?
The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories.
The idea, then, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy is flatly ludicrous. And people who condemn others as being "conspiracy theorists" only make themselves look mentally impaired.
Our modern world which is full of collusion and conspiracy -- and yet you somehow DENY the existence of any conspiracies at all -- is an admission of a damaged brain. Of course there are conspiracies, and when people analyze those conspiracies, they are "theorizing" about what happened. This is, in fact, precisely the job that police detectives and law enforcement agents carry out almost daily.
Most police detectives are, in reality, "conspiracy investigators" and analysts.
-
Well people like you always are always disparaging anything which is different or might change the status quo.
Nope.
I just disparage stuff that's known to be wrong or nonsense.
This is usually due to personal gain of some or inducement.I would not be surprised you were a 'consultant' to this or that as so many are nowadays.
Nope.
But try to remember that making insulting comments like that is dangerously close to libel.
The other reason would be impose your moribund viewpoints on others.
Reality imposes its viewpoint much more filmy than I ever could.
The real reason I correct idiotic dross like yours is that I think that fora like this should be places here people can learn about science- rather than about drivel.
To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.
Ask the parents of a two year old about that.
The kids never stop asking questions; not because they are wise, but because they seek to acquire wisdom.
But the important bit is that, you don't have the sense that a two year old shows; you don't listen to the answers.
What is a "conspiracy theorist?
This is as good an answer as any
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories.
No.
It's meant to describe ideas that are daft- but still widely believed.
Our modern world which is full of collusion and conspiracy -- and yet you somehow DENY the existence of any conspiracies at all -
Liar.
I never said anything like that.
If your viewpoint is such that you have to tell lies to preserve it you should change it.Most police detectives are, in reality,
... irrelevant to the discussion.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why you claim that Big Pharma (who, I accept are frequently immoral ad corrupt) are in any way denying something by including it in their product description.
Your original post never made sense, and it still doesn't.
-
Have any peer-reviewed studies been done of average life expectancy of cancer patients who took chemotherapy vs. those who did not? If so, what were the results?
-
Have any peer-reviewed studies been done of average life expectancy of cancer patients who took chemotherapy vs. those who did not? If so, what were the results?
Yes- lots.
This bunch
https://www.nice.org.uk/
exist just to ensure that the NHS only spends money on things that are known to work.
So, any cancer chemotherapy used in the UK is supported by studies which show it to work.
If you want to find research then the Cochrane institute is a good place to start
Here's an example I picked at random.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD009948/LUNGCA_cetuximab-a-new-treatment-for-advanced-non-small-cell-lung-cancer
It's not that cancer drugs don't have bad side effects- they do.
It's just that those effects- even new cancers- are less bad than dying quickly.
-
Have any peer-reviewed studies been done of average life expectancy of cancer patients who took chemotherapy vs. those who did not? If so, what were the results?
People who get chemo die quicker and in more pain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/08/30/chemotherapy-warning-as-hundreds-die-from-cancer-fighting-drugs/
-
You are confusing the results of in-vitro and/or animal research with human first-line treatment.
Here's what you'll end up with in terms of any peer-reviewed data suggesting that curcumin or green tea can be used as a first-line anti-oncogenic:
* nothing *
The preclinical studies of the anti-cancer properties of curcumin is preliminary evidences of the existence of alternative treatments for many types of cancer. In contrast, the cytotoxic effect of chemotherapy drugs can induce permanent damage to cells.
-
You are confusing the results of in-vitro and/or animal research with human first-line treatment.
Here's what you'll end up with in terms of any peer-reviewed data suggesting that curcumin or green tea can be used as a first-line anti-oncogenic:
* nothing *
The preclinical studies of the anti-cancer properties of curcumin is preliminary evidences of the existence of alternative treatments for many types of cancer. In contrast, the cytotoxic effect of chemotherapy drugs can induce permanent damage to cells.
Plenty of people eat curry, yet they get cancer.
Have you any evidence that, at the sort of levels where curcumin is carcinolytic, it is not toxic via other pathways?
