Dr Oz show Jan 5th, "What is your risk for stomach cancer?"

On Feb 14, 2012 6:47 PM veggienft wrote:

On Jan 09, 2012 3:19 PM Mel5787 wrote:

We were confused as well... but I am thinking maybe the difference is between naturally fermented and forced formented? Naturally occuring vs those that use chemical additives?

Our local paper is doing a story on me that will be published soon. I will post that as soon as I can.

Thanx all and here is to a Happy and Healthy New Year!

XXOO

Mel

Stop and consider that Dr. Oz - i-s - s-i-m-p-l-y - w-r-o-n-g.

Oz makes his living being a mouthpiece for big agri and big pharma. Whatever brings them money? ....That's what Oz says. Taken as a whole, there is no profit in making people healthy. There is only profit in feeding people livestock feed, and then treating them.

The more people in need of treatment? ......the more profit.

Show me a study which finds carbohydrate ingestion to be safe and I'll show you a study which fails to isolate carbohydrates. Invariably studies like the ones Oz constantly cites compare high-fat, high-carb diets to low-fat high-carb diets .....high carbs throughout. They never compare high-fat low-carb diets to low-fat high-carb diets.

Why are studies which lie so prevalent? Follow the money. Food and drug companies literally have $TRILLIONS in profit riding on the outcome. You try and get funding and press for a truthful fat vs carb study. Then tell us how that works out.

Go into your local supermarket. Compare the price-per-pound of all the room-temperature boxed carbs in the center aisles against those of the real refrigerated foods on the perimeter. Then consider that the profit margins of all the cheap aisle cr@p is roughly triple that of the real food.

Now you're beginning to understand Dr. Oz.

Is it possible for a person to point out that the p-r-o-f-i-t - m-o-t-i-v-e-s behind a particular paradigm are what creates and fuels the paradigm without someone attempting to brand the person a "conspiracy" nut? I'm not saying that anyone is out to kill the consuming public .......that food and drug manufacturers are somehow producing this cancer epidemic because they hate us. They are simply trying to make a - p-r-o-f-i-t.

What people like you don't understand is that ANYTHING you consume, houses, cars, food and medical care, has a person on the other side of the transaction who is working in his/her best interest, and not your best interest. Am I saying the people offering these pleasure commodities are all out to get us?

How absurd.

A win-win situation is sometimes attainable by exploiting an overlooked common interest. But in most transactions, no such interests are available. Aside from those transactions, in order for your opposition to maximize profit, he must prevail at your expense. Maybe we should all be arrested for going to work.

I'm all for people profiting. It's GREAT. But I'm also for people defending their interests. The main requirements for us the consuming public to stay healthy is 1) to not consume cr@p from boxes in the center grocery aisles, and 2) ignore the spokesmen, like Dr. Oz, who profit by shoving them at us.

The truth is, I make money when you buy cr@p food. When you start buying real food instead, I have to make less money. I don't consider any of this a moral issue. I'm just more honest about the issue than people like Dr. Oz who are paid to lie about it.

Eat real food. (Oooooooh, that's a "conspiracy").

On Feb 14, 2012 11:27 PM neenjeanne wrote:

Veggienft,  I would respectfully disagree that there is no profit in selling items that people buy to keep healthy -- look at all the money to be made from vitamins and supplements.  People who are healthy live longer and buy their products for many more years.  I have read many things from numerous sources and I still would not believe that there is an organized conspiracy to make people sick and in need of "pharma" and force "big agri" on them.  

In everything I have read about cancer, with the exception of lung cancer for smokers, I've learned that the biggest common preventer of most body cancers is getting exercise. 

What one eats is not even a consistent provable cause in any study of any cancer.

Jeanne

The experiments which show exercise to be beneficial for fighting cancer support the theory that cancer is a diet-fed metabolic disorder. And no, these studies are not the "only" studies which point at behavioral causes of cancer.

When we exert ourselves, our muscles are capable of responding to the demand for energy by drawing from any of a few food sources. Which sources depends on the immediacy of demand and therefore the distance from source to muscle.

Sitting at your computer your muscles rest. They get energy mostly by converting the substrates of imported fat and glucose. Go for a walk, and this scenario changes. Muscles start phoshporylating (burning) fat and glucose. To meet the heightened demand the liver starts converting its glycogen stores, and releasing them as glucose. Ramp up your walk into a jog, and things change again. Muscle cells start phosphorylating glutamine from the extracellular matrix which surrounds them. That's good, because 1) The extracellular matrix can collect a lot of junk which gets cleaned out during aerobic exercise, and 2) Glutamine is a good fuel source for aerobic exertion. Ramp up your jog to a fight-or-flight run for your life, and the scenario changes again. Your muscle cells turn to an even closer source of fuel. They start consuming themselves.

Let's return to glutamine. Glutamine is a great fuel for aerobic exertion. Glutamine is a TERRIBLE fuel for resting. It forces cells to create mutated tissue. Take a person with type 2 diabetes, and sit him or her in front of a computer screen. Feed him/her snicker doodles and doughnuts, and it's cancer city. Insulin resistance fills his/her blood with glucose, but makes him/her incapable of importing glucose. He/she must get energy from glutamine, from in the extracellular matrix. And glutamine causes cancer.

So yes, cancer is affected by diet. Cancer has between a TWO fold and SIX fold elevated risk among people with type 2 diabetes. And type 2 diabetes is driven by ingestion of wheat, sugar, and related foods.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100521102629.ht

veggienft's analysis is spot on.

And lest anyone think Oz is a trustworthy source of nutrition advice:

--------------------------------------------

"The Perils of Crossing the Establishment Boundaries on Dietary Advice"

http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/12/perils-of-cr

"Hey, have you ever seen Dr. Mehmet Oz slammed in the mainstream media or have his qualifications questioned when he appears on Oprah or Larry King Live espousing the consensus opinion for dietary recommendations?

Of course not - he's preaching the consensus opinion and therefore what he says is okay, his apperances are even highly promoted with viewers encouraged to watch and listen to him. This despite the fact he is not a registered dietitian!

See, as long as your advice is aligned with the consensus, you'll be fine; step outside the boundaries publicly and you'll quickly find your advice ridiculed by the establishment, along with having your qualifications challenged and the clear implication that your patients should wonder if you're harming them!

It does not matter if you've based your advice on hard data from peer-reviewed studies; it certainly doesn't matter that your training as a physician included statistics, biochemistry, biology and other pertinent subjects; and it doesn't matter diddly that your patients see improvements when they follow your advice - what matters is you've crossed the line and made it public that you're dispensing nutrition advice contrary to the current dietary recommendations published by the leading health organizations and you're not a "registered dietitian" to boot.

The above responses to this doctor's words drive home one of our biggest challenges in public healthcare today - the consensus-driven-model that explictly endorses dogma trumping the evidence-based model."

---------------------

good health,

ron

I think that there are additives in food that may not be the best thing to consume HOWEVER I don't believe that anyone can prove that what you eat causes or contributes to the origin of all cancers.  There are genes proven to be present in some cancer populations - seems that even if these individuals eat a 100% natural diet of only the most select fruits, veggies, lean "healthy meat" blah blah blah that they will still be at high risk for cancer.  Some people with particular cancer genes are encouraged by the medical field to remove stomachs, breasts, etc BEFORE they even get cancer.  

What about cancer that runs through populations who are not eating "crap food".  

There are those in the cancer research field that believe that cancer may be caused/triggered by a virus.  

I do think that people fighting any disease should focus a little more on essential nutrition due to the effects of the disease and treatment.

I think, in general, people should use moderation with all foods as well as exercise (also not a cancer cure or prevention - I know marathon runners who have had cancer).  

I think those who claim cure/prevention do to a single source (veggie juice, pom juice, vinegar, blah blah blah) are doing others a disservice.  

As far as money....of course everyone is concerned about making money and everyone is encouraged to make money.  Darn near everything in society has to do with money in one manner or another....even the mates we choose.  Of course a company is going to look at the bottom line...they need to in order to keep paying their workers and keep the money coming in.  Just look at how much money is spent on advertising/marketing by breast cancer research organizations...not to mention the salaries of the top employees.  

Is there a conspiracy to make/keep people sick or to prevent a cure....I simply can't narrow my mind enough to accept that all the individuals who have devoted their lives to research are all covering up....  There are too many researchers in the field - in universities, hospitals, labs, government, private industry (not to mention around the world) to even suggest a grand conspiracy.  

Katherine.....

Amen.... couldnt have said it better myself  :)

some posts just say it all...

my favorite part was the blah, blah, blahs

and don't you find links annoying?

they just make me want to go shopping.

Please name the poster who said cancer only has one cause. Cancer has many causes. I'm saying that a major cause is "crap food". I provided the pathway which shows my case.

The price of gasoline is rising tremendously. National elections arrive in 8 months. Petroleum producers depend on elected officials for operating permits and regulatory loopholes. In order to lower gasoline prices before election and still make an annual profit, producers must raise gasoline prices now. Does this mean that gasoline producers are "conspiring" with incumbent politicians?

No, it means they see the writing on the wall. They are doing what is required *without* having a single conversation with incumbent politicians. It is an ad hoc conspiracy just like the ad hoc conspiracy between Mahmet Oz and food producers .......not a word spoken. But Oz has a high paid job with a rock solid future. Ad hoc conspiracies are the rule, not the exception.

Cancer is a mutation from human cells. Researchers have proven that several strains of cancer contain specific DNA from several antigens (viruses, fungi, bacteria and food protein) in different strains of cancer. I would be amazed if ANY cancer turns out to be totally mutated from human DNA.            

Otto Warburg won the Science Nobel Prize in 1931 for proving that cancer lives and grows by fermenting sugar. It was Warburg's firm conviction that this fermentation process is the definition of cancer ......that the switch from human cell to cancer cell is defined by the switch from burning fat and sugar, to fermenting sugar.

Warburg died before he could prove his theory. But within the last eight years other scientists have done exactly that. They have proven the Warburg Theory.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/24/1805.full
http://cancervisa.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/enzyme-found-by-h
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1662484,00.ht

Once the cellular energy engine is broken cells turn to creating tissue. They start piecing together DNA from any protein sources which happen to be lying around the cytosol. From there, evolution prevails. Whichever mutations are capable of surviving, feeding themselves and avoiding the immune system? They survive, and all the other mutations die.

Where cancer gets its DNA is not the question here. The question is, what breaks the cellular energy engine. Damage from many sources can contribute, but breaking the cellular energy is an absolute requirement. And it's looking like diet-caused glycation is a major factor.

Oh, and prior to adopting the western diet? The Inuit Indians had no cancer .......None.

Fellow travellers,  I loved Ron's irony-- we can still maintain a sense of humor, yes?  veggienft, you certainly have convinced me with what you wrote, thank you for taking the time to explain in detail what you know, I liked your second and third post the best.  Katherine and Mel-- always a pleasure to hear from you, I like your good sense, calm matter-of-fact manner and supportive messages.  I believe we all have something valuable to share.  That is why I keep coming back to this site.

Jeanne