Slashdot Mirror

Think of all the new RF we've had in the past couple of decades with WiFi and cell towers absolutely everywhere.

What's happened to the rates of incidence of new cancer cases over that time? They're flat/down.

https://progressreport.cancer....

I call BS.

Just for the record, 5G technologies will be broadcasting at the 26-80Ghz frequency band, that's millimeter wave range. Previous cellular tech broadcast at 1-8Ghz.

95 Ghz is the same frequency as the Military Active Denial Ray system. Or the private "Silent Guardian" denial system.

I'm somewhat weary of 5G myself, need to find data on countries who have already implemented it, and hope that terrorists (or TPTB) don't ever decide to crank of the power and fry us all.

Think of all the new RF we've had in the past couple of decades with WiFi and cell towers absolutely everywhere.

What's happened to the rates of incidence of new cancer cases over that time? They're flat/down.

https://progressreport.cancer....

I call BS.

I don't think you fully appreciate just how complicated medicine is. There are a lot of factors in every disease and progress is necessarily slow.

As for factors, what you call "cancer" is actually a few dozen distinct diseases with similar etiology (DNA somewhere in some cell broke) but completely different presentations and treatments. What works for one does not necessarily work for the other. HIV is a retrovirus made of RNA and mutates constantly. There are two distinct strains and several different recognizable subgroups. The flu isn't a retrovirus but similarly mutates constantly. Every year we get a little genetic drift and every few years we get a genetic shift and we get screwed until it gets under control.

As for progress, the progress we've made is incredible in the last decades. Your comparisons are completely off base. If an electrical engineer lets the magic smoke out of a few components on a PCB he just gets new components or a new PCB. If a physician or medical researcher destroys a few organs in a patient he just killed a human being. You simply cannot move fast and break things in this field. Breast cancer (probably the best funded) survival is now over 90%. Want to see truly huge gains? Try leukemia.. HIV has improved, too. PrEP can prevent the spread and maybe in a few generations we won't have to worry about finding a cure for it because we have eradicated it like we did smallpox. Oh! Remember seeing that one recently? No. You didn't. Because vaccines have made it possible to completely eradicated diseases. Polio is only endemic in a handful of countries now. Why? Because medicine DOES work.

Maybe you're not happy with the speed of progress but that's because of your broken standards, not because we're moving too slow.

Point taken; but still, it's not one of the more common cancers.

Actually, according to cancer.org, it is the tenth most common kind of cancer:

• breast cancer
• lung and bronchus cancer
• prostate cancer
• colorectal cancer
• melanoma of the skin
• bladder cancer
• non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• kidney and renal pelvis cancer
• endometrial cancer
• leukemia

Although this is actually something of a lie, as the source they got their numbers from intentionally excludes non-melanoma skin cancers (presumably because the case fatality rate for carcinoma is two orders of magnitude lower). Really, that means it is #11. Either way, it ranks ahead of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, all forms of brain cancer, bone cancer, etc.

And by fatality count, it rises to #7. Also note that if we could get everyone to stop smoking, it would move up another notch, both in fatalities and incidence.

And that top ten list doesn't have that wide a probability spread, either. Breast cancer and lung cancer are each only about 4x as common as leukemia. It is not a rare cancer by any means.

Leukemia is frequently more genetic risk than environmental even when it does occur.

That's also not true. Most forms of Leukemia have no familial link. There is an increased prevalence in first-degree relatives and twins of people with leukemia, but this is likely because those people lived in the same house, drank the same water, breathed the same air, went to schools in the same classrooms, etc. When you see only a first-degree link and no broader familial link, this strongly suggests that environmental factors are the predominant cause, not genetics.

Point taken; but still, it's not one of the more common cancers.

Actually, according to cancer.org, it is the tenth most common kind of cancer:

• breast cancer
• lung and bronchus cancer
• prostate cancer
• colorectal cancer
• melanoma of the skin
• bladder cancer
• non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• kidney and renal pelvis cancer
• endometrial cancer
• leukemia

Although this is actually something of a lie, as the source they got their numbers from intentionally excludes non-melanoma skin cancers (presumably because the case fatality rate for carcinoma is two orders of magnitude lower). Really, that means it is #11. Either way, it ranks ahead of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, all forms of brain cancer, bone cancer, etc.