-
Have any peer-reviewed studies been done of average life expectancy of cancer patients who took chemotherapy vs. those who did not? If so, what were the results?
People who get chemo die quicker and in more pain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/08/30/chemotherapy-warning-as-hundreds-die-from-cancer-fighting-drugs/
In a very real sense, but you need to realise it's the Telegraph and they have no idea how to report science.
Let's have a look at the numbers. It's a bit of a struggle- because much of the data is missing so there are some assumptions here but let's give it a go.
"At Lancashire Teaching Hospitals the 30 day mortality rate was 28 per cent for palliative chemotherapy for lung cancer, which is given when a cure is not expected and treatment given to alleviate symptoms. "
OK what that means is that 28% of lung cancer patients who were not given anti-cancer therapy died within a month.
And then we compare that to the other figures they cite.
"The study looked at more than 23,000 women with breast cancer and nearly 10,000 men with 9634 non-small cell lung cancer who underwent chemotherapy in 2014. Of those treated 1,383 died within 30 days. "
That's 33000 people with cancer and they got therapy.
1383 of them died within a month- that's about 4.2 %
So, if you have cancer your chances of dying within a month are 4.2% if you get treated and 28% if you are not treated.
Now, a month isn't long, but a 7 fold improvement in your chance of living that month is going to be very important to some people.
So, that takes care of the first half of your assertion that "People who get chemo die quicker and in more pain."- it simply isn't true. People who are treated live longer .
The bit about "in more pain" is something you made up. It's not in the newspaper story and it's not in the original scientific paper.
Why did you make it up?
-
Plenty of people eat curry, yet they get cancer.
Have you any evidence that, at the sort of levels where curcumin is carcinolytic, it is not toxic via other pathways?
Are you kidding me? India is one of the primary curcumin producer and the Indian population among the world top consumers or curcuma longa.
https://nutritionfacts.org/2015/05/05/why-are-cancer-rates-so-low-in-india/
-
Plenty of people eat curry, yet they get cancer.
Have you any evidence that, at the sort of levels where curcumin is carcinolytic, it is not toxic via other pathways?
Are you kidding me? India is one of the primary curcumin producer and the Indian population among the world top consumers or curcuma longa.
https://nutritionfacts.org/2015/05/05/why-are-cancer-rates-so-low-in-india/
No
I'm not kidding, and I know they eat lots of turmeric in India.
I also know that, in spite of their consumption of curcumin, some of them get cancer.
So, curcumin is not some "magic" chemical that prevents cancer.
At best, it may reduce the incidence slightly.
Why did you think I was kidding.
Why did you think I might't know that they eat curry in India?
Why did you make that post?
Incidentally, the article fails to take account of a lot of other factors;
many Indians are vegetarian.
Few of them- at least in traditional conditions- are obese.
Both of those wold favour a low incidence of cancer without needing to resort to "magic"
-
So, curcumin is not some "magic" chemical that prevents cancer.
I disagree. Numerous preclinical studies have confirmed the anti-cancer potential of curcumin for many types of cancer.
It is foolish to discard the direct relationship between the low-incidence of cancer and the high consumption of curcumin in India.
-
So, curcumin is not some "magic" chemical that prevents cancer.
I disagree. Numerous preclinical studies have confirmed the anti-cancer potential of curcumin for many types of cancer.
It is foolish to discard the direct relationship between the low-incidence of cancer and the high consumption of curcumin in India.
You have not shown a direct relationship, so there's nothing to discard.
It's even more foolish to discount the idea that it might be something other than eating curry.
Meanwhile... back at the topic.
-
You are confusing the results of in-vitro and/or animal research with human first-line treatment.
The preclinical studies of the anti-cancer properties of curcumin is preliminary evidence of the existence of alternative treatments
Sorry, but the preclinical research of curcumin.... has nothing to do with the fact that doctors are [not] "discarding it as an alternative option to chemotherapy".
