Cancer

as a metabolic disease. A long but interesting essay.

At least the community is starting to wake up to the hazards of sugar. I’ve seen a proposal to make food stamps ineligible for items containing it. Makes sense to me. It could help a lot with the obesity epidemic.

[Update a few minutes later]

Related thoughts from Glenn Reynolds.

[Update a few more minutes later]

Health authorities continue to fail us:

Considering the above, no one in their right mind would take any kind of dietary advice provided by the authorities at face value. It’s little wonder then that so many are taking matters into their own hands. Thirty years ago, if the USDA, AHA, or AMA told you something was bad for you, you stopped eating it. You didn’t question, because they were the ones with credibility and years of study. It was simply too much trouble for the average person to find the information they needed. Thankfully with the internet, all of the information needed is now available to anyone who wants it. We no longer have to put blind trust in authority figures because we can sift through the information ourselves and ask the right questions. If anything, the glut of information shows that the public’s trust in nutrition advice given by the authorities and media was sorely misplaced.

Same thing with climate, for the same reasons: there’s a lot of public policy, and money, at stake.

12 thoughts on “Cancer”

  1. I’ve seen a proposal to make food stamps ineligible for items containing it. Makes sense to me. It could help a lot with the obesity epidemic.

    Just what we need, right? The government putting more restrictions on what people do “for their own good”.

    (Yes, one can put strings on handouts.

    But it’s pointless moral posturing, in practice.

    I’d turn EBT into a straight cash transfer and treat poor people like adults.

    Both because it’s proper in itself, and to not give the State ideas about banning things for everyone … “for our own good”.)

    1. People can spend their own money on whatever they want, but as a taxpayer I don’t want to subsidize a terrible diet that further increases the cost to the taxpayer for their medical care. Of course, if it were up to me, I’d end the program. It’s mostly welfare for farmers.

  2. I watched a “Keto Summit” a couple of months ago. Thomas Seyfried, who is one of the top researchers in metabolic disease, said that if you have cancer, fast for 6 weeks. If this sounds absurd, look into the science. For example, they took a healthy cell nucleus and put it in a damaged cytoplasm. The nucleus became damaged. And vice-versa, they put a damaged nucleus and put it in a healthy cytoplasm and the nucleus became normal again.

    The idea behind this phenomenon is that it is the mitochondria that is responsible for the cancer. Long ago, cells used fermentation for energy. It was only later that they adapted to oxygen. Under fermentation the cell is immortal. So when the cell’s mitochondria is damaged, for whatever reason, the cell reverts to its ancient energy production state and thus you have cancer.

    By removing all food from the body, the cancerous cells cannot reproduce because they cannot ferment. Dr Seyfried says to remove all food, not just sugar.

    I’d hate the idea of fasting for six weeks, but if I get cancer, that is what I’m going to do. Screw the health care system bankrupting me only to have me die a year later.

    1. That does have the advantages of being inexpensive and non-prescription. And survivable; Bobby Sands lasted 66 days.

      And if it doesn’t work? It can often take much longer than that to even see a specialist.

    2. 6 weeks? I dunno man, it seems like an awfully long amount of time, particularly when a lot of people who get advanced states of cancer already are thin to begin with. Seems more like a good way to kill yourself to me. Now bloodletting… that could work (j/k).

  3. I’ve seen a proposal to make food stamps ineligible for items containing it. Makes sense to me. It could help a lot with the obesity epidemic.

    Bad idea. For all you know the person using the food stamp could be a diabetic with a hypoglycemia. I think it would be a lot better to cut subsidies for corn and fund research into how to produce sucrose from HFCS economically, or fund sugar beets, or allow cane sugar to be imported to the USA.
    Also, figure out other ways to preserve food in order to cut back on the sugar (quite often sugar and salt are used as preservatives more than anything else).

    1. For all you know the person using the food stamp could be a diabetic with a hypoglycemia.

      They’d be able to buy sugar or fruit juice, just not with food stamps.

      One of the biggest causes of the increase in sugar is the anti-fat insanity.

  4. Expect the subsidies for farmers – corn in the USA, dairy in Quebec – to be a big target for both sides in the NAFTA renegotiation.

Comments are closed.