And by fatality count, it rises to #7. Also note that if we could get everyone to stop smoking, it would move up another notch, both in fatalities and incidence.

And that top ten list doesn't have that wide a probability spread, either. Breast cancer and lung cancer are each only about 4x as common as leukemia. It is not a rare cancer by any means.

Leukemia is frequently more genetic risk than environmental even when it does occur.

That's also not true. Most forms of Leukemia have no familial link. There is an increased prevalence in first-degree relatives and twins of people with leukemia, but this is likely because those people lived in the same house, drank the same water, breathed the same air, went to schools in the same classrooms, etc. When you see only a first-degree link and no broader familial link, this strongly suggests that environmental factors are the predominant cause, not genetics.

They're similar. CAR-T is one form of ACT (Adoptive Cell Transfer), which the article names as their method. CAR-T employs CAR (chimeric antibody receptors) toward reengineering T cells only. The variant of ACT used here was TIL (tumor infiltrating lymphocytes) rather than T cells, apparently because this target involves a smaller number of target mutations than is suitable for CAR-T.

(I hope I've interpreted this correctly.)

And yes, this form of ACT should be just as expensive as CAR-T -- about a half million dollars per patient.

There's a nice summary here:

https://www.cancer.gov/news-ev...

The National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens considers acrylamide to be reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, based on studies in laboratory animals given acrylamide in drinking water. However, toxicology studies have shown that humans and rodents not only absorb acrylamide at different rates, they metabolize it differently as well.
 
Studies of workplace exposure have shown that high levels of occupational acrylamide exposure (which occurs through inhalation) cause neurological damage, for example, among workers using acrylamide polymers to clarify water in coal preparation plants. However, studies of occupational exposure have not suggested increased risks of cancer

The State of California is a recognized carcinogen. Also, Slashdot seems to dislike my idea of a two-paragraph link. Regardless, I was able to make it show as a referenced quote, which is neat, and here's a clickable link.

The National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens considers acrylamide to be reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, based on studies in laboratory animals given acrylamide in drinking water. However, toxicology studies have shown that humans and rodents not only absorb acrylamide at different rates, they metabolize it differently as well.
 
Studies of workplace exposure have shown that high levels of occupational acrylamide exposure (which occurs through inhalation) cause neurological damage, for example, among workers using acrylamide polymers to clarify water in coal preparation plants. However, studies of occupational exposure have not suggested increased risks of cancer

The State of California is a recognized carcinogen. Also, Slashdot seems to dislike my idea of a two-paragraph link. Regardless, I was able to make it show as a referenced quote, which is neat, and here's a clickable link.

So the dosage does seem uncorrelated to cancer cells, which is odd. But according to this study then mice in the wild should have a lot more cancer over time, and humans should be getting more brain cancer over time. Neither has happened. In fact incidences of brain cancer have gone down between 1992 and 2014 https://seer.cancer.gov/statfa... . Even if this study is correct, which seems dubious already, you'd be looking at a doubling from 0.6 percent chance to 1.2 percent chance over your life time at most.

Yeah, plus, I have no idea what PSA means.

Prostate-Specific Antigen
https://www.cancer.gov/types/p...

But if you are a tech-hating Luddite aging flower child who believes that silicon dioxide crystals with various dopings, worn on the body or just kept in a house, affect your health in beneficial ways, you can't even pretend to convince yourself that you "understand" a cell phone the way you do the channeling of crystal energies with sacred symbols. This creates a state of cognitive dissonance -- what you don't understand you fear and you resent in equal parts. The resentment is made even greater when all of the smart people in the Universe make fun of you for believing in magic, so you retaliate by deliberately disbelieving in double blind, placebo controlled evidence because if you ever let yourself accept that it is the only sound basis for justified belief you'd have to admit that all of your beliefs about the healing powers of herbs and crystals and chanting various mantras (or just garden variety praying to Jesus) are pure bullshit, as they have all failed DBPCStudies, repeatedly, over decades. You also mistrust and resent anyone who actually understands what crystals actually are and how they are put together and knows at least approximately what the word "energy" actually MEANS (as in, knows the dimensions of the quantity and how it is connected to things like fields, interactions, and motion) as they can say things like "cell phones are utterly harmless, except when they catch fire in your pocket or are dropped on your head from a tall building" or "a quartz crystal has no measurable physical field (other than the light reflected from its surface) at length scales much greater than molecular dimensions away, even in the neighborhood of its sharp edges and points, and is utterly incapable of affecting your health (outside of the placebo effect) no matter how many "good intentions" you direct at it or how many mantras you chant".

The really sad thing is that an entire state would incorporate this bullshit into their formal health advice. The only possible basis (assuming actual scientists and physicians were consulted on the matter) for this would have to be some sort of massive conspiracy theory mentality that is convinced that the many studies that have found no link, including studies with a million or so participants:

https://www.cancer.gov/about-c...

are the result of a huge government multinational corporation conspiracy intended to conceal negative effects and that the one or two studies that have found some borderline "significant" result as gospel truth that proves that the conspiracy they've always suspected is REAL. Damn that CDC anyway!

But hey, take one or two absolutely marginal results, ignore the fact that these results are scientifically inconsistent and implausible, ignore the absolute certainty that with the p=0.05 standard for "statistical significance" by idiots often in small studies it is a near certainty that you will have opportunities to conclude that:

Green Jelly Beans Cause Acne: https://xkcd.com/882/

and legislate those evil Green Jelly Beans out of existence. In California, at least.

Regarding HPV: I'm pretty sure Gardisil is still made to only go after the cancer causing viruses. It would explain 70%. Hmm,. looks like they got some new stuff. https://www.cancer.gov/types/c...

What is our FUCKING RESPONSE when a corporation willfully TRIES TO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR PROFIT?

What's really amazing is how they're able to KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS with a horrible carcinogen whose use has increased thousands of percent in the last two decades, while still having the actual cancer rate decline in the same period of time. Dastardly!

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfa...

Using statistical models for analysis, rates for new cancer of any site cases have been falling on average 1.1% each year over the last 10 years. Death rates have been falling on average 1.5% each year over 2005-2014.

Except drinking increases your risk of certain cancers. Which is pretty stressful in itself...

"Carpentry and Joinery" includes adhesives, which often contain formaldehide. High exposure (such as, say, being a carpenter) does carry a risk.

You need to pick your cherries better :)

The referenced draft document simply states that IF you are concerned about it, here's how to reduce exposure. It doesn't state that RF exposure is dangerous.

In fact the National Cancer Institute says the opposite:

What the study showed: No association was observed between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more years

Cell Phones and Cancer Fact Sheet

"Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk (1).

"The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy."

Sleep easily next to your smartphone tonight.

It's only 'gold standard' if your standard is that you need more gold. Yes, it's becoming more common. Yes, it is quite a bit more expensive. No, it is not at all clear that it is any better. USA! USA! USA!

It doesn't work as well as old fashioned prostate surgery. (Yes, it's from 2009, hasn't changed that much.)

Alcohol consumption is also linked to colon cancer.
NCI

What our healthcare system in the US is being eaten up with is fake foods and obese people. The costs of diabetes far outweigh the cost of anything else. I don't see a big push to tax the crap out of sugar except in NYC. Don't forget the other costs of obesity: Larger doors, larger chairs, larger everything. We all pay for this in addition to the health consequences and costs. Let's not forget heart disease, increased heart attacks, cholesterol issues, increased risk of stroke: the list goes on forever. We keep focusing on one lifestyle issue that has dubious support while ignoring all the really expensive issues is disingenious: Food, lifestyle, exercise, etc.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-c...

"There have been studies for years that have proven that eating/swimming/walking/driving/skydiving/(anything you do in life) kills. They have been called 'death" for decades. But regardless of the fact that people know that eating/swimming/walking/driving/skydiving/ kills people just keep on eating/swimming/walking/driving/skydiving/ and burning their money away".

I got points to waste so I fixed it for you! It's been proven that life kills. Details at 11'. From a lot of research out there there are 3 things that determine whether you get cancer or not: Lifestyle, Environment, Genetics. Anything outside of those 3 don't even fall outside the margin of error in most studies. Problem is, most studies don't account for these things. Tobacco being one of many influencing factors that is given a lot more credit than it is due and lull's a lot of people into thinking they are doing the right things. Until they get cancer.

