Replies

Uhm...a chemical injected into the body - would cause damage...who'd a thought?

A mind unable to process simple concepts and information, who's surprised?

The purpose of chemotherapy is to use the cancer cell's relatively rapid proliferation and impaired cell repair mechanisms against it. Generally it's been found that they die more rapidly than non-cancerous cells and recover less easily. The same is true for radiation. The whole point of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation is to knock out enough of the cancer cells that recovery can take place. In the current news, it has been discovered that the response of healthy cells is to produce a protein to protect themselves. This protein can diffuse to the deranged cancer cell and make it more resistant to further insult from a chemical agent. Does this mean that chemotherapy is bad or ineffective? No, it just means that the situation is more complicated than previously understood and it also provides a basis for designing something to interfere with the cancer cells' benefitting from the response of surrounding healthy cells.

You have a very weird view of chemicals anyway. That appears to be a large part of your problem.

Our bodies are chemical machines that run on chemicals. They also produce chemical by-products that are very toxic. The body has ways of dealing with them that are more or less effective. There are chemicals in food that we don't need for purposes of nutrition. The body has ways of dealing with them that are more or less effective. Sometimes other chemicals are added to food and packaging to keep "food" from spoiling. Why? Because the danger posed by those chemicals is minuscule compared to the danger posed oxidation or by mold and bacteria the growth of which those chemicals are designed to retard.

In a day in which we have food of unparalleled quantity, quality, and availability in a way never before seen in history to the point that people are developing life-threatening conditions from too much of a good thing and in a day when analytical chemistry has become so advanced that parts per trillion can be detected of one chemical, it's inevitable that at least two things will occur:

1. Someone will start demanding governmental regulation to reduce your intake of food to prevent you from developing diseases arising from hypernutrition.

2. Someone will start pointing out the presence of naturally-occurring chemicals in food that, in sufficient quantity, could sicken or kill you and demand that something be done to regulate them.

Sort of like what they did back in the 1960s and 70s when people eager to get their hands on the levers of government power and remake the United States into their vision of a socialist utopia warned that we were being exposed to an ocean of man-made carcinogens against which we had no defenses (but them and their regulatory urges) and that by the 1990s there would be a cancer epidemic if we didn't regulate immediately and regulate well through something like, well, the EPA and other agencies so that we could then be free of man-made chemicals and live in peace and healthful harmony with benign nature.

They used the Ames test to show the danger of mutability posed by certain industrial chemicals that they claimed needed to be regulated for the sake of health. It was later, after the regulatory camel was in the tent, that Ames himself showed that almost anything could be used in his test to provoke mutability and others demonstrated that nature, far from being benign, was full of dangerous chemicals that could cause cancer and many, many other forms of illness, and yet people managed to keep living and reproducing.

But wherever there's a danger, no matter how slight, you will always find people eager to be frightened and to impose their fears on others. And they are usually not content to do so by using their own money to attempt to persuade others to follow what they promise will be freedom from disease and death but by getting the government to impose on other people, using other people's money, their utopian vision.

“Someone will start demanding governmental regulation to reduce your intake of food to prevent you from developing diseases arising from hypernutrition.”

I don’t have a simple - and how rude of you to make such assumptions.

The problem with the US public as of now - is not “quality” of food - it’s over-processed and lacks nutrients. That is a fact - not an opinion. Giving the body nutrients is not a bad thing. Taking pills is.

Cancer rates have soared in the last 30 yrs - and it’s due to large volume of food being processed for easy meals - easy pick-up - and the results is a population that is fat and sick all the time.

Other cultures that do not participate in the US Diet don’t have these problems. Japan for one.

The last thing I want is more govt, control - but that’s what we have in corn and soy production. I live in Indiana and I fly my own helicopter - and it’s all I see in the vastness of this state.

Per Cancer - I’m very familiar with it. I’ve conducted research studies from an Anti-Terrorism perspective on germ warfare - and cancers were the initial phases of that.

As the results - my father died from such treatments - his immune system destroyed - and he received his bone marrow transplant from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Wash. At the time it was the best place to go for such traditional cancer treatments.

I love it when people get on here and are rude - knowing nothing about me - with one liners.