Slashdot Mirror

This is bullshit. I am trying to distinguish nicotine from smoking. All the proof of health hazard which I found were done by testing with smoke. That is entirely sensible by itself in a time when nicotine is inhaled as smoke. But it also means there aren't necessarily any serious tests for health effects of nicotine without the smoke . And that was what I was searching for, and you aren't. Search results for damaging effect of nicotine will generally yield the results for smoking.

This doesn't mean nicotine by itself poses no health hazard. Strictly speaking it only means there is a lack of testdata. My deduction was that nicotine by itself is an order of magnitude less dangerous than smoking. Here is an article providing an overview:
http://cancerpreventionresearc... .

Gerry Potter's research led to what he calls "pro-drug paradigm" that is it's not a drug, it's turned into a drug by something, then becomes active.

I met one of this guys friends in Starbucks once and we became good friends and he explained a bunch of this stuff to me. Here's the short version:

The Cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP1B1 [1] only occurs in cancer cells [2][3]. When certain phytoallexins such as resveratrol and salvestrol are ingested these phytoalexins are converted by the P450 enzyme into piceatannol [4], which is fatal to cancer cells but not human cells [5][6].

  [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
  [2] http://cancerres.aacrjournals....
  [3] http://secure.salvestrol.ca/se...
  [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
  [5] http://www.nature.com/bjc/jour...
  [6] http://www.orthomolecular.org/...

Here's some articles and stuff:
http://www.thisisleicestershir...

"Prostate cancer drug so effective trial stopped"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/hea...

Pat ettenttion to the colors on this map: http://www.cancerresearchuk.or...

If you poke around you can find cliical repoets online. All people seem to get better and this stuff has been around since 2007.

So, I think they're on to something here... and it may be a a way to Patent Potter's second discovery (based on CYP1B1) which is not patentable. His first discovery based on CYP17 was patentable and sold for two billion untested.

They're awfully skint on the biochemical explanation.

This argument was addressed in this paper - from 1928.

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/jcanres/12/1/9.full.pdf

If you're trying to suggest it doesn't work (without actually knowing what it does) you have the problem of explaining what it is than that reversed the cancer in the 11 people in those three clinical trials.

And you also need to explain this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F06%2F02%2FMNI11ORI84.DTL

"I don't have time to debunk your misunderstanding about science"
Translation: "I haven't read anything you're talking about but I know it's wrong" - the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. It's a shame you didn't even notice the refernces and pointers given, let alone actually read them.

There's a chance P53 doesn't work the way you think it does.

Here's an easier to digest synopsis for those short of time:

The Cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP1B1 [1] only occurs in cancer cells [2]. When certain phytoallexins such as reservetol and salvestrol are ingested these phytoallexins are converted by the P450 enzyme into picetannol [3], which is fatal to cancer cells but not human cells [4].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CYP1B1
[2] http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/57/14/3026.short
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piceatannol
[4] http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v86/n5/abs/6600197a.html

This is old and there are newer references now but this should at least explain how the idea works and gives you some explicit papes to go chase down.

At this point chemo and radiation are total dead ends and should be stopped immediately.

Also curious is Potter had convinced the British government to give this stuff to everyone, big pharma talked them out of it.

The cited article is extremely thin on information, but the publication that it is based on is available as a pdf:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/73/16/5169.full.pdf+html
It was published yesterday...

Surprisingly, the full text is available without registering or going through a paywall. Must be a leak into a different universe or something.

Just scanned it quickly - all cells have a cytoskelaton, a framework that allows a cell to maintain a three dimensional shape. Cytoskeletons are controlled, in part, because of a class of proteins called tropomyosins. These proteins are turned over quite rapidly in cancer cells yielding the hypothesis that targeting those molecules could selectively kill cancerous cells. Unfortunately, the chemicals that have been used previously also targeted non cancer cells and caused a lot of systemic toxicity (they cured the cancer, but unfortunately, the patient died).

The new compound, TR100 (sounds like a toy truck), specifically targets a type of tropomyosin presumably found only in cancer cells. Leaves normal cells alone.

IF this remains true in testing and IF the compound doesn't have other, unintended and typically deleterious effects it MIGHT be a good drug. Grandstanding by the PR idiots notwithstanding.

