Posted on 07/18/2013 3:37:50 PM PDT by neverdem
Do you have a sweet tooth? If so, your dietary habits could be significantly adding to your risk of developing cancer. New research published in the journal Nature Medicine has confirmed that processed sugar is one of the primary driving forces behind the growth and spread of cancer tumors, so much so that the future of cancer screening could rely on scanning the body for sugar accumulation.
Scientists from University College London (UCL) in the U.K. made this discovery after experimenting with a new cancer detection method that involves utilizing a unique form of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). After sensitizing an MRI scanner to look specifically for glucose in the body, it was revealed that cancer tumors, which feed off sugar, light up brightly as they contain high amounts of sugar.
"The new technique, called 'glucose chemical exchange saturation transfer' (glucoCEST), is based on the fact that tumors consume much more glucose (a type of sugar) than normal, healthy tissues in order to sustain their growth," explains a recent UCL announcement, noting that tumors appear as "bright images" on MRI scans of mice.
Traditionally, cancer screenings have involved the use of low-dose radiation injections to identify the presence of tumors, which makes sense as radiation is another known cause of cancer. The things that trigger and promote cancer development and spread, in other words, can also be used by doctors to detect it inside the body. And now sugar can officially be added to this list.
"The method uses an injection of normal sugar and could offer a cheap, safe alternative to existing methods for detecting tumors, which require the injection of radioactive material," says Dr. Simon Walker-Samuel, lead researcher of the study from the UCL Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging (CABI).
Interestingly, it was also noted by the study's senior author that the amount of sugar in "half a standard sized chocolate bar" is all it takes to effectively identify the presence of tumors using the glucoCEST method. This is astounding, as it suggests that even relatively low amounts of sugar have the potential to promote cancer proliferation.
The UCL study is hardly the only one to have identified a connection between processed sugar consumption and diseases like cancer. Other research, including that being currently being conducted by Dr. Robert H. Lustig, M.D., a Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), confirms that the bulk of chronic illnesses prevalent today are caused by sugar consumption.
You can watch a presentation from Dr. Lustig entitled Sugar: The Bitter Truth here: http://youtube.com
As far as cancer is concerned, hormones produced by the body in response to sugar consumption also feed cancer cells. This means that every time you down a soda or eat a piece of cake, your body produces certain chemicals that tell cancer cells to not only start taking up sugar, but also to grow in size and spread.
"What we're beginning to learn is that insulin can cause adverse effects in various tissues, and a particular concern is cancer," says Dr. Lewis Cantley, head of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) at Harvard University, as quoted during an interview with CBS' 60 Minutes.
"If you happen to have a tumor that has insulin receptors on it, then it will get stimulated to take up the glucose that's in the bloodstream," he adds. "So rather than going to the fat or to the muscle, the glucose now goes into the tumor, and the tumor uses it to grow."
Sources for this article include:
http://www.mdtmag.com
http://cancerdefeated.com
http://youtube.com
Republished from NaturalNews
Written by Jonathan Benson
A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet un-equivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
(This in case I am incorrect, and you are stupid.)
If you go back and look at the thread that seems to be keeping you awake at night, you'll find that your posts were "loony as a tune." I still think you should have taken the good doctor's advice. Had you done so, you wouldn't be whining on every thread about something most people forget about by dinner.
Is that what I did when I read both your posts? I misrepresented your position? Feel free to represent your position correctly.
plonk
You want me to pH strip test my urine? Why? Is there something you're looking for specifically, other than a reflection of what you've been eating? Besides, what does this have to do with your absurd suggestion that drinking a can of soda containing phosphoric acid will greatly depresses body pH?
That just won't happen, no matter how much you might want to believe it. Phosphoric acid is a very weak acid that is turned to sodium phosphate by your gut in very short order. It will not alter the pH of your stomach, your duodenum, or your small intestine. Whatever you've been reading, please stop.
Like Hippocrates said, give no man poison.