I've lost roughly 20 males in my family in my lifetime. All but 3 died of cancer. Of those that died of cancer only 2 smoked. Nobody made it to 80. One of the smokers made it to 77. Of those that didn't die of cancer, one made it to 92 and he smoked 2 packs a day. Of the other 2, one died in a motorcycle accident and the other died from bruising of the heart after being kicked in the chest by a cow at 76.

I know my family history has no real bearing on this discussion, just food for thought.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-c...

Let's just stop the speculation, and look at facts.

They are the operational facts of the devices in question.

The number of cases of brain cancer per 100,000 population simply has NOT increased since the introduction of cell phones. In fact, citing the site below...Using statistical models for analysis, rates for new brain and other nervous system cancer cases have been falling on average 0.2% each year over the last 10 years.

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac...

Thanks for the link, all that means is we have gotten better at isolating causes of brain cancer and avoiding them. It is not evidence about what will happen after habitually using a mobile phone after 20,30,40,50 or however many years. Nor is it evidence that mobile phones are or are not a *source* of brain cancer that has to be eliminated.

Do you have statistical evidence to the contrary?

Where did I claim it would cause brain cancer? I don't know what will happen to your brain if you expose it to microwave transmissions over time. I have experienced an RF burn in my hand from a 25watt transmitter and that was enough to cause me problems for a couple of weeks while it healed. Sure it was a different wavelength but enough to teach me a lesson about being careful around transmitters.

Go ask a rigger if they would do work around a high energy transmitter without adequate RF protection and then get back to me with what you find out.

If not, then you should stop spreading FUD.

What FUD? This is how mobile phone transmitter *works*. Go ahead and validate for errors in that if you wish as I will then correct my own knowledge.

"FUD" is often the cry of someone too mentally lazy to either verify information or have enough education to be able to reference relevant information. These empty "cause I say so" statements are problematic because it denies people the opportunity to evaluate and discuss the facts for themselves, in this case people taking personal responsibility for their own health.

I've got no problem being corrected, if relevant information is available, however, if you have nothing to offer to correct the facts presented then all you are doing is whining about how these considerations impact your world view and complaining about your own ignorance and insecurities.

I've gone to the trouble of digesting the information if you don't have anything to speak to how those properties impact the rate or risk of brain cancer relative to the link you provided then all you are doing is communicating your assumptions.

Let's just stop the speculation, and look at facts. The number of cases of brain cancer per 100,000 population simply has NOT increased since the introduction of cell phones. In fact, citing the site below...Using statistical models for analysis, rates for new brain and other nervous system cancer cases have been falling on average 0.2% each year over the last 10 years. Do you have statistical evidence to the contrary? If not, then you should stop spreading FUD.

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac...

no. Just no. http://www.cancer.gov/research... There just isn't a rise in cancer since cell phones began. Yes, I guess those ones on the moon landing modules powered by plutonium reactors are cancer causing, but for those cell phones that are in use enough to matter, there isn't a corresponding rise in cancer. Literally the data are better to suggest cell phones LOWER cancer.

Cell phone radiation unquestionably was not a factor before 1975, and unquestionably it is rising. My father was at a medical resident's conference in 1950 when they were amazed at this new cancer in a place that wasn't expected to be able to have cancer...lung cancer (everyone was smoking during the conference) and nobody had an idea why there could be all this cancer. I had a residents conference in 1980 when we were finding melanoma in children for the first time. Nobody had much doubt it was because of more sun exposure and more severe sun exposure. There isn't a rise in brain cancer like there were in lung and skin. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.cancer.gov/research...

Cell phone radiation unquestionably was not a factor before 1975, and unquestionably it is rising. My father was at a medical resident's conference in 1950 when they were amazed at this new cancer in a place that wasn't expected to be able to have cancer...lung cancer (everyone was smoking during the conference) and nobody had an idea why there could be all this cancer. I had a residents conference in 1980 when we were finding melanoma in children for the first time. Nobody had much doubt it was because of more sun exposure and more severe sun exposure. There isn't a rise in brain cancer like there were in lung and skin. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.cancer.gov/research...

There have been numerous studies on second hand smoke and it has been shown to be quite dangerous. Even a small amount is bad and has been shown that it can cause long-term health issues.

Take an actual look at the cancer statistics, it's not because Houstonians live so long that they finally get cancer, it's taking them earlier than almost anywhere else you might choose to live:

http://statecancerprofiles.can...

http://www.texasmonthly.com/ar...

I live in Florida, so, yeah, I like my air conditioning. And, on the whole, modern medicine is a good thing - even when taken with the drawbacks of modern life. On the other hand, living in a so-called backwards place isn't nearly as bad as being in a modern society stripped of the good stuff, like poverty can do.

Except the clear evidence really isn't that clear, there are differences between men and women in the UK of 3 to 1.5 per 100,000 people, and thyroid cancer is up to 15 per 100,000, the peak of your referenced graph, (with an increasing trend) in the US. As the US was further away from Chernobyl, does that mean it helped people prevent thyroid cancer?

I'm not sure what the reasonable course of action is, but giving money to everyone isn't it.

You are off by a factor of 100. 43000 people in USA are diagnosed with leukemia. Out of over 300 million.

It's about 0.013% Not 1.5%

No,

Approximately 1.5 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with leukemia at some point during their lifetime

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac... Of course, leukemia kills many of its victims rather quickly, so at any given time there is not 1.5 percent of the population with leukemia.

Ironic. In order to determine statistical significance you require access lots and lots of data, which as this article point out - is not available. From the National Cancer institute:

Determining statistical significance To confirm the existence of a cluster, investigators must show that the number of cancer cases in the cluster is statistically significantly greater than the number of cancer cases expected given the age, sex, and racial distribution of the group of people who developed the disease. If the difference between the actual and expected number of cancer cases is statistically significant, the finding is unlikely to be the result of chance alone. However, it is important to keep in mind that even a statistically significant difference between actual and expected numbers of cases can arise by chance.

Considering that the incidence of head and chest cancers of the past 20 years is available, why would you assume that the rates have been going up?

http://www.cancer.gov/research...

I would love to see any scientific evidence to show that somehow with the drastic increase of cell phones in society over that period of time, the incidences of cancers effecting the head and neck have gone down drastically.

I'm not sure what you mean by chest cancers, last I checked most people don't put cell phones against their chest frequently. Lung cancers however have been going down as well due to the reduction in number of smokers and places to smoke.

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac...

Considering that the incidence of head and chest cancers of the past 20 years is available, why would you assume that the rates have been going up?

http://www.cancer.gov/research...

I would love to see any scientific evidence to show that somehow with the drastic increase of cell phones in society over that period of time, the incidences of cancers effecting the head and neck have gone down drastically.

I'm not sure what you mean by chest cancers, last I checked most people don't put cell phones against their chest frequently. Lung cancers however have been going down as well due to the reduction in number of smokers and places to smoke.

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac...

Yeah, if you're a regular on Slashdot, it seems like we've been finding a cure for cancer and HIV for the last 20 years or so.

We have.

Here is a project tracking 10,000+ colorectal cancer patients over 19 + years. https://www.cancercare.on.ca/r...

That project rolls into this project and shares data with 5 other registries. http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/

There is a lot of very good, very detailed very repeatable work out there. Medical research can't generate patients like a physicists can generate electrons, unless you want to induce more cancer in the population...To dismiss this important research out of hand is insulting.

I'd also tell her about your illness, and tell her what you tried, just in case it is congenital. The more detail, the better. It might save her life someday.

Also, if you haven't already, you should check to see if you qualify for any of the immunotherapy trials going on. Search here if you haven't already.

National Cancer Institute did a review of Gerson's claims. I'll save everyone a lot of time with the spoiler: Gerson was full of shit, don't waste your time. http://www.cancer.gov/cancerto...

Agreed. It's mostly bullshit reporting too. 65% of cancers are not caused by "bad luck". They are caused by yet unknown reasons. Unknown reasons is not "bad luck". Bad luck is getting hit by a meteor.

http://www.medscape.com/viewar...

In the United States, 1 in 3 cancer deaths is related to obesity, poor nutrition, or physical inactivity, and the problem will only increase as more countries and regions adopt the diet and lifestyles of more economically developed economies.

