Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rob C on May 14, 2016, 01:09:09 pm
-
During my aborted-by-storm day in Palma yesterday, I wandered past this shop whose services my late wife and I knew very well. On one floor there's the wigs department where you can select something to suit your personal style - should stress allow you to keep a sense of same - and on another floor the hairdressers where you get sent to have your head shaved prior to the eventual fitting of the wig.
It's not something of which you think every day; however, when you do, it leaves quite an impression with you for a while. Perhaps something good might come, for someone out there, from this snapshot. I hope so.
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/2712530_orig.jpg)
Rob C
-
Personal resonances...
Two weeks ago I came across a wig shop like this in Hannover, and it just seemed a little surprising. I don't think there is one similar in Lyon, oe it is hidden, I was supposing that it was just a different culture regarding wigs.
I didn't think about cancer... although I work in cancer research, we don't get involved in treatment, so that side of the story remains abstract. My father died 40 years ago of pancreatic cancer, but there is no useful treatment for that (there still isn't), so no hair loss.
That particular resonance is not present.
People have the impression that cancer rates are increasing: the irony is, it's mostly because we've done such a good job on reducing heart attacks by improving diet... which makes almost no difference to cancer rates, despite the protestations of my true-believer colleagues.
Cancer is many different diseases. Some of the most frequent are decreasing quite strongly (lung, stomach). Some we've gotten quite good at curing, others are no better than 100 years back. Even "breast cancer" is at least 5 different diseases with very different outcomes... and every time we bring out more technology and start talking about learning how to "cure cancer"... we just learn how more about how complicated and varied it is. We're heading towards a realisation that we all have little cancers, all the time, just some of them escape. And a lot of that is just luck of the draw, a DNA replication error that wasn't repaired, that was in a bad spot, and that slipped through the gaps of our personal immune system.
-
Yes, you see a lot of new things once your eyes have been opened to cancer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOeI68OmsnU
There's even a few versions of the above, pointing out the lack of hair. I heard a different version on KLRZFM.com some years ago, before they changed the music to another station in the group, and e-mailed them complaining about the psychological effect it had on somebody suffering the effects of chemotherapy. Got a reply, eventually, saying they didn't mean to hurt anyone... I found it quite surprising that one of their sponsors, at the time, was a big Louisiana cancer hospital; perhaps they never listen to the music they pay for via sponsorship.
Anyway, on the matter of self-inspection: any women out there doing it, don't ignore the fact that it can also appear very high up the rib cage, pretty much at the armpit. It isn't just found in the fuller parts of your breasts. Take it very seriously.
And get second-opìnions: the first guy told my wife it wasn't what she feared - just an infection, but to go see a hospital if she insisted. I insisted, and that's where they eventually discovered what it was, but even that took a couple of crucial weeks.
Don't play roulette with health. You'll find there's a Russian in there.
Rob C
-
There are lots of preventative measures and cures for cancer which simply don't appeal to most people. The right diet and regular exercise can be a part of the prevention, but in particular, regular or intermittent fasting can not only prevent cancer occurring but can be as effective a cure as chemotherapy, but without the side effects.
If the cancer is advanced, serious fasting by itself might not be sufficient. However, fasting in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiation can be the most effective treatment of all.
The process of fasting, that is, completely abstaining from all food, and drinking only water for a number of days, frees up the body to naturally deal with any problems, whether emerging cancer cells or other matters.
Cancer cells in particular are unable to deal with a lack of food. They starve to death before you do.
Unfortunately, such a treatment is as unpopular as it is successful because no-one makes any money from the treatment, except the patient who saves money on food.
It's also a treatment which many people simply wouldn't have the will power to implement, as implied by the fact that the majority of people are overweight despite the knowledge that being overweight is not a healthy state of affairs.
-
Ray,
I wish I'd heard about this possibility. I can assure you, we'd have tried anything.
Rob
-
There are lots of preventative measures and cures for cancer which simply don't appeal to most people. The right diet and regular exercise can be a part of the prevention, but in particular, regular or intermittent fasting can not only prevent cancer occurring but can be as effective a cure as chemotherapy, but without the side effects
I'm sorry Ray, it's just not true. There are a few anecdotes, but whenever fasting etc has been tried in a serious randomized trial, it hasn't worked. One of the symptoms of advanced cancer is cachexia: the cancer steals all the nutrition coming in and starts consuming the rest of the body as well.
It is true that keeping your weight down will help lower the risk though, by about 40% for most of the common cancers. So will staying fit and active, not smoking or drinking. Avoiding red meat seems to help for a couple of cancers (colorectal, upper stomach, prostate) Those are the approaches no one wants to know about...
Also, as I said, cancers are different. There is a 95% cure rate for testicular cancer thanks to cis-platin chemo, previously it had 30% 5 year survival. In contrast, most types of lung cancer respond brilliantly at first, but 95% relapse within a year or two. Small, screen-detected ER/PR+ breast cancers have 95+% survival, but those which do not have any of the three hormone receptors, the so-called "triple negatives", are very bad news, recurrences can happen many years later.
There have been some big steps forward in experimental use of "immune therapy" in the last year: it involves taking some of the tumour, finding out where it is mutated and then priming the immune system to attack cells carrying those mutations. It's still experimental and is likely to be horrendously expensive.
-
There are lots of preventative measures and cures for cancer which simply don't appeal to most people. The right diet and regular exercise can be a part of the prevention, but in particular, regular or intermittent fasting can not only prevent cancer occurring but can be as effective a cure as chemotherapy, but without the side effects.
This is dangerous drivel. Belief in garbage of this kind is one reason why Steve Jobs, for example, is dead.
Jeremy
-
A cure for cancer? If there had been one then it would be headlines around the world. Ray you should re think your terminology? :-[
BTW should we be posting about this subject at this particular time??? Someone please lock this thread. :o
-
There are lots of preventative measures and cures for cancer which simply don't appeal to most people. The right diet and regular exercise can be a part of the prevention, but in particular, regular or intermittent fasting can not only prevent cancer occurring but can be as effective a cure as chemotherapy, but without the side effects.
If the cancer is advanced, serious fasting by itself might not be sufficient. However, fasting in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiation can be the most effective treatment of all.
The process of fasting, that is, completely abstaining from all food, and drinking only water for a number of days, frees up the body to naturally deal with any problems, whether emerging cancer cells or other matters.
Cancer cells in particular are unable to deal with a lack of food. They starve to death before you do.
Unfortunately, such a treatment is as unpopular as it is successful because no-one makes any money from the treatment, except the patient who saves money on food.
It's also a treatment which many people simply wouldn't have the will power to implement, as implied by the fact that the majority of people are overweight despite the knowledge that being overweight is not a healthy state of affairs.
I am sorry Ray but this really is rubbish.
I happen to be a physician so I do know what I am talking about.
If you are not already aware Jeremy, in a former life, was a neurosurgical trainee before changing careers to law.
There are no "conspiracy theories" where good therapy for "cancer" is wilfully withheld by the medical profession.
If the management you suggest worked it would be implemented by the medical profession.
In addition there is no single disease called cancer.
In fact it could be correctly said that each individual that has a malignancy actually has a unique disease.
It is this fact, despite some really good advances in oncology, that still makes treating malignancies such a challenge.
I would be the first to confirm that many (most? all?) therapies that work actually work only because they poison the tumour just a little bit more than they poison the patient overall.
It is true that many people undergoing therapy for malignancies suffer nasty side-effects from these therapies. This includes chemotherapy, radiotherapy, as well as hormonal and other adjunctive therapy.
In intensive care where I practice a lot of oncology patients that end up in ICU are there because of life-threatening complications of the therapy for their malignancies.
Enormous effort in oncological research is currently directed at increasing the therapeutic effect on the tumour while reducing (or eliminating) the adverse effects on the patient overall. Some research using knowledge gained in immunology is especially promising and may allow the delivery of very toxic drugs directly to the tumour mass without much adverse effect to the patient.
During the course of my career there have been dramatic improvements in survival rates from most malignancies but the situation is far from celebratory.
A BIG problem still in oncology is the ability to detect most malignancies at a size where they can be easily dealt with. By the time the patient and/or the clinician is aware that there is a problem the ballgame is already over in a lot of cases.
This problem is also receiving a LOT of attention at the research level and at the clinical level we are seeing an incremental improvement in our ability to detect malignancies at an earlier stage.
In summary, it is not a good idea to spread silly myths and rumours about important health issues - peoples lives will depend on common sense information and common sense decisions.
Tony Jay
-
A cure for cancer? If there had been one then it would be headlines around the world. Ray you should re think your terminology? :-[
BTW should we be posting about this subject at this particular time??? Someone please lock this thread. :o
No stamper.
This was started before I knew that Michael's health had deteriorated.
I have had very close connections with cancer and I can tell you, any understanding is welcomed. Hiding one's head under the blanket doesn't drive away the devils. Far better to dispel, once and for all, the hellish silence that has surrounded this subject for so many decades - let's have it out there, so people have a chance of finding it quickly enough perhaps to do something about it.
You are under no obligation to participate; you may prefer to pretend it doesn't exist.
Rob C
-
No stamper.
This was started before I knew that Michael's health had deteriorated.
I have had very close connections with cancer and I can tell you, any understanding is welcomed. Hiding one's head under the blanket doesn't drive away the devils. Far better to dispel, once and for all, the hellish silence that has surrounded this subject for so many decades - let's have it out there, so people have a chance of finding it quickly enough perhaps to do something about it. :o
You are under no obligation to participate; you may prefer to pretend it doesn't exist.
Rob C
The reference to cancer started in Reply #2 after the announcement. Under the circumstances I don't think it is appropriate. After all this is a photography site and the connection between cancer and wigs is tenuous at best.
-
Chemo, radiation -> hair loss -> use of wig
-
Chemo, radiation -> hair loss -> use of wig
Thank you; it's part of the lack of understanding so many have because they haven't been there.
I can't see a woman in a headscarf anymore without thinking poor girl, and hoping I get to see she's actually got hair beneath it. And another thing: losing her hair is psychologically far more awful for a woman that for any man; wigs are very poor substitutes, however expensive they might have been, and bring problems of their own.
Rob
-
The reference to cancer started in Reply #2 after the announcement. Under the circumstances I don't think it is appropriate. After all this is a photography site and the connection between cancer and wigs is tenuous at best.
Incorrect: it's right there, in my original post with picture.
I refer to the prescience of my posting/starting this thread in my own message of condolence in the thread dedicated to the announcement of Michael's passing.
Had the times been reversed, I wouldn't have posted the shot in Coffee Corner, but as more usual for me, in Without Prejudice, without the appeal for charitable donations, and simply as a photograph of something a bit unusual.
