New Finding...Nearly 2/3 of Cancer Caused by Natural Mutations

They're not telling the whole story.

Mutations in the DNA is also responsible for us to evolve from living in trees to be able to walk upright.

You are correct, any organism that achieved perfect replication of DNA would be at an evolutionary disadvantage, and would have been left behind. So there is likely an optimum level of replication error rate, not too much nor too small, for survival of the species.

But if you are beyond the age of reproduction, there is no evolutionary pressure for accurate replication of DNA, and, in fact, there may be pressure in the other direction, removing us old folk who are still consuming resources but not producing more children. So there may be a different "optimum replication error rate" for older people, "optimum" for the species as a whole if not for the individuals.

Nature invented planned obsolescence.

You are,... the weakest link. You must go. Lol...

Maybe not "removing us old folks", but maybe to reduce the number of us. We old folks have a lot to pass down to the next generation(s).

I've also thought that as we age (get old), our bodies don't function as well - the DNA may not replicate as well as when we were younger. The number of mutations increases and our body cannot fight it off and at some point we lose the battle. Or, with all these novel, new medicines, we don't have to fight it off on our own. The medicines fight it off for us and we live longer. Probably longer than was originally planned, hence now we have overpopulation.

The answer? Soylent Green!

Who gets the privilege of deciding? The Obama style death panel, no thanks.

I see them coming for me or my wife, and they will be dodging lead. They will have to pry my cold, dead fingers off the shotgun. Maybe they would prefer that.

I think a gunfight (high noon style) between the politician and the person they are trying to affect could be a real answer to this bull crap! One or two sessions, the rest of the politicians would get out of town before sunset.

But if you are beyond the age of reproduction,

WAYYYYY beyond here.

This is not exactly news. But it is good to remind people that cancer really is some thing that can happen to anyone at any time for no apparent reason.

What intrigues me is that the cell does have a DNA error correction mechanism that most of the time prevents errors from manifesting into a problem.

But it is good to remind people that cancer really is some thing that can happen to anyone at any time for no apparent reason.

Back in college, I had an instructor in one of my Environmental classes. And he stated that it can be (1) thing you were exposed to that will trigger a cancer cell to develop. And that's hard to track down.

Whether one was exposed to something that was carcingentic once, say smoked (1) cigarette when you were 12 years old or even second hand smoke as an example.

I myself think its in your genes, I know of people who smoked cigars at least once a day, (along with a fifth of whiskey.) and was healthy as a horse well in their 90's.

On the other hand, I knew of some people who lived a very healthy life style, exercised and still expired in their late 30's and early 40's from various ailments.

As far as that DNA error correction,... I understand it as more like a Band-Aid type of correction.

As far as that DNA error correction,... I understand it as more like a Band-Aid type of correction.

I kind of think of it as a handyman that keeps things fixed in a building. As long as damage doesn't accumulate too quickly, he can keep up. At some point, when the building gets old, he may be overwhelmed, and things may break down faster than he can fix them.

I kind of think of it as a handyman that keeps things fixed in a building. As long as damage doesn't accumulate too quickly, he can keep up.

kinda like this guy...

That seems to be due to a reduction in the metabolic kinetic pathways involved, and also seems likely to me that oxidation of free NAD+ by further free radical attack, or other oxidants, could lead to Ox-NAD+ (no further description) that is a known inhibitor of cellular metabolism.

Not only that, the telomeres are starting to fail in old age. Fidelity of the "record" becomes somewhat diminished.

Here is a recent article on DNA Repair...

The body's ability to repair DNA damage declines with age, which causes gradual cell demise, overall bodily degeneration and greater susceptibility to cancer. Credit: © rolffimages / Fotolia

I think the telomeres (at the ends of the chromosomes) have a role in sequence correction, and regeneration of fidelity of the strands, if I understood my crash course correctly.

I hate that the medical community refuses to investigate all potential cures or retarding agents of cancer to help patients fight back. They seem to only push what comes out of their own community, and if anything new information (such as the amazing effects of turmeric) comes forth, they simply wave it off, and go for the most toxic fluoridated or radioactive thing they can find. Operation success! Patient still dead!

Here here! Just because it's not profitable their attitude is it's not worthwhile....I recently discovered vit C can cure skin cancer....just rub a paste made from ascorbic acid and water on the tumor, daily, over a course of weeks....God bless the internet! because my doctor never mentioned it....no the only way to treat these is to freeze it off or surgically remove it....Ha!

you're on to "THEM"

$$$$

I recently discovered vit C can cure skin cancer...

