Cancer. What is it and treatments.

[dogman6126]

This is a thread for a conversation that [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] and I were having in another thread. We figured it warranted starting a dedicated thread to the topic, so we will move the discussion here

We were talking about two questions, with a focus on the first of the two.

First is we differed on opinion of what cancer actually is, and second we were talking about "alternative" cancer treatments and a bit about the viability/reliability of currently accepted medical treatments for cancer. Anyone else please feel free to join in on the conversation

 

[dogman6126]

Ok muir, to go back to where we left off, I think my last question was as follows.

If cancer is a fungus as you suggested, then why doesn't anti fungal medication treat cancer, why is it that when they cut cancerous tumors open they don't find any fungus, and why would the guy who proposed the idea that cancer is a fungus treat it with calcium bicarbonate instead of an actual fungicide. Sodium bicarbonate is used to treat indigestion. Basically it is used to neutralize acids. Not even treat fungus.

 

[Faye]

As I understand, cancer definitely is not a fungus. Cancer is when damaged cells have alterations in the DNA which causes them to replicate nonstop. Whenever a new cell is created, the DNA has to be copied for it to be created. However, our bodies are not perfect, so the DNA is not copied perfectly, and the changes can result in cancer. Usually, white blood cells can recognize and remove the cancerous cells. Each of us has probably already had cancerous cells in our body, but our bodies took care of it, or that is what I've been told. People get 'cancer' as a disease when the body is unable to stop or deal with the unnecessary replication.

 

[dogman6126]

As I understand, cancer definitely is not a fungus. Cancer is when damaged cells have alterations in the DNA which causes them to replicate nonstop. Whenever a new cell is created, the DNA has to be copied for it to be created. However, our bodies are not perfect, so the DNA is not copied perfectly, and the changes can result in cancer. Usually, white blood cells can recognize and remove the cancerous cells. Each of us has probably already had cancerous cells in our body, but our bodies took care of it, or that is what I've been told. People get 'cancer' as a disease when the body is unable to stop or deal with the unnecessary replication.

That is my understanding as well
It's sad but somewhat interesting the number of possible causes and different variations inherent to a disease of mutation like cancer. I think cancer has the most subgroups of any disease.

 

[SpecialEdition]

Cancer can be healed and controlled through diet. If you can get your body to produce and live off of ketone energy it will starve out the cancerous cells and kill them off. Of course this isn't for ALL cancers, some of them you can't heal, but when caught early enough a high fat low carb diet is extremely effective. However, they don't tell you that because they'd rather pump people full of toxic chemicals to kill the cells off. It's pretty disgusting.

Sources are available if anyone is interested.

 

[Kgal]

As I understand - cancer is correlated with fungus when the body becomes out of balance in it's pH. We always have fungus cells within our body. When we get out of balance this allows the fungus to grow and eat the body. The same with cancer cells. I don't think they are the same type of cell - but they are influenced the same.

The reason why the man was using bicarbonate of soda is because it's alkaline. When the body is out of balance towards a negative pH - less than neutral of 7 - this then encourages the proliferation of either/both fungus and cancer cells.
When one introduces chemicals - either from foods or other sources - which help the body to increase the pH from less than 7 towards 7+ - this alters the environment and inhibits the growth of the fungus/cancer cells.

It is known consuming sugars and products which readily convert to sugars promote an acidic body.Coffee, beer, wine, alcohol of all forms lead to this as well. From chemistry we know some chemical reactions cannot take place when their environment is either too acidic or too alkaline. That's when the body begins to suffer.

 

[sprinkles]

As I understand - cancer is correlated with fungus when the body becomes out of balance in it's pH. We always have fungus cells within our body. When we get out of balance this allows the fungus to grow and eat the body. The same with cancer cells. I don't think they are the same type of cell - but they are influenced the same.

The reason why the man was using bicarbonate of soda is because it's alkaline. When the body is out of balance towards a negative pH - less than neutral of 7 - this then encourages the proliferation of either/both fungus and cancer cells.
When one introduces chemicals - either from foods or other sources - which help the body to increase the pH from less than 7 towards 7+ - this alters the environment and inhibits the growth of the fungus/cancer cells.

It is known consuming sugars and products which readily convert to sugars promote an acidic body.Coffee, beer, wine, alcohol of all forms lead to this as well. From chemistry we know some chemical reactions cannot take place when their environment is either too acidic or too alkaline. That's when the body begins to suffer.

Might be plausible.

However there's a difference. When fungus takes over, fungus is still normal for the fungus - the takeover results in upsetting the balance of microbiota. So the fungus is still being its usual self but for some reason or other, nothing is able to keep it in check and it takes over, similar to a virus or bacteria on a weakened immune system.

Cancer on the other hand is a symptom of something that was once normal changing its behavior and becoming abnormal for whatever cause.

 

[Kgal]

Might be plausible.

However there's a difference. When fungus takes over, fungus is still normal for the fungus - the takeover results in upsetting the balance of microbiota. So the fungus is still being its usual self but for some reason or other, nothing is able to keep it in check and it takes over, similar to a virus or bacteria on a weakened immune system.

Cancer on the other hand is a symptom of something that was once normal changing its behavior and becoming abnormal for whatever cause.

Right....that's why I said "correlated". Both types of cells are reacting to their environment.

And let's not forget that medical science wants to prove they are right - in order to receive funding - so they create labels and concepts of ideas for their research papers. For all you know the fungus cells could have similar dna/gene sequencing as the so called cancer cells which get triggered by their imbalanced environment.
There is no money to be made in "Fungus" research - yet.

In my view arguing over the very nature of the cells and whether they are the same or not gets us nowhere. What and how to balance the body gets us every where towards health and vibrance.

 

[sprinkles]

Right....that's why I said "correlated". Both types of cells are reacting to their environment.

And let's not forget that medical science wants to prove they are right - in order to receive funding - so they create labels and concepts of ideas for their research papers. For all you know the fungus cells could have similar dna/gene sequencing as the so called cancer cells which get triggered by their imbalanced environment.
There is no money to be made in "Fungus" research - yet.

In my view arguing over the very nature of the cells and whether they are the same or not gets us nowhere. What and how to balance the body gets us every where towards health and vibrance.

Yeah, I'm not basing this on medical knowledge or research. I'm basing it on taxonomy and knowledge of plants and other life forms and how environments tend to work.

For example, plants don't get cancer, but they do get fungus. In fact everything is pretty much covered in fungus. Most of it is microscopic but go into a forest and you can see it growing all over the sides of trees usually. Most of the time the fungus doesn't hurt the plant. However some types of fungus do kill trees and plants with no human interference - it happens. Some types of parasitic fungus on plants will kill off the leaves starting near the bottom of the plant, from being splashed up from the soil by heavy rain, and slowly rot the leaves and cause them to die off progressing up the plant. Other types of fungus can rot the roots and kill the entire plant.

In the deep woods you'll often times find deadfall, entire trees naturally fallen over and rotting, absolutely laden with all kinds of parasites, fungus, and wood eating bugs. Nobody did anything there, that's just how it is.

Some imbalances are clearly naturally occurring while others are not.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=2578]Kgal[/MENTION]

Moreover, most trees do not die of old age. Trees don't 'wear out' the way mammals and other animals do, most species have the capacity to live indefinitely.

So when a tree dies, usually it is from parasites, drought, rock slides or weather accidents. If a tree dies of fungus, does that mean it did something wrong? No. It happens. But ironically humans talk about balance but don't want to die when it is time. Humans try to regulate the fungus by saying you have to balance this and that.

The fungus has a right to live too, and eat you up if it wants to. If a fungus starts eating your toe off from no fault of your own and you arbitrarily decide to eliminate the fungus, are you really maintaining the balance, or are you destroying it?

 

[Kanamori]

@Kgal

Moreover, most trees do not die of old age. Trees don't 'wear out' the way mammals and other animals do, most species have the capacity to live indefinitely.

So when a tree dies, usually it is from parasites, drought, rock slides or weather accidents. If a tree dies of fungus, does that mean it did something wrong? No. It happens. But ironically humans talk about balance but don't want to die when it is time. Humans try to regulate the fungus by saying you have to balance this and that.

The fungus has a right to live too, and eat you up if it wants to. If a fungus starts eating your toe off from no fault of your own and you arbitrarily decide to eliminate the fungus, are you really maintaining the balance, or are you destroying it?

I don't know though, I think we and what we make are also extensions of nature, albeit more complicated than most phenomena taken individually.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't know though, I think we and what we make are also extensions of nature, albeit more complicated than most phenomena taken individually.

I agree we're extensions of nature. I just don't think it is entirely accurate or helpful to say things like "wild animals don't get cancer" and "cancer is a fungus" and "all these problems are from diet" when you go out into the woods and find something like this:

Or more creepily this:
[video=youtube;XuKjBIBBAL8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8[/video]

 

[muir]

Plants create salvestrols to fight fungus

When humans eat fruit and veg they benefit from the salvestrols which help fight cancer within the human

However when Monsanto sprays the crops with its pesticides and fungicides it destroys the salvestrols so that humans do not get the benefit of that cancer fighting agent

This is why organically grown food that is not exposed to chemicals is more healthy...because it has the salvestrols and will give you added protection against cancer

 

[sprinkles]

Plants create salvestrols to fight fungus

When humans eat fruit and veg they benefit from the salvestrols which help fight cancer within the human

However when Monsanto sprays the crops with its pesticides and fungicides it destroys the salvestrols so that humans do not get the benefit of that cancer fighting agent

This is why organically grown food that is not exposed to chemicals is more healthy...because it has the salvestrols and will give you added protection against cancer

Yes. Another issue is plant stress, and continued breeding of plants that carries on genetic vulnerabilities, and not properly rotating crops.

This some times happens with organic tomatoes which are cultivated in the same spot from the same cultivar all the time. The fungus lives in the soil and will continually infect the vulnerable plants every time they're planted there and continuing to do so only harbors the fungus.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

Moreover if the plants aren't properly rotated, this depletes the soil of the nutrients that the plant is consuming and eventually it doesn't have enough and becomes weak, meanwhile since the plant has been grown in the same spot for so long, anything that likes to attack the plant will begin to flourish there and now has a weak plant to feast on. In this case even salvestrol won't save it because the weakened plant won't be able to keep up with the strengthened parasites - just like the human immune system.

 

[dogman6126]

As I understand - cancer is correlated with fungus when the body becomes out of balance in it's pH. We always have fungus cells within our body. When we get out of balance this allows the fungus to grow and eat the body. The same with cancer cells. I don't think they are the same type of cell - but they are influenced the same.

The main difference between cancer and fungus is a fundamental one. Fungus is a foreign body that is disrupting/attacking the body. Kind of like bacteria. Cancer is the body itself that mutated and is disrupting normal functioning. Cancer is always in the body, but immune and genetic responses keep it under control at a single cell. Fungus is always in the body, but bacterial and immune responses keep it under control. In fact many fungi are needed for normal biological systems. But the balance you are talking about is that balance with bacteria that is normal. PH effects the body because acidity reduces immune responses. With reduced immune response, cancer can develop. With reduced immune response, fungus can also develop, however fungus has another check in place (that being bacteria) so that does not mean you will get fungus proliferation. Cancer is a threat when the mutation negates the effect of the genetic responses, and if immune response is inhibited, then cancer will spread.

"The reason why the man was using bicarbonate of soda is because it's alkaline. When the body is out of balance towards a negative pH - less than neutral of 7 - this then encourages the proliferation of either/both fungus and cancer cells.
When one introduces chemicals - either from foods or other sources - which help the body to increase the pH from less than 7 towards 7+ - this alters the environment and inhibits the growth of the fungus/cancer cells.

The only thing that would help is to put the body back in balance to increase immune response to combat the cancer or fungus. Even then though, it likely wouldn't be effective. Fungus will continue to kill healthy bacteria, so the body's immune health will not be able to cure you of fungal infections usually. That's why foot fungus doesn't go away on its own usually. There are other far more effective ways of accomplishing fixing fungal growth like an actual fungicide. Fixing PH balance will not be effective in this manor because immune health will not restore lost bacteria. Immune health is only really good before it starts to spread. The same is true for cancer. It's more of a preventative in some cases. Some kinds of cancer are not noticed by the immune system. Those are the ones that really spread. The immune system doesn't know to attack.

It is known consuming sugars and products which readily convert to sugars promote an acidic body.Coffee, beer, wine, alcohol of all forms lead to this as well. From chemistry we know some chemical reactions cannot take place when their environment is either too acidic or too alkaline. That's when the body begins to suffer.

The condition your talking about is called acidosis. There are far more effective ways of treating acidosis than sodium bicarbonate. We also know there is no relation between acidosis and cancer other than the fact that the weaker immune system and cellular damage can lead to cancer. However, cancer is not caused by acidosis because not everyone who has cancer also has acidosis. In fact I think its a not very common pairing.

This guy who proposed the idea about cancer and fungus claimed that cancer is fungus, not like fungus as you seem to be implying. He said that sodium bicarbonate would treat the fungus, but sodium bicarbonate can't kill fungus. There are far more effective ways of killing fungus than a minor stimulation of the immune system in cases of acidosis (which by the way has no correlation to actual cancer cases, one more major evidence that this doctor is a fraud) which seems to be the only relevance that sodium bicarbonate might have towards either fungus or cancer.
This doctor just seems a simple case of a snake oil sales man. Charge people for cancer treatments, give them a basically harmless compound that costs next to nothing, not have to pay the expense of the medicine out of your charge, and you pocket all the extra money. I sure would like to be paid $7500 for injecting someone with backing soda....

 

[dogman6126]

Yeah, I'm not basing this on medical knowledge or research. I'm basing it on taxonomy and knowledge of plants and other life forms and how environments tend to work.

For example, plants don't get cancer, but they do get fungus. In fact everything is pretty much covered in fungus. Most of it is microscopic but go into a forest and you can see it growing all over the sides of trees usually. Most of the time the fungus doesn't hurt the plant. However some types of fungus do kill trees and plants with no human interference - it happens. Some types of parasitic fungus on plants will kill off the leaves starting near the bottom of the plant, from being splashed up from the soil by heavy rain, and slowly rot the leaves and cause them to die off progressing up the plant. Other types of fungus can rot the roots and kill the entire plant.

In the deep woods you'll often times find deadfall, entire trees naturally fallen over and rotting, absolutely laden with all kinds of parasites, fungus, and wood eating bugs. Nobody did anything there, that's just how it is.

Some imbalances are clearly naturally occurring while others are not.

I know that plants can get cancer. its just different. I had to look up why, and found this post from a biology student:

1) plant cells are special
Normal plant cells have the ability to reorganise when they divide in order to become different kind of cells. Such cells are known technically as "totipotent" (from "total potential" to differentiate into any other kind of cell). In animals this special ability is only held by special cells called stem cells. This difference explains how you can take a cutting from a plant shoot and grow a complete plant from it, but you cannot take a "cutting" from an animal and grow another animal!
This special ability defends the plant against cancer: cell will only become cancerous if it loses control of both it's division process AND it's ability to be totipotent. If it can still change it's "type" (root cell or shoot cell etc), then the extra cell growth is not such a problem, because the extra cells can function normally.

2) plants don't have circulatory systems.
In animals, cancers can spread through the circulatory system (blood and lymph) and cause damage to many parts of the body at once (this is "metastasis" which I mentioned above). Plants don't have these circulatory systems and, therefore, cancers in plants will remain in a fixed location and only cause problems to that small part of the plant. Even if a tumour (known as a "gall" in plants) develops, it will not spread to other parts of the plant.

These important differences in the way cancers work in plants compared to animals, mean that there is still a lot of debate in the area. For example some people argue about whether the plant cancers can even be classified as cancers as they are defined in animals.

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=1216

And another quote from a different source:

In animals, a tumor develops when a cell (or group of cells) loses the built-in controls that regulate its growth, often as a result of mutations. Plants can experience the same phenomenon, along with cancerous masses, but it tends to be brought on via infection. Fungi, bacteria, viruses, and insect infestation have all been tied to plant cancers. Oak trees, for example, often grow tumors that double as homes for larvae.

The good news for plants is that even though they’re susceptible to cancer, they’re less vulnerable to its effects. For one thing, a vegetable tumor won’t metastasize. That’s because plant cells are typically locked in place by a matrix of rigid cell walls, so they can’t migrate. Even when a plant cell begins dividing uncontrollably, the tumor it creates remains stuck in one place usually with minor effects on the plant’s health—like a burl in a redwood tree.

Plants also have the benefit of lacking any vital organs. “It’s bad to get a brain tumor if you’re a human,” says Elliot Meyerowitz, a plant geneticist at the California Institute of Technology. “But there’s nothing that you can name that’s bad to get a tumor in if you’re a plant. Because whatever it is, you can make another.”

Meyerowitz points to another difference between plant and animal oncology with regard to those redwood burls: “Instead of treating plant tumors by surgery and chemotherapy, we make them into cheesy coffee tables.”

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/ask-anything-do-plants-get-cancer

 

[dogman6126]

Moreover, most trees do not die of old age. Trees don't 'wear out' the way mammals and other animals do, most species have the capacity to live indefinitely.

I have always found that quality of trees amazing. However I admit to not knowing as much about the reason why.

The fungus has a right to live too, and eat you up if it wants to. If a fungus starts eating your toe off from no fault of your own and you arbitrarily decide to eliminate the fungus, are you really maintaining the balance, or are you destroying it?

I'm sorry, I must disagree with what you said here. Fungus doesn't "want" anything. It's not conscious or sentient. On the argument that humanity is superior to fungus because of its self awareness, I think its perfectly acceptable to protect ourselves from fungal growth. Basically, we are more important (unique/special) than the fungus attacking us.

 

[dogman6126]

Plants create salvestrols to fight fungus

When humans eat fruit and veg they benefit from the salvestrols which help fight cancer within the human

However when Monsanto sprays the crops with its pesticides and fungicides it destroys the salvestrols so that humans do not get the benefit of that cancer fighting agent

This is why organically grown food that is not exposed to chemicals is more healthy...because it has the salvestrols and will give you added protection against cancer

cancer is not a fungus so how could this in any way be correct?
Salvestrols are a compound used in the "self-destruct" mechanism of the cell. That's the first real line of defense against cancer. That's why it helps prevent cancer (helps, not actually prevents. Again, cancer is not a predictable disease. To many variables). It has nothing to do with the salvestrols anti-fungal properties because cancer is not a fungus. Again, this is proven by the fact that anti-fungal medication (which is very effective in cases with fungus) does not treat cancer.

 

[sprinkles]

I have always found that quality of trees amazing. However I admit to not knowing as much about the reason why.

I'm sorry, I must disagree with what you said here. Fungus doesn't "want" anything. It's not conscious or sentient. On the argument that humanity is superior to fungus because of its self awareness, I think its perfectly acceptable to protect ourselves from fungal growth. Basically, we are more important (unique/special) than the fungus attacking us.

I know. I was being contrary and not really all that serious there.

As for plant cancer, I know about that too. Tree burls are like a tumor.

I argue that it's not really analogous to cancer because of the fact that it doesn't metastasize. Similar to how beneficial or benign gut bacteria in humans is not called cancer, and even benign growths and tumors in humans are not necessarily called cancer.

Cancer is dependent on the behavior of the growth and its ability to spread to other organs. So no, plants don't have cancer. The fact that it doesn't metastasize makes it not cancer.

Edit:
Or put it this way. Saying plants get cancer is the same as saying humans get root rot.

A human gets foot fungus, which could turn out to be root rot but humans don't have roots. So it's not possible for a human to actually have root rot. Similarly trees don't have the ability for metastasizing to take place. So they don't get cancer even if they theoretically could, just like a human doesn't get root rot even if it theoretically could.