I hope that nobody in LuLa thinks this an opportunity to start another fight.
Rob C
-
Under the circumstances I don't think it is appropriate.
I beg to differ.
As someone who suffered the loss of several very close relatives under very similar tragic circumstances, I fully support the idea of giving this topic more visibility. Heck, if anything, the circumstances make it even more appropriate, as more people will open their eyes to the huge piles of problems surrounding cancer.
For instance: it's been pointed above that there are new promising treatments being developed, but they are going to be very, very expensive. OK, how many people do realize that pouring money into obsolete defense programs instead of cancer research and treatment is a crime? I do not expect people taking my view on that, but I'd want them to at least start thinking about that, and this thread helps in that respect.
-
This is dangerous drivel. Belief in garbage of this kind is one reason why Steve Jobs, for example, is dead.
Jeremy
Jobs had cancer of the pancreas. While I'm sceptical about alternative cures, that puts him in the "nothing left to lose" category. Three years ago, the head of the cancer bioinformatics unit across the street diagnosed his own pancreatic cancer. Early diagnosis, knew exactly where to go for the best treatment. With his time as a senior fellow at the US NCI, he had access to all the knowledge... he lasted a year.
-
Jobs had cancer of the pancreas. While I'm sceptical about alternative cures, that puts him in the "nothing left to lose" category. Three years ago, the head of the cancer bioinformatics unit across the street diagnosed his own pancreatic cancer. Early diagnosis, knew exactly where to go for the best treatment. With his time as a senior fellow at the US NCI, he had access to all the knowledge... he lasted a year.
There's more than one kind of pancreatic cancer. While details are obviously sparse, it appears that Jobs's was a neuroendocrine tumour, not the very much more usual adenocarcinoma.
Jeremy
-
I am sorry Ray but this really is rubbish.
I happen to be a physician so I do know what I am talking about.
If you are not already aware Jeremy, in a former life, was a neurosurgical trainee before changing careers to law.
There are no "conspiracy theories" where good therapy for "cancer" is wilfully withheld by the medical profession.
If the management you suggest worked it would be implemented by the medical profession.
Tony,
I'm not into conspiracy theories. My statements are based upon reports I've read of scientific research on the subject. If you google the internet on the subject, as well as Google Scholar, you should find dozens of references to university-based research.
Perhaps you could do all these research establishments a favour by contacting them and advising them that they are wasting their time and money investigating the matter because you, being a physician, know that it's all rubbish. ;)
Unfortunately, most of the research so far has concentrated on rats and mice in a laboratory. It's difficult to put humans in a completely controlled environment for a significant period of time, and it's also very expensive.
I can appreciate that any recommendation of serious fasting as a treatment for any condition is going to be hugely problematic because people enjoy eating so much.
Another facet of the problem is that it is not possible (logically) for fasting to be implemented by the medical profession. It could only be recommended by the medical profession, but would have to be implemented by the patient. In other words, it would be a self-treatment, and that raises other obvious problems of an ethical nature.
The reality is that most people simply do not have the will-power to fast seriously for several days at a time without eating anything at all. They tend to cheat on themselves. They tend to kid themselves along the lines, "Well, I haven't eaten anything for 2 days, so one or two tasty hamburgers, or this healthy 'smoothy' drink of fruit and vegetables, shouldn't do me any harm", and so on. Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable.
There could also be a problem that certain people with pre-existing medical conditions who are dependent upon certain types of medication might suffer harm from the practice of fasting.
Here's a general article that covers the issue quite well. http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=3408
and here's an extract:
"Leading cancer centres and experts such as Dr Valter Longo of University of Southern California, Professor Thomas Seyfried of Boston, Dr Dominic D´Agostino, Assistant Professor of Molecular Pharmacology, University of South Florida, and the Max-Plank Institute show that fasting can play an important therapeutic role in the treatment of cancer."
You might also find the following report of a new study on the matter, interesting.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/778613
"For the first time ever, a randomized controlled trial that uses calorie restriction as a treatment for cancer — and measures a cancer-related outcome — was approved by the institutional review board at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and is on its way to the clinic.
In the entire field of cancer research, there have only been a handful of studies of calorie restriction as a cancer treatment," Stephen Freedland, MD, from Duke, told Medscape Medical News. But none of them were randomized clinical trials."
I think this trial began in 2013, so it's too late, Tony, for you to contact them to advise them they are wasting their time. ;)
Now, to end this post I think it only fair that I should declare any personal or professional financial interests which could skew my opinion on this matter and result in a biased outlook.
I don't have any. ;)
-
Ray, the fact that a single trial is currently being conducted does not in any way prove the hypothesis.
In addition there is a big difference to research being done on the level of cell biology and translating that into a coherent treatment regime. Unfortunately, so many promising avenues of treatment explored using animal models do not produce good results when applied to human beings. I am not denigrating animal research in this context merely emphasising that until the hypothesis is proven effective in trials using human beings it is nothing more than an attractive, but untested, idea.
I will tell you this - starving a patient with "cancer" does nothing but kill the patient.
Starving a tumour of nutrients allowing it to grow is a much more complicated process than merely starving the patient.
I have seen tumours grow and kill patients who were unable to eat for extended periods of time.
Also, the reason why so many patients with malignant tumours become wasted is because the tumours change the whole metabolism of the body is altered by hormones and other mediators secreted by the tumour. In essence the tumour gets fat at the expense of the rest of the body.
Also, there is a big difference between public health measures to reduce the incidence of various diseases such as cessation of smoking and eating a healthy diet (howsoever defined) and measures taken to actually treat a patient with a specific disease.
In the post that I originally responded to it appeared that you were confusing the two.
In addition, the article from CancerActive that you reference is also confusing this exact issue and also makes statements that absolutely do not stand any scrutiny. Lets just look at one silly thing that they say: They mention that obese women with breast cancer do worse than their counterparts who are not obese. This observation is true of ANY patient population with a serious disease of any sort. However the implication that one directly affects tumour biology by losing weight is entirely unproven at this point. This whole article is a compendium of misinterpreted results and poor circumstantial evidence.
Yes, I will watch out for the publication of this study that you allude to.
My guess is that the result will not be generally applicable - whatever its outcome - but we will see.
Tony Jay
-
Here is complete quote from pubmed written by the investigators of the trial that you quote.
This is a summary of an entire review article published in 2015:
BMC Med. 2015 Jan 8;13:3. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0234-y.
Nutrition, dietary interventions and prostate cancer: the latest evidence.
Lin PH1, Aronson W, Freedland SJ.
Author information
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) remains a leading cause of mortality in US men and the prevalence continues to rise world-wide especially in countries where men consume a 'Western-style' diet. Epidemiologic, preclinical and clinical studies suggest a potential role for dietary intake on the incidence and progression of PCa. 'This minireview provides an overview of recent published literature with regard to nutrients, dietary factors, dietary patterns and PCa incidence and progression. Low carbohydrates intake, soy protein, omega-3 (w-3) fat, green teas, tomatoes and tomato products and zyflamend showed promise in reducing PCa risk or progression. A higher saturated fat intake and a higher β-carotene status may increase risk. A 'U' shape relationship may exist between folate, vitamin C, vitamin D and calcium with PCa risk. Despite the inconsistent and inconclusive findings, the potential for a role of dietary intake for the prevention and treatment of PCa is promising. The combination of all the beneficial factors for PCa risk reduction in a healthy dietary pattern may be the best dietary advice. This pattern includes rich fruits and vegetables, reduced refined carbohydrates, total and saturated fats, and reduced cooked meats. Further carefully designed prospective trials are warranted.
Note several important issues.
Note how careful their language is - no sweeping statements at all and, in fact, very tentative language.
Why? Their audience is just like me - people who know what they are talking about and will point out each and every time they overstep the evidence base.
Note also that this article only makes reference to prostate cancer, and, if you read the rest of his publications on prostate cancer, you will realise that the term "prostate cancer" is, in itself, a gross overgeneralisation.
These individuals are not generalising in the slightest.
They are well aware that there is no proof that their hypothesis is correct - note the final sentence - they are acknowledging just this.
So, it is likely that the study in progress is only looking at the impact of diet on prostate cancer and nothing else.
Whatever the result it will be applicable to prostate cancer and nothing else.
The source that you cite (at least the ones that I looked at) are not scientific at all. The fact that they cite various studies as "proof" of their claims does not in fact stand scrutiny as I said. Who, exactly, is the author of that article in CancerActive? No oncologist would have written that - an article like that would destroy his or her reputation irreparably. No, it seems that Mr A Nonymous wrote this article along with everything else on that website. So, whoever wrote this stuff has no idea how to evaluate scientific/medical research data and is actually writing to an agenda instead.
Ray, you have fallen down a bit of a black hole.
I understand that it may be difficult to evaluate information of this nature.
One needs years and years of training and knowledge related to the subject matter to interpret it properly.
My advice to you is not to uncritically accept web-based information as far as health is concerned.
I can only say that two individuals who are members of this forum with REAL medical knowledge have pulled you up very sharply on an issue that you chose to publicise.
There simply is no evidence that supports anything more than a common-sense dietary approach in both disease prevention and disease treatment.
Any variation from this should be done absolutely because properly trained medical professionals directly recommend it you as a patient.
One cannot generalise when it comes to treating disease and this is becoming increasingly clear in oncology.
The blunderbuss approach taken to, especially, chemotherapy and adjunctive therapy in the past is increasingly being replaced by a much more individualised approach as the technology to do it becomes available. Oncology is just dipping into this now and the process will take many decades.
Ray, as an individual, you are welcome to your opinion, and to state it.
However, also as an individual, and a medically-trained one at that, I cannot stand by and allow falsehoods and mistruths to be promulgated.
Tony Jay
-
Well put, Tony. I've nothing to add to that. Misunderstanding of science, whether deliberate or from ignorance or mere gullibility, is the bane of our age.
Jeremy
-
Jobs had cancer of the pancreas. While I'm sceptical about alternative cures, that puts him in the "nothing left to lose" category. Three years ago, the head of the cancer bioinformatics unit across the street diagnosed his own pancreatic cancer. Early diagnosis, knew exactly where to go for the best treatment. With his time as a senior fellow at the US NCI, he had access to all the knowledge... he lasted a year.
Actually he had a neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas, which may actually have been treatable. From what I've heard he wasted some time with alternative therapies and by the time they got to really treating him, it had metastasized. The whole liver transplant procedure later on tells you there was something very atypical about his pancreatic cancer.