This I didn't know, what type of skin cancer?

As I understand it,... there are a lot of cures out there that was shelved for that very reason.

Linus Pauling was the first (perhaps) to tout the massive doses of Vitamin C for best health. I am nearly old enough to remember that, LOL!

This is the first time I heard of topical vitamin C, but it does not surprise me in the least. The academic style medical researcher always seems commanded to poo poo any such common sense when it comes to cancer or any other disease.

I guess they think anything natural can't possibly work in nature? WTF, over?

Stupid a$$eS!

I recall being told in grade school, (mid 60's.), your body can only absorb so much Vitamin C, and it expels the rest.

That statement only is referenced to the ingestion of Vitamin C. No one was talking about smearing it on.

I have treated Basal Cell carcinoma successfully...and keratosis....there are tons of references on the internet...and a clinical trial

"Topical Vitamin C Stops Basal Cell Carcinoma

(OMNS Nov 9 2007) The most common form of skin cancer, basal cell carcinoma, often responds to a remarkably simple, safe, at-home treatment: vitamin C. Physicians and patients report that vitamin C, applied directly to basal cell skin cancers, causes them to scab over and drop off. [1] Successful use involves a highly-concentrated vitamin C solution, directly applied to the blemish two or three times a day. Vitamin C is selectively toxic to cancer cells, but does not harm healthy skin cells. This is also the basis for high-dose intravenous vitamin therapy for cancer. [2] Even higher concentrations of vitamin C can be obtained by direct application. The use of topical vitamin C to kill basal cell carcinoma has been known at least since 1971. Frederick R. Klenner, MD, wrote: "We have removed several small basal cell epithelioma with a 30 percent ointment" of vitamin C. [3]

One person, who reported that a 2mm diameter spot on the nose would not heal for months, had it disappear within a week with twice-daily concentrated vitamin C applications. Another patient reported that after dermatologist-diagnosed multiple spots of basal cell carcinoma were coated with vitamin C, the spots fell off within two weeks. [4]

Basal cell carcinomas are slow growing and it is rare for them to metastasize. This provides an opportunity for a therapeutic trial of vitamin C, provided one has proper medical diagnosis and follow-up.

Preparation of a water-saturated vitamin C solution is simple. Slowly add a small amount of water to about half a teaspoon of vitamin C powder or crystals. Use just enough water to dissolve the vitamin C. Using less water will make a paste. Either way, application with the fingertip or a cotton swab, several times daily, is easy. The water will evaporate in a few minutes and leave a plainly visible coat of vitamin C crystals on the skin.

Consult your doctor before employing this or any other self-care treatment. A physician’s diagnosis is especially important, since other forms of skin cancer, such as melanoma, are faster growing and more dangerous. If the vitamin C treated area is not improved after a few weeks, a doctor should be consulted once again."

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n12.shtml

Does it matter if the form of the Vitamin C is as the free acid, or like as in Ester-C?

Another question: does it have to be Vitamin C, or can it be the isomer (Erythorbic Acid).

I have used sodium ascorbate and ascorbic acid both seem to work....the sodium ascorbate seems to be more gentle...

http://whitakerwellness.com/health-concerns/alternative-cancer-treatments/skin-cancer-treatment/

http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/basal.php

https://sites.google.com/a/cancerknow.com/cancer-knol/skin-cancer/my-experience-with-vitamin-c-and-basal-cell-carcinoma

http://cancerwife.com/content/topical-vitamin-c-claimed-heal-basal-cell-carcinoma

Here's the recommendations for treatment from Sloan-Kettering...do you see vit C mentioned anywhere?

https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/types/basal-cell-carcinoma/treatment-basal-cell-carcinoma

No, it was not on the list, the menu, the door down the hall, or anywhere in the building, or the complex of buildings. Too bad, they missed a golden goose there.

Counterpoint: they missed the golden goose, because for them, only high priced treatments over years is what makes their pockets lined with gold.

I am sorry, but doctors are some of the greediest bastards around, even including bankers, lawyers, and wall street movers.

OMNS?!? Come on. This looks like reliable peer reviewed research to you?

OMNS promotes homeopathy and supports abstaining from childhood vaccination. Just consider how much those two things are helping before deciding what else you want to trust their opinion on.