I wonder if Hippocrates ever heard of Paracelsus. He said, Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy.
You might want to remember that quote for future reference. It's taught to every student studying pathology.
I never was talking about blood ph by the way.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure of what you're talking about most of the time. Your saliva glands are fed by the bloodstream and they use the same buffer system as your blood. The pH of your saliva is reflective of your blood pH. Urine pH is also reflective of your blood pH. You worry far too much about your pH levels because you don't realize that your body has mechanisms that maintain your pH within very tight ranges. It's called the buffer system. You need to learn more about it, but not from the sources you currently employ.
But that is another subject I suspect we would diverge in. The organic vs chemical grown food thingie.
Organic vs. chemical grown food? Good grief, you never took a class in chemistry, did ya? I'm also going to hazard a guess that you don't know much about modern agriculture.
Normally I love to discuss this stuff, but you make it SO Hard.
Yeah, it's hard when people take issue with your nonsense. It would be so much easier if they simply swallowed what you were selling. Normally I would let it pass, and probably will in the future, but your posts are so riddled with misinformation that I had to point some if it out.
Have you ever noticed that the ones who know the least about a particular subject are always the first to whine and cry about being mistreated because you happened to point out their error(s)? If you don’t agree with them, and have the facts on your side, they become hyper-defensive, and lapse into hurt/victim mode, while accusing you of being mean and not conservative. How Alinsky of them.
We should stop pointing out their errors.
As long as the cow didn’t eat any GMO grain.
Sorry to step on your religion so much. Live with it.
As to the Ph test strip thing, deny it all you want it works. Try it before you deny it. And deny that fungus responds to that change all you want, it does. In an acidic environment it reproduces, in an alkaline one it goes to spore phase and is well know to do so. Just is, not my fault.
What ever. I can see you are over the top on this, someone offend you in the past or something?
Perhaps you did not know that there was a split in medicine between those that believe in God and those who deny in our history. Those who believe in God believe that there is supplied what we need to be healthy in nature, that if the body is given what it needs, it will repair itself. Hippocrates, or naturopathic branch.
Those who deny God think that the body is stupid and needs to be forced to repair itself. Paracelsus, or Adamic branch of medicine.
And the point, sugar in large doses is poisonous in its effect, spurs cancer and fungal growth and “modern” medicine is finally starting to discover that. Something that those silly old Naturopathic types have been saying for years.
I suggest you read more, rather than I stop.
Copernicus comes to mind.
I do not believe so. (apricot kernels) I a friend of mine who is a biochemist tried to get a compound concentrated from almonds that worked wonderfully on prostate cancer but the FDA shot him down. He was making the compound from the tiny seed kernel in the nut.
Would like to hear about it, but if you want to skip all the flack by the guys who worship at the altar of lab coats you might want to private mail me.
Actually organic chemistry is a passion of mine. (catalysis of fuels from biomass). Just think of the possibilities of a homebuilt trash furnace that runs your power meter backwards and spits out octane and benzene. That is a fun discussion!
However, I would rather make a sailboat...
Since you seem to be guessing what makes me tick.
Have you ever notice that people you treat with distain are offended? I have never thought stomping on someone’s foot and hearing them go ouch justified my position. But, to each his own.
As for the Todd, the guy is a troll, and loves to offend, never actually coming up with an original idea. You however at least make thoughtful statements. I only talk to Todd to poke him with a stick. He is entertaining at times.
Do us all a favor and don’t turn into another Todd. Never let what you know, keep you from learning more.
/s
there’s a lot of evidence out there that apricot kernels kill cancer cells, due to the cyanide in them and another chemical.
If you google Edward Griffin and B17 on Youtube, he gives a great presentation on how it all works.
The cyanide is released when it comes into contact with a cancer cell due to the cancer protein or something like that, but leaves healthy cells alone because they don’t have the same makeup.
My hubby and I eat about ten apricot kernels a day for cancer prevention, along with other supplements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.