-
One thing that I think's worth adding to this discussion - the only thing that, as a non-medic I feel I'm capable of adding with any value, would be this: there's no limit to the value of continued hope. It may or may not cure or help anything physically - that's a separate issue - but it certainly does affect the quality of life of those affected by disease, whether as patient or relative.
Generally, I think it's a good thing that we do not know the time of our ending; however, in the case of knowing one has a terminal illness, I think that the situation changes, and that an educated guess from a specialist could help make those remaining days, months or years better-spent. Of course, few medics would, I'd imagine, feel willing to hazard such a time-guess, especially as the world becomes ever more litigious. And even then, all patients will not be of the same mindset: what would help one make the most of remaining time could as easily drive another into an even worse state of mind.
Thank goodness I don't have to face these ethical dilemmas.
Rob C
-
Ray, as an individual, you are welcome to your opinion, and to state it.
However, also as an individual, and a medically-trained one at that, I cannot stand by and allow falsehoods and mistruths to be promulgated.
Tony Jay
Fair enough Tony. Since I do my best to take responsibility for my own health, which at my current age of almost 74 is currently fine with no problems that I'm aware of and always has been fine apart from the occasional incidence of flu and the like, and the occasional minor accident, I am also very concerned about any falsehoods relating to health matters because I wish my good health to continue.
I take my health seriously, so naturally I would be very grateful if you were able to prove that fasting cannot cure cancer, and that the suggestion that it can is a load of rubbish.
I hear reports all the time of people who have been diagnosed with cancer but who fail to be cured by conventional medical treatments which often seem to do no more than prolong their life for a few months or a few years. But of course, some people do experience long-lasting cures of their cancer.
Now I'm not suggesting that such cancers which are too advanced to be cured by conventional treatments could be cured by fasting alone, but the impression I get is that a combination of fasting and chemotherapy might make these conventional treatments more effective.
The research also implies there are a number of other benefits that result from regular or intermittent fasting, including increased longevity and a more effective immune system, which is the reason that I occasionally fast. The longest period I've fasted so far, drinking only water, is 4 days. 2 or 3 days is easy. Perhaps next time I might achieve 5 full days of fasting. ;)
Since I have the ability to fast without any excessive discomfort, I'm naturally interested in the possible benefits.
The source that you cite (at least the ones that I looked at) are not scientific at all. The fact that they cite various studies as "proof" of their claims does not in fact stand scrutiny as I said. Who, exactly, is the author of that article in CancerActive? No oncologist would have written that - an article like that would destroy his or her reputation irreparably. No, it seems that Mr A Nonymous wrote this article along with everything else on that website. So, whoever wrote this stuff has no idea how to evaluate scientific/medical research data and is actually writing to an agenda instead.
Tony, I quoted that link, CancerActive because it provides a general view that can be understood by the layperson. The organisation appears to be a Cancer Charity. This is how they describe their mission below.
"Our mission is to EMPOWER people to increase their personal odds of beating cancer; to be able to take more control over their own lives and their own treatment and to make more informed, personal choices about their cancer treatment options. We do this by providing ALL the information, not just on orthodox cancer treatments, but on complementary and integrative cancer therapies too. We aim to do this in an objective, balanced way and we take absolutely no money from any provider of any treatment."
Nowhere do I see them using the word 'proof'.
There are more scientifically oriented links amongst those below, for those who are interested.
Please feel free to tear them to shreds if you think they are all rubbish.
Here's an extract that seems rather positive to me, but no actual 'proof' of course.
FASTING AND CANCER
"Fasting has the potential for applications in both cancer prevention and treatment. Although no human data are available on the effect of IF or PF in cancer prevention, their effect on reducing IGF-1, insulin and glucose levels, and increasing IGFBP1 and ketone body levels could generate a protective environment that reduces DNA damage and carcinogenesis, while at the same time creating hostile conditions for tumor and pre-cancerous cells (Figure 5). In fact, elevated circulating IGF-1 is associated with increased risk of developing certain cancers (Chan et al., 2000; Giovannucci et al., 2000) and individuals with severe IGF-1deficiency caused by growth hormone receptor deficiency, rarely develop cancer (Guevara-Aguirre et al., 2011; Shevah and Laron, 2007; Steuerman et al., 2011). Furthermore, the serum from these IGF-1deficient subjects protected human epithelial cells from oxidative stress-induced DNA damage. Furthermore, once their DNA became damaged, cells were more likely to undergo programmed cell death (Guevara-Aguirre et al., 2011). Thus, fasting may protect from cancer by reducing cellular and DNA damage but also by enhancing the death of pre-cancerous cells.
In a preliminary study of 10 subjects with a variety of malignancies, the combination of chemotherapy with fasting resulted in a decrease in a range of self-reported common side effects caused by chemotherapy compared to the same subjects receiving chemotherapy while on a standard diet (Safdie et al., 2009). The effect of fasting on chemotherapy toxicity and cancer progression is now being tested in clinical trials in both Europe and the US (0S-08-9, 0S-10-3)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v30/n30/abs/onc201191a.html
http://blogs.uoregon.edu/bi410/files/2014/04/mice-cr-1a727ci.pdf
-
Ray can you see the excerpt that you are quoting is full of conditional language.
Words like 'potential', 'may', 'possible' dominate the language used.
This article is referencing legitimate research done at the level of the cell biologist using cell cultures of malignant cells.
And they found some very interesting things during that research.
They are now speculating that trying to reproduce a similar environment in a living organism may help.
This, however, is the untested part.
The hypothesis is attractive but it is still completely untested.
It appears that there is a plan to go ahead and institute several trials to test this hypothesis.
The whole tone of this is exactly what I would expect a responsible researcher to the in authoring an article for a peer-reviewed journal. No assumptions are made.
So, until the results of the various trials are published there will be no proof.
As for that site CancerActive it appears not to have a neutral approach at all but has a definite agenda.
They are marketing books on different issues - almost certainly these books promote what is known as 'alternative therapies'.
The reason why they are not 'mainstream' is for the very fact that there is no evidence to support what they are pushing.
However, there is a huge market of desperate people diagnosed with 'cancer' that has a poor prognosis who will try anything.
So this site functions like a marketing hub attracting people looking for 'safe' and 'non-toxic' therapies for their particular ailment.
Ultimately a lot of money changes hands.
Fad diets, shark cartilage, anti-oxidants...the list goes on and on.
I have seen all of this and more.
Much of this is harmless on one level - the 'safe' and 'non-toxic' therapies don't hurt but they actually do nothing.
On another level however the whole thing is very destructive - a lot of people waste a lot of money and time chasing a lie.
In addition false hope is generated that is dashed in the end.
Rob Campbell in a previous post mentioned the importance of hope, and it is important, but as stands is an incomplete statement.
It is not only the snake-oil salesman who are generating false hope.
I have had the regular experience of dealing with, usually, family members of a desperately sick oncology patient being emergently admitted to ICU, who frankly is dying with very little that any ICU could do to reverse the situation.
The difficulties arise because the oncologist has often been rather economical with the truth and so neither the patient nor the family are at all prepared for a situation that has been obvious to a clinician for some time (weeks to months).
Hiding the truth in these circumstances is actually immensely cruel because when the end comes no one is prepared for it.
You may think that I am just referring to the immediate emotional crisis that occurs in circumstances such as these but in fact far larger issues that need attention are not attended to.
Wills and legal matters are not attended to frequently leaving surviving family members in a severe legal and financial crisis.
Oftentimes major relationship issues are not addressed that would otherwise have been dealt with.
It is amazing how impending death focuses the mind and changes one's priorities.
Personally, I cannot adequately express my anger at some of my colleagues who consistently refuse to tell their patients the truth of their situation and hide behind the excuse that if they did then they would destroy hope in their patients.
As harsh as it may seem it is far far better to give patients and their families the truth and allow them to prepare in whatever ways they deem best.
Having been involved with these situations for more than twenty years I can absolutely confirm that it is possible to be open and honest with out being cruel. I lose count of the number of patients or family members who have thanked me for having the courage for telling them the truth. The truth enabled them to deal with the situation immeasurably better.
No one has ever come back to me and thanked me for hiding the truth from them (this did happen on a couple of occasions as a junior doctor when I was specifically instructed by much more senior colleagues to hide certain key facts from either the patient or the relatives - it was wrong then and it is wrong now - as a more senior doctor I would now never tolerate this).
In general the whole subject of 'cancer' is a highly charged and emotional topic with the general public.
Everyone has heard of horror stories related to either the disease itself or its treatment.
Sadly, many of these anecdotes do have more than a grain of truth to them.
As already stated in a previous post I would be the first to admit that medicine is unable to cure everyone with cancer, and, despite advances in both diagnosis and treatment of various cancers, survival rates are still not ideal.
In addition treatment may often cause problems that are worse than the disease being treated.
As a result there is huge pool of people across the world who would gladly embrace anything that is offered that allows them to avoid some of the horrors mentioned above.
Hence the huge industry of alternative therapy for cancer.
The problem is that they don't work (anecdotal evidence does not count).
I accept that aspects of diet are being investigated as having potential therapeutic benefit for some cancerous conditions.
No issues there.
However, reading the very words of the investigators themselves it is clear that no human trials have demonstrated benefit at this time.
This is in clear contradistinction to public health research (that include changes to diet) where there is evidence of preventative benefit.
My suggestion now is to let the subject lie.
I cannot dictate to anybody but I think, for me, that this topic has now been beaten to death.
Tony Jay
-
One thing that I think's worth adding to this discussion would be this: there's no limit to the value of continued hope. It may or may not cure or help anything physically - that's a separate issue - but it certainly does affect the quality of life of those affected by disease, whether as patient or relative.
Rob,
I think hope and faith are always a significant part of any treatment, whether the treatment is the application of orthodox medicine or alternative procedures. Even Jesus Christ understood that. ;)
Do you recall that account of a woman touching Christ's cloak from behind, causing him to turn around abruptly asking who touched him? Eventually a woman came forward and confessed it was her, but claimed she was cured (of whatever it was she was suffering from). Christ replied that it was her belief that had cured her.
This is known as the placebo effect, which is very real, as I'm sure even Tony Jay would admit. ;)
What surprised me recently was a report that there is even some beneficial placebo effect when the patient is told by the doctor that the pill he/she is receiving is in fact a placebo. One presumes that the compassionate act itself, of administering a pill, even when the patient knows it's just a sugar pill, can have a beneficial health effect.
This seems to be another area of medical science that is not fully understood.
-
Ray can you see the excerpt that you are quoting is full of conditional language.
Words like 'potential', 'may', 'possible' dominate the language used.
Absolutely! There's a great deal of uncertainty on so many health issues. It wasn't so long ago that all health institutes, such as the various Heart Foundations, were promoting the idea that all saturated fats were bad and that one should avoid full-cream milk, eggs and butter etc. if one wanted to reduce one's risk of a heart attack.