Now don't get me wrong, as I am well-aware of curcumin's potential, and I've been taking Theracurmin on a daily basis for years.... but the reason why curcumin isn't utilized as a first-line and/or adjuvant anti-oncogenic, is due to it's profound pharmacokinetic limitations.
~
-
It is foolish to discard the direct relationship
Speaking of foolish.... There is no direct relationship. Pick up a textbook.
the low-incidence of cancer and the high consumption of curcumin in India.
Care to explain the lower incidence of cancer in 17 other countries who do [not] traditionally consume curcumin?
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/all-cancers/by-country/
~
-
Have any peer-reviewed studies been done of average life expectancy of cancer patients who took chemotherapy vs. those who did not? If so, what were the results?
Yes- lots.
This bunch
https://www.nice.org.uk/
exist just to ensure that the NHS only spends money on things that are known to work.
So, any cancer chemotherapy used in the UK is supported by studies which show it to work.
If you want to find research then the Cochrane institute is a good place to start
Here's an example I picked at random.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD009948/LUNGCA_cetuximab-a-new-treatment-for-advanced-non-small-cell-lung-cancer
It's not that cancer drugs don't have bad side effects- they do.
It's just that those effects- even new cancers- are less bad than dying quickly.
Here is a little conspiracy theory for you.
We will wait and see your positive spin on it:-
Monsanto Co. started an agricultural revolution with its “Roundup Ready” seeds, genetically modified to resist the effects of its blockbuster herbicide called Roundup. That ability to kill weeds while leaving desirable crops intact helped the company turn Roundup’s active ingredient, the chemical glyphosate, into one of the world’s most-used crop chemicals. When that heavy use raised health concerns, Monsanto noted that the herbicide’s safety had repeatedly been vetted by outsiders. But now there’s new evidence that Monsanto’s claims of rigorous scientific review are suspect.
Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews
Monsanto’s internal emails tell a different story. The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts.
-
Here is a little conspiracy theory for you.
We will wait and see your positive spin on it:-
I'm still waiting for you to explain why you claim that Big Pharma (who, I accept are frequently immoral ad corrupt) are in any way denying something by including it in their product description.
Your original post never made sense, and it still doesn't.
It may have escaped your notice, but weedkiller isn't a pharmaceutical.
You also seem to have ignored the fact that quite a lot of stuff you have posted simply wasn't true, or was just stuff you made up.
When you answer those you will be in a reasonable position to start asking more questions.
That's the way debates happen.
-
The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory smear phrase thrown at someone in an attempt to paint them as a lunatic. It's a tactic frequently used by modern-day thought police in a desperate attempt to demand "Don't go there!"
I agree. Too often mainstream media (msm) will use deceitful tactics in labeling some entity doing independent research a "conspiracy theorist". I don't know why independent research is being systematically discarded on the internet by msm trolls.
In reality, the ignorance of people in science is the reason mainstream media is falsely accepted as the truth. @profound, please continue your investigations. I respect people asking insightful science questions independently of the msm trolls seeking to hijack your thread with spam.
The word "conspiracy theorist" is used nowadays with negative connotations to describe people who make ACCUSATIONS of conspiracies without credible EVIDENCE. The credible and conclusive evidence is always conveniently absent. I recognise your profile name. You have previously argued ridiculous points in a very biased and unscientific way without providing anything in the way of reliable evidence. You have also shown yourself unable to understand even the basic principles of science, and your constant need to promote unproven conspiracy theories does not belong on this forum. Your misuse of the word "mainstream media" means you are unaware of the diversity in the media, which indicates you do not read widely.
I call your attention to this study, which found analytic thinking exercises reduce belief in conspiracy theories.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25217762 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25217762)
Also, this study, which found a negative correlation between education and belief in conspiracy theories: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248629/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248629/)
And this study, which found belief in political and medical conspiracy theories was correlated with low self-esteem, low conscientiousness, more right-wing political views, younger age, low emotional stability, and low agreeableness.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28782805 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28782805)
I recommend you read the full text before you criticise these studies or allege without evidence that the studies are the product of a conspiracy. (one thing believers in conspiracy theories often do is to claim that any evidence against their belief is the result of a conspiracy, while yet again producing zero evidence supporting that claim)
-
The word "conspiracy theorist"
Sorry, it is a "term", unlike a simple word like "banana" or "gorilla"... In specific, the term "conspiracy theory" describes nothing objectively but is used liberally by mainstream media to discard independent research. Perhaps you should pick a dictionary to find out that this term is nonsense.