Nearly 20% of the world's adult population smokes, and worldwide tobacco is killing around 6 million people each year from a variety of smoking-related diseases, the report estimates.

Precise figures are given for the year 2000, when 4.38 million premature deaths globally were attributed to smoking, with causes listed as cardiovascular disease

Still under-recognized, and not acted on, is the association between drinking alcohol and cancer.

The IACR has labeled alcoholic beverages as "carcinogenic to humans" (and placed them in group 1, alongside ultraviolet light and chronic infection with hepatitis B). This classification was first made in 1988, and then confirmed in 2007 and 2010.

http://www.livestrong.com/arti...

33% is from obesity, and inactivity. 20% of the population is succeptible to smoking related cancers. In the US that is 60m people and 200k got cancer from it. And 1.6m total cancers a year. So, 12% of all cancers are tobacco.

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac...

So, WTF? 100% - 33% - 12% = 55% remaining

so *how* do you even get to 65% with just tobacco and obesity/inactivity accounting for 55% already? We haven't even accounted for external chemical factors like record usage of RoundUp alone, never mind the rest of the crap.

Correction: we know markers for several cancer types ( http://www.cancer.gov/cancerto... ). But it doesn't look like there are universal markers applicable for each cancer type.

Actually, free radicals cause cancer. That is an interesting analogy considering that terrorists cause a similar thing to society.

So you where in an academy and not a mere school from the first class on?
Wow I envy you!

Also, as I pointed out, anything "may cause cancer". Saccharine has been extensively studied and constantly failed to provide any evidence of causing human cancers. Claiming it "may cause cancer" is a weasel word.

Sorry that is complete nonsense, three posts back I gave you a link http://www.cancer.gov/cancerto...
Point 3.
Quote: "Studies in laboratory rats during the early 1970s linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer."
Quote: "Human epidemiology studies (studies of patterns, causes, and control of diseases in groups of people) have shown no consistent evidence that saccharin is associated with bladder cancer incidence."
I even quoted that 3 or 4 posts back.
The point is: "consistent", so yes there where plenty of evidence, but no consistent one.
How does that come? Studies on humans are not done by: take this pill and lets see if you get cancer.
Cancer studies on humans pick cancer patients and try to figure what circumstances might have caused it.
There is plenty of evidence that Saccarine caused it, however in many cases it was unclear. Hence we are still at a point that the US especially consider it safe.
My bet it is: it will be banned from Europe in max ten years. And the crys in america come again: unfair trade competition, because they can't sell then some products like the hormone meat and many GM fruits.

I admit I made a mistake in pointing to Montingacs old web page, I did that previous post already if you oversaw it. Ten years ago it was a very good source for knowledge and besides that he himself only sold his books there, like many other researchers do on their web pages.

Dismissing truth as "commercial" and hence "not creditable" is not scientific, regardless how scientific you consider yourself. You only need to read three small paragraphs about they glycemic index and how insulin works ... but you don't want to, because you consider the web page "commercial", that is retarded, sorry.

I did not make claims, a claim is something completely different than reciting your knowledge. On top of that I have nothing to prove, as I'm not in the diet business or a nutrition professor teaching in a university.

People who follow my advice usually lose weight, gain muscles and become excellent martial artists ;D in more I'm not interested.

Good teachers do not want you to "trust" them. So you are indeed only arguing for the arguing sake? Who said otherwise? Me? Certainly not.

Sigh: Claiming it "may cause cancer" is a weasel word. I never said it "may cause cancer". I said: 'it does cause cancer'. Prove is in the link above.

Seems we are talking around each other?

You think I pointed you to a 'commercial diet site' while Impointed you to that site because it explains the principles and the scientific facts. What has one to do with the other? Is it not allowed to state scientific facts one semi commercial site?

Hm, somehow I missed that you pointed out that saccharine is no longer causing cancer. But perhaps I did not read your posts thoroughful enough. So you have scientific evidence that it does not?