The cost of trying it, and not succeeding is what exactly? Not much, AFAICT!

The cost of trying it and not succeeding? Homeopathy? Eschewing vaccination? Home remedy cancer treatment?

"Not much" Seriously^?

I place a lot of value on life as I think you do as well.

The treatments promoted are not being pushed as an adjunct to modern treatment but an alternative. There are many diseases for which time is of the essence, and a lot of harm can be done with a wait and see attitude.

Totally agree. I was referring to the adjunct form of treatment, so that success is not as much measured by the traditional treatment, but by the combination, and quick or not quick results appear that are favorable. One does not expect 100% favorable results in 100% of cases at all times, because that would be just silly.

Thank you for providing a great example of the seductive nature of hunan bias.

Even the most disciplined minds fully versed in testing methodologies and the pitfalls of straying, can fall victim to falacious thinking when it involves something too close.

"I tried it and it worked , period"

? The 'period'means what? That you refuse to consider it further? Hope not. How reliable is u our trial of one? Wasn't double blind was it? What other factors might have influenced your outcome? How certain are you of initial diagnosis and final outcome? How did it compare to control? What is your confidence interval?

.

"...and I'm not the only one...."

So far we have, reliance on anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias, illusory truth effect, insensitivity to sample size, and possibly illusion of validity. Not bad.

Did I miss any? If anyone sees some I missed, let me know.

Did I miss any? If anyone sees some I missed, let me know.

A consensus.

You are certainly welcome to offer an opposing viewpoint based on personal experience...? ...ok, anybody's personal experience....? any study you can cite...? ...anything other than a skeptical attitude....? You see I was skeptical when I read these claims too....but then I tried it, so between the 2 of us, I'm the only one with firsthand experience....

No. It is not up to the skeptic to disprove claims based on a non-double-blind study with one data point.

I am expressing skepticism. I will be skeptical until reasonable research is presented. I don't actually believe that your treatment doesn't work, I just don't believe there is enough evidence to say it does.

What exactly does your firsthand experience tell you? Did you actually get it diagnosed this time, or was it just similar enough that you feel you can self diagnose? Are you certain that the cancer is actually gone and not just masked? How do you know? What do you expect your rate of recurrence to be?

I'm not selling anything, and I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I'm just saying it worked for me....and I have read accounts from other people stating the same thing....Can I tell the difference between a pimple and a Basal cell tumor, well I haven't been wrong yet....Will they come back, I don't think so because as soon as one appears I now know how to stop it in it's tracks....they die a lot quicker than they grow....

SolarEagle, I decided to look for research on using vitamin C to treat basal cell carcinoma.

The aearch was not completely fruitless, but it isn't much to go on. I found just one study.

Aside from being the only study I could flind, the size was just. 6 patients. Furthermore, this appears to be a 'best case', type of study, basically a collection of positive outcome attempting to demonstrate correlation with positive outcomes. 'Best case' studies are very low utility for demonstrating efficacy

I meant to post a link to the study...

http://www.eblue.org/article/S0190-9622(16)30032-9/abstract

Which only shows that treatments that are effective against cancer(and probably other maladies) are not investigated by the medical community if they are not shown to be profitable... Now you know if some pharmaceutical company had discovered a potential cure for cancer it would be front page news all over the world....Imagine a cure with no side effects, when's the last time you heard that?

"...Which only shows...."

.

*Sigh. I was just trying to help.

It is astonishing that you have decided both:

that the dearth of clinical peer reviewed studies on the efficacy of vitamin C on basal cell carcinoma is evidence is evidence of the evil, profit-only singular motivation of the medical community (especially in light of the numerous studies on the efficacy of vitamin c towards other cancers);

and that this 'best-case' type investigation (which could only find or be bothered to document 6 cases supporting the hypothesis) demonstrates to any reasonable degree that this treatment is effective.

.

You seem thoroughly and unalterably convinced that of the exact outcome of your own case, the relation of that outcome to the treatment you administered, and the relevance in total of that data point as you see it to the reliability and recomendability of the treatment.

.

How is it that you know there are no side effects? Most side effects do not present themselves in 100% of patients.

Is that why my skin falls off when I peel an orange? Really?

You have to do better than that.

I think one could possibly bathe in Ascorbic acid solution with no ill effect, other than a slight rectal itch.

Wash thoroughly in plain water after about 15 minutes, otherwise, there could be a serious exfoliation event.

Doctors like other experts sometimes develop what is known as simplex myopia. They cannot see what is right in front of their nose.

If it is not (1)toxic as hell, (2) radioactive to the extent that patient literally glows, or derived from some obscure plant in an Amazon jungle, it can't possibly demonstrate efficacy.

The question is not about topical vitamin C itself. The question is about the methodology, what conclusions can be drawn from a study with one participant and what certainly those conclusions provide for treatment of others.

OK, so dial back in the history of medicine (not medical history of one patient), and see if there has ever been the discovery of a cure that began with one and only one patient being treated.

You may be pleasantly surprised, or not.

This topic has stirred up a hornet's nest. I wanted to point out that corruption and cover ups are documented in the health care industry, not only indicated by the information related in the following three links but in other places also:

https://www.sott.net/article/336335-NIH-scientist-Dr-Mahin-Khatami-exposes-corruption-in-cancer-and-vaccine-industries

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40169-016-0126-1#Fn11_source

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/23/dr-nicholas-gonzalez-on-alternative-cancer-treatments.aspx

Recently, there has been a significant amount of corruption exposed concerning vaccines which have caused a significant amount of documented health issues as a result of being vaccinated. Watching the Vaccines Revealed episodes is an eye opener. And then there are the glyphosate and EMF issues, and so on. It seems like unless big pharma is behind a cure, then it can't work, it's no good. It's interesting how man's wisdom works. Something as simple and inexpensive as vitamin C and other supplements to cure or mitigate health issues is something that is incredulous to some people and they just cannot grasp it. They are close minded.

Believe it or not, some people still think the world is flat.

"Believe it or not, some people still think the world is flat."

Who, specifically? I don't think that group is very large. It would also be a safe bet that however many are in that small group, they are far less likely to be people with enough scientific literacy to avoid getting caught up in the ongoing antivaccination buffoonery, than people who are so easily mislead.

Of course there is corruption in medicine. It is a vastly huge industry. Did you really think any human endeavor so large would be the one exception to the rule, having none of the bad human traits exhibited? Absurd. Please tell me what industry has no corruption.

Now about the glyphosate and EMF big pharma is dosing you with. That sounds like something you should be concerned about. You should probably stay away from all electronic devices...especially anything with a keyboard (virtual or physical) and monitor. Also stay inside and don't eat any food you didn't grow yourself.

Wow. Hydroponics here we come!

Didn't you get the memo: The Earth is Flat.

(disclaimer if anyone believes the pretext assumptions involved in the 10 "proofs", then they really need to go to a safe place, sit down, stop thinking, and definitely do not decide anything important for the next 50 years)

We all know that charlatans abound, and offer up every thing they can come up with as a way to make money off the unsuspecting masses. It makes it hard to sort out the signal from the noise (the weeds of life), when searching for common sense solutions to every day challenges, some just throw the entire baby out with the bath water, and take no advice. These folks are not that much worse off, but could be missing some real jewels.

Go forth! Seek the Pearl of Great Price! A stone in a field is just a stone (unless it is a huge freaking diamond). Look, seek, learn, discern. Those Pearls of Wisdom still cry out for discovery!

There is a balm in Gilead, and there is a flag in Goliad ("come and take it").

Not every simple remedy is a panacea, but many of them do help. Whatever happened to the little blue bottle of ear drops mothers formerly used for ailing children with painful ears? Was a doctor specific concoction? Was it Vicks drops? What was it, and where did it go?

Not every home remedy is even safe or efficacious.

Not every organization involved in cancer research is corrupt. Too often I see people painting details with the widest possible brush.

"....a cure with no side effects...."

.

Yeah everything is going to have side effects. ....and I commend you on not specifying 'negative' or 'bad' side effects as that has more to do with subjective perspective and values than objective treatment.

Even the miraculous holy grail of treatments 'diet and exercise', that seems able to combat many diseases in the majority of people if the treatment it started soon enough (often that time is well before diagnosis), can have severe side effects. For example there is probably a correlation in younger adults between good diet/rigorous regular exercise and unplanned pregnancy or possibly contraction of certain STDS. Older adults on good diet and rigorous exercise may see poor returns on their term life insurance policies.

That is only if the eat right, exercise, and then go forth and screw like rabbits!

