Have you guys read this article yet or is Fidalgo just out of his mind? http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1789253 Cap't JackThe authors of that article are echoing exactly what mckenzie and I have been saying based on the same studies we have been referring to. I doesn't matter how much evidence or how many expert consensus opinions we post here though. Vyazma and Mriana just don't understand the basic principals of this argument no matter how many ways we have tried to explain it so nothing is going to change their irrational belief system. Yes, I do and I find it interesting, based on what is written concerning said studies, that we don't stop supplementing out diets with fortified milk and alike, based on these studies. The problem is, though, much like I said before concerning the other study, which seemed to include teens with a potential eating disorder. I see potential flaws in some of these studies listed. There's nothing irrational about Vyazma or my views, which you are calling beliefs. In fact, you don't actually know what my views are in order to make an informed statement (actually judgement) about them and that in itself is irrational, esp when making statements that are a misstatement.
Taking a vitamin supplement incorporates compounds into the body which are metabolized and put to use by the body.
They can and are used to supplement diets that are lacking in the FDAs listed requirements for daily vitamin and mineral intake.
Which part of this is a belief system?
Anybody? Take a crack at it.
..... the authors concluded that there was no clear evidence of a beneficial effect of supplements on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, or cancer.Wow! So were back to the causes cancer vs. prevents cancer meme! Thank gosh I don't need to worry about any of this. I just take multi-vitamins to supplement my diet's nutritional values as part of a healthy lifestyle, after reviewing the values I get from my average food diet. Who would be stupid enough to take vitamins to prevent "all-cause mortality"?(all cause mortality? :lol: ) Or any other types of diseases....
Let me know when you find a test that shows ingesting multi-vitamins doesn’t introduce needed compounds into the body for metabolism.
Let me know when you find a study that shows that taking a multi-vitamin is not useful to supplement a diet as part of a healthy lifestyle.
So we see that the title of this thread is about megadosing on vitamins can cause cancer.
The thread sometimes veers off into how vitamins cannot prevent cancer(or all mortality).
And then there’s the 100s millions of people who benefit from vitamin supplementation as part of a healthy diet.
I know. No one here said they cure or prevent cancer, any other disease, or YIKES! mortality. 8-/ Nor are we talking about megadosing (overdosing, is what that really is). Yet, he's making it sound as though we are, even though we've both examined our "average diet", though vegetarianism is not the average American diet of high fat, high sugar, meat, and potatoes...... the authors concluded that there was no clear evidence of a beneficial effect of supplements on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, or cancer.Wow! So were back to the causes cancer vs. prevents cancer meme! Thank gosh I don't need to worry about any of this. I just take multi-vitamins to supplement my diet's nutritional values as part of a healthy lifestyle, after reviewing the values I get from my average food diet. Who would be stupid enough to take vitamins to prevent "all-cause mortality"?(all cause mortality? :lol: ) Or any other types of diseases....
I know. No one here said they cure or prevent cancer, any other disease, or YIKES! mortality. 8-/ Nor are we talking about megadosing (overdosing, is what that really is). Yet, he's making it sound as though we are, even though we've both examined our "average diet", though vegetarianism is not the average American diet of high fat, high sugar, meat, and potatoes.Yes that's my favorite part of that study...the "prevents mortality" part. Quality study no doubt.... ;-) Maybe you and I are just trolling here Mriana. Perhaps we should just let other people get in here who want to discuss the dangers of overdosing on vitamins or talk about how vitamins can't be used to prevent cancer, cure cancer or any other diseases. That's not the part of this discussion I'm interested in. I want to see the study that shows vitamin supplementation cannot improve diet. That's the study I'm waiting for. Because numerous institutions say it can be used for that. The FDA and Harvard University to name a couple.
I know. No one here said they cure or prevent cancer, any other disease, or YIKES! mortality. 8-/ Nor are we talking about megadosing (overdosing, is what that really is). Yet, he's making it sound as though we are, even though we've both examined our "average diet", though vegetarianism is not the average American diet of high fat, high sugar, meat, and potatoes.Yes that's my favorite part of that study...the "prevents mortality" part. Quality study no doubt.... ;-) Maybe you and I are just trolling here Mriana. Perhaps we should just let other people get in here who want to discuss the dangers of overdosing on vitamins or talk about how vitamins can't be used to prevent cancer, cure cancer or any other diseases. :lol: I know. I can't imagine anything that would keep us from dying eventually, even if it were the 24th century and we were on a starship. Although Kirk was lucky to have more resurrections than Jesus Christ. The joys of Science Fiction... Why Gene Roddenberry created the iPad before Bill Gates and Co. did. Even tri-quarters to assist drs were created by Gene, as well as nutrient filled food dispensed by food dispensers and if not deemed nutritious, you don't get it- ie Deanna and her chocolate sundaes. She ended up not getting one or going to see Guinan.
That's not the part of this discussion I'm interested in. I want to see the study that shows vitamin supplementation cannot improve diet. That's the study I'm waiting for. Because numerous institutions say it can be used for that. The FDA and Harvard University to name a couple.I agree, as well as other such studies. I also feel there's been more misquoting, misinterpretation, bias, and even ignoring of some studies, beside what the two of us are talking about too. Pointing to studies where people essentially overdose on vitamins is not what either of us are talking about. An overdose of anything, even antibiotics is fatal (or at least potentially, esp without immediate medical attention for the OD).
I agree, as well as other such studies. I also feel there's been more misquoting, misinterpretation, bias, and even ignoring of some studies, beside what the two of us are talking about too. Pointing to studies where people essentially overdose on vitamins is not what either of us are talking about. An overdose of anything, even antibiotics is fatal (or at least potentially, esp without immediate medical attention for the OD).It's hilarious now. We have made our positions perfectly clear. When people get to calling another's argument analogous to religion or "belief" I know they are cooked. Anyways, like I said I'm not interested in these studies about vitamins because I don't fall into any of those categories-not by any stretch. I thought Spock's device was a Tricorder"? It's "Triquarter"? Hmnnn....all this time. I watched that series about the Retro Star Trek. I forget it's name. The one that is the prequel to Kirk. I was really liking it. Until they went through that alternate universe with the Bad Enterprise and Crew. That's when I stopped. Up until that point I thought it was real good. I like the episode where the Vulcans got stuck on Earth in the 40s or 50s...
I thought Spock's device was a Tricorder"? It's "Triquarter"? Hmnnn....all this time. I watched that series about the Retro Star Trek. I forget it's name. The one that is the prequel to Kirk. I was really liking it. Until they went through that alternate universe with the Bad Enterprise and Crew. That's when I stopped. Up until that point I thought it was real good. I like the episode where the Vulcans got stuck on Earth in the 40s or 50s...:lol: Sorry about that. You're right. It's a Tricorder. Memory and all, you know. I watched "The Cage" too, many years ago and many times over. :) Enterprise and the last two movies, IMO, are not Trek though. I've been a Trekker since I was nursing on my mother's lap in the '60s.
:lol: Sorry about that. You're right. It's a Tricorder. Memory and all, you know. I watched "The Cage" too, many years ago and many times over. :) Enterprise and the last two movies, IMO, are not Trek though. I've been a Trekker since I was nursing on my mother's lap in the '60s.Enterprise! That's it. I thought it was good. I watched it on Netflix all the way up to the episode where they are flying around in an alternate Enterprise and crew. Just like that I couldn't watch it anymore. I tried the other ones, but I couldn't get into them. Deep Space Nine etc... I wanted to go with Next Gen, so I started from episode 1. Ughhh. Awful. I have to give it another shot though because I've seen some real good later episodes of that. That Jonathan Frakes. I hate his character. The Executive Officer. Acghhchhh...I can't stand his character. The Captain is cool. Data is my favorite.
:lol: Sorry about that. You're right. It's a Tricorder. Memory and all, you know. I watched "The Cage" too, many years ago and many times over. :) Enterprise and the last two movies, IMO, are not Trek though. I've been a Trekker since I was nursing on my mother's lap in the '60s.Enterprise! That's it. I thought it was good. I watched it on Netflix all the way up to the episode where they are flying around in an alternate Enterprise and crew. Just like that I couldn't watch it anymore. I tried the other ones, but I couldn't get into them. Deep Space Nine etc... I wanted to go with Next Gen, so I started from episode 1. Ughhh. Awful. I have to give it another shot though because I've seen some real good later episodes of that. That Jonathan Frakes. I hate his character. The Executive Officer. Acghhchhh...I can't stand his character. The Captain is cool. Data is my favorite. I like TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY, but Deanna and Janeway are my favourites. We are so far off topic now. :red:
Mariana and vyazma, you two can ignore this. I’m adding it to the thread for those who haven’t left reason in the rear view mirror.
Mariana and vyazma, you two can ignore this. I'm adding it to the thread for those who haven't left reason in the rear view mirror. http://www.popsci.com/article/science/antioxidant-supplements-worsen-lung-tumors-study-finds?dom=tw&src=SOCThat's interesting. I can see that. Of course you have to develop cancer first. They don't cause cancer. But yeah, once you have a tumor it's part of you, so feeding it supplements could make it flourish. Why not. I've heard of this before. I found it funny in the opening 1st or second paragraph about the reference that "supplements may not prevent cancer..." Gosh, there must be tons of people who take vitamins to prevent cancer out there. I can see that too. Wouldn't surprise me.
That's interesting. I can see that. Of course you have to develop cancer first. They don't cause cancer. But yeah, once you have a tumor it's part of you, so feeding it supplements could make it flourish. Why not. I've heard of this before. I found it funny in the opening 1st or second paragraph about the reference that "supplements may not prevent cancer..." Gosh, there must be tons of people who take vitamins to prevent cancer out there. I can see that too. Wouldn't surprise me.Well here's the rub. You have cancer. We all do. There are trillions of cells in your body and at any given time every single one of us has a cell or two somewhere in our body that has the genetic damage to become a tumor, The only reason we don't is because our immune system is pretty good at identifying and destroying these cells. On a less microscopic level everyone who eventually develops detectable cancer probably had that tumor for years before it grew to a size that caused symptoms or showed up on a screening test. Its important to understand that just because someone hasn't been diagnosed with cancer doesn't mean they are safe from the effects of antioxidants. We are all at risk.
Well here's the rub. You have cancer. We all do.No, we don't. I hear this all the time and it is simply not true. (And yes, I've heard this from a number of doctors as well.) A cell has to undergo through the process of undetected mutations enough times to start acting cancerous. Just because you may be missing a foot, it doesn't mean you are missing a leg, or just because you suffer from cataracts, it doesn't mean you are blind.
That's interesting. I can see that. Of course you have to develop cancer first. They don't cause cancer. But yeah, once you have a tumor it's part of you, so feeding it supplements could make it flourish. Why not. I've heard of this before. I found it funny in the opening 1st or second paragraph about the reference that "supplements may not prevent cancer..." Gosh, there must be tons of people who take vitamins to prevent cancer out there. I can see that too. Wouldn't surprise me.Well here's the rub. You have cancer. We all do. There are trillions of cells in your body and at any given time every single one of us has a cell or two somewhere in our body that has the genetic damage to become a tumor, The only reason we don't is because our immune system is pretty good at identifying and destroying these cells. On a less microscopic level everyone who eventually develops detectable cancer probably had that tumor for years before it grew to a size that caused symptoms or showed up on a screening test. Its important to understand that just because someone hasn't been diagnosed with cancer doesn't mean they are safe from the effects of antioxidants. We are all at risk. My 24 year old son has the idea that we don't need early detection screenings, because (he believes) that individuals discover something wrong with their bodies before any physical finds them and report these issues to their doctor and that's when something like cancer is found, not by cancer screenings or alike. I disagree with him and keep telling him that physicals are necessary for early detection of things like cancer. I tried to point out to him that if we had the technology back when Gilda Radner was Dx with ovarian cancer, it might have been discovered earlier, before she had symptoms, and she might have lived longer, even survived, but he won't believe me. I think he lives by a dangerous philosophy about cancer and other like illnesses. He has a belief, for example, that if one has lung cancer, their breath smells like a dead decaying body. I don't know rather to laugh or cry, concerning some of his ideas.
I don’t understand your objection to MacGyver’s point. If a cell loses the ability to control and regulate its division, it becomes neoplastic. You’re correct that multiple things have to go wrong for this to happen, but it still happens in our bodies all the time. Of course, this doesn’t mean we get the clinical disease most people think of when they hear the word “cancer” because, as MacGyver said, our immune system eliminates most neoplastic cells before they reach that stage. But the point of mac’s comment was that if we impede the ability of the immune system to destroy abnormal cells, as we might when we take antioxidants, then we increase the risk of neoplastic cells become populations of cells large enough to cause disease.
Where’s the error here?
Well here's the rub. You have cancer. We all do.No, we don't. I hear this all the time and it is simply not true. (And yes, I've heard this from a number of doctors as well.) A cell has to undergo through the process of undetected mutations enough times to start acting cancerous. Just because you may be missing a foot, it doesn't mean you are missing a leg, or just because you suffer from cataracts, it doesn't mean you are blind. Your analogy is not appropriate here. A cancerous cell is one which no longer responds to the normal signals from other cells to keep cell division in check. Such a cell can then divide indefinitely and at a much greater rate than surrounding cells leading to the development of a tumor. All of our cells contain some genetic defects. When a cell is defective enough that it is cancerous the immune system frequently discovers this and destroys the defective cell. Some cells acquire additional mutations that allow them to evade our immune system and go on to develop into tumors. You can quibble about that last step and perhaps we should only define these cells as cancerous if they have acquired the ability to defeat our defenses but by the strict definition they are cancer cells before that happens. The second part of my argument is self evident. Most cancers are asymptomatic and undetectable for years and in some cases decades before a diagnosis can be made. A tumor that is a million cells in size took years to get to that size and yet is still far too small for even the best imaging studies (Mammogram, MRI, CT, PET CT) to detect. The point of my last post was that it is thus impossible for anyone to ever say they are cancer free. Therefor no one can say they do not need to be concerned about a drug that may increase the growth rate of an existing cancer.
My 24 year old son has the idea that we don't need early detection screenings, because (he believes) that individuals discover something wrong with their bodies before any physical finds them and report these issues to their doctor and that's when something like cancer is found, not by cancer screenings or alike. I disagree with him and keep telling him that physicals are necessary for early detection of things like cancer. I tried to point out to him that if we had the technology back when Gilda Radner was Dx with ovarian cancer, it might have been discovered earlier, before she had symptoms, and she might have lived longer, even survived, but he won't believe me. I think he lives by a dangerous philosophy about cancer and other like illnesses. He has a belief, for example, that if one has lung cancer, their breath smells like a dead decaying body. I don't know rather to laugh or cry, concerning some of his ideas.I am a big proponent of preventive medicine just as I am of preventive maintenance on your car. The outcome will usually be better if you change your oil regularly rather than waiting for the symptoms of a seized engine to tell you something is wrong. That being said, not all things can be detected at an early stage and even those that can are not always amenable to treatments that can improve the outcome. That's why prevention and screening has to be done based on good evidence. Gilda Radner being a prime example. We have a number of tests which can on a broad scale detect ovarian cancer earlier than symptoms alone yet study after study have shown that things like sonograms and CA125 levels do not improve survival and may actually diminish it. While we are not able to screen and treat all illness in a way that improves the outcome there are many things we can screen for that make a huge difference. BP screening and treatment has dramatically reduced the rate of cardiovascular deaths over the past 50 years. Diabetes can not only be detected earlier with routine exams but its precursor (prediabetes) can be identified and if detected lifestyle changes can begin that may prevent the onset of diabetes. It has been estimated that close to 70% of all colon cancers ( 3rd leading cause of cancer deaths in men and women) could be prevented with regular colonoscopies every 5-10 years. Mammograms have been proven effective at reducing breast cancer deaths in women over 50, and PAP smears have dramatically reduced the death rate from cervical cancer. Vaccines have virtually eliminated the infectious diseases that used to kill most people. we can't detect and cure everything so you have to be selective about what sort of screening you do. Screening for things you can't fix can do m ore harm than good, but if your doctor is smart about it there is a lot he/she can do to prevent and cure diseases that would otherwise lead to an early death if not detected until symptoms developed.
Well here's the rub. You have cancer. We all do.No, we don't. I hear this all the time and it is simply not true. (And yes, I've heard this from a number of doctors as well.) A cell has to undergo through the process of undetected mutations enough times to start acting cancerous. Just because you may be missing a foot, it doesn't mean you are missing a leg, or just because you suffer from cataracts, it doesn't mean you are blind. Your analogy is not appropriate here. A cancerous cell is one which no longer responds to the normal signals from other cells to keep cell division in check. Such a cell can then divide indefinitely and at a much greater rate than surrounding cells leading to the development of a tumor. All of our cells contain some genetic defects. When a cell is defective enough that it is cancerous the immune system frequently discovers this and destroys the defective cell. Some cells acquire additional mutations that allow them to evade our immune system and go on to develop into tumors. You can quibble about that last step and perhaps we should only define these cells as cancerous if they have acquired the ability to defeat our defenses but by the strict definition they are cancer cells before that happens. The second part of my argument is self evident. Most cancers are asymptomatic and undetectable for years and in some cases decades before a diagnosis can be made. A tumor that is a million cells in size took years to get to that size and yet is still far too small for even the best imaging studies (Mammogram, MRI, CT, PET CT) to detect. The point of my last post was that it is thus impossible for anyone to ever say they are cancer free. Therefor no one can say they do not need to be concerned about a drug that may increase the growth rate of an existing cancer. I just don't think it's correct to say that we all have cancer. A cell with a defective code that may become cancerous one day is not cancer. That's all.