Soda, a killer ?

[SailorAlea]

Welp, glad you got that out of your system.. but you've completely missed the mark.


to stay on topic.. I'll just say it doesn't make sense to me.. to use 2 ingredients that are required to create a cancerous carcinogen, and a poisen ontop of that they add a poisen? Cancer numbers have been rising, i've been off of soda for a LONG time. Maybe some people will join me in not risking their own health for the sake of a flavor.

Did you know that both elemental sodium and chlorine are poisonous to the human body? Sodium is explosive! Chlorine is poisonous and used in bleach!

But what's this?

Salt (diet) chemical compound, sodium chloride (NaCl), a vital constituent of the human body.

Bottom line: Present ingredients don't equal their possible combinations. Salt is a backwards example. Both the sodium and chlorine that make up salt are poisonous to your body. But salt, sodium chloride, is necessary for health.

On the other hand, Vitamin C (also necessary for human life) and benzoate are harmless together at the levels in found in soda.

And no, cancer numbers aren't rising.

The cancer death rate in the United States -- which has been slowly dropping since 1993 -- has fallen even more significantly in recent years, according to an annual report from the nation's leading cancer organizations.

Previous studies had shown cancer death rates in the US decreasing by an average of 1.1% a year from 1993 through 2002, a steady decline credited to the effectiveness of prevention efforts, new screening methods and wider use of early detection, and better treatments that have extended life expectancy after diagnosis.

(http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Decline_in_Cancer_Deaths_Doubles.asp)

"The evidence is unmistakable: We are truly turning the tide in the cancer battle," said John R. Seffrin, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society."

 

[Hibiki]

Not to mention the cancer patient rate will always increase as medicine becomes more available and people start living longer. If you were some how able to prevent aging entirely eventually you would have a 100% rate of developing cancer. It's just the way people work.

But the flip side is that cancer is becoming easier and easier to treat so cases of cancer go down as the average life expectancy of a person goes up.

 

[SailorAlea]

There are misleading results. You have to look at multiple factors.

The total number of people being diagnosed with cancer is going up because we're becoming better at detecting it. But we're also becoming better at treating it, so death rates are going down.

 

[Hibiki]

Right thats what I'm getting at.

 

[VideoJinx]

Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0DE3D6163BF93BA2575AC0A962948260

- Richard Peto, a British epidemiologist who is the author of a major study of cancer mortality for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, contends, ''There has been disappointingly little progress in curative treatment since the middle of this century.'' He said in a telephone interview that he saw no reason to expect substantial progress for the rest of this century.

- John Cairns, a cancer analyst at the Harvard School of Public Health, likens the statistical advances reported by official cancer agencies and leading cancer scientists to the inflated and meaningless body counts used to measure progress in the Vietnam War. ''Their body counts are way too high,'' he said in an interview. ''It's like interrogating a general in Saigon. They come up with statistics that don't add up.''

- John C. Bailar 3d, a Harvard biostatistician who is the statistical consultant for The New England Journal of Medicine, one of the nation's most prestigious medical journals, said he ''tends to agree that survival rates for cancer victims are not going up very much'' and that statistical measures of those gains often turn out to be ''rubber numbers'' by which people are ''very seriously misled.''

- Haydn Bush, director of a regional cancer center in London, Ontario, wrote in the September issue of Science 84, a magazine published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, ''We're not curing much more cancer than we were a generation ago. There has been very little progress on the biggest cancer killers of the last 25 years.''

These views stand in sharp variance to the tone of Dr. DeVita's assertion, in a major speech two years ago, that ''the best kept secret today is that cancers, as a group, are among the most curable of chronic diseases.''

Please put notice the article is 3 pages long, and contains good reasons as to why the numbers "don't add up".

 

[Hibiki]

Lots of progress does not mean no progress.

Little progress over time adds up.

 

[MC]

That article was published in 1984.

 

[VideoJinx]

Notice the "reasons", im not in the mood to dig right now, for 07 stuff.. ill do so later.. but notice the reasons.. because a lie can be carried over.

 

[Hibiki]

Well it is still slightly true that cancer is not being progressed in as fast as some other areas of science but it's still clear the huge jumps in technology and science that have been made.

Not to mention a lot of the science that is just now being perfected, such as skin cell to stem cell technology, will assist in cancer study immensely. The problem with "curing" cancer is that you can't do it. It's a natural function of the body. You gotta jump through some huge loops to prevent it but progress is still pretty impressive.