The road to Big Pharma Hell is paved with effective in vitro cures for cancer.

Sure because the people who drank more than 4 cups a day died of other "natural" causes like a tac a cardia, its a blip but it could have been caused by a few other behavioral coincidences. It feels a little more like someone trying to get value out of 26 years of possibly unfruitful research. there's another study that show's no determinable link! http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/49/4/1049.short

but certainly you can't disprove something by showing no determinable results on it.

They did in fact control for a number of risk factors: "BMI, physical activity, smoking status, childhood reaction to sun, severe sunburns, moles, hair color, family history of melanoma, sun exposures at different age intervals, UV index, and history of nonskin cancer." If you have access through a university library or other source, here's the link to the actual article.

YOU are being arbitrary.

Marijuana is not unharmuful. It's as harmful as any other smoking drug.

More facts, less wishful thinking, please.

Ironic that you plead for more facts and less wishful thinking - since your assertion that marijuana is "as harmful as any other smoking drug" has been disproven by actual research. Marijuana does not cause lung cancer. Dr. Donald Tashkin made this finding 6 years ago now, and it has been reaffirmed by subsequent follow on investigation, which has also turned up evidence of lower risks for other types of cancer in cannabis users. Cannabinoids are in fact potent anti-cancer agents (shown in lab tests as well).

Check this out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.htm l. And this: http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/2/8/759.abstract .

Follow your own advice and actually learn the facts.

Within limits, the human body can repair itself, and even repair DNA damage to some extent. Sorry to hear you have been exposed to environmental mutagens like excessive radon; that would certainly challenge anyone's body, on top of genetic issues. So, while certainly what happens to people in life is in good part chance, for many people with cancer (not saying yours), either they exceeded the body's ability to repair itself by exposure to mutagens, or the body's capacity to repair itself was diminished somehow by lack of vital nutrients or other issues (including, as you suggest, underlying genetic issues from conception). For example, all people are continually having cells go rogue but normally the immune system destroys such cells before they can proliferate, but it takes good nutrition including vitamin D for the immune system to do that -- which is why the dermatological profession may have caused 30 internal cancers for every external skin cancer they prevented by the advice to fear the sun without suggesting adequate vitamin D replacement).

By the way, because you mentioned a specific cancer, Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, a quick Google on that and diet produces:
"Maternal Diet and Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Young Children"
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/14/8/1935.abstract
"""
Because leukemia clone-specific chromosomal abnormalities are present at birth in children who later develop leukemia, it has been hypothesized that maternal factors, including nutrition during pregnancy, might affect the risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) among young children. We have evaluated this hypothesis in a nationwide case-control study of ALL among children ages 12 to 59 months in Greece. Children (n = 131) with ALL were gender and age matched to control children (n = 131) hospitalized for minor conditions between 1999 and 2003. The mothers of the children were interviewed in person by trained interviewers who used an extensive food frequency questionnaire addressing diet during the index pregnancy. The analysis was done by modeling the data through conditional logistic regression, also controlling for total energy intake and possible confounding factors. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were expressed per quintile increase of maternal intake during pregnancy of the specified food group. The risk of ALL in the offspring was lower with increased maternal intake of fruits (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.91), vegetables (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95), and fish and seafood (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89) and higher with increased maternal intake of sugars and syrups (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05-1.67) and meat and meat products (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.57). Children of women who tend to consume during their pregnancies what is currently considered to be a healthy diet maybe at lower risk of ALL.
"""

So, clearly this is suggestive of a dietary link to some extent.

If you have had 14 surgeries and lots of radiation, obviously the medical system has failed you in the sense of helping you treat the underlying issues causing cancers to recur. They may have treated the symptoms, but what about addressing the underlying causes, whatever they are? Sure you may need some forms of medication given everything you said, but still, why not try to get the rest of your body to work as well as it can and have the most energy you can have?

I have no connection with Dr. Joel Fuhrman other than buying a few of his books and a DVD and liking what I've seen and trying to put his advice into practice in my own family (and he says little that many others have not said for decades, although he synthesizes it well). To me, he makes a lot of sense. Even now, you might find your health may benefit from following his dietary advice (after discussion with your doctors); he is a bona-fide MD; you might even want to just give him a call if he does consultations (and if your insurance covers it and ca

Translating these results into some meaningful treatment for normal adults is highly likely to face a lot of roadblocks and complexities.