We now know that this is baloney. The body needs natural saturated fats, and struggles to produce its fat requirements from vegetable oils. Despite the massive proliferation of fat-reduced foods during the past several decades, heart disease has been on the increase.
Sure, virgin olive oil is fine, but so is coconut oil with its saturated fat. It's not just the level of LDL that presents a risk, but more significantly the balance between LDL and HDL. I'm glad we now understand that. Full-cream milk makes my coffee taste much better. ;)
They are now speculating that trying to reproduce a similar environment in a living organism may help.
This, however, is the untested part.
The hypothesis is attractive but it is still completely untested.
It's not completely untested. It's been tested on living organisms....such as mice and rats. Do you not believe in the theory of evolution, Tony? We share a surprisingly large amount of DNA sequencing with other living organisms.
Fad diets, shark cartilage, anti-oxidants...the list goes on and on.
I have seen all of this and more.
Much of this is harmless on one level - the 'safe' and 'non-toxic' therapies don't hurt but they actually do nothing.
On another level however the whole thing is very destructive - a lot of people waste a lot of money and time chasing a lie.
In addition false hope is generated that is dashed in the end.
Rob Campbell in a previous post mentioned the importance of hope, and it is important, but as stands is an incomplete statement.
It is not only the snake-oil salesman who are generating false hope.
Oops! So I was wrong when I stated in my previous post that even Tony Jay would accept the reality of the placebo effect. ;D
I agree that spending money on a pure placebo would not be as effective as spending the same amount of money on a tested drug that has proven to be more effective than a placebo. However, if the placebo costs nothing, and actually costs less than nothing, as fasting does (because one spends less on food), then that has to be worth something, surely. ;)
If the fasting is more than a mere placebo, as I suspect it is, then Wow! Get my point? ;)
-
Hi Ray,
Cells, mice, and rats are models that we experiment with because they provide indications of what treatment might work in humans. The theory still has to be tested in humans for safety, efficacy, dose, and unintended effects. A model is just that - it is never correct, but it can be useful. So the fact that there is partial shared genetic heritage makes them a useful tool for filtering what might work in humans. Human trials with enough participants to allow affirmation with acceptable statistical significance are still required to establish causation rather than correlation.
The past theories about diet and impacts on cardiac health were just that although they have been promoted as cures. The models were not complete because of partial understanding and thus inaccurate in hindsight. Did they produce useful results - certainly in some cases. But we understand more today and realize it is not that simple or even not substantiated. We will understand more in the future.
The placebo effect depends on the belief in the treatment. The mind can certainly influence the outcome of a treatment. The treatment still requires evaluation against randomized, double blind human trials to be accepted as causative.
-
The treatment still requires evaluation against randomized, double blind human trials to be accepted as causative.
Hi,
Of course it does. However, because of the huge variation in human activities, life-styles, eating habits, exercise, mental attitudes of worries and concerns, placebo effects resulting from so many things and situations, not to mention the obvious variations in individual genetic make-up resulting in certain weaknesses and strengths, and so on, it becomes very difficult to be certain about the effects of long-term treatments, of which fasting is an example, because of the difficulty of putting a significant number of humans in a strictly controlled environment for a significant period of time.
Drugs tend to have a more rapid and immediate effect, which makes testing easier. Dietary effects can take much longer. Ask yourself, how it was possible for the medical establishment to get the saturated-fat issue so wrong. It wasn't because no scientific studies were undertaken. It was at least partly because of the difficulty in effectively conducting controlled experiments with humans.
You might be surprised to learn that about 92% of our genes (or DNA encoding) is similar to those of mice.
Ultimately, we are all conditioned by our own experiences, and influenced by our general understanding of various treatments and what's involved. Fasting, whether voluntary for religious reasons, or involuntary as a result of drought and general shortage of food, has been a part of human history, and the history of our distant ancestors, for millions of years. My understanding is, the body has adapted well to such regularly occurring circumstances during the course of evolution.
The explanation for the efficacy of fasting in fixing emerging problems in the body, makes sense to me. When the body is freed from the chores of digesting new food inputs, and breaking down that food into the various compounds that the system needs, the body's natural processes are more able to attend to any emerging problems.
However, I do understand that fasting is not appropriate for everyone, without consideration of individual circumstances. An anorexic or underweight person, or a pregnant woman should definitely avoid fasting, and I imagine that there are a number of people who are reliant upon medication that is required to be taken with food.
-
It's never a clear-cut situation, though, and in my wife's case especially so (or so I believe, basing that opinion on a close experience of but two sufferers): she eventually had five cancer ops, and prior to each one she was of normal weight. Immediately after each intervention she turned into a living skeleton within a day or two. I know, because in Spain, in private hospitals, a relative can share a room with the patient and does, in fact, help out where that's within his/her knowledge of what to do. I think the relative's presence does a lot of good, psychological things for the patient, quite apart from what it can do for the relative's own mind and mental growth. So anyway, at that post-op stage, fasting would have been a negative input. But that's not to say that at other stages in life it can't be a positive.
However, isn't it always like that in life? We do what we think best at the time, but the final results of such actions - or lack of them - are way beyond out intentions, control or probably even expectations.
But there's still one scenario that's worse: immortality of a human body unless the ravages of age and the biological clock can be halted along with the time clock. I see all too clearly my own slow disintegration; I hate to imagine what it would look like in another fifty years of the same 'progress'!
Rob C
-
I think this is an issue of confusing correlation with causality.
It may be possible to find 10/100/1000/xxx people who were diagnosed with some form of cancer (which is often more complicated than often thought) and when they fasted, there was a change in the cancer... perhaps even where they were cured of cancer. That's correlation. People who did A had B as a result.
But as some dead Latin guys liked to say: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc which roughly translates as "with this, therefore because of this". It is a logical fallacy.
Because there was a observation that there was a change in a patient's cancer while they were fasting, does not indicate that the fasting caused the change in cancer.
Correlations may indicate potential causality, but causality must be independently tested.
It is my understanding that the causality relationship between fasting and effects on cancer have not been demonstrated.
-
I think this is an issue of confusing correlation with causality.
It may be possible to find 10/100/1000/xxx people who were diagnosed with some form of cancer (which is often more complicated than often thought) and when they fasted, there was a change in the cancer... perhaps even where they were cured of cancer. That's correlation. People who did A had B as a result.
But as some dead Latin guys liked to say: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc which roughly translates as "with this, therefore because of this". It is a logical fallacy.
Because there was a observation that there was a change in a patient's cancer while they were fasting, does not indicate that the fasting caused the change in cancer.
Correlations may indicate potential causality, but causality must be independently tested.
It is my understanding that the causality relationship between fasting and effects on cancer have not been demonstrated.
You are absolutely correct that correlation does not equal causality.
However in the context that we are debating even when causality has been established in studies done with cell cultures or even animal studies this does not imply in any way that a similar intervention in humans will have the desired effect.
I have been involved in several studies looking at certain pharmacological interventions (not antibiotics) aimed at short-circuiting the inflammatory response in septic shock. In every case the animal studies were exceptionally promising with remarkable results obtained.
In every case however the same interventions in human trials were a dismal failure.
In some trials mortality actually increased in the intervention arm.
From my perspective (as an actual clinician) until human trials show that an intervention works all the other research is interesting and piques the curiosity but, from a clinical perspective, ultimately unhelpful.
Obviously, as far as novel therapies are concerned, for the research to advance to the point of human trials all of the basic science and animal trials are absolutely necessary.
However, I cannot get excited about any of the research I have seen regarding diet as a therapy for malignancy at this point in time.
If, however, any human trials show benefit then that would would be worth looking at.
Until that time...
Tony Jay
-
You are absolutely correct that correlation does not equal causality.
And I am also in complete agreement on this point. The differences between correlation and causality are a major issue in Climate Change, for example. Those who are skeptical about the significance of rising CO2 levels as a cause of global warming point out that paleoclimatology studies often reveal that rising CO2 levels seem to have followed periods of global warming in the past, rather than precede it, and therefore cannot be the cause.
However in the context that we are debating even when causality has been established in studies done with cell cultures or even animal studies this does not imply in any way that a similar intervention in humans will have the desired effect.
That seems a very odd statement, Tony. If the results of animal studies does not imply in any way that a similar intervention in humans will have the desired effect, why are we wasting time and money carrying out tests on animals? ;)
I have been involved in several studies looking at certain pharmacological interventions (not antibiotics) aimed at short-circuiting the inflammatory response in septic shock. In every case the animal studies were exceptionally promising with remarkable results obtained.
In every case however the same interventions in human trials were a dismal failure.
In some trials mortality actually increased in the intervention arm.
That result in itself should be the subject of a further study to determine why a particular procedure has been effective with certain animals but not humans. Even among humans, the same procedures and the same drugs are not always equally effective, and can sometimes even make a condition worse as a result of a particular allergy that an individual might have.
However, I get the general impression that the same medicines, including most antibiotics, anti-anxiety medications and pain-killers that are effective on humans are also effective on dogs, cats, horses, sheep and so on, although the dosages might be different.
From my perspective (as an actual clinician) until human trials show that an intervention works all the other research is interesting and piques the curiosity but, from a clinical perspective, ultimately unhelpful.
Obviously, as far as novel therapies are concerned, for the research to advance to the point of human trials all of the basic science and animal trials are absolutely necessary.
That seems reasonable, but in contradiction to your previous statement above. ;)
However, I cannot get excited about any of the research I have seen regarding diet as a therapy for malignancy at this point in time.
If, however, any human trials show benefit then that would would be worth looking at.
Until that time...
As a doctor you are obliged to recommend and administer only treatments that have been officially approved by the FDA or TGA. I understand that. As a doctor you are not a dietician. That's not your speciality.
However, as an individual who is prepared to take responsibility for his own health and use his nous, it's clear to me that an ideal diet in conjunction with physical exercise are the key ingredients for a healthy and long life. If it were possible to ensure that everyone ate a healthy and wholesome diet and exercised regularly, in between occasional periods of fasting, (which isn't possible of course), there would eventually be massive redundancies among hospital staff and GPs, and a huge saving of money. ;D
-
"However, as an individual who is prepared to take responsibility for his own health and use his nous, it's clear to me that an ideal diet in conjunction with physical exercise are the key ingredients for a healthy and long life. If it were possible to ensure that everyone ate a healthy and wholesome diet and exercised regularly, in between occasional periods of fasting, (which isn't possible of course), there would eventually be massive redundancies among hospital staff and GPs, and a huge saving of money. ;D"
And so much over-population that we'd be falling off the surface of this little planet or, alternatively, have induced so much gravity as to produce our own black hole and implode.