So then, do you give your doctor feedback when he or she prescribes a medication for your ailment, especially when they ask you to? I am ashamed to report I failed to do this for a recent visit. I will attempt to make contact before more than two weeks pass.

I think it probably helps the medical professional to hear positive feedback, both in terms of what is apparently working, and in psychological terms for both doctor and patient. It is polite to do so.

A good doctor receives this information gladly. A poor doctor may not, and will not get a return visit from me, if I can avoid.

The rigors of sound science are hard to hear under the din of the chaos of people living their daily lives. Sometimes a small, still voice...best listen and heed the advice.

Even seemingly simple mathematics and algebras may have more than one pathway to the solution. How can there only be one answer always the same in medicine?

We still have so very much to learn about the intricate workings of cells, our bodies, and our minds. They amazing thing is the human brain has the awareness of itself, the ability to understand what it is, and to study it in depth.

I do my best to provide feedback. This is driven by the most selfish of motivations; I want to get well/feel better. I disclose any and all significant changes I note about myself even if they don't seem very likely to be related.

Like you, I wouldn't repeat visiting someone who does not give indication they are evaluating the feedback.

This is the same group that says: "Don't vaccinate your kids, because vaccinations cause more harm than good" Or in other words; let your kids get sick and spread infectious disease, because some group told me to "follow the money trail" - or whatever the new "in" phrase is.

Friend of mine has a not-for-profit pharmaceutical company in SE Oklahoma, and they have an antibiotic topical application that has been shown to cure badly infected wounds on dogs (just one example), absolutely cures diabetic ulcers, is good for certain other applications (a big secret, but it stops the common cold dead in its tracks, at least it did for me). They also have a new stem cell topical product that stimulates the body's own stem cells to go active and repair such things as breaks in the spinal cord, with demonstrated recovery % related to time expired before first application (i.e. - the greater the time lag between injury and treatment, the less recovery). One documented victim was paraplegic, is now up and walking at last report.

To my mind, this engineer (yes he is), a true friend of mine, is nothing short of a miracle worker, but is perhaps the most humble man I have ever had contact with.

I am so blessed to have his friendship.

Doctor believes he found cure for sepsis

..."It just so happened that a few weeks earlier, Dr. Marik read about Vitamin C as a possible treatment for sepsis.

Septic patients are said to have little or undetectable levels of Vitamin C in their cells.

Keeping in mind that Vitamin C and steroids work similarly, Dr. Marik asked his staff to combine the two and inject them into the patient intravenously.

The results were unexpected.

Within hours, the patient was reportedly recovering. Within two days, Dr. Marik gave her an 'ok' to leave the ICU.

In the following days, two more patients, who were seemingly destined to die of sepsis, received this treatment. Twice more the patients recovered."...

http://www.9news.com/news/health/evms-doctor-believes-he-found-sepsis-cure/425264879

I like to add that the problem with more natural as well as simpler 'remedies', is that it opens the door for scam cures that do absolutely nothing except make the sellers money.

Another thing is that the determination of what is more natural or less natural is often quite arbitrary.

Which is more natural?

Vitamin C

or

2-oxo-L-threo-hexono-1,4-lactone-2,3-enediol

.

You may have guessed , it is the same thing.

I am sure that Ascorbic acid is offended by that remark! LOL.

Sounds like a wonderful idea, and a smart doctor, putting two together, and coming up a 10.

That's why it's called : practicing medicine.

Not : done practicing, perfection achieved.

"I recently discovered vit C can cure skin cancer....just rub a paste made from ascorbic acid and water on the tumor, daily, over a course of weeks..."

This would have been a better title for the thread. Thanks for this. I have had some removed surgically. I tried a lot of things first for a long time, but not vitamin C paste. You will never convince the sceptics. They probably don't believe we went to the moon either.

Sure you can convince the skeptics. Just hold a reasonable size trial of good method.

BTW, I am quite certain we went to the moon.

Vitamin C is amazing. When I start feeling the first signs of a cold or flu, I put a teaspoon of pure Vitamin C in a glass of orange juice. Tastes very bitter, but within minutes I'm feeling better. My sister is an herbalist and she told me that Vitamin C is effective (for fighting a cold/flu) only if you saturate your body. How do I saturate my body? A teaspoon a day should do it, but the way you know is that you start having a slight case of the runs.