I generally agree with this, but there are two things that raise this above the usual "cures cancer in mice" hype.

The first is that these are xenografts, which means they're dealing with authentic human cancers, which are in general far tougher to kill than cancers in other species (we are tuned up for great longevity for obvious evolutionary reasons, and therefore incredibly cancer resistant compared to most species, meaning the few human cancers that do become malignant are incredibly hard to kill.) A quick look at the paper shows they've used multiple cell lines for the xenographs, which is also good.

The second is that there is already evidence of reduced cancer rates in humans taking this stuff (pancreatic cancer only, and diabetics only, so limited but suggestive data.)

The full paper is available at:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/69/19/7507

and it really is one of the few on the topic that I'd honestly say has results that can fairly be characterized as "dramatic".

You're right: they may lead to another dead end. We've seen a lot of those before. But this looks like solid research and very promising results. Clinical trials on humans are in the works, with patient enrollment starting perhaps as soon as next year.

P.R. Alert: This Slashdot story is a public relations release. The misleading Slashdot summary says, "Other sources have picked up the story...". In reality, they are inserting press releases everywhere they can, and the kind of work being done is not new.

It was proven long ago that dogs can smell chemicals associated with cancer. For example, see this 2006 article in National Geographic News, Dogs Smell Cancer in Patients' Breath, Study Shows. That's part of what started the present interest in making a machine to detect cancer.

This February 2007 article is more interesting: Compact lung-cancer breath test may be possible. Quote: "The test uses 36 chemical dots that react to telltale compounds in a person's breath. The dots change colour when exposed to compounds that signify the presence of lung cancer."

This February 2007 article gives more information about how it is done: US Scientists Prototype Breath Test For Lung Cancer

Even Oprah's magazine had article in June 2009 about dogs sniffing cancer and making machines to imitate dogs: Sniffing Out Cancer. Quote: "The researchers are collaborating with scientists at the University of Maine, who are trying to mimic the dogs' cancer-sniffing abilities with laboratory machines." Another quote: "So far, the Pine Street Foundation dogs have done 25,000 scent trials for ovarian cancer."

Slashdot: Not quite as current as Oprah? Old news for nerds who were playing video games and wouldn't know the difference?

Many researchers are doing similar work. For example, see the February 2008 article, The Cancer Breathalyzer. Quote: "Dr Yousef ... believes that the breath test will provide a more convenient and rapid method for diagnosing serious diseases than blood or urine analysis, and will require minimal medical intervention."

Other researchers are studying the possibility of using blood tests to detect cancer. See the December 2007 article, Study points to possibility of blood test to detect lung cancer.

Here is a November 2005 research paper that surveys some of the issues of early detection of cancer: The Progress and Promise of Molecular Imaging Probes in Oncologic Drug Development.

Before you start a diatribe, consider the following logic that I used, that I was otherwise unclear in my statements:

Most Chemotherapy is based on inhibiting processes of 'normal' cells by inhibiting specific cell replication mechanisms.
Alternating electric fields inhibit specific cell replication mechanisms.

Therefore, 'regular' chemotherapy and Efield chemotherapy are based on similar principles.

If you were to compare my logic to yours, it would actually equate to the following:
All dogs are mammals
All cats are mammals
Therefore, *dogs and cats must be related*

From the original article that states the technology:
"interference with the proper formation of the mitotic spindle, whereas the second results in rapid disintegration of the dividing cells" [the disintegration they speak of is pore formation.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full /64/9/3288

FYI, for instance, vincristine messes with the assembly of tubulin into microtubules, which make up the mitotic spindles.. hrmmmmmm. That does sound familar!

And no, I wasn't talking out of my butt, I just happen to know about Chemotherapy and I actually read the Journal Article.

There is a lot of fuss about whether cell phones, wi-fi etc. can damage bodies and minds by their radio waves. Although there is a lot of fuss, it is not justified by much (any?) significant scientific data.