Perhaps you should read this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancerto...
There is no clear evidence that they cause cancer. In other words: there is no evidence at all that they don't cause cancer.
In europe all those substances are on a watch list for cancer risks, most sweaters where often close to be forbidden. The consensus is: they do cause cancer. The only thing where you are right: it is unclear in what dosage and under which further circumstances. There is absolutely no doubt that saccharine causes cancer in high doses (however you would need to eat killograms of it a day). About Aspatam I explained its rather nasty boosting effect in suggar intake, hence its insulin boosting effect, hence its effect on making you fat besides it has no calories itself. I did not talk about cancer risks (or I made my sentence unclear by putting two things together).

Perhaps you failed to read the scientific backgrounds on montigniacs web site ... no idea ... if you had read them we could have saved us this discussion, but alas it is a 'commercial' site (which is a harsh judgement for a site just keeping his heritage up and selling his books).

If you are interested google for him, you surely find enough convincing scientific data, or buy a book. They are really good, no idea however about translations.

Let's see here what we have here...

1.Don't use tobacco...

Okay that one has some science behind it...

2. Eat a healthy diet... Although making healthy selections at the grocery store and at mealtime can't guarantee cancer prevention, it might help reduce your risk.

3. Maintain a healthy weight and be physically active... Maintaining a healthy weight might lower the risk of various types of cancer

4. Protect yourself from the sun

Apparently they didn't get the news that apparently sunscreen doesn't help

5. Get immunized...

For HepB sure, for HPV, the jury is still out as "Most infections with high-risk HPVs do not cause cancer. Many HPV infections go away on their own within 1 to 2 years. However, infections that last for many years increase a person’s risk of developing cancer..."

6. Avoid risky behaviors...

Like unprotected sex and sharing intravenous needles? Cancer is only a minor reason not do partake in these activities....

7. Get regular medical care...

Actual screening for cancer has only been clinically shown to be effective for breast, lung, colon and cervical cancer. This doesn't actually prevent cancer, only increased the odds of catching it before it becomes serious.

For some people, they tend to strongly advocate these things because it is what they do anyhow. As for the science behind a list like this, the science somewhat vague. Other than stopping smoking and getting your vaccinations, (one reducing environmental exposure and the HepB issue), it's a mixed bag when it comes to science.

The whole thing about eating health is that we really don't know what the hell we are talking about yet. First it's low fat, then it's low sugar, then eating cholesterol is bad, then we find out there's only a minimal relationship to the cholesterol we eat, and then we find out that there's good and bad cholesterol and then it doesn't really show a strong correlation.... Then vitamins good, then vitamins bad... Exercise good, too much exercise bad...

Of course, the answer is not to eat cheeseburgers and not exercise, the take away is to don't take all this crap on the internet as gospel, and all things in moderation, right? ;^)

Let's see here what we have here...

1.Don't use tobacco...

Okay that one has some science behind it...

2. Eat a healthy diet... Although making healthy selections at the grocery store and at mealtime can't guarantee cancer prevention, it might help reduce your risk.

3. Maintain a healthy weight and be physically active... Maintaining a healthy weight might lower the risk of various types of cancer

4. Protect yourself from the sun

Apparently they didn't get the news that apparently sunscreen doesn't help

5. Get immunized...

For HepB sure, for HPV, the jury is still out as "Most infections with high-risk HPVs do not cause cancer. Many HPV infections go away on their own within 1 to 2 years. However, infections that last for many years increase a person’s risk of developing cancer..."

6. Avoid risky behaviors...

Like unprotected sex and sharing intravenous needles? Cancer is only a minor reason not do partake in these activities....

7. Get regular medical care...

Actual screening for cancer has only been clinically shown to be effective for breast, lung, colon and cervical cancer. This doesn't actually prevent cancer, only increased the odds of catching it before it becomes serious.

For some people, they tend to strongly advocate these things because it is what they do anyhow. As for the science behind a list like this, the science somewhat vague. Other than stopping smoking and getting your vaccinations, (one reducing environmental exposure and the HepB issue), it's a mixed bag when it comes to science.

The whole thing about eating health is that we really don't know what the hell we are talking about yet. First it's low fat, then it's low sugar, then eating cholesterol is bad, then we find out there's only a minimal relationship to the cholesterol we eat, and then we find out that there's good and bad cholesterol and then it doesn't really show a strong correlation.... Then vitamins good, then vitamins bad... Exercise good, too much exercise bad...