;-)
Rob C
-
"However, as an individual who is prepared to take responsibility for his own health and use his nous, it's clear to me that an ideal diet in conjunction with physical exercise are the key ingredients for a healthy and long life. If it were possible to ensure that everyone ate a healthy and wholesome diet and exercised regularly, in between occasional periods of fasting, (which isn't possible of course), there would eventually be massive redundancies among hospital staff and GPs, and a huge saving of money. ;D"
And so much over-population that we'd be falling off the surface of this little planet or, alternatively, have induced so much gravity as to produce our own black hole and implode.
;-)
Rob C
Why? I can't see the connection. Are you implying that access to nutritious food and access to education about what constitutes nutritious food and the types of exercise that are beneficial for good health, would result in people having more children?
Oh! I see what you mean. If everyone were to have the same number of children but everyone lived longer due to better health, then there would be an increase in the population of elderly people. However, it's well known that part of the motivation to have large families is the insecurity that people imagine they will feel as they get older without a social security network or the means to pay medical bills. Family support is more important in those situations of poverty.
A world in which everyone was educated about nutritious diets, which can actually cost less than processed food and result in less medical expenses, would be a more secure world resulting in a lower population growth. ;)
-
Why? I can't see the connection. Are you implying that access to nutritious food and access to education about what constitutes nutritious food and the types of exercise that are beneficial for good health, would result in people having more children?
Population growth is a net effect between natality (i.e., "people having more children") and mortality. Reduce mortality, and you'd have population growth without necessarily the same number of people having more children.
-
Why? I can't see the connection. Are you implying that access to nutritious food and access to education about what constitutes nutritious food and the types of exercise that are beneficial for good health, would result in people having more children?
Can you doubt it?
(I know you're joking.)
;-)
Rob
-
Population growth is a net effect between natality (i.e., "people having more children") and mortality. Reduce mortality, and you'd have population growth without necessarily the same number of people having more children.
I've edited my post above. If people don't have more children, say 2 on average, then the population will increase initially as the percentage of elderly people increases, then stabilize after no further increase in longevity. If people have fewer children as a result of increased security, then the population will decrease.
The major advantage of a healthy lifestyle is not so much an increase in longevity, but a healthier and more active life whilst one is in those later stages of life when the effects of overeating tasty, junk food and being too lazy to exercise take their toll. Drugs and medical procedures do a fairly good job at keeping people alive despite their being very unhealthy.
-
Healthier people in good shape, not dying young, are more likely to mate, hence the population growth ;)
-
Healthier people in good shape, not dying young, are more likely to mate, hence the population growth ;)
Slobodan, you surprise me!
Having sex when older is great fun, as having children becomes an impossibility. Thank God.
;-)
Rob
P.S.
LuLa ¡s becoming a minefield of well-intended, poor advice! Whoda thunk?
-
Healthier people in good shape, not dying young, are more likely to mate, hence the population growth ;)
Oh! I see! So that's why advanced, developed countries with a high life expectancy, such as Japan, Germany and the USA, continue to have rapid population growth, whereas less advanced countries with a lower life expectancy, such as Chad, Eritrea, Kenya and Uganda, have a dwindling population. I didn't know that. ;D ;D
-
Ray, I read your response to my last post.
I have had a fair internal debate as to whether to respond.
I think I have to - if for no other reason to maintain some balance.
Unfortunately, your views on the matter betray enormous naivete.
Simply put, animal studies, while always done (particularly when researching new drugs) just don't prove any kind of point with respect to efficacy or safety in human populations.
This is a well known fact in medical/research circles.
The fact that you don't know this and have difficulty believing this fact does not change the bottom line.
Yes. animal studies are done as a necessary precursor to further studies on humans but those animal studies in a very absolute (and I mean absolute) sense do not mean anything with respect to efficacy or safety in humans.
Furthermore there is no contradiction in anything that I said with respect to the process of research as it pertains to clinical therapeutics. The contradiction lies in you not understanding the process.
Furthermore, with respect to medical practice, we are not bound in an absolute sense to using drugs and other therapies strictly as per the TGA.
Yes, nearly all of what we do would be regarded as conventional by the TGA, but not all.
However, when we do use drugs above and beyond ways originally set out by the TGA when the drug was approved we do not just suck our thumbs and dream up those indications.
There is solid science behind those uses with good trial evidence (with human subjects) guiding us.
You may or may not realise that it might take twenty years for the various regulatory authorities to update their licensing.
I have used drugs for "off-label" indications plenty of times in my career.
We cannot do this without justifying our reasons pretty thoroughly but the science is there and we refer to it.
Ultimately the party most interested in how we use drugs in this fashion is whatever party is paying for the treatment - usually the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or the insurance company (this applies only in Australia). In practice the hospital pharmacy is the one we have to convince.
Finally, none of the research that you referred to, that I read anyway, is being done by dieticians - they are clinicians like myself. Dieticians are taught a small subsection of what we are taught as clinicians. The fact that that is all they do for a living does not in any way exclude me and my colleagues from knowing what they know - and particularly given what I do in ICU medicine understanding every aspect of what a dietician does and what they know is actually a fundamental part of my job.
Ray, you used a phrase in your last post - "general impression" - and I sorry, that is all you have on these topics.
Your general impressions are so general that, to me, they amount to gross errors of understanding.
In addition look at how your descriptions have changed:
In the first post on this subject you were talking about fasting patients to cure them of cancer - several individuals, including myself, pointed out that this was dangerous rubbish with not a shred of evidence. Some of the ideas that you introduced to support this argument was that eating a healthy diet, in general, reduced the incidence of cancer. This is true for some types of cancer but in no way proves any kind of point with regard to actually treating someone who actually has cancer particularly with regards to fasting cancer patients.
Now, you are talking about exercise and healthy diet to stay healthy - and I have no issues with this at all except that this has nothing to do with your claims regarding diet or fasting to actually treat cancer.
I reiterate this again: I doubt that you are in a position to adequately interpret scientific/medical research data based on what you have demonstrated in this thread.
I thoroughly respect your right to an opinion, whatever that may be, but your claims present potential danger to any individual not in a position to independently question those claims and it is that concern that has motivated me to involve myself at all.
Tony Jay
-
Unfortunately, your views on the matter betray enormous naivete.
Simply put, animal studies, while always done (particularly when researching new drugs) just don't prove any kind of point with respect to efficacy or safety in human populations.
This is a well known fact in medical/research circles.
Tony, even though I'm... err, with you in this continued debate, there's one thing I wish you stop doing. When someone starts to call his/her opponent as "naive" etc., it immediately tells me he/she ran out of gas in the debate. Just stick to facts, please. I understand it all stems from frustration, but still -- you're doing your cause a disservice.
There are countless examples in the history of science of views or reports that was called "naive" in an attempts to dismiss them, which later proved to be true. Like, say, French Academy laughing at men reporting that rocks were falling from the sky.
That is not to say that fasting does any good to patients (except for the extra hope, as was pointed out). I tend to agree with that. My point it, it has to be proved, not simply dismissed.
Furthermore there is no contradiction in anything that I said with respect to the process of research as it pertains to clinical therapeutics.
Yes, there is. That "any kind of point" in "animal studies, while always done (particularly when researching new drugs) just don't prove any kind of point with respect to efficacy or safety in human populations" is clearly over the top. These studies are not done in preparation to treat animals, they are done in preparation to treat humans. And if they did not "prove any kind of point", they would not be conducted. (I remember it was also in your earlier post, but can't find it)
I understand you just tried to stress its inconclusiveness, and made... a slip. And now for some reason instead of admitting it, correcting yourself and moving on, you hang on to it. Just say "that's not what I meant", and move on. Like a scientist would do.
-
Yes, there is. That "any kind of point" in "animal studies, while always done (particularly when researching new drugs) just don't prove any kind of point with respect to efficacy or safety in human populations" is clearly over the top. These studies are not done in preparation to treat animals, they are done in preparation to treat humans. And if they did not "prove any kind of point", they would not be conducted. (I remember it was also in your earlier post, but can't find it)
I understand you just tried to stress its inconclusiveness, and made... a slip. And now for some reason instead of admitting it, correcting yourself and moving on, you hang on to it. Just say "that's not what I meant", and move on. Like a scientist would do.
There is no slip or mistake or me been "over the top".
There are countless studies where therapeutics have been investigated where the animal studies were very encouraging.
Excellent therapeutic effect - as per expectations - and no evidence of toxicity.
Subsequent trials on humans - either no therapeutic effect or actual toxicity and not uncommonly increased mortality in the treatment arm.
This is common enough to merely merit a shrug of the shoulders in the scientific and medical communities.
Yes, the animal trials are done to try, emphasis try, to assess efficacy, and especially safety. If there is no evidence of efficacy and/or safety concerns at this point then the whole line of research is aborted. No human trials will be done.
However, good results at an animal study level just don't prove anything until the human trials also show the same thing.
It is complete bunkum to assume that the result of an animal study will be reproduced in a human population until the human trials have been completed..
With respect to your comment that I have dismissed any thought that diet or fasting does not work - that also is not correct.
I have dismissed, correctly, the claims that Ray originally made precisely because there is no evidence to support his assertions.
If you read all my posts carefully you will see firstly that I am aware that some research is being done into whether diet can be used to treat cancer.
I am also aware that at least one human trial looking at diet (not fasting) in treating prostate cancer is in process now.
No one. not least the investigators themselves know what the result will be.
As I wrote before: until that time....
I also say this, with respect: I have been misquoted, selectively quoted, and I suspect deliberately misunderstood in order for points to be scored.
I don't feel that I have to defend the points that I have made.
There is nothing in this for me personally.
My only motive here is to prevent silly and misguided information been spread around that may well harm others who are not able to correctly interpret this data.
I am aware of the absolute avalanche of trash information being peddled on the net everyday.
I cannot possibly counter all of that but here was a small thing that could be tackled.
My suggestion is that we all move on and get back to talking photography.
Tony Jay
-
Yes, the animal trials are done to try, emphasis try, to assess efficacy, and especially safety. If there is no evidence of efficacy and/or safety concerns at this point then the whole line of research is aborted. No human trials will be done.
Isn't that "some kind of point"?
There is no slip or mistake or me been "over the top".
My suggestion is that we all move on and get back to talking photography.
Amen.
-
This is getting bit ridiculous:
The answer is no - it is not "some kind of point".
I will give an analogy that can be understood:
If one goes to a car dealer needing a motor vehicle and the salesman points one to a pile of parts lying on the floor what will be your response?
The answer is that you know that that this is not a motor vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that the salesman tries to reassure you that everyone of those parts is from a Lamborghini.
Whichever way one looks at that pile of parts it NOT a motor vehicle.
The fact that each of those parts are genuine components of what might be a motor vehicle changes nothing.
I have made it pretty clear that from a clinical perspective that animal studies do not cut the mustard.
I cannot make treatment decisions based on animal studies.
(If the animal studies are done on a mouse model then perhaps I could use the information gained to treat a mouse but nothing more. There would be no guarantee that that treatment would work on a dog or a rhesus monkey. It just doesn't work that way.)
Only human studies tell us what we need to know.
(I look after humans and not mice after all.)
The pile of parts is the animal studies.
The motor vehicle is the human trials.
The issue that I have tried to address from the beginning is not merely a topic for debate on an intellectual or philosophical level.
I actually have to deal with patients totally mired in just this kind of misinformation, believing all sorts of things that are sometimes intrinsically harmful and others that are only harmful because the patient chooses some treatment that does not work rather than something that does.
Sometimes we can convince the patient and common sense prevails and sometimes not.
I have seen several deaths from patients taking the latter position.
Just that you know: we respect the patients decisions - whatever they are, but that does not mean the same thing as agreeing with them.
I made a point about being misunderstood and you chose to misrepresent what I was saying.
I ask again - just leave it alone.
Tony Jay
-
This is getting bit ridiculous:
Yes, and that is why I wholeheartedly agreed to your suggestion to do some photography instead.
-
Oh! I see! So that's why advanced, developed countries with a high life expectancy, such as Japan, Germany and the USA, continue to have rapid population growth, whereas less advanced countries with a lower life expectancy, such as Chad, Eritrea, Kenya and Uganda, have a dwindling population. I didn't know that. ;D ;D
Ray, there are many factors that affect both mortality and natality rates overall. It still doesn't change my claim that a subsection of the overall population that is young, healthy, and in good shape is more likely to mate, in any society. Other factors might diminish that or even negate it. The sad trend, however, is that the advanced countries are becoming increasingly obese, to the point that, in a few years, the obese will become a majority in the States. That both increases the mortality and decreases the chance of mating. Which, in turn, only increases the need to drown the sorrow in more food ;)
-
Ray, there are many factors that affect both mortality and natality rates overall. It still doesn't change my claim that a subsection of the overall population that is young, healthy, and in good shape is more likely to mate, in any society.
I can't disagree that being young and healthy is a solid basis for mating. When one is young, the sexual urge is stronger. However, insecure societies, and societies dominated by religious fanaticism prohibiting the use of contraceptives for birth control, are likely to breed more.
I'd love to get into deep philosophical discussions about such matters, but I think I might be treading on dangerous ground.
Other factors might diminish that or even negate it. The sad trend, however, is that the advanced countries are becoming increasingly obese, to the point that, in a few years, the obese will become a majority in the States. That both increases the mortality and decreases the chance of mating. Which, in turn, only increases the need to drown the sorrow in more food.
There's a similar situation in Australia. When I go shopping with my partner in local supermarkets, I'm often amazed at the extreme obesity of certain individuals I encounter.
I would like to do a photographic project on obesity, but knowing how people are very sensitive about any attention being drawn to their overweightedness, I'm not sure how I could approach the subjects to get them to accept my photographing them.
I'm imagining situations like my introducing myself by saying, "Wow! You are so amazing! I've never seen anyone so wonderfully large. Do you mind if I photograph you?"
Anyway, since this is a photography forum, I think I should show one of my photos from my archives, taken several years ago, relevant to the topic.
I was on a whale watching expedition on the east coast of Australia. A couple of the passengers on the boat were very obese. I photographed them, and they didn't mind (so please don't censor this photo, moderators). ;)
I have to say that this photo was more interesting to me than the subsequent shots I took of whales jumping out of the sea. ;D
-
... I was on a whale watching expedition...
Apparently ;)
-
Yes, there is. That "any kind of point" in "animal studies, while always done (particularly when researching new drugs) just don't prove any kind of point with respect to efficacy or safety in human populations" is clearly over the top. These studies are not done in preparation to treat animals, they are done in preparation to treat humans. And if they did not "prove any kind of point", they would not be conducted. (I remember it was also in your earlier post, but can't find it)
I understand you just tried to stress its inconclusiveness, and made... a slip. And now for some reason instead of admitting it, correcting yourself and moving on, you hang on to it. Just say "that's not what I meant", and move on. Like a scientist would do.
Thanks for your support. The reference is in post #31, as follows.
"However in the context that we are debating even when causality has been established in studies done with cell cultures or even animal studies this does not imply in any way that a similar intervention in humans will have the desired effect."
I suspect this is a Freudian Slip on the part of Tony Jay. He probably meant to write, "does not imply with certainty", as opposed to "does not imply in any way". He's just revealing his biases as a physician. ;)
For the benefit of those who don't know what a Freudian Slip is:
"A Freudian slip is a verbal or memory mistake that is believed to be linked to the unconscious mind. These slips supposedly reveal the real secret thoughts and feelings that people hold."
-
Thanks for your support. The reference is in post #31, as follows.
"However in the context that we are debating even when causality has been established in studies done with cell cultures or even animal studies this does not imply in any way that a similar intervention in humans will have the desired effect."
I suspect this is a Freudian Slip on the part of Tony Jay. He probably meant to write, "does not imply with certainty", as opposed to "does not imply in any way". He's just revealing his biases as a physician. ;)
For the benefit of those who don't know what a Freudian Slip is:
"A Freudian slip is a verbal or memory mistake that is believed to be linked to the unconscious mind. These slips supposedly reveal the real secret thoughts and feelings that people hold."
Wrong!
It's a brand of Austrian underwear. It photographs terribly well when wet.
Rob C
-
Wrong!
It's a brand of Austrian underwear. It photographs terribly well when wet.
Rob C
Isn't Freud out of fashion nowadays? I didn't realise you were the sort of photographer who likes to photograph unfashionable stuff, Rob. ;D
-
For the benefit of the few people who may be interested in the general issues of the validity of animal tests, I've included a couple of links below.
The first link provides an overview of the benefits. The second link provides a critique of the methods and the competence of the testing procedures, which is why I asked Tony Jay, in response to his #31 post which included his personal account of the dismal failure of successful results on animal testing to be reproduced on humans, if a separate additional study as to the reasons for this result had been conducted.
Tony didn't reply, so I assume that no such additional study was conducted in this instance, so the same mistakes are likely to be repeated in future animal tests. Such is life. :(
http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html
http://www.nature.com/news/misleading-mouse-studies-waste-medical-resources-1.14938
-
For the benefit of the few people who may be interested in the general issues of the validity of animal tests, I've included a couple of links below.
The first link provides an overview of the benefits. The second link provides a critique of the methods and the competence of the testing procedures, which is why I asked Tony Jay, in response to his #31 post which included his personal account of the dismal failure of successful results on animal testing to be reproduced on humans, if a separate additional study as to the reasons for this result had been conducted.
Tony didn't reply, so I assume that no such additional study was conducted in this instance, so the same mistakes are likely to be repeated in future animal tests. Such is life. :(
http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html
http://www.nature.com/news/misleading-mouse-studies-waste-medical-resources-1.14938
Ray they did not make mistakes!
The bottom line is that mice and dogs and rats and pigs and rhesus monkeys are not exactly the same as humans when it comes to complex cell biology, biochemistry and genetics. Your throwaway comment that mice have ninety whatever percent of the DNA of humans just betrays your utter ignorance on the matter. What are small and trivial issues to you actually translate to massive potential issues when trying to interpret the results of animal studies. Sometimes the human trials almost exactly match what was found in the animal studies but very frequently they absolutely do not.
This thread is NOT helpful in advancing understanding one these matters.
I am really sorry but your knowledge of these issues is pseudo knowledge.
You simply are not in a position to interpret and understand the data.
You have decided that I am talking nonsense - that is your prerogative.
I have even been dismissed as committing Freudian slips.
You seen hell bent on wilfully misunderstanding what I have said because it does not line up with what you obviously want to believe.
The bottom line, for the nth time, is that NO clinician can make a clinical treatment decision based on a an animal study.
The fact that animal studies are used in the research pyramid in testing potential therapeutic interventions does not change this truth.
Until human trials validate safety and efficacy all bets are off.
Another bottom line is that many many human trials have shown either lack of efficacy or actual safety concerns of these potential therapeutics.
You seem to believe that these "negative" trials mean that mistakes have been made.
This is absolutely and patently not warranted.
The whole point of the graded approach that is taken is to weed out drugs and other therapeutic interventions that don't work or are dangerous.
That means that they are successful - if the therapy is dangerous then the damage is limited to a small group of individuals and usually the unfolding results are carefully monitored statistically and if patient harm is detected then the trial is stopped.
The truth is that any animal model is an imperfect model for a human.
This means that no one can be certain that the results of an animal trial will actually be replicated in a human population until the human trials are done.
Your view of science is a magical one not borne of the facts.
I no longer expect that my trying to put a common-sense realistic viewpoint forward will help.
It seems to me that I am treading on hallowed ground - to me it appeared that you are a devotee of scientism.
Unfortunately you want to dismiss those negative trials as "mistakes" - they are not - they are the results of accurate and careful science.
I cannot contribute further to this on the basis of your misplaced faith.
My suggestion is to move on.
Tony Jay
-
Ray they did not make mistakes!
The bottom line is that mice and dogs and rats and pigs and rhesus monkeys are not exactly the same as humans when it comes to complex cell biology, biochemistry and genetics.
I never knew that, Tony. What a revelation! I thought all animals were exactly the same. ;D
Your throwaway comment that mice have ninety whatever percent of the DNA of humans just betrays your utter ignorance on the matter.
Then please advise me what the degree of similarity is. I do understand that simply because the DNA encoding of proteins in a chimpanzee might be 99% similar to that of humans, does not mean that all characteristics of behaviour are the same. A good analogy would be the comparison of two orchestras. Because 99% of the instruments are of the same type in both orchestras does not mean that the orchestras always play the same tune.
The bottom line, for the nth time, is that NO clinician can make a clinical treatment decision based on a an animal study.
I'm an animal of the species Homo Sapiens, and the sub-species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. What species are you, Tony? ;)
You seem to believe that these "negative" trials mean that mistakes have been made.
This is absolutely and patently not warranted.
I have to say, Tony, with all due respect, that you seem to be lacking in knowledge and understanding outside of your chosen discipline. Mistakes are a part of the learning process. When things go wrong, or do not go according to expectations, that's a wonderful opportunity to learn. That's how our scientific knowledge progresses, and how we progress at a personal level. We learn by understanding the cause of our mistakes, and try not to repeat them.
The truth is that any animal model is an imperfect model for a human.
This means that no one can be certain that the results of an animal trial will actually be replicated in a human population until the human trials are done.
No-one can be absolutely certain of anything. There are always degrees of certainty involved in any situation, and that also applies to drugs that have been tested on the human animal. Different individuals will have at least slightly different responses, according to their age, sex, genetic make-up, general health and pre-existing medical conditions. But you know that, don't you? ;)
Your view of science is a magical one not borne of the facts.
I certainly disagree on that point. I think I understand better than most people the nature of the scientific method of repeated experimentation and the need for attempts to falsify a particular theory before it is provisionally accepted as true. If at some later date, observations appear to be at odds with the predictions of an accepted and proven theory, then either the theory has to be re-evaluated and changed, or some other explanation consistent with the theory, has to found.
It is because I understand these general processes of the scientific method, I am aware of the many situations which don't lend themselves to scientific proof because of their complexity, uncontrollable and unpredictable variables, and the long time-frames needed for changes to take effect and be observed. The science of Climate Change is one such subject that's in this category, as well as certain aspects of human biology, diet and fasting.
In the absence of scientific proof, I use my nous, based upon whatever evidence I can find and on whatever seems plausible, reasonable and rational. Got it? ;)
-
Ray you are continually (wilfully) missing the point.
Put it to rest.
The assumptions you make about me are incorrect - I actually have qualifications in both science and medicine.
I have actually done research in the past.
The reasons I have not continued in research have nothing to do with lack of aptitude.
Believe what you want.
I will not respond to any further posts on the the subject.
-
And on that note:
http://time.com/4350398/cell-phones-brain-heart-cancer-rats/
:)
-
And on that note:
http://time.com/4350398/cell-phones-brain-heart-cancer-rats/
:)
Devi's advocate!
I have always understood the dangers of electrical radiation. Even in basic science classes we did the experiment with iron filings and an electrical current. Swathes of Glasgow have a selling blight upon them due to proximity to high-voltage power lines delivering the juice to houses and (once) factories. Cellphones emit radiation too, and though weaker it's much closer. I've used electric shavers since I could afford to buy one: I now have a pre-cancerous skin condition on my face blamed, in part, on sunshine exposure; so on where to blame the non-actinic parts? I don't want to rain on anyone's fun, but has there been a study on 'intimate' electrical pleasure devices and their electromagnetic emissions? Consult your local gynaecologist (eventually spelled it correctly!) soon.
;-(
Rob C
-
Perhaps I should leave this topic alone and move on, as Dr Tony Jay suggests, but it's such an important topic with so many unresolved questions, I don't see why I should move on.
Moving on is what Tony Jay appears to have done when is own experiments with animals produced the opposite effect in human trials. I pointed out that this was a wonderful opportunity to conduct further research to find out the reasons for the discrepancy, but apparently this was not done, no doubt because the funding was not available.
If there are more efficient methods of carrying out the initial research on animals, such as use of 'in vitrio assays', I would not argue against that. If Dr Tony Jay wishes to make the point that animal studies in general are not useful, and are also cruel, and should be banned, then that's another issue which could be discussed.
Unfortunately, I find Dr Tony Jay's posts rather confusing from a logical and objective perspective. He reminds me of the situation of someone responding to a criticism of a photograph on this website. I've contributed to this site for many years, and quite often have observed angry responses from people submitting a photo for criticism, when someone posts a legitimate point of criticism which is not in praise.
I understand this type of response, but I don't condone it. The emphasis should always be on the reasoned articulation behind the criticism, rather than "I'm an experienced and professional photographer who's had photos accepted by magazines. How dare you criticise my photo! What do you know about photography?"
To get back to my original point that seems to have produced such an unreasoned and negative response from Dr Tony Jay, that fasting may have health benefits that can even cure cancer, according to studies on mice and rats, I agree that those results alone are not sufficient proof. I'm not silly. I do understand that any differences in genetic make-up and in existing medical/health conditions can affect the results, whether in mice or men. It's an enormously complex situation, which is a subject of continuing reasearch.
However, on the subject of fasting, we already have a huge history going back thousands of years, of people engaging in voluntary fasting. If we include involunatary fasting (due to droughts), the practice goes back millions of years.
I don't subscribe to the magical properties advertised by religions, although I do recognise that they might have a placebo effect. Buddhism, when stripped of all the magical mumbo jumbo, is one of the few religions (perhaps the only one) , which teaches certain basic principles which are in accord with modern science.
The Buddha is reported in the scriptures to have fasted to the point of almost total starvation, in his search for enlightenment. Fortunately, he realised he would die if he continued, so he adopted the 'middle way' of avoiding extremes. The Buddha supposedly lived to the age of 82. That extreme fasting did not appear to have had any serious, long-term effects. His middle way, with regard to eating, was just one meal per day, in the morning, which he considered to be very healthy, as a result of experiments on himself.
Interestingly, this was also the practice of the average, ancient Roman citizen, including members of the Roman army. One of the most successful empires in the history of mankind had a practice of eating just one meal a day. Doesn't that tell you something, Tony Jay?
Of course, you would probably counter, if you do respond to this post, that excessive indulgence in eating was a common occurrence in ancient Rome, which was even encouraged by the use of the 'vomitorium', in order to vomit and then continue eating.
This of course is a mistranslation of the word 'vomitorium', which you should know if you are a doctor familiar with Latin terms. A vomitorium is merely an exit to a building or enclosed space. Excessive eating did no doubt take place in ancient Rome, but probably only amongst the wealthy aristocrats who could afford lavish banquets.
In summary, test results for a new drug or procedure on animals are very provisional. But test results for fasting are not so provisional because of the long history of fasting in many cultures. It's simple not reasonable and rational to assume that the claimed health benefits of fasting are 'rubbish'. Don't you think if there were no health benefits, the practice of fasting would not have become a part of so many cultures throughout the ages. Don't you understand, if it were the case that actual harm resulted from fasting, the practice would not have continued. Do you think your distant ancestors were all stupid dopes?
You do understand, I hope, that the main reason why Muslims and Jews do not eat pork, is because pigs in ancient times were very susceptible to certain diseases that affected the people who ate the meat. This is no longer the case, but the tradition of abstaining from pork prevails.
It is reasonable to deduce that many ancient practices resulted in response by some chieftain, or his advisors, observing that harmful effects were taking place as a result of certain practices, and that such practices should be banned in the interests of the well-being of the population.
Fasting is not in this category. Harmful effects do not appear to be an issue, otherwise the practice throughout history would not have continued.
With regard to the latest research on the effects of (moderate) fasting on mice and rats, there are two major points to consider. First there are no harmful effects on humans to report throughout history, except with certain modern people who may have got themselves into serious trouble with their unnatural lifestyle and diet, and who already suffer from some sort of medical condition.
Secondly there are not only animal studies which show the benefits of fasting and/or a restricted diet, but many anecdotal studies from people who have tried it, including myself.
To dismiss such claims as 'rubbish', as you have done, sends a clear message to intelligent, thinking people, that you are a prisoner of your narrow interpretation of your own discipline and are unable to think outside of the box.
Sorry to be so blunt, but let the truth prevail.
-
Ray have you read about foot in mouth disease? ;)
-
Ray have you read about foot in mouth disease? ;)
I have indeed. According to Wikipedia, Foot-and-mouth disease, or hoof-and-mouth disease, (Aphthae epizooticae) is an infectious and sometimes fatal viral disease that affects cloven-hoofed animals, including domestic and wild bovids.
I don't know how this is related to the topic under discussion, although I do understand that you are trying to imply that I have put my foot in my mouth, in relation to my last post.
I assure you, if anyone can prove that I have metaphorically put my foot in my mouth, in respect of my previous post, I will be the first to be overjoyed at having learned something. ;)
-
We've moved a long way from pictures of wigs, now, but on the topic of meals: I think that the 'one meal a day' idea is actually pretty sound.
I used to eat the usual breakfast, lunch and dinner. Then a good few years ago, I developed a weakness in the pipe system, and find myself victim of acid reflux, which, basically, means that the digestive juices can rise into one's throat during sleep and choke one. It's happened quite a few times, and the last time I really did believe that I wasn't going to breath again, but luck prevailed. Strangely, I felt relatively calm about it, resigned, as it were.
But the point is this: that weakness has led to my eating every day at around 1pm. I no longer eat at night, but sometimes do indulge in a snack at six or seven o'clock in the evening. Which is a mistake, for which I pay later. The great plus about eating in the middle of the day seems to be this: as long as you don't couch potato your life, you get to exercise and burn off excess intake.
I have friends who live the other way around: light lunches and heavy dinners. They don't seem to grasp the fact that their excessive avoirdupois comes from the indulging, and not exercising to mitigate the excessive intake. Nobody can have enough sex at night to make up for greed/good appetite. Maybe there could be a study; Mr Kinsey?
Rob C
-
We've moved a long way from pictures of wigs, now, but on the topic of meals: I think that the 'one meal a day' idea is actually pretty sound.
Oops! Don't tell that to Tony Jay. He'll be furious. He'll probably tell you that the digestive system needs regular intake of food throughout the day, according to 'unverifiable' scientific studies. ;D
-
This guy was eating one meal a day!? Must had been one hell of a breakfast ;)
-
This guy was eating one meal a day!? Must had been one hell of a breakfast ;)
This guy is a later Chinese version of Buddha, not to be confused with the original Gautama Buddha of India.
He's sometimes referred to as Maitreya, the future Buddha who will appear after everyone has forgotten about Gautama Buddha.
Considering how fat he is, I find that prediction rather prescient. If we don't find a solution to the current obesity epidemic, that fat, obese and laughing Buddha will fit in perfectly with a future population. ;D ;D ;D
-
Anybody else notice he couldn't get his necklace on?
Rob C
-
Here's another version of a fat Buddha in natural surroundings. He's not exactly laughing. It's more of a smirk on his face, I'd say. Perhaps he's got a bit of a tummy ache. ;)
-
Anybody else notice he couldn't get his necklace on?
There is a neck?
-
There is a neck?
Eventually...
Rob
-
Just to create a balance so people don't get the wrong impression, the following image I took in Chiang Mai a year or so ago, portrays the original Indian Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, during his extreme period of fasting to the point of almost total starvation.
Fortunately, he realised these extreme measures were not serving his purpose, and later taught the principle of moderation, or the Middle Way, after he had attained enlightenment.