-
Now don't get me wrong, as I am well-aware of curcumin's potential, and I've been taking Theracurmin on a daily basis for years.... but the reason why curcumin isn't utilized as a first-line and/or adjuvant anti-oncogenic, is due to it's profound pharmacokinetic limitations.
Would you care to explain me how a naturally-derived DNA methyltransferase inhibitor may have profound pharmacokinetic limitations?
-
The word "conspiracy theorist"
Sorry, it is a "term", unlike a simple word like "banana" or "gorilla"... In specific, the term "conspiracy theory" describes nothing objectively but is used liberally by mainstream media to discard independent research. Perhaps you should pick a dictionary to find out that this term is nonsense.
Your use of the term "mainstream media" is absolutely ridiculous. This indicates you know nothing about the diversity in the media. The term "conspiracy theory" has evolved over time, like MANY WORDS AND PHRASES IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. It now has negative connotations and is used by most people to refer to wacky allegations of conspiracies that are not based on credible evidence.
-
Your use of the term "mainstream media" is absolutely ridiculous. This indicates you know nothing about the diversity in the media.
Please tell me about the so-called "diversity in the media", because so far my experience on internet forums like this one made me learned the true meaning of "mainstream media": It is the absence of diversity in the media which is problematic, not the opposite. Your use of the term "conspiracy theory" is evidence you belong into the msm camp.
-
Your use of the term "mainstream media" is absolutely ridiculous. This indicates you know nothing about the diversity in the media.
Please tell me about the so-called "diversity in the media", because so far my experience on internet forums like this one made me learned the true meaning of "mainstream media": It is the absence of diversity in the media which is problematic, not the opposite. Your use of the term "conspiracy theory" is evidence you belong into the msm camp.
You cannot argue against the accepted meanings of words. The term "conspiracy theory" nowadays has negative connotations. This is a fact that neither I, nor you, can change. What is wrong with your thinking ability?
-
Well nearly every conspiracy theory has COME TRUE.
Name a few.
Here are plenty to choose from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory smear phrase thrown at someone in an attempt to paint them as a lunatic. It's a tactic frequently used by modern-day thought police in a desperate attempt to demand "Don't go there!"
The term "conspiracy theorist" is rightly used in this context to describe a wacky allegation of a conspiracy with no credible evidence supporting it. The OP is naively alleging there is a conspiracy between pharma companies and regulatory authorities to sell ineffective unsafe chemotherapy drugs which cause cancer. This is a mad conspiracy theory. There is no evidence supporting this. In reality, tens of thousands of hardworking, intelligent, honest scientists, engineers, and physicians have been working diligently for decades to design chemotherapy drugs to be as effective, safe and precisely targeted as is humanly possible. Please stop wasting our time with your nonsense. Googling conspiracy theories is NOT research.
-
Here is a little conspiracy theory for you.
We will wait and see your positive spin on it:-
I'm still waiting for you to explain why you claim that Big Pharma (who, I accept are frequently immoral ad corrupt) are in any way denying something by including it in their product description.
Your original post never made sense, and it still doesn't.
It may have escaped your notice, but weedkiller isn't a pharmaceutical.
You also seem to have ignored the fact that quite a lot of stuff you have posted simply wasn't true, or was just stuff you made up.
When you answer those you will be in a reasonable position to start asking more questions.
That's the way debates happen.
Weed killer goes into you when you ingest food.You seem to be unaware of that.
What did I make up?
Anyway Big Pharma has conspired with doctors to get the nation hooked on opiods and 142 are dying every day.
As I said terrorism is the least cause of death and Big Pharma and doctors the biggest.