The full article has great references which show biological effects. At least one of these articles is available in full as a pdf. They report repeatable experiments and show relationships to frequency and intensity.

• Takashima S, Schwan HP Alignment of microscopic particles in electric fields and its biological implications. Biophys J, 47: 513-8, 1985.
• Zimmermann U, Vienken J, Pilwat G Rotation of cells in an alternating electric field: the occurrence of a resonance frequency. Z Naturforsch C, 36: 173-7, 1981.
• Holzapfel C, Vienken J, Zimmermann U Rotation of cells in an alternating electric field: theory and experimental proof. J Membr Biol, 67: 13-26, 1982.

The disturbing part is that so much quack noise has been made about cell phone and wifi "radiation" that muddies the watter when so much useful information has been available since the 80's. It stinks that so much of society's resources were devoted to propagating noise when so much signal was available. This represents a complete failure of public education and broadcast media. At best, the failure is one of incompetence. At worst, it's intentional like the tobacco industry. Either way, the barriers must come down.

People who want to own ideas and publications are evil. Most research is publically supported and the public deserves the knowledge.

There is a lot of fuss about whether cell phones, wi-fi etc. can damage bodies and minds by their radio waves. Although there is a lot of fuss, it is not justified by much (any?) significant scientific data.

The full article has great references which show biological effects. At least one of these articles is available in full as a pdf. They report repeatable experiments and show relationships to frequency and intensity.

• Takashima S, Schwan HP Alignment of microscopic particles in electric fields and its biological implications. Biophys J, 47: 513-8, 1985.
• Zimmermann U, Vienken J, Pilwat G Rotation of cells in an alternating electric field: the occurrence of a resonance frequency. Z Naturforsch C, 36: 173-7, 1981.
• Holzapfel C, Vienken J, Zimmermann U Rotation of cells in an alternating electric field: theory and experimental proof. J Membr Biol, 67: 13-26, 1982.

The disturbing part is that so much quack noise has been made about cell phone and wifi "radiation" that muddies the watter when so much useful information has been available since the 80's. It stinks that so much of society's resources were devoted to propagating noise when so much signal was available. This represents a complete failure of public education and broadcast media. At best, the failure is one of incompetence. At worst, it's intentional like the tobacco industry. Either way, the barriers must come down.

People who want to own ideas and publications are evil. Most research is publically supported and the public deserves the knowledge.

There is a lot of fuss about whether cell phones, wi-fi etc. can damage bodies and minds by their radio waves. Although there is a lot of fuss, it is not justified by much (any?) significant scientific data.

The full article has great references which show biological effects. At least one of these articles is available in full as a pdf. They report repeatable experiments and show relationships to frequency and intensity.

• Takashima S, Schwan HP Alignment of microscopic particles in electric fields and its biological implications. Biophys J, 47: 513-8, 1985.
• Zimmermann U, Vienken J, Pilwat G Rotation of cells in an alternating electric field: the occurrence of a resonance frequency. Z Naturforsch C, 36: 173-7, 1981.
• Holzapfel C, Vienken J, Zimmermann U Rotation of cells in an alternating electric field: theory and experimental proof. J Membr Biol, 67: 13-26, 1982.

The disturbing part is that so much quack noise has been made about cell phone and wifi "radiation" that muddies the watter when so much useful information has been available since the 80's. It stinks that so much of society's resources were devoted to propagating noise when so much signal was available. This represents a complete failure of public education and broadcast media. At best, the failure is one of incompetence. At worst, it's intentional like the tobacco industry. Either way, the barriers must come down.

People who want to own ideas and publications are evil. Most research is publically supported and the public deserves the knowledge.

There is a lot of fuss about whether cell phones, wi-fi etc. can damage bodies and minds by their radio waves. Although there is a lot of fuss, it is not justified by much (any?) significant scientific data.

The full article has great references which show biological effects. At least one of these articles is available in full as a pdf. They report repeatable experiments and show relationships to frequency and intensity.

• Takashima S, Schwan HP Alignment of microscopic particles in electric fields and its biological implications. Biophys J, 47: 513-8, 1985.
• Zimmermann U, Vienken J, Pilwat G Rotation of cells in an alternating electric field: the occurrence of a resonance frequency. Z Naturforsch C, 36: 173-7, 1981.
• Holzapfel C, Vienken J, Zimmermann U Rotation of cells in an alternating electric field: theory and experimental proof. J Membr Biol, 67: 13-26, 1982.

