Anarcho-Capitalist Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 There are certain types of cancer that occur based on genetic predisposition. There are also other reasons why other regions may have less. One possible example is that most of the people die of something else before hand, but to be honest I can't argue this at all since I haven't seen any evidence that cancer rates are lower...One of the largest predisposing factor to cancer is simple constant repair of DNA which happens in everyone all the time in all cells. Of course other common causes often result from smoking or UV damage. Cancer isn't genetic. What's genetic is the strength of your body's natural ability to keep from developing cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Strength of your body's natural ability..... I see...... I'll stop replying. While it's true that the immune system prevents the majority of potential cancerous situations through NK cells or recognition via B or T cells, you'll need to be a lot more specific. There are definite forms of genetic cancer such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer and Retinoblastoma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcho-Capitalist Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Strength of your body's natural ability..... I see...... I'll stop replying. While it's true that the immune system prevents the majority of potential cancerous situations through NK cells or recognition via B or T cells, you'll need to be a lot more specific. I didn't think I needed to be more specific since everybody here should be aware that people have differing immune systems. Some people just resist better than others naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 How? Where's your evidence? Development is often a chance event when lacking predisposing factors. We do have different immune systems as a result of our exposures and genetic variability. This genetic variability in the immune system could be a predisposing factor to cancer.... which in a sense is genetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 30, 2009 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2009 Fred, cancer isn't genetic, it happens the same way people get fat. They're fat because their parents taught them how to eat, same way their parents told them how to eat and so on...If cancer could happen to anybody, cancer would have consistent rates throughout the entire world. But no, cancer is rare in some countries, and a near epidemic in others. Why is that? Hmmm? Could it be that our personal choices are what kill us, yet our society wants us to believe that cancer is just something that is out of our control, so that we give that responsibility to doctors, so they can profit from our misfortune? Think about it. Cancer rates vary around the world because of a variety of factors including genetic, environmental, medical, and lifestyle. Not all medical systems are geared for profit. Cancer isn't genetic. What's genetic is the strength of your body's natural ability to keep from developing cancer. Cancer is one factor but it clearly can be a factor. Certain genes can make you predisposed towards certain types of cancers. There is a whole field of medical science that investigates these sorts of relationships. You can deny it if it makes you sleep better at night but that is just an illusion of safety. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/gen...fessional/page2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soonerproud Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Fred, cancer isn't genetic, it happens the same way people get fat. They're fat because their parents taught them how to eat, same way their parents told them how to eat and so on...If cancer could happen to anybody, cancer would have consistent rates throughout the entire world. But no, cancer is rare in some countries, and a near epidemic in others. Why is that? Hmmm? Could it be that our personal choices are what kill us, yet our society wants us to believe that cancer is just something that is out of our control, so that we give that responsibility to doctors, so they can profit from our misfortune? Think about it. The inconsistencies in rates is easily explained by genetics as a major factor. One country or ethinicity may have a abundance of a particular gene that causes certain types of cancers while another country or ethinicity lacks that same particular gene. Your example was really a poor argument against genetics as a major factor in cancer rates around the world. Another thing, contrary to popular belief, many health ailments are out of your complete control. Fred is a great example of this since he has lived healthy and still got cancer. Humans in fact have little control over the natural world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcho-Capitalist Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 The inconsistencies in rates is easily explained by genetics as a major factor. One country or ethinicity may have a abundance of a particular gene that causes certain types of cancers while another country or ethinicity lacks that same particular gene. Your example was really a poor argument against genetics as a major factor in cancer rates around the world. Another thing, contrary to popular belief, many health ailments are out of your complete control. Fred is a great example of this since he has lived healthy and still got cancer. Humans in fact have little control over the natural world. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Are you saying that cancer is more prevalent certain races because of their race? No! It is due to the cultures that people have and what they eat and how they live. Countries that have a western diet typically have a higher incidence of cancers, and it happens to people regardless of ethnicity, as there are black, latino, asian, and white people living in the same western country, right??? If everybody eats burgers and fries and the like, they're all going to be at higher risk for cancer, same way the people who live in the Mediterranean and in Japanese societies don't get our cancer rates because they live and eat a completely different sort of food and live a completely different lifestyle. Also, Humans don't have control over the natural world, but if they commune with it, they won't die of something as silly as cancer. But, if you do something as stupid as eating processed meats, staying out of the sun so you won't get vitamin D, both examples of further distancing yourself from nature, you will pay for it with a very costly diagnosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soonerproud Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Wrong, wrong, wrong. Are you saying that cancer is more prevalent certain races because of their race? No!It is due to the cultures that people have and what they eat and how they live. Countries that have a western diet typically have a higher incidence of cancers, and it happens to people regardless of ethnicity, as there are black, latino, asian, and white people living in the same western country, right??? If everybody eats burgers and fries and the like, they're all going to be at higher risk for cancer, same way the people who live in the Mediterranean and in Japanese societies don't get our cancer rates because they live and eat a completely different sort of food and live a completely different lifestyle. Also, Humans don't have control over the natural world, but if they commune with it, they won't die of something as silly as cancer. But, if you do something as stupid as eating processed meats, staying out of the sun so you won't get vitamin D, both examples of further distancing yourself from nature, you will pay for it with a very costly diagnosis. You do understand there are connections between races and diseases, right? African Americans, for example suffer from a much higher rate of sickle cell anemia that Caucasians and Asians do in the United States. there is a direct correlation between ethnicity and certain diseases and that even includes people who belong to the same race and have differing ethnicities. Diet is one of among MANY FACTORS that have an impact on the health of a particular ethnic group. Genetics is another factor. You can commune with nature all you want, but that will not prevent cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 30, 2009 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2009 Wrong, wrong, wrong. Are you saying that cancer is more prevalent certain races because of their race? No! Yes! Keep in mind, however, that each cancer is different. Some of more genetically predisposed than others. You are substantially more likely to have an abnormal breast cancer gene if: * You have blood relatives (grandmothers, mother, sisters, aunts) on either your mother's or father's side of the family who had breast cancer diagnosed before age 50. * There is both breast and ovarian cancer in your family, particularly in a single individual. * Women in your family have had cancer in both breasts. * You are of Ashkenazi Jewish (family from Eastern Europe) heritage. * You are of African American heritage and have been diagnosed with breast cancer at age 35 or younger. * A man in your family has had breast cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcho-Capitalist Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 You do understand there are connections between races and diseases, right? African Americans, for example suffer from a much higher rate of sickle cell anemia that Caucasians and Asians do in the United States. there is a direct correlation between ethnicity and certain diseases and that even includes people who belong to the same race and have differing ethnicities.Diet is one of among MANY FACTORS that have an impact on the health of a particular ethnic group. Genetics is another factor. You can commune with nature all you want, but that will not prevent cancer. Sigh... The Myth of Sickle Cell TraitLonnie R. Bristow, MD, Member Sickle Cell Advisory Committee, Contra Costa County Health Department, Martinez, California Abstract Recently emphasis in the problem of sickle hemoglobinopathy has been on mass screening of the black population. Concern about the alleged danger in having sickle cell trait itself is offered as part of the justification. This danger is disputed and a position developed for the benign status of sickle cell trait and the potentially serious social harm to blacks so identified. Programs are suggested to foster improved medical care availability and early detection for those with sickle cell anemia. It is suggested that mandatory patient programs be avoided, and that research receive greater emphasis. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1129505 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soonerproud Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Sigh... Next you are going to post a article from a MD claiming AIDS is caused by poppers or the HIV meds. That doesn't change the facts that are easily provable scientifically, yet you completely ignore the science itself over a misguided belief that if we live naturally, we will never get sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralDogma Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Don't forget to ask for interest too.Gotta love propaganda. Thimerosal (toxic), is a mercury based preservative linked to increased cases of autism (amongst other things like permanent brain damage). Formaldehyde (toxic) is a known carcinogen. Neomycin (toxic) has also been linked to autism and other learning disabilites and can impair the body's ability to absorb nutrients from food. It's yet another vaccine that no one in their right mind should ever have, especially children. It does not stop you from contracting the flu, it does not cure the flu and it does not stop you from passing the flu onto others. At best it will reduce the effects of the flu at worst it will kill you or just make you stupid for life. Elemental mercury is toxic, but this is a compound composed of mercury, not elemental mercury. That?s a big difference as compounds tend to have vastly different properties than those of the elements their composed of, or even other compounds composed of the same elements. For example, there are two configurations of the drug Thalidomide, both composed of the exact same elements, but arranged differently. One cures morning sickness; the other is responsible for birth defects if given to someone who is pregnant. Chemotherapy is a mix of extremely toxic substances. One would think that you would need to be mad to inject that stuff into your veins. Yet, if the alternative is unchecked cancer growth, the benefits of injecting toxins starts to sound very reasonable. Chemotherapy is not an apt example to preventative measures taken against a virus. They are too totally different scenarios. If people had to take chemo to prevent the flu, you would be hard pressed to find a single doctor willing to even recommend the procedure much less administer it. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Are you saying that cancer is more prevalent certain races because of their race? No!It is due to the cultures that people have and what they eat and how they live. Countries that have a western diet typically have a higher incidence of cancers, and it happens to people regardless of ethnicity, as there are black, latino, asian, and white people living in the same western country, right??? If everybody eats burgers and fries and the like, they're all going to be at higher risk for cancer, same way the people who live in the Mediterranean and in Japanese societies don't get our cancer rates because they live and eat a completely different sort of food and live a completely different lifestyle. Also, Humans don't have control over the natural world, but if they commune with it, they won't die of something as silly as cancer. But, if you do something as stupid as eating processed meats, staying out of the sun so you won't get vitamin D, both examples of further distancing yourself from nature, you will pay for it with a very costly diagnosis. Can?t even begin to explain what is wrong with what you have said, but I will try anyway. Cancer is not caused by what you eat (unless your eating some really bad stuff). Cancer is caused by malformed proteins that normally guard against unchecked cell growth. This is caused by bad DNA sequences that normally code for those proteins. People can be predisposed to cancer. If your genes are already close to a cancerous sequence, only a few mutations are needed, over your entire lifetime, in order to produce a cancerous cell. A few things that cause those mutation: chemicals and radiation (like that from the SUN). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcho-Capitalist Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Yes! Keep in mind, however, that each cancer is different. Some of more genetically predisposed than others. Double sigh... Cancer just down to genes 'is a myth', warn scientists'People should stop believing cancer is just down to "bad luck" or their genes and look to their own lifestyle, an expert claims. By Daily Telegraph Reporter Last Updated: 4:41PM BST 19 Apr 2009 An unhealthy diet and poor lifestyle - such as a lack of exercise and being overweight - causes three times as many cases of cancer as genetics, said Dr Rachel Thompson, science programme manager for the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF). Evidence suggests that only about 5 per cent to 10 per cent of all cancers result from specifically inherited genes. Meanwhile, 39 per cent of the most common cancers, including breast and bowel, could be prevented through following a good diet, exercising and keeping weight under control. Dr Thompson said: "It's important to dispel the myth that cancer is just down to genes. "The evidence shows that an unhealthy diet and low activity levels cause three times more cancer cases than genes. "It could possibly be even more than this, if only five per cent of cancers are as a result of our genes, then an unhealthy diet and lifestyle could cause eight times more cancer cases. "If people do have a family history, then this is important information for them personally, but overall this inherited genetic predisposition is uncommon. "Specific genes for breast and bowel cancer have been identified, but these are rare and account for a very small percentage of cancer cases, whereas more than a third of the most common cancers could be prevented by following a healthy diet, being physically active and maintaining a healthy weight." According to scientists at the WCRF, people who inherit these genes have a higher than average risk of cancer, but they will not certainly go on to develop the disease. Even those whose genes mean they are at a higher than average risk can help cut their chances of developing cancer by eating a healthy diet with lots of fruits, vegetables and wholegrains, reducing their salt and alcohol intake and avoiding processed meats. Dr Thompson said: "When you add not smoking into the healthy lifestyle mix, this 39 per cent becomes even higher. "In fact those who have inherited genes should pay closer attention to their lifestyle as there is probably still a lot they can do to reduce their risk. "Many think that inherited genes or simply bad luck are the only factors in cancer development and it's about time that myth was laid to rest. "It is clear that choosing a healthy diet and being more physically active are important ways to help prevent many cancers." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthne...scientists.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralDogma Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Sigh... Link and link. I have provided you with the specific gene involved in sickle cell anemia. As well as a 3d representation of the protein involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcho-Capitalist Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Next you are going to post a article from a MD claiming AIDS is caused by poppers or the HIV meds. That doesn't change the facts that are easily provable scientifically, yet you completely ignore the science itself over a misguided belief that if we live naturally, we will never get sick. I live naturally, and I will never get a degenerative disease. Also, I've never been vaccinated, even at birth. Link and link.I have provided you with the specific gene involved in sickle cell anemia. As well as a 3d representation of the protein involved. Government propaganda. Typical collectivist racial bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralDogma Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Government propaganda. Typical collectivist racial bias. If you are willing to submit your own version of HBB or perhapse chromosome 11, I, as well as the entire scientific community involved in this type of research, would be more than willing to look it over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcho-Capitalist Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 If you are willing to submit your own version of HBB or perhapse chromosome 11, I, as well as the entire scientific community involved