President Donald Trump has declared the opioid epidemic a "national emergency," but what happens now, and could this declaration really help address the crisis?
On Thursday (Aug. 10), Trump told reporters that the opioid epidemic is a national emergency. "We're going to spend a lot of time, a lot of effort and a lot of money on the opioid crisis," he said.
https://www.livescience.com/60119-opioid-crisis-national-emergency.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170814-ls
Opioid Crisis Is a 'National Emergency': What Happens Now?
Credit: Steve Heap/Shutterstock
President Donald Trump has declared the opioid epidemic a "national emergency," but what happens now, and could this declaration really help address the crisis?
On Thursday (Aug. 10), Trump told reporters that the opioid epidemic is a national emergency. "We're going to spend a lot of time, a lot of effort and a lot of money on the opioid crisis," he said.
In a statement, the White House said Trump had " instructed his administration to use all appropriate emergency and other authorities to respond to the crisis caused by the opioid epidemic."
The declaration follows a recommendation from "Trump's commission on the opioid crisis" (PDF report), which urged the president to declare a national emergency over the issue.
The report says more then 560000 Americans died from 1999 to 2015 due to prescription drugs.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the most recent data estimates that 142
Americans die every day from a drug overdose. Our citizens are dying. We must act boldly to
stop it. The opioid epidemic we are facing is unparalleled. The average American would likely
be shocked to know that drug overdoses now kill more people than gun homicides and car
crashes combined. In fact, between 1999 and 2015, more than 560,000 people in this country
died due to drug overdoses – this is a death toll larger than the entire population of Atlanta. As
we have all seen, opioids are a prime contributor to our addiction and overdose crisis. In 2015,
nearly two-thirds of drug overdoses were linked to opioids like Percocet, OxyContin, heroin,
and fentanyl. This is an epidemic that all Americans face because here is the grim reality:
Americans consume more opioids than any other country in the world. In fact, in 2015, the
amount of opioids prescribed in the U.S. was enough for every American to be medicated
around the clock for three weeks.
Since 1999, the number of opioid overdoses in America have quadrupled according to the CDC.
Not coincidentally, in that same period, the amount of prescription opioids in America have
quadrupled as well. This massive increase in prescribing has occurred despite the fact that
there has not been an overall change in the amount of pain Americans have reported in that
time period. We have an enormous problem that is often not beginning on street corners; it is
starting in doctor’s offices and hospitals in every state in our nation....
-
Your use of the term "mainstream media" is absolutely ridiculous. This indicates you know nothing about the diversity in the media.
Please tell me about the so-called "diversity in the media", because so far my experience on internet forums like this one made me learned the true meaning of "mainstream media": It is the absence of diversity in the media which is problematic, not the opposite. Your use of the term "conspiracy theory" is evidence you belong into the msm camp.
The MSM is controlled through a combination of advertising revenue and relationships forged simply to keep bad things of the perpetrators of the front page.
Note how a few people killed through a terrorists act gets vasts amounts of wall to wall publicity but Big Pharma corruption and the huge number deaths never do.Big Pharma has trillion $ profits and that vast wealth is used to control politicians,media,regulatory bodies,advertising to brainwash you...
-
Would you care to explain me how a naturally-derived DNA methyltransferase inhibitor may have profound pharmacokinetic limitations?
You should read up on elementary pharmacokinetics if you're going to continue this. Curcumin has been notoriously documented as having horrible bioavailability.
"Unfortunately, this compound evidences different problems for its application, such as low-aqueous solubility, rapid systemic clearance, inadequate tissue absorption and degradation at alkaline pH values. As a consequence, its oral bioavailability is extremely poor and CUR can be classified as a class IV compound in the BCS system (Wahlang et al., 2011). Furthermore, the drug is rapidly photodegraded by light, also limiting its clinical use (Cañamares et al., 2006; Kumavat et al., 2016)."
The nanoemulsions definitely show promise.... but once again.... curcumin isn't currently used as a first-line anti-oncogenic due to its profound pharmacokinetic limitations.