I do the same thing, you can saturate with 4 grams of vit C every 4 hours, usually only takes one day, and if you catch it quick enough only one dose...I can't remember the last cold I had, I've been using this remedy for at least 30 years.....Now I take a preventative dose every few weeks I'll take 2 grams twice a day for 2 days...it seems to work as a prophylactic...no more colds...

This article is an odd presentation of cancer models. As presented, the article is ripe for misinterpretation, making it rather irresponsible.

Here are some things that get swept away in the catchy title:

The Knudson hypothesis is well supported. That is, most cancer appeara to need multiple incidents of dna damage to a cell to occur; cancer ocurring from a single dna damaging incident is probably very rare.

This means blaming the type of one damage event for a cancer would require very detailed knowledge of a specific cell's genetic/damage history, not simply odds of occurance of that type of damage.

Another huge consideration is that repair if dna damage is a regular process. The extent and type of damage may influence the likelihood of a good repair. The extent and type of damage could also be atrongly correlate to the cause of the damage.

.

There is another, very different, reason the title and theme of this article are irresponsible; not enough has ben don't to prevent harmful misinterpretation of claims. How many people do you know that would use the article to justify continuation of a harmful habit....?

"Why should anyone quit smoking /shooting heroin, natural mutation is twice as likely to give you cancer."

The Knudson hypothesis is well supported. That is, most cancer appears to need multiple incidents of dna damage to a cell to occur; cancer ocurring from a single dna damaging incident is probably very rare.

Sounds like we need more parity bits.

http://circuit.ucsd.edu/~yhk/ece154c-spr16/pdfs/ErrorCorrectionI.pdf

Look at that, lateral DNA (dna) repair for communal benefit. Thank you. Goes to show we continually strive to repair even on a conscious level.

If the errors are random and the corrections are purposeful, what does that say about any errors that are missed?

To get cancer is human, to overcome it is truly divine?

I agree with everything you have stated thus far, especially the irresponsible part. If someone I know (like me) was off cigarettes for a while, but after learning of wife's cancer (and other just exposed ailments), has stressed out to the max, and re-started smoking, only to be worse off that before, it is clearly his/her/their/my fault.

I therefore have no excuse, and must bear whatever penalty I face on my own.

what's out of the norm isn't always an error or bad.

I don't think anybody is denying that exposure to certain chemicals and radiation can cause dna mutations leading to cancer, but that dna mutations are a naturally occurring function of evolution, and that that, is the leading cause of cancer, is news to me....

I'm objecting based on a couple different factors:

One objection is that they haven't established a way to prove a single random event is the ultimate cause of a specific cancer. There is strong evidence that cancer genesis is a multi-hit process, not a single-hit-there-is-the-culprit process.

Another problem is the lack of defining specifics for which the 2/3 ratio might be true....and how that lack invites dangerous simplification and inappropriate wide application of the 'findings'. Which cancers? Which populations? What age groups? What risk factors?

For example, I have trouble believing that on average 60 -70 year old asbestos exposed mesothelioma patients or beryllium exposed beryliosis patients have 19 cohorts with other types of cancer.

Yet another problem. What is 'natural'. I assume they refer to background radiation exposure, in large part things like internal doses from things like K-41 and perhaps inhaled radon gas decay. Yet those are both things that are not unchangeable. It is a pretty thin line between these types of exposure and some other types that might be considered 'unnatural'.

.

I also don't believe anyone has to overtly say, "go ahead and smoke cigarettes, you'll die of cancer regardless" for that to be a likely internalized theme for some from this irresponsible report of 'findings'.

But it really doesn't matter that much anymore...I mean, just have them rub some vitamin C on when they notice it has metastasized. The internet proves it is a cure, so we are all good now.

G double D TNTC to you have to be so GD cynical all the F***ing time?

Lighten up, it is Friday!

Ditto...

I have struggled with Basal Cell Carcinoma for 20 years, and undergone several surgeries, I have searched for a cure all that time, and to find such a simple cure now, just by luck, not from some doctor, but from the internet, irks me to no end...I was just getting ready to schedule yet another surgery when I found this and decided to give it a try....eureka! it worked! You can't argue with reality....there are thousands of people saying the same thing...

I agree. So, what do you say to the people who tell you to live a clean, healthy life, to reduce your risk of cancer? One more round!???

Breaking news; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-24/dna-discovery-could-lead-to-anti-ageing,-cancer-fighting-drugs/8380850

NAD is very prevelant in our bodies, as stated in the video news release. What is NAD? Wikipedia article on it is quite clear:

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, a coenzyme found in all our cells.

The form shown is supposedly the NAD+ (oxidized) form, that is an electron receptor in cells, whereas NADH is the electron donors in cellular redox reactions. Very important. Biosynthesis is through the de novo or salvage pathways in cells.

I do not suggest everyone run out and start taking Niacin, but I neither believe Niacin to be harmful. Niacin also comes from red meat, eggs, and a number of other food sources. Sometimes persons with metabolic disorders can supplement with Niacin to improve metabolism, personal anecdote from doctors orders.

If this tidbit about NAD is true, and human trials are successful, then WOW!

For all I know, increases of reducing agents in the diet, such as Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) can influence the kinetics of metabolic cycles in the living cells as a supplemental source of energy to drive the cycles.

Concerning the first pararaph, I wonder why many hundreds of years ago then cancer was very rare? It would be nice if it was still that way but unfortunately it's not. See following links:

http://www.naturalnews.com/053890_causes_of_cancer_man-made_disease_ancient_Greece.html

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/03/30/the-war-on-cancer-a-progress-report-for-skeptics.aspx

Studies have shown that even low levels of EMF do have genotoxic effects.

One of the reasons cancer was less prevalent long ago was how many other ways to die were strong competitors.

If you die in child birth, or a fight or from the flu, you skip out on eventually getting cancer

So true! When my dad was a child, he caught pneumonia. He lost hearing on one ear and he almost died. They told him that if he gets pneumonia one more time in his life, he will die.

I watch old movies and children died of "the summer fever". Healthy one day - a few days later they're gone.

In some ways, we have come a very long way!

A while back we found one of my grandfather's grade school report cards. I had a good chuckle when I saw his only bad grade was in 'Health'. He had a 'D' with 'measles' written in the comments.

Times have certainly changed.

The percentage of total deaths from cancer was less.

Yes, wcart, "percentage of total deaths from cancer was less". That is to be expected.

Cancer becomes more prevalent with age. More time for mutations to occur, more time for a combination of mutations to be right to spark cancer.

When the things that commonly kill people at younger ages have been greatly reduced, as average life expectancy has grown, the percentage of deaths from cancer has increased. You didn't think that if a vaccine saved them from getting polio, that they would live forever, did you? The percentage of death as is going to add up to 100%. If you remove or greatly reduce certain causes, other causes will undoubtedly grow.

I have even seen theories that propose that all cancer is more like an invasion yeast (fungal) infection. That colon health has a very major role to play, where toxins and fungi can invade the body through the blood barrier in the colon, etc.

I don't know how much credence I would ascribe to these alternative theories of cancer, but it almost makes sense when one looks at anti-cancer agents, the effects of molecules like L-ascorbic acid, the effect of Tumeric, and certain natural products from exotic trees. In any biological study, isolation of variables to the level that any one of them is probative and directly causal, is very difficult to achieve in nearly every instance.

All I know is that I think cancer is almost as insidious as ISIS.

Thanks for the input.

I have a question on one portion....

"...After all, our cells naturally mutate - that is why we don't develop gills even though we have gill slits as embryos...."

You don't mean mutate in the genetic sense, as in permanently change DNA, do you? You mean mutate as in 'change form', right?

Excellent! A lot of good advice there, along with your medical expertise! Thanks for sharing.

"...after college I learned to care for the human-stock,..."

I certainly would not want a physician to be quoted out of context. LOL

That is precisely how us patients feel these days when we see one of you, {OH SNAP!!!} we don't actually "see" you do we, since the only ones to enter the cubicle are the nurse, and the PA. Actually, I prefer the PA's since they do not pretend to be gods, and do treat us all as fellow human travelers.

So put that in your pipe and smoke on it a while, Pilgrim!

Next time one of you geniuses sees a patient, try to be "human" with them if that is still in you!

Wasn't trying to "antagonize others about their choices or beliefs", I have found that as an enormous waste of energy, and doesn't really gain me anything at all.

If someone asks me an opinion, I am happy to render one, as I too, have an opinion.

IMO,...

It may not have been rare but very prevalent because it was misdiagnosed. Also compounded with a shorter life span that did not gave a chance for cancer to fully established itself.