But there is absolutely no way you can say with a clean conscience that there is a conspiracy to keep people from not dieing from cancer.

 

[kam!]

If they want to secretly kill ppl using soda, they're very ineffective.

I'll keep drinking my soda once in a while. If I get soda cancer, there's still DCA :yes:

 

[DaRkOwNs]

Please put notice the article is 3 pages long, and contains good reasons as to why the numbers "don't add up".

maybe because the lack of technology?

i wasn't gonna post again but why in the hell did you use an article from 1984? do you just hope for all your arguments to be crushed? and whats with this laziness crap? could it be that your finding it hard to come up with decent proof from a responsible source?

all this and more on News at 9!

 

[VideoJinx]

While u were caught up in your "imaginary" argument, you may have overlooked something possibly VERY CRUCIAL?

These views stand in sharp variance to the tone of Dr. DeVita's assertion, in a major speech two years ago, that ''the best kept secret today is that cancers, as a group, are among the most curable of chronic diseases.''

Now.. what year was this published in again?

 

[MC]

Now.. what year was this published in again?

1984.

Interesting enough, that was the only article I can find in which Dr. DeVita mentions that cancer is "among the most curable of chronic diseases."

 

[DaRkOwNs]

Now.. what year was this published in again?

1984, as mc said.

perhaps you missed the point. i was asking you why you bother to promote these sources that really dont have any backing to them (in this case, technology). cancer is a natural occurence that happens in the human body. of course its not gonna be easy to cure, and i have no doubt that the government isnt taking it as seriously as it could. still, there are many documented cases of cancer developing without an actual cause, other than the few rogue cells that kick-start it.

but keep in mind that were not dealing with "1" 20 foot tall cancer cell. there could be billions of them throughout your entire body, and leaving just 1 cell could be potentially fatal in the future. thats in the case of leukemia, which is the easiest to treat of the cancers.

i suggest that you take the time to go to a few libraries, medical institutes, and web-sites to find out why cancer is hard too treat instead of looking for ways that it might be possible to treat. 'cause, in the words of the martial arts masters, you cant learn how to kick until you first learn how to punch (the basics).

 

[VideoJinx]

Perhaps ive already done so? Dark continue to believe cancer is uncurable in humans if you want. I've found otherwise, the reason i brought it up, is to show/expose the lie as it existed back then. in 1984, he says it's amongst the most curable of chronic disease.... That itself should turn a few heads.

2ndly, to show the lie as it existed back then. If you dont believe then you simply don't. If you won't believe, then you've just closed a door in your face.

Since, I've already brought up what I thought should be shown about soda.. I think I have nothing more to contribute about soda's unhealthiness besides it's slick advertisement and under estimated health effects and risks accessable to all age drinkers

 

[MC]

That was the only article that Dr. DeVita ever mentioned that cancer is curable (feel free to provide more instances of his claim). How do you explain that? Why does he still continue doing cancer research despite claiming that cancer is curable?

 

[DaRkOwNs]

Perhaps ive already done so? Dark continue to believe cancer is uncurable in humans if you want. I've found otherwise, the reason i brought it up, is to show/expose the lie as it existed back then. in 1984, he says it's amongst the most curable of chronic disease.... That itself should turn a few heads.

if you found other-wise, why haven't you cured cancer yet? it MIGHT turn a few heads if there was anything else too it. but, guess what, you cant cure cancer by saying that it can be cured. i didnt see any medical records, experiments, or data on what he was claiming. which leads me too believe that he meant treatable, not curable.

these caught my eye.

Virtually everyone agrees there have been major gains in treating and ''curing'' some forms of cancer, including testicular cancer, Hodgkin's disease and a vast array of childhood cancers and leukemias, among others. The gains are so great in these cases that virtually all analysts agree they must reflect improvements in the treatment and management of cancer victims.

this one is interesting to me, because these are the most prevalent forms of cancer.

But it is a perverse fact that the cancers that are now the most ''curable'' are statistically among the most rare. There has been far less progress in coping with cancers of the lung, gastrointestinal tract and breast, which are among the most prevalent of the cancers, and little progress on such rarer cancers as those that afflict the brain, stomach and esophagus.

now, heres what i was saying specifically stated in the article.

First, advances in the ability to detect and diagnose tumors mean that doctors are now finding more things that look like cancer to a pathologist but would not actually kill anyone. Thus when these people survive for five years they are counted among those who have been ''cured'' of cancers, even though their tumors would probably have escaped detection in the past and would never have killed them anyway.

heres something hibiki, i think, said earlier.

