Quote: (03-14-2012 08:43 AM)Pilgrim37 Wrote:
Can any of you with a science/medical background tell me if this guy in the interview is talking any sense or is it unproven /bullshit.
Some of the things he's going on about are scary i.e. the corporate drug/medical industry wants high cancer rates and his accent makes it scarier!
Thoughts off the top of my head as I watched this video:
- The rise in cancer rates is generally attributed the fall of death by other means. In 1900 there was no penicillin or anti-tb drugs. Syphilis was an incurable disease which would slowly drive you insane then kill you. Tuberculosis was another deadly disease mostly afflicting the western world, where the cold wet climate as well as urbanisation facilitated its spread. Caesarian sections and peri-labour care meant many babies died. There was no effective treatment for hypertension and diabetes. People were dying of other things before dying of cancer. Cigarette smoking, which strongly correlates with cancer risk, was not yet established as a pasttime of the working and middle classes. Again, it's really hard to die of cancer if you've died of something else.
- In 1700 there were no chemicals. You had TB, you had it for life. You had syphilis, you had it for life. You had gonorrhoea, you had it for life. You had diabetes, the doctor would taste your sweet sugary urine, look at you with compassionate eyes, and tell you that you only had months to live. There were no vaccines, so people died of polio.
- People that are vaccinated tend not to die of the diseases that they are vaccinated against. Hence they may have a higher risk of dying of cancer, simply because so many other options have been removed. This may be a case of confusing correlation with causation.
- To say that anything causes anything is unscientific. Medicine is now evidence-based, not expert based, and thus relies on probabilities rather than certainties. Modern medicine is kind of like quantum physics, eg. we cannot say smoking causes cancer, but we do say that the probability of cancer in a smoker is higher. Any expert yelling about 'causes' is preying on the lay publics non-understanding of scientific medicine. As a doctor I'm not interested in the statement that 'vaccines cause cancer,' I would rather know the probability risks involved. If a vaccine, when checking for confounding, raises you cancer risk by 0.01%, but reduces your risk of dying of polio or measles by 99.95%, which odds would you rather play with? I'm more scared of polio than I am of cancer.
- Vaccines are strongly correlated to a reduced risk of the disease you're being vaccinated against. I admit that vaccines don't always work. But against, if I vaccinate you, I'm not saying your risk for a disease is down 100%, I'm saying you are now in a low-probability group for getting the disease.
- Vaccines don't work? Then why is polio so rare in countries with polio vaccination programs? While it's impossible to prove causation, such a strong correlation does imply that vaccination works.
- Mental and emotional stress may lead to immune suppression, and since one of your immune system jobs is to destroy cancer cells, yes stress may increase your risk of cancer. (Most people seem to believe cancer is an either/or thing, that you either have it or you don't. The truth is that you generate cancer cells all the time, but that your immune system quietly destroys them before they have a chance to establish themselves. In all likelihood you have cancer cells in you while you are reading this. Having cancer cells doesn't necessarily mean you will develop cancer, but having a weak immune system may prevent your cancer destroyers from working optimally). That said, to say it is the only cause is stretching the theory a bit far.
- I agree that the practice of medicine has been hijacked by pharamceutical companies, gradually turning doctors into the pillpushers they are today.
- I'm not aware of good scientific trials regarding vitamin therapy with cancer. Since most trials are paid for pharmaceutical companies pursuing a patent, and since vitamins by their nature are non-patentable, in all likelihood there will be not trials as such. Some small trials have been done which either show no benefit or a worsening of cancer. Vitamin E, for example, increases your risk of prostate cancer. The hypothesis is that by taking vitamins, you actually feed your cancer, making yourself unhealthier. Cancer cells that go on to make tumours are by their very nature super-absorbent of nutrients, and will get first to the table if you take vitamins and will eat them up and grow.
- There is nothing natural about pumping 1g of Vitamin C IVI into your arm.
- I would not rule out that high dose vitamin therapy may help treat cancer. One hypothesis is that only by giving megadoses will you allow your body to be supplemented, since the tumour will eat away your vitamins preferentially. But who will pay for such studies? A drug trial costs millions, and vitamin C cannot be patented, so the cost cannot be recovered. You'd need the government to run such a trial, but if the trial fails then everyone will argue that the government is wasting tax money.
- If something has no side-effects then it probably has no effects to speak of. At the very least, an active compound may bring the risk of an allergic reaction.
- Vaccination has not been correlated well with death. It's true that people with vaccinations eventually die. People without vaccinations also eventually die. He needs to point out what kind of death he is referring to and what is the risk increase in that death with a vaccine. If you risk of dying of cancer because you are NOT dying of measles,mumps, or rubella because of a vaccine, that may be an even trade-off.
- I agree that healthcare is distorted by money interests. Doctors need to take back their profession.
- Refined, processed food does seem to correlate with cancer risk, especially with gastrointestinal tumours. It seems dose dependent. The more junk you eat, the higher your risk. That's not to say you
will get cancer, remember that in medicine we deal with probabilities, not absolutes.
- Cures are achieved in some cancers by chemo and radiation therapy. However, a lot of oncologists insist on chemo and radiation even when the prognosis is hopeless. So a lot of people may be getting it needlessly, when they should be allowed to die in peace. An oncologist makes a lot of money pumping drugs into even when the mortality improvement may only be 5% or so. There's a conflict of interest, so yes it may sometimes seem like murder, but some people do get cured.
- I agree that a lot of diseases are due to people disrespecting their bodies. Many people treat themselves like shit and then are surprised they get ill.
- The word 'cancer' covers a wide diversity of diseases of malregulation of cell growth. The man talks about a single cure. I find it difficult to believe that the entire spectrum of cancers can be cured with a single treatment plan. That's ignoring the enormous range of cancerous disease.
- He manages to pull of a pink tie and shirt really well. Thumbs up for suits.
- Again, there is nothing natural about vitamin therapy. If it was natural, you could pick IV lines and pills off the vitamin trees. Any guy spouting natural is someone to be wary of.
- This guy has his own agenda, as much as he rails against the system. His promises are too good to be true.
![[Image: wink.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Also, smoking damages the throat cilia as well. It also causes metaplasia 