The disturbing part is that so much quack noise has been made about cell phone and wifi "radiation" that muddies the watter when so much useful information has been available since the 80's. It stinks that so much of society's resources were devoted to propagating noise when so much signal was available. This represents a complete failure of public education and broadcast media. At best, the failure is one of incompetence. At worst, it's intentional like the tobacco industry. Either way, the barriers must come down.

People who want to own ideas and publications are evil. Most research is publically supported and the public deserves the knowledge.

"Low-intensity, intermediate-frequency (100-300 kHz), alternating electric fields, delivered by means of insulated electrodes, were found to have a profound inhibitory effect on the growth rate of a variety of human and rodent tumor cell lines" From: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full /64/9/3288 Tim S

They're not. That's the problem, he's talking to a newspaper without having published anything. AFA I can tell from the article, he hasn't even presented his results as an abstract or a talk at a meeting. And the Globe & Mail is usually pretty good on reporting medicine, but this story doesn't even mention whether it's a prospective, randomized controlled study or a retrospective, backwards-looking study. (And it doesn't get a reacton from another scientist who knows the research.) Apparently it's a retrospective study, which has problems. Retrospective studies found that women who took hormone replacement therapy had fewer heart attacks. But prospective studies found out the truth, which is that they had more heart attacks. The probable reason: Women who have generally healthier habits, like exercise, diet, and no smoking, are also more likely to take (useless and dangerous) hormone replacement therapy, and vitamins.

Here's Veith's earlier work, which was a retrospective study, and toned down by a responsible journal editor. As far as I could tell from a Google search, he hasn't done any prospective studies.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ 16/3/422

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Mar;16(3):422-9.

Vitamin D and Reduced Risk of Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Case-Control Study Julia A. Knight1, Maia Lesosky1, Heidi Barnett1, Janet M. Raboud1 and Reinhold Vieth2

1 Prosserman Centre for Health Research, Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute and 2 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada

Requests for reprints: Julia A. Knight, Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, 60 Murray Street, Box 18, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 3L9. Phone: 416-586-8701; Fax: 416-586-8404. E-mail: knight@mshri.on.ca

Background: Vitamin D, antiproliferative and proapoptotic in breast cancer cell lines, can reduce the development of mammary tumors in carcinogen-exposed rats. Current evidence in humans is limited with some suggestion that vitamin D-related factors may reduce the risk of breast cancer. We conducted a population-based case-control study to assess the evidence for a relationship between sources of vitamin D and breast cancer risk.

Methods: Women with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Women without breast cancer were identified through randomly selected residential telephone numbers. Telephone interviews were completed for 972 cases and 1,135 controls. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for vitamin D-related variables were estimated using unconditional logistic regression with adjustment for potential confounders.

Results: Reduced breast cancer risks were associated with increasing sun exposure from ages 10 to 19 (e.g., OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.85 for the highest quartile of outdoor activities versus the lowest; P for trend = 0.0006). Reduced risk was also associated with cod liver oil use (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92) and increasing milk consumption (OR, 0.62 95% CI 0.45-0.86 for ?10 glasses per week versus none; P for trend = 0.0004). There was weaker evidence for associations from ages 20 to 29 and no evidence for ages 45 to 54.

Conclusion: We found strong evidence to support the hypothesis that vitamin D could help prevent breast cancer. However, our results suggest that exposure earlier in life, particularly during breast development, maybe most relevant. These results should be confirmed. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(3):422-9)

So are you going to charge _yourself_ with this because you don't
research alternatives like pegysomal quercetin yourself?

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/ abstract/12/10/3193

There are many effective cancer treatments out there. Just because
some drug company isn't spending loads advertising it on NBC doesn't
mean is doean't exist. Check out www.grouppekurosawa.com and other
such sites for another view.

Here are some sources from 2 Journals one by Dr. Saba and others http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/46/17 384 and this one that seems to support the view on Lyase increasing sensitivity to Cisplatin chemotherapy for Lung Cancer http://mcr.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/3 /5/287