The second argument cited by skeptics is that the ability to detect some cancers at an earlier stage in their development is artificially improving the survival rates. Dr. Bush contends that the apparent improvement in breast cancer survival, which is not all that great to begin with, probably reflects the fact that screening programs are detecting the disease in women at an earlier stage than in the past.

do you see now why this 20+ year article is no longer relevant? they even say in the article that technology is JUST beginning to detect cancer succesfully so i cant really rely on that article as a means to conclude that a cure for cancer exists. and from the wording of the article itself it seems that "curable" means that they manage to treat the cancer into remission, NOT cure it.

how about another, more credible, article?

 

[Synth]

It's almost as if he's just linking the first thing he finds on Google.

Tsk. Tsk.

 

[VideoJinx]

By my examination, there are at least 11 scientifically valid cures for cancer that modern medicine simply disregards, among them are:

There is much the public is not being told here. There are ways to switch genes on molecularly. Nutrients can do this as well as drugs. Where is the gene in humans that exerts complete protection from cancer and which molecules activate this gene? Apparently, one of them is vitamin D.

There are also ways, using dietary supplements, to "weaponize" vitamin D so its cancer-cell killing capacity is many times greater. Wake Forest University researchers say they found some people have 100 times greater immunity against cancer than others.

Infusing white blood cells, or agents that stimulate the same, is not new. In one recently published study, leukemia patients received infusions of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, a hormone that stimulates production of white blood cells. Of 20 leukemia patients treated, 8 patients survived in complete remission for a period of 3 years. These were end-stage leukemia cases that had failed stem-cell therapy. [Haematologica 92 (3):414–7, March 2007]

However, infusion of white blood cells from donors into other humans can result in a life-threatening host-graft reaction.

In a recent study conducted in France, researchers found life-threatening host-graft reactions emanating from infusion of progenitor cells (similar to stem cells) are provoked by the number of white-blood cells in the infusion. [Transfusion 47 (7): 1268–75, 2007]

Wake Forest University researchers say they will attempt to minimize the possibility of these reactions. However, one wonders if this study is being designed to fail. Will the treatment be worse than the disease? Why have university researchers turned their backs on vitamin D? Maybe researchers’ hands are being tied.

Then unexpectedly, Dr. Cui revealed this September that his research had moved from the animal lab to humans. In an informal and unpublished study, he obtained white blood cells from volunteers and placed them in lab dishes filled with tumor cells.

Some people’s white blood cells killed only 2% of the cancer cells in the lab dish. They represented a small number of people with poor immunity against cancer. The vast majority of people exhibited marginal cancer-cell killing activity. But in a very few people, their white blood cells killed up to 97% of the cancer cells in the lab dish and therefore exhibited the same cancer-cell killing immunity as the cancer-proof mice!

Yet another "cancer cure" that has recently gained public attention causes one to question if something isn’t being hidden from public view, and it may be the greatest cancer discovery of all time.

The story begins in 1999 in a laboratory at Wake Forest University Medical School where, in an experiment, researcher Zheng Cui attempted to obtain cancer antigens by injecting fast-growing sarcoma cancer cells into mice. The mice received an injection of 200,000 tumor cells. Unexpectedly, one mouse survived. Then 400,000 cancer cells were injected into this mouse. Again, there was no effect.

Eventually, 500 million, then 1 billion and finally 3 billion cancer cells were injected, but the mouse survived. It was astonishing – a totally cancer-resistant mouse. This discovery received widespread attention in the news media in 2003 when it was first reported to the public.

Eventually, as documented in published reports in 2003 and 2005, this male mouse sired 800 offspring that were also totally cancer resistant. And a subsequent experiment showed that the immunity these animals exhibited against cancer could be transferred via infusion of white blood cells into other animals with cancer, also with complete disappearance of their tumors!

It was stated that this gene-transferred immunity against cancer was probably passed on to offspring from a single gene. Since humans and mice share 98% of the same genes, there is hope that a parallel gene could be found in humans that would confer complete immunity against cancer.

But no gene array studies have commenced, or if they have, they are being kept in a laboratory closet. At the time, researchers said there would be vigilant pursuit to find the gene, but, so far, nothing.

Right....or maybe I'de rather have people truly look 4 themselves.

 

[Avenger]

He's not?