If the story is true, which is doubtful of course, it's quite remarkable that someone who had subjected himself to such extreme starvation, managed to live well beyond the average lifespan of those times and conditions, which included a lack of hygene and the availability of only natural medicines. He supposedly lived to 80, which is higher than the average lifespan for males in the USA today. ;)
-
never has any substitute been found for good genes and belief.
-
never has any substitute been found for good genes and belief.
Such a statement might appear to be true, but we need to define what a 'good' gene is.
The Darwinian cliche, 'survival of the fittest' relates to specific contexts of varying conditions. As conditions change, as climate changes, as social and cultural mores change, genes that were once considered good might no longer be good.
For example, some people in modern societies have a metabolism which efficiently gets rid of excess food which is consumed (it goes down the toilet). They tend not to put on weight when overeating.
This observation is used by overweight people to make the claim that they are not overeating, and that it's just their genes that cause them to be fat. Such people then search for magical cures, special diets or special foods that are claimed to 'burn up fat'.
The reality is, such people are fat because they simply eat too much. Putting on fat because one eats too much is a normal and healthy response. In the past, when periodic shortages of food were a common occurrence, those who had stores of fat resulting from overeating during periods of plenty, would more easily survive periods of famine. Their genes would be considered 'good'.
Those who were unable to put on weight during periods of plenty, would be at a serious disadvantage during periods of famine. They would have difficulty in surviving. In that context, we could say their genes were not 'good'.
However, in modern times, in developed societies, there is never any shortage of food to the degree of a famine. Those people with genes that efficiently convert excess food into fat, have no advantage, because there is never any need to fast.
They are kept alive often by the medical intervention of doctors like Tony Jay, who in part, need such people to provide full employment for himself, other doctors, the pharmaceutical industry, and to a certain extent, medical research into drugs that can compensate for overindulgence and an unhealthy lifestyle.
Just my opinion, but a sound and reasoned opinion, I believe.
On the subject of belief, that translates into the placebo effect, as well as the nocebo effect, which is the opposite, an adverse reaction.
It seems to be generally accepted that a placebo cannot directly affect or attack a tumour or disease, but studies indicate that it can indirectly affect outcomes. It's the outcome that is important for the patient, whether a result of direct or indirect influences.
I hope I have raised the standards of the Coffee Corner debates. ;D
-
"I hope I have raised the standards of the Coffee Corner debates."
What, they are supposed to have any? You'll silence the place if that's to be taken seriously!
;-)
Rob
-
I hope I have raised the standards of the Coffee Corner debates. ;D
As I teach my students in emergency management, "Hope is not a strategy. If you adopt it as such, you'll fail miserably."
Other than a tour de force of semantical jousting, this thread is pretty much worthless as it has evolved.
Rand
-
As I teach my students in emergency management, "Hope is not a strategy. If you adopt it as such, you'll fail miserably."
Other than a tour de force of semantical jousting, this thread is pretty much worthless as it has evolved.
Rand
I'm so sorry that you have spent time reading 4 pages of comments before realizing that it was a complete waste of time, and that the thread is worthless.
Perhaps you should learn how to achieve positive results from negative outcomes. ;)
-
I'm so sorry that you have spent time reading 4 pages of comments before realizing that it was a complete waste of time, and that the thread is worthless.
Perhaps you should learn how to achieve positive results from negative outcomes. ;)
Really like that, Ray; deep, eastern philosophies at work here. Reminds me of the song: Always look on the bright side, which takes some doing, but does solve many a problem or, perhaps, smoothe over many a depressing situation...
Personally, I find that it sometimes works, but more often than not it's best to walk away. My grandfather had a saying: it's as useless to try and convince a fool as it is to whip the fog. Long a grandfather myself, I sometimes think of that, and wonder how he managed to discern which was which.
Was a time I spent hours at the computer trying to reason with people, then realised that it's impossible: people are set in moulds and even the most logical of arguments can't budge 'em should they reside in opposing camps (or moulds). It's been taken as a sign of weakness, of not having a response, but that's not true: I know that I can respond as well as anyone else, but it's the time it takes, and the bother... all so worthless in the end.
This isn't meant as being applicable to any specific argument going down in this thread, just a general observation on both Internet and "real life" interactions. As with my recent experience with my watch, where the authorized agent claims the rear was badly damaged, that the bracelet contains a doubtful part; how can one argue or prove anything, yet only two Rolex-authorized top dealers have handled it (the current one twice!), and I know perfectly well it has never been touched by other workshops nor has it been dropped? One is left facing rubber men. Either I pony up, get the damned thing cleaned and working properly again, or I add it to the growing collection of paperweights. A Hobson's choice.
;-)
Rob
-
Really like that, Ray; deep, eastern philosophies at work here.
I certainly hope so! ;D
-
I'm so sorry that you have spent time reading 4 pages of comments before realizing that it was a complete waste of time, and that the thread is worthless.
Perhaps you should learn how to achieve positive results from negative outcomes. ;)
Ray,
You, my friend, are a hoot. As someone who worked on the line as firefighter and emergency medical technician for 30 years, I think I "may" have a passing aquaintence with achieving positive results from negative outcomes. LOL Your penchant for subtle self aggrandizement and assumed omniscience is absolutely amazing. I'm sure you don't intend to come across that way, and "in person" I'll bet you're actually an interesting guy.
Rand
-
Speaking of Western societies and mortality:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/health/death-rates-up-2015/index.html
-
Speaking of Western societies and mortality:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/health/death-rates-up-2015/index.html
480k deaths caused by tobacco & alcohol... Yeh, right.
I'm amazed 45.5k deaths from breast & prostate cancer were not attributed to global warming.
-
480k deaths caused by tobacco & alcohol... Yeh, right.
I'm amazed 45.5k deaths from breast & prostate cancer were not attributed to global warming.
Could be they really are: hotter weather leads to more epidermal exposure as well as more drinking of alcohol. Combined, those could also increase the birth rate and, consequently, more female children, thus increasing the number of breasts available and, obviously, the consumption of yet more alcohol in various plans and endeavours designed to access them.
Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Rob
-
. . . Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Rob
Rob,
The proverbial "butterfly effect." I think there are many more interconnections in all areas of life than we could imagine. While the nihilism of eastern philosophy is unappealing to me in its proposed answers to the big questions of life, in respect to the interconnectedness of all things there is a deep truth.
Rand
-
Rob,
The proverbial "butterfly effect." I think there are many more interconnections in all areas of life than we could imagine. While the nihilism of eastern philosophy is unappealing to me in its proposed answers to the big questions of life, in respect to the interconnectedness of all things there is a deep truth.
Rand
Absolutely; and though I'm not a particularly religious person in the sense of prescribed orders, I do have a deep faith in some unknown form of divine creator. I think that much of this faith is based on the increasing complexity that science discovers in the most 'simple' of things around us. Accident seems ever more unlikely to me. I'd even allow that as part of my own life and the way it panned out.
There's the old saw about what's for you not passing you by, and I do find this borne out in reality; so much I aimed for eluded me, but other things better just fell into my unsuspecting lap. I'm sure others can find alternative ways of reasoning this out, but I'm happy enough with my own suss of the matter.
Rob C
-
As someone who worked on the line as firefighter and emergency medical technician for 30 years, I think I "may" have a passing aquaintence with achieving positive results from negative outcomes.
Good! Now you should apply those principles to other situations. ;)
LOL Your penchant for subtle self aggrandizement and assumed omniscience is absolutely amazing.
Thank you so much for implying that I create the impression of being omniscient. Wow! I didn't realize that. ;D
However, I should point out that Buddhist philosophy considers the 'self' to be an illusion. Your impressions of my 'self aggrandisement' exist only in your own mind. ;)
-
Good! Now you should apply those principles to other situations. ;)
Damn, I never thought of that!!! Thanks, Ray! As I said, you're a hoot, my friend. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
As for the self being an illusion in your worldview, I'm glad to know that you prefer I consider your self non-existent from your own perspective. Be thee off to my ignore list.
Rand
-
"nothing but stardust"
-
Just watched the Avedon video Darkness and Light for the umpteenth time... amazing fame and success doesn't really solve anything - never did. In fact, I think it creates more problems than ever.
We are dark creatures, with depths probably best left unexplored.
Rob C
-
One disturbing aspect of human behaviour is the 'ad hominem' attack in response to a rational and reasonable argument, or an expressed opinion on some matter which is actually separate from the individual, such as a photo. I encounter it myself on this forum, from certain individuals whom I shall not name. ;)
The best explanation I can find for this behaviour is the Freudian and Jungian theory of 'psychological projection'.
Generally, if someone presents an argument or opinion which is disturbing in the mind of a certain individual, such an individual might often try to protect himself from the consequences of serious consideration of the argument or comment, by projecting his own, subconscious, negative qualities onto the person making the reasoned argument.
I always try to avoid such projections, and instead try to address the logic and rationality of the argument or the critique. Of course, I don't claim to be perfect, and sometimes I also fall into the trap of responding to ad hominem attacks in like manner, but very rarely. ;)
-
One disturbing aspect of human behaviour is the 'ad hominem' attack in response to a rational and reasonable argument, or an expressed opinion on some matter which is actually separate from the individual, such as a photo. I encounter it myself on this forum, from certain individuals whom I shall not name. ;)
The best explanation I can find for this behaviour is the Freudian and Jungian theory of 'psychological projection'.
Generally, if someone presents an argument or opinion which is disturbing in the mind of a certain individual, such an individual might often try to protect himself from the consequences of serious consideration of the argument or comment, by projecting his own, subconscious, negative qualities onto the person making the reasoned argument.
I always try to avoid such projections, and instead try to address the logic and rationality of the argument or the critique. Of course, I don't claim to be perfect, and sometimes I also fall into the trap of responding to ad hominem attacks in like manner, but very rarely. ;)
Yes, there really isn't much point, though I'm not saying that with any particular reference to this thread.
For myself, I usually tell the guy I'm walking away from it. There's the problem of perception, of course, where doing that makes it look as if one has given in or hasn't an argument with which to respond, which isn't the case at all: one simply realises the pointlessness of the argument when the other person intentionally won't see the obvious.
When I first began to post online, a friend told me that one has to develop a thick skin. I'm no longer convinced that's an essential; I think what is essential is judgement as to when to hold and when to fold.
Rob
P.S.
A further disappointment of online life is the relative lack of interest/ability that's shown to get into anything that requires some degree of thought and personal opinion. It's like some great order of blandness has been decreed.
-
... I don't claim to be perfect...
Nor modest? ;)
-
Nor modest? ;)
History is littered with the forgotten corpses of the overly modest. That some may indeed have much about which to be modest isn't in dispute, though.
;-)
Rob
-
Now, there's a contradiction in terms.
;-)
I just knew you had been a lawyer!
;-)
Rob