Of course, the answer is not to eat cheeseburgers and not exercise, the take away is to don't take all this crap on the internet as gospel, and all things in moderation, right? ;^)

Hasn't held true for 30+ years? Success rate of 90% and up? Where are you pulling these numbers from? Citation please.

Testicular cancer has a 95.3% survival rate.
Melanoma, 91.3%.
Thyroid, 97.8%.
Prostate, 98.9%.
Breast, only 89.2%.
Overall, cancer today has a 66.1% survival rate.

You'll also notice I very specifically said "and caught early enough"... While the SEER stats (above) include all diagnoses of that type of cancer, the rates drastically improve when caught early. I mentioned bladder cancer as a good example of that - despite having an overall survival rate of only 77.4%, According to the ACS, that goes up to 88% if caught at stage I and 98% if caught at stage 0.

Hasn't held true for 30+ years? Success rate of 90% and up? Where are you pulling these numbers from? Citation please.

Testicular cancer has a 95.3% survival rate.
Melanoma, 91.3%.
Thyroid, 97.8%.
Prostate, 98.9%.
Breast, only 89.2%.
Overall, cancer today has a 66.1% survival rate.

You'll also notice I very specifically said "and caught early enough"... While the SEER stats (above) include all diagnoses of that type of cancer, the rates drastically improve when caught early. I mentioned bladder cancer as a good example of that - despite having an overall survival rate of only 77.4%, According to the ACS, that goes up to 88% if caught at stage I and 98% if caught at stage 0.

Hasn't held true for 30+ years? Success rate of 90% and up? Where are you pulling these numbers from? Citation please.

Testicular cancer has a 95.3% survival rate.
Melanoma, 91.3%.
Thyroid, 97.8%.
Prostate, 98.9%.
Breast, only 89.2%.
Overall, cancer today has a 66.1% survival rate.

You'll also notice I very specifically said "and caught early enough"... While the SEER stats (above) include all diagnoses of that type of cancer, the rates drastically improve when caught early. I mentioned bladder cancer as a good example of that - despite having an overall survival rate of only 77.4%, According to the ACS, that goes up to 88% if caught at stage I and 98% if caught at stage 0.

Hasn't held true for 30+ years? Success rate of 90% and up? Where are you pulling these numbers from? Citation please.

Testicular cancer has a 95.3% survival rate.
Melanoma, 91.3%.
Thyroid, 97.8%.
Prostate, 98.9%.
Breast, only 89.2%.
Overall, cancer today has a 66.1% survival rate.

You'll also notice I very specifically said "and caught early enough"... While the SEER stats (above) include all diagnoses of that type of cancer, the rates drastically improve when caught early. I mentioned bladder cancer as a good example of that - despite having an overall survival rate of only 77.4%, According to the ACS, that goes up to 88% if caught at stage I and 98% if caught at stage 0.

Hasn't held true for 30+ years? Success rate of 90% and up? Where are you pulling these numbers from? Citation please.

Testicular cancer has a 95.3% survival rate.
Melanoma, 91.3%.
Thyroid, 97.8%.
Prostate, 98.9%.
Breast, only 89.2%.
Overall, cancer today has a 66.1% survival rate.

You'll also notice I very specifically said "and caught early enough"... While the SEER stats (above) include all diagnoses of that type of cancer, the rates drastically improve when caught early. I mentioned bladder cancer as a good example of that - despite having an overall survival rate of only 77.4%, According to the ACS, that goes up to 88% if caught at stage I and 98% if caught at stage 0.

Hasn't held true for 30+ years? Success rate of 90% and up? Where are you pulling these numbers from? Citation please.

Testicular cancer has a 95.3% survival rate.
Melanoma, 91.3%.
Thyroid, 97.8%.
Prostate, 98.9%.
Breast, only 89.2%.
Overall, cancer today has a 66.1% survival rate.

You'll also notice I very specifically said "and caught early enough"... While the SEER stats (above) include all diagnoses of that type of cancer, the rates drastically improve when caught early. I mentioned bladder cancer as a good example of that - despite having an overall survival rate of only 77.4%, According to the ACS, that goes up to 88% if caught at stage I and 98% if caught at stage 0.