~
-
I wonder how many doctors, pharmacists and medical chemists who have developed cancer have willingly undergone chemotherapy...
-
I wonder how many doctors, pharmacists and medical chemists who have developed cancer have willingly undergone chemotherapy...
Well, My mum had chemotherapy and radiotherapy. My best guess is that it gave her another 5 years or so, during which she was able to travel the world and visit (among others) her sister in Africa.
She's not a doctor, pharmacist or whatever.
But she did ask me about it and I recommended that she went with the therapy.
I'm a pharmaceutical chemist by qualification, but I actually work in a totally unrelated field (which doesn't like me to mention it on social media).
So, I'm qualified and unbiased and I'd recommend to those in need.
It's shitty- but it's slightly less shitty than being dead.
-
The nanoemulsions definitely show promise.... but once again.... curcumin isn't currently used as a first-line anti-oncogenic due to its profound pharmacokinetic limitations.
I googled for "curcumin pharmacokinetics" and found the following study:
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2007;595:453-70.
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of curcumin.
Sharma RA1, Steward WP, Gescher AJ.
Abstract
"Curcuma spp. contain turmerin, essential oils, and curcuminoids, including curcumin. Curcumin [1,7-bis-(4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl)-1,6-heptadiene-3,5-dione] is regarded as the most biologically active constituent of the spice turmeric and it comprises 2-8% of most turmeric preparations. Preclinical data from animal models and phase I clinical studies performed with human volunteers and patients with cancer have demonstrated low systemic bioavailability following oral dosing. Efficient first-pass metabolism and some degree of intestinal metabolism, particularly glucuronidation and sulfation of curcumin, might explain its poor systemic availability when administered via the oral route. A daily oral dose of 3.6 g of curcumin is compatible with detectable levels of the parent compound in colorectal tissue from patients with cancer. The levels demonstrated might be sufficient to exert pharmacological activity. There appears to be negligible distribution of the parent drug to hepatic tissue or other tissues beyond the gastrointestinal tract. Curcumin possesses wide-ranging anti-inflammatory and anticancer properties. Many of these biological activities can be attributed to its potent antioxidant capacity at neutral and acidic pH, its inhibition of cell signaling pathways at multiple levels, its diverse effects on cellular enzymes, and its effects on cell adhesion and angiogenesis. In particular, curcumin's ability to alter gene transcription and induce apoptosis in preclinical models advocates its potential utility in cancer chemoprevention and chemotherapy. With regard to considerable public and scientific interest in the use of phytochemicals derived from dietary components to combat or prevent human diseases, curcumin is currently a leading agent."
My guess is that you should not underestimate curcumin anticancer properties simply because of its low oral bioavailability. You can overcome its low bioavailability by switching to phytosomal (phosphatidylcholine) curcumin formulations: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27503249?dopt=Abstract
-
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2007;595:453-70.
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of curcumin.
Sharma RA1, Steward WP, Gescher AJ.
Abstract
"Curcuma spp. contain turmerin, essential oils, and curcuminoids, including curcumin. Curcumin [1,7-bis-(4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl)-1,6-heptadiene-3,5-dione] is regarded as the most biologically active constituent of the spice turmeric and it comprises 2-8% of most turmeric preparations. Preclinical data from animal models and phase I clinical studies performed with human volunteers and patients with cancer have demonstrated low systemic bioavailability following oral dosing. Efficient first-pass metabolism and some degree of intestinal metabolism, particularly glucuronidation and sulfation of curcumin, might explain its poor systemic availability when administered via the oral route. A daily oral dose of 3.6 g of curcumin is compatible with detectable levels of the parent compound in colorectal tissue from patients with cancer. The levels demonstrated might be sufficient to exert pharmacological activity. There appears to be negligible distribution of the parent drug to hepatic tissue or other tissues beyond the gastrointestinal tract. Curcumin possesses wide-ranging anti-inflammatory and anticancer properties. Many of these biological activities can be attributed to its potent antioxidant capacity at neutral and acidic pH, its inhibition of cell signaling pathways at multiple levels, its diverse effects on cellular enzymes, and its effects on cell adhesion and angiogenesis. In particular, curcumin's ability to alter gene transcription and induce apoptosis in preclinical models advocates its potential utility in cancer chemoprevention and chemotherapy. With regard to considerable public and scientific interest in the use of phytochemicals derived from dietary components to combat or prevent human diseases, curcumin is currently a leading agent."