in this type of research, would be more than willing to look it over. If you make people believe that their bodies are out of their hands, then they will submit to whatever government BS is churned out, as you have. You should read about how the body works rather than fall prey to scaremongering like most people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacemf Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 lol firstly if you read any med book it will say things like "this particular cancer is more common in blacks" etc etc.......like SKIN CANCER for example! doesnt mean it doesnt occur in other races, just more common Also medical research is just crap! cos papers that come out never really help with deicisions, as some say "wine is good" others say "wine is bad" today's medicine is based more on assumptions/guesses! just read up on some topics and you'll find the answer is "we dont know why........." Also didnt anybody watch law and order SVU??? not vaccinating leads to the death of Hiliary Duff's baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 I don't know why you guys bother. If you were arguing with someone that was on the fence and not quite sure and just looking for the facts, it'd be one thing, but this guy is a full-blown believer of religious proportions that has no interest in being convinced and only wants to push his offensive conspiracy nonsense. You cannot reason with these people. It does not deserve three replies, let alone three pages. One link to the facts so people who stumble upon the thread will be able to find it is enough, and the thread can then be left to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbba Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8020837.stm "Genes 'have key role in autism' Scientists have produced the most compelling evidence to date that genetics play a key role in autism. " Still sure it's the scary vaccines? :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O.G Posted April 30, 2009 Author Share Posted April 30, 2009 (edited) Mercury buildup in humans can be tested from the hair. Less than 14 ppm have no health impact and individuals will not show any symptoms until about 50 ppm. If it gets over 1000 ppm then you will have serious neurological problems leading to death. Perhaps for normal healthy adults, not for developing children, and assuming those "safe" levels are accurate which is something else to have had epic screw up's in the past. The "safe level" set by USEPA is 0.1 micrograms/kg per day. That is a max daily intake of about 7 micrograms per day for an average adult. Mercury doses in vaccines given to children have been found to contain up to 240 micrograms of mercury. You may be able to avoid long term damage from exposure to tiny ammount provided your body is capable of getting rid of the mercury, but to attempt to say that a single dosage given to a child that is 34 times the adult "safe" limit is not going to cause severe problem , well, quite an ignorant assumtion. There are no "safe" levels of mercury and to believe otherwise is frankly idiotic. The levels of mercury being found in fish is at high enough levels to place children in a high risk catagory of contamination, so much so that it has been stated by various food standards agencies that consumption of those fish should be greatly reduced. Mercury does not naturaly occur in fish, at least in the levels found, and it is a result of pollutants and should not be there. Nor should it be consumed by people under any curcumstances. Mercury based preservaitives may have been in the process of being phased out, in the US, but it is still used elsewhere in the world and vaccine manufacturers in the US still produce mercury based vaccines for use outside of the US. If it was actually safe, why phase it out in vaccines and why tell folk to stop eating as much fish? Perhaps its their roundabout way of saying "you caught us, we give up, we lied". Edited April 30, 2009 by O.G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Mercury based preservaitives may have been in the process of being phased out, in the US, but it is still used elsewhere in the world and vaccine manufacturers in the US still produce mercury based vaccines for use outside of the US. If it was actually safe, why phase it out in vaccines Nothing is "completely safe," and it makes sense to eliminate even any hypothetical risks if it's possible, even if nothing has shown that they were a problem. This though, is a matter of luxury. Mercury-free alternatives have recently become feasible despite the substantial increase in cost, as rich western nations can handle it. Not everyone has that option, so it becomes the lesser of two evils (even if the risk is just hypothetical). Accept vaccines containing thimerosal, accept the increased risk of contaminated vaccines (which has killed), or not vaccinate at all? Or should America foot the bill? It's the same way certain very wealthy western countries ban genetically modified crops. They can do this even if there is no proven danger, but the poor might not be able to do it if it means slicing the yield and resistance in half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhon Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 I thought the cause of most cancer was high acidity in the blood. And if I am not mistaken allot of forms of cancer and still unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarcho-Capitalist Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 No there are not "many" cases where children recover from cancer by eating a few extra carrots, and chemotherapy is not a "near assurance of death." Stop your conspiracy bull****.A child is not a ****ing possession that you should be able to do with as you please, it is a living person with a right to a future. It is not legal to take your child out back and shoot it, so it should not be legal to murder it through negligence either. Maybe you should look at the survival rate of chemo patients... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brentaal Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 However, what you don't see in the media are the atheist parents who take their kids to clinics in Europe that specialize in alternative treatment and all their kids end up alive and well. If that's the case, where do you see it from? Books on 'alternative medicine'? Rawr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts