Lemonade?

John23 said:

Tamoxifen

Re:
"the first drug to target a specific pathway in the tumor itself
rather than a general cellular poison that destroyed indiscriminately. "

More research would have indicated otherwise. Tamoxifen is apparently
unable to "target a specific pathway", but rather it "blocks the effects of
the estrogen hormone in the body."

Tamoxifen isn't without it's cautions and hazards, since it can't
isolate (target) cancer cells specifically. It can cause indiscriminate
damage to our body, just as any other toxic chemical can!

It should also be noted, that Tamoxifen is a known carcinogenic,
and is responsible for many "second cancers", or cancers that
are not related to the initial dx.

Here's some easy reading about Tamoxifen from the Mayonnaise Clinic

Be well; stay well.

John

funny thing
Did you know that the birth control pill may be carcinogenic? Of course it is not the pill itself, but the schedule of three weeks on one week off, something that was done to appease the church, not because it had any health benefit. (turns out women who have lots of children (and thus fewer menstrual cycles) have lower incidence of BC.

Hormones are tricky things, but they are not a "Toxic Chemical" of the class of 5FU.

What is the point? This was a change in the way researchers looked at cancer and ways of holding it back. Personally I find this kind of discovery interesting, mostly because it changes the game. We have some drugs that popped up in the last decade or so that are a direct result of this kind of change in thinking (Erbitux comes to mind).

pete43lost_at_sea said:

thanks blake and graci
i'll add some lemon to my jiucing when i get home.
i was advised to have a lemon jiuce every morning by naturopath #3 but never rely got into it.
its tasty and does not hurt and my father in law has a lemon tree.

hugs,
pete

Links
> Cancer Cause

> Something to ponder on a rainy day... (credit to Phil)

> Can it Cure?...

John23 said:

Sugar
Re:
"Doesn't that defeat the purpose. Cancer LOVES Sugar. Stevia is a better choice."

*Stevia

If you attempt to "starve" cancer cells by withholding sugar/glucose,
you will starve your good cells first.

Cancer steals glucose from your body, you'll kill yourself quicker
doing what's not natural.

Good grief. The industry makes life so complicated and confusing.

Ask any 80+ year old if they got that old thanks to eliminating things
like sugar, salt, and the host of other items you're hearing about, that
are now called "bad".

Eat and drink whatever you are in the mood for, but do everything
in moderation.

High fructose corn syrup is now FDA approved to be called
"corn sugar"; the industry paid for that change! And HFCS is in
everything we eat and drink. It's cheaper to use than cane sugar,
so the industry paid for "studies" to show you how terribly bad
cane sugar is.

Following the money trail can often bring you to the truth faster
than following the "designated" path.

Moderation is the key.

(I thought momma taught that to us)

Better health wishes,

John

For the record
John and I are on the same page here.

The sugar connection to cancer comes from a scientist named Otto Warburg, who won the Nobel Prize (not for cancer research, rather for discovering the respiratory enzyme, An enzyme, such as oxidase, that transfers electrons from its substrate to molecular oxygen during cellular respiration) in the first half of the twentieth century, at a time when NO CANCER WAS CONSIDERED CURABLE and less than a century after leukemia had been identified as a named disease, though not yet a cancer (1847). By the second half (1960's) all of his conclusions about cancer had been disproved and were dropped by reputable science, and our current understanding of Cancer was in a kind of golden age (something John and I probably disagree on).

On the Mayo Clinic page dealing with sugar and cancer it also lists two other myths:

Good people do not get cancer and Cancer is contagious

Mayo and Sugar on Toast

Kind of puts it in perspective.

This country's food policy, factory farming (something we used to make fun of when the Soviet Union did it), and dependence on a single food source (corn) is a huge subject, akin to global warming. Personally I have no desire to tackle it on this site.

Kathryn_in_MN said:

Common sense!
Yeah for common sense! I get so tired of hearing the ridiculous claims that you can make your body alkaline, or starve cancer by not eating any sugar. Our bodies are very complex machines that work very, very hard to maintain the alkaline/acid that they do. Each area of the body needs something different to function at its best and our bodies regulate that.

As for sugar, without sugar we would die. Simple as that. Now you can choose for your intake of sugars to be healthier options than others, but you need sugar to live. Carbohydrates are sugar. Fruit has sugar. Many foods have sugar. Sweeteners are not the only sugars.

MODERATION, and eating everything in as close to its natural state, with the fewest chemical or genetic alterations, is the best we can do. Extremism is not good any way you look at it.

There is no miracle cure for cancer. There are things we can do (including diet modification) that certainly won't hurt, and might help. But no miracle food solution.

Kathryn,
Are you saying I should put down my box of sugar cubes and just eat a banana?

:-0