...
As far as cancer is concerned, in vitro studies have demonstrated that cancer cells do not die unless they are exposed to curcumin concentrations of 5–50 lM for several hours. 4,9,10
Because of its poor bioavailability, these concentrations are not achieved outside the gastrointestinal tract when curcumin is taken orally. Because of its extensive metabolism in intestine and liver, these concentrations cannot be maintained for several hours in the gastrointestinal tract.
This suggests that the chemotherapeutic potential of oral curcumin is limited even for the treatment of cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.
Accordingly, when 15 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were treated with curcumin at daily doses of 3.6 g for up to 4 months, no partial responses to treatment or decreases in tumor markers were observed.11
As discussed before, the plasma concentrations of curcumin in people taking relatively high oral doses of curcumin are very low, typically in the nanomolar range.
This means that the oral administration of curcumin does not lead to cytotoxic concentrations outside the gastrointestinal tract.
Int J Cancer. 2010 Apr 1;126(7):1771-5. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24967.
The dark side of curcumin.
Burgos-Morón E, Calderón-Montaño JM, Salvador J, Robles A, López-Lázaro M
-
You can overcome its low bioavailability
No, you can merely improve it's bioavailability - but not enough to utilize curcumin as a first-line anti-oncogenic.
~
-
Here is a little conspiracy theory for you.
We will wait and see your positive spin on it:-
I'm still waiting for you to explain why you claim that Big Pharma (who, I accept are frequently immoral ad corrupt) are in any way denying something by including it in their product description.
Your original post never made sense, and it still doesn't.
It may have escaped your notice, but weedkiller isn't a pharmaceutical.
You also seem to have ignored the fact that quite a lot of stuff you have posted simply wasn't true, or was just stuff you made up.
When you answer those you will be in a reasonable position to start asking more questions.
That's the way debates happen.
Weed killer goes into you when you ingest food.You seem to be unaware of that.
What did I make up?
Anyway Big Pharma has conspired with doctors to get the nation hooked on opiods and 142 are dying every day.
As I said terrorism is the least cause of death and Big Pharma and doctors the biggest.
President Donald Trump has declared the opioid epidemic a "national emergency," but what happens now, and could this declaration really help address the crisis?
...
I pointed out some of the stuff you made up earlier.
You made up the idea that the police are dealing with conspiracy theories.
You made up the assertion that "People who get chemo die quicker and in more pain."
Most of the "opiod crisis" stuff is just rebadging the old (failed) "war on drugs".
it's a diversion from real problems.
You should probably realise that citing Trump as evidence is a rookie error. He's famous for knowing little and telling the truth about less.
If you want to protest about a drug, try alcohol.
Stop posting more dross, and try answering some of the points people have made- you know- try to defend what you said . Or are you admitting that it's indefensible and just throwing out more junk at random in the hope that some of it's true?
-
You can overcome its low bioavailability by switching to phytosomal (phosphatidylcholine) curcumin formulations
Nanoemulsification is the most effective delivery system for oral curcumin thus far. Piperine is a good addition for some.
-
My guess is that you should not underestimate curcumin anticancer properties simply because of its low oral bioavailability. You can overcome its low bioavailability by switching to phytosomal (phosphatidylcholine) curcumin formulations: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27503249?dopt=Abstract
So, has the link between eating turmeric and cancer been ditched, or is someone trying to pretend that the Indian sub-continent is spicing food with "phytosomal (phosphatidylcholine) curcumin formulations:"?
You can't have it both ways.
-
My guess is that you should not underestimate curcumin anticancer properties
I didn't underestimate anything.
You overestimated curcumin's anticancer properties. Plain & simple.
~