A Positive Correlation Between Sugar And Cancer

J

jb116

Guest
Aw so cute. They try so hard. lol

Even one of the early sentences is conveyed in such a way that is misleading.
"Scientists have clarified how the Warburg effect, a phenomenon in which cancer cells rapidly break down sugars, stimulates tumor growth."

They haven't clarified anything actually. And they admit it! At the end of the article:
"However, the findings are not sufficient to identify the primary cause of the Warburg effect."

It's more hyperbole at best, to say things like "sugar awakens cancer cells" conveys a misunderstanding as to what cancer is. As if they are these evil groups of cells, lying in wait for the right moment to "wake up and mobilize," it's comical actually. The article basically, in a round about way is trying to give a grain of truth through obfuscation. OK here it is, the Warburg Effect, as if that's news. Lactic acid. OK, there's a good piece of the puzzle. But they chase their tail, they don't address anything. And they want to say (skipping over metabolic derangement, specifically how sugar is handled), that sugar must be the culprit based on effects that start with sugar, and that's just unwise. What's the alternative? Don't have any sugar at all? Very well. Derange the metabolism even further, perpetuate more issues down the road.

They haven't clarified a thing. They in fact missed the entire picture and are simply talking in circles. When you start seeing them addressing the deranged metabolism then
you'll know they are starting to scratch the surface.
 

mujuro

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2014
Messages
696
Aw so cute. They try so hard. lol

Even one of the early sentences is conveyed in such a way that is misleading.
"Scientists have clarified how the Warburg effect, a phenomenon in which cancer cells rapidly break down sugars, stimulates tumor growth."

They haven't clarified anything actually. And they admit it! At the end of the article:
"However, the findings are not sufficient to identify the primary cause of the Warburg effect."

It's more hyperbole at best, to say things like "sugar awakens cancer cells" conveys a misunderstanding as to what cancer is. As if they are these evil groups of cells, lying in wait for the right moment to "wake up and mobilize," it's comical actually. The article basically, in a round about way is trying to give a grain of truth through obfuscation. OK here it is, the Warburg Effect, as if that's news. Lactic acid. OK, there's a good piece of the puzzle. But they chase their tail, they don't address anything. And they want to say (skipping over metabolic derangement, specifically how sugar is handled), that sugar must be the culprit based on effects that start with sugar, and that's just unwise. What's the alternative? Don't have any sugar at all? Very well. Derange the metabolism even further, perpetuate more issues down the road.

They haven't clarified a thing. They in fact missed the entire picture and are simply talking in circles. When you start seeing them addressing the deranged metabolism then
you'll know they are starting to scratch the surface.

Great post.
 
OP
kayumochi

kayumochi

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2015
Messages
376
Like the rest of you, I have read many conflicting reports of the relationship between sugar and cancer. My solution is to keep sugar, like grains, on the fringes of my diet and forget about it. I do what I can do - the rest is out of my hands.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
inflammation often causes cancer. How, is anyone's guess. Zajicek believes it's a virus. Could be that inflammation makes tissue susceptible to viruses and that triggers the neoplastic changes that become tumors.

It is not sugar, obviously, that is totally stupid. There is a "correlation" between sugar and cancer?

There is correlation between cancer and smoking, but despite what people think, there is no proof that "smoking causes cancer" and there is much less correlation for sugar and cancer. It's absolutely ridiculous.

But inