Orthomolecular Treatment of Cancer

You can find all kinds of things, for example, selenium deficiency in
cancer and "AIDS" patients, but the root cause is oxidative stress. Go
to pubmed.com and search for lipid peroxidation, oxidiative stress,
reactive oxygen species etcetera. The only thing missing from current
scientific knowledge (as opposed to the nonsense people like
"nutritional experts" spout) is that arachidonic acid is said to be
"essential," when in fact it makes the body a very biochemically
unstable entity. The "nutritionists" made this claim based upon the
(at best) preliminary work of Burr & Burr around 1930, but the evidence
of the last decade or so is conclusive and overwhelming. Get the
arachidonic acid out of your body, while avoiding oxidative stress as
much as possible (no oxidized cholesterol or food that contains a lot
of fatty acids with double bonds) and you don't have much to worry
about, except for things like workplace toxins.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only thing missing from current

scientific knowledge (as opposed to the nonsense people like
"nutritional experts" spout) is that arachidonic acid is said to be
"essential," when in fact it makes the body a very biochemically
unstable entity. <<

COMMENT:

Straw man argument. Nobody, including "nutritional experts" thinks
arachidonic acid is "essential". Unless you're some kind of cat.

SBH

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
::Montygram wrote:

:::: The only thing missing from current
:::: scientific knowledge (as opposed to the nonsense people like
:::: "nutritional experts" spout) is that arachidonic acid is said to be
:::: "essential," when in fact it makes the body a very biochemically
:::: unstable entity.

:: Straw man argument. Nobody, including "nutritional experts" thinks
:: arachidonic acid is "essential". Unless you're some kind of cat.
::
:: SBH

Or unless you are an infant.

Annu Rev Nutr. 2004 May 21; [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links

The Role of Essential Fatty Acids in Development.

Heird WC, Lapillonne A.

Children's Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor
College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030-2600 [email hidden].

The presence of (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) in human milk but not in
infant formula, coupled with lower plasma and brain lipid contents of DHA in
formula-fed than in breast-fed infants and reports of higher IQ in
individuals who were breast-fed versus formula-fed as infants, suggest that
exogenous DHA (and ARA) may be essential for optimal development. Thus,
since 1990, several studies have examined the impact of formulas containing
DHA or DHA plus ARA on visual function and neurodevelopmental outcome. Some
of these studies have shown benefits but others have not. These results
leave largely unanswered the question of whether these fatty acids are
beneficial for either the term or preterm infant. However, evidence that
preterm infants might benefit is somewhat more convincing than that for term
infants. Despite the limited evidence for efficacy, formulas supplemented
with DHA and ARA are now available and appear to be safe. Expected online
publication date for the Annual Review of Nutrition Volume 25 is July 17,
2005. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pub_dates.asp for
revised estimates. PMID: 15871657

It seems that DHA and arachidonic acid are conditionally essential in
certain phases of life.

--
Juhana

TC said:

http://www.islandnet.com/~hoffer/

Any opinions?

Hoffer, who is clearly a fossil, probably is suffering from senility.

Recently published research strongly suggests that cancer patients can
increase their probability of surviving cancer by 50%, simply by
exercising.

Juhana Harju said:

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
::Montygram wrote:

:::: The only thing missing from current
:::: scientific knowledge (as opposed to the nonsense people like
:::: "nutritional experts" spout) is that arachidonic acid is said to be
:::: "essential," when in fact it makes the body a very biochemically
:::: unstable entity.

:: Straw man argument. Nobody, including "nutritional experts" thinks
:: arachidonic acid is "essential". Unless you're some kind of cat.
::
:: SBH

Or unless you are an infant.

Annu Rev Nutr. 2004 May 21; [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links

The Role of Essential Fatty Acids in Development.

Heird WC, Lapillonne A.

Children's Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor
College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030-2600 [email hidden].

The presence of (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) in human milk but not in
infant formula, coupled with lower plasma and brain lipid contents of DHA in
formula-fed than in breast-fed infants and reports of higher IQ in
individuals who were breast-fed versus formula-fed as infants, suggest that
exogenous DHA (and ARA) may be essential for optimal development. Thus,
since 1990, several studies have examined the impact of formulas containing
DHA or DHA plus ARA on visual function and neurodevelopmental outcome. Some
of these studies have shown benefits but others have not. These results
leave largely unanswered the question of whether these fatty acids are
beneficial for either the term or preterm infant. However, evidence that
preterm infants might benefit is somewhat more convincing than that for term
infants. Despite the limited evidence for efficacy, formulas supplemented
with DHA and ARA are now available and appear to be safe. Expected online
publication date for the Annual Review of Nutrition Volume 25 is July 17,
2005. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pub_dates.asp for
revised estimates. PMID: 15871657

It seems that DHA and arachidonic acid are conditionally essential in
certain phases of life.

No, this study states:
"These results leave largely unanswered the question of whether these
fatty acids are beneficial for either the term or preterm infant. "

Arachidonic acid's presence doesn't prove it's essential or beneficial.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Juhana Harju wrote:
::: Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
::::: Montygram wrote:
:::
::::::: The only thing missing from current
::::::: scientific knowledge (as opposed to the nonsense people like
::::::: "nutritional experts" spout) is that arachidonic acid is said
::::::: to be "essential," when in fact it makes the body a very
::::::: biochemically unstable entity.
:::
::::: Straw man argument. Nobody, including "nutritional experts" thinks
::::: arachidonic acid is "essential". Unless you're some kind of cat.
:::::
::::: SBH
:::
::: Or unless you are an infant.
:::
::: Annu Rev Nutr. 2004 May 21; [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles,
::: Links
:::
::: The Role of Essential Fatty Acids in Development.
:::
::: Heird WC, Lapillonne A.
:::
::: Children's Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics,
::: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030-2600
::: [email hidden].
:::
::: The presence of (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) in human milk but
::: not in infant formula, coupled with lower plasma and brain lipid
::: contents of DHA in formula-fed than in breast-fed infants and
::: reports of higher IQ in individuals who were breast-fed versus
::: formula-fed as infants, suggest that exogenous DHA (and ARA) may be
::: essential for optimal development. Thus, since 1990, several
::: studies have examined the impact of formulas containing DHA or DHA
::: plus ARA on visual function and neurodevelopmental outcome. Some of
::: these studies have shown benefits but others have not. These
::: results leave largely unanswered the question of whether these
::: fatty acids are beneficial for either the term or preterm infant.
::: However, evidence that preterm infants might benefit is somewhat
::: more convincing than that for term infants. Despite the limited
::: evidence for efficacy, formulas supplemented with DHA and ARA are
::: now available and appear to be safe. Expected online publication
::: date for the Annual Review of Nutrition Volume 25 is July 17, 2005.
::: Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pub_dates.asp for
::: revised estimates. PMID: 15871657
:::
::: It seems that DHA and arachidonic acid are conditionally essential
::: in certain phases of life.
::
:: No, this study states:
:: "These results leave largely unanswered the question of whether these
:: fatty acids are beneficial for either the term or preterm infant. "
::
:: Arachidonic acid's presence doesn't prove it's essential or
:: beneficial.

Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2005 Jan;72(1):21-8. Related
Articles, Links

Lower fetal status of docosahexaenoic acid, arachidonic acid and essential
fatty acids is associated with less favorable neonatal neurological
condition.

Dijck-Brouwer DA, Hadders-Algra M, Bouwstra H, Decsi T, Boehm G, Martini IA,
Boersma ER, Muskiet FA.

Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Groningen (DAJD-B,
FAJM), Hanzeplein 1, 9714 GZ Gronigen, The Netherlands.
[email hidden]

Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, notably arachidonic (AA) and
docosahexaenoic (DHA) acids are abundant in brain and may be conditionally
essential in fetal life. We investigated umbilical artery (UA) and vein (UV)
fatty acid compositions and early neonatal neurological condition in 317
term infants. Neurological condition was summarized as a clinical
classification and a 'neurological optimality score' (NOS). Neurologically
abnormal infants (n=27) had lower UV DHA and essential fatty acid (EFA)
status. NOS correlated positively with AA (UV), and EFA (UV) and DHA status
(UV and UA) and negatively with 18:2omega6 and omega9 (UV), and 20:3omega9,
omega7 and C18 trans fatty acids (UV and UA). UV DHA, AA, saturated fatty
acids, gestational age and obstetrical optimality score explained 16.2% of
the NOS variance. Early postnatal neurological condition seems negatively
influenced by lower fetal DHA, AA and EFA status. C18 trans fatty acids and
18:2omega6 may exert negative effects by impairment of LCP status. PMID:
15589396

--
Juhana

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems that DHA and arachidonic acid are conditionally essential in

certain phases of life. <<

I'm not ruling it out, but the case for DHA is considerably stronger
than for AA. Mainly because DHA is the major brain fat, and AA is
fairly rare by comparison. There have been a number of studies which
have found benefits of supplementing DHA in infants, also, but I cannot
find any which found that for AA. Do you know of any?

SBH

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Recently published research strongly suggests that cancer patients can

increase their probability of surviving cancer by 50%, simply by
exercising. <<

COMMENT:

Retrospective epidemiology cannot "strongly suggest" anything at
differences of 50%.

Just thought you'd like to know, Gohde.

SBH

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
:::: It seems that DHA and arachidonic acid are conditionally essential
:::: in certain phases of life. <<
::
:: I'm not ruling it out, but the case for DHA is considerably stronger
:: than for AA. Mainly because DHA is the major brain fat, and AA is
:: fairly rare by comparison. There have been a number of studies which
:: have found benefits of supplementing DHA in infants, also, but I
:: cannot find any which found that for AA. Do you know of any?

No. Having read studies about DHA and AA I just suspect that both dietary
DHA and AA are beneficial if not necessary in pregnancy and infancy. But I
have no proof.

--
Juhana

Juhana Harju said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Juhana Harju wrote:
::: Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
::::: Montygram wrote:
:::
::::::: The only thing missing from current
::::::: scientific knowledge (as opposed to the nonsense people like
::::::: "nutritional experts" spout) is that arachidonic acid is said
::::::: to be "essential," when in fact it makes the body a very
::::::: biochemically unstable entity.
:::
::::: Straw man argument. Nobody, including "nutritional experts" thinks
::::: arachidonic acid is "essential". Unless you're some kind of cat.
:::::
::::: SBH
:::
::: Or unless you are an infant.
:::
::: Annu Rev Nutr. 2004 May 21; [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles,
::: Links
:::
::: The Role of Essential Fatty Acids in Development.
:::
::: Heird WC, Lapillonne A.
:::
::: Children's Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics,
::: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030-2600
::: [email hidden].
:::
::: The presence of (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) in human milk but
::: not in infant formula, coupled with lower plasma and brain lipid
::: contents of DHA in formula-fed than in breast-fed infants and
::: reports of higher IQ in individuals who were breast-fed versus
::: formula-fed as infants, suggest that exogenous DHA (and ARA) may be
::: essential for optimal development. Thus, since 1990, several
::: studies have examined the impact of formulas containing DHA or DHA
::: plus ARA on visual function and neurodevelopmental outcome. Some of
::: these studies have shown benefits but others have not. These
::: results leave largely unanswered the question of whether these
::: fatty acids are beneficial for either the term or preterm infant.
::: However, evidence that preterm infants might benefit is somewhat
::: more convincing than that for term infants. Despite the limited
::: evidence for efficacy, formulas supplemented with DHA and ARA are
::: now available and appear to be safe. Expected online publication
::: date for the Annual Review of Nutrition Volume 25 is July 17, 2005.
::: Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pub_dates.asp for
::: revised estimates. PMID: 15871657
:::
::: It seems that DHA and arachidonic acid are conditionally essential
::: in certain phases of life.
::
:: No, this study states:
:: "These results leave largely unanswered the question of whether these
:: fatty acids are beneficial for either the term or preterm infant. "
::
:: Arachidonic acid's presence doesn't prove it's essential or
:: beneficial.

Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2005 Jan;72(1):21-8. Related
Articles, Links

Lower fetal status of docosahexaenoic acid, arachidonic acid and essential
fatty acids is associated with less favorable neonatal neurological
condition.

Dijck-Brouwer DA, Hadders-Algra M, Bouwstra H, Decsi T, Boehm G, Martini IA,
Boersma ER, Muskiet FA.

Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Groningen (DAJD-B,
FAJM), Hanzeplein 1, 9714 GZ Gronigen, The Netherlands.
[email hidden]

Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, notably arachidonic (AA) and
docosahexaenoic (DHA) acids are abundant in brain and may be conditionally
essential in fetal life. We investigated umbilical artery (UA) and vein (UV)
fatty acid compositions and early neonatal neurological condition in 317
term infants. Neurological condition was summarized as a clinical
classification and a 'neurological optimality score' (NOS). Neurologically
abnormal infants (n=27) had lower UV DHA and essential fatty acid (EFA)
status. NOS correlated positively with AA (UV), and EFA (UV) and DHA status
(UV and UA) and negatively with 18:2omega6 and omega9 (UV), and 20:3omega9,
omega7 and C18 trans fatty acids (UV and UA). UV DHA, AA, saturated fatty
acids, gestational age and obstetrical optimality score explained 16.2% of
the NOS variance. Early postnatal neurological condition seems negatively
influenced by lower fetal DHA, AA and EFA status. C18 trans fatty acids and
18:2omega6 may exert negative effects by impairment of LCP status. PMID:
15589396

The first study you posted clearly contradicted your assertion that
it showed these fatty acids to be beneficial.

The second one just as clearly states only correlations. Correlations
do not prove a cause/effect relationship.

Example: The total number of priests, rabbis and ministers positively
correlates with the number of alcoholics in a city. This does not
prove that priests, rabbis and ministers cause alcoholism. Both of
these counts correlate with the population (size) of the city. Cities
with 100K+ populations tend to have more alcoholics and clergy than
cities with populations of a few hundred etc.

The abstract states that these "may be conditionally essential". It
didn't make any stronger claim because the study didn't show anything
stronger.

Sbharrisatsignix.netcom.com said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Recently published research strongly suggests that cancer patients can

increase their probability of surviving cancer by 50%, simply by
exercising. <<

COMMENT:

Retrospective epidemiology cannot "strongly suggest" anything at
differences of 50%.

That is because you guys don't have any balls, like I do. 🙂

Just my opinion, but I am right as usual.

Quoted message said:

Retrospective epidemiology cannot "strongly suggest" anything at
differences of 50%.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is because you guys don't have any balls, like I do. 🙂

COMMENT:

Possibly you think we don't have them because we don't try to think
with them?

Gohde, I hate to tell you this, but that's not what they're for.

SBH

Sbharrisatsignix.netcom.com said:

Quoted message said:

Retrospective epidemiology cannot "strongly suggest" anything at
differences of 50%.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is because you guys don't have any balls, like I do. 🙂

COMMENT:

Possibly you think we don't have them because we don't try to think
with them?

I hate to tell you this, but I do 45 minutes of high-intensity aerobics
exercise on a fullbody elliptical trainer 3 times a week. I am in the
12 METs exercise intensity range for 10 to 15 minutes in each of these
workouts.

Like I said before, you guys don't have any balls. It is a well known
fact that research MDs, such as yourself, are too yellow to every put
their names on the line when it comes to research.

I just did, but you never have and never will.

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Like I said before, you guys don't have any balls. It is a well known

fact that research MDs, such as yourself, are too yellow to every put
their names on the line when it comes to research. I just did, but you
never have and never will. <<

COMMENT:

You just did *WHAT*

What is it you think you just did, Gohde? It appears you're a legend in
you own mind.

Mr-Natural-Health said:

That is because you guys don't have any balls, like I do. 🙂

You mean they didn't fall out like your teeth?

rr

Mr-Natural-Health said:

TC said:

http://www.islandnet.com/~hoffer/

Any opinions?

Hoffer, who is clearly a fossil, probably is suffering from senility.

Recently published research strongly suggests that cancer patients can
increase their probability of surviving cancer by 50%, simply by
exercising.

I have publically announced this fact on smn, Google, Yahoo, as well on
my web site. It is certainly one of the lesser reported news stories.
Naturally, that makes it one of the most important news stories of the
year, IMHO.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Natural-Health/msg/5c5f601b57462685

Of course, this news story went by totally unnoticed by the idiots on
smn. 🙁

"Mr-Natural-Health" <[email hidden]> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mr-Natural-Health said:

TC said:

http://www.islandnet.com/~hoffer/

Any opinions?

Hoffer, who is clearly a fossil, probably is suffering from senility.

Recently published research strongly suggests that cancer patients can
increase their probability of surviving cancer by 50%, simply by
exercising.

I have publically announced this fact on smn, Google, Yahoo, as well on
my web site. It is certainly one of the lesser reported news stories.
Naturally, that makes it one of the most important news stories of the
year, IMHO.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Natural-Health/msg/5c5f601b57462685

Of course, this news story went by totally unnoticed by the idiots on
smn. 🙁

the study might as well be seen from the other side:
people who feel worse (and die sooner) simply walk and move less than others
with fewer symptoms and pain.

and about the "50%"..
here is a quote from the actual abstract of the study (not the butchered
news article):

"The benefit of physical activity was particularly apparent among women with
hormone-responsive tumors. The RR of breast cancer death for women with
hormone-responsive tumors who engaged in 9 or more MET-hours per week of
activity compared with women with hormone-responsive tumors who engaged in
less than 9 MET-hours per week was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.74). Compared with
women who engaged in less than 3 MET-hours per week of activity, the
absolute unadjusted mortality risk reduction was 6% at 10 years for women
who engaged in 9 or more MET-hours per week"

MMu said:

Quoted message said:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Natural-Health/msg/5c5f601b57462685

Of course, this news story went by totally unnoticed by the idiots on
smn. 🙁

the study might as well be seen from the other side:
people who feel worse (and die sooner) simply walk and move less than others
with fewer symptoms and pain.

Stupid negative people always can come up an excuse NOT exercise and to
die. As Jack LaLanne likes to say: Any fool can die. But, it takes
work to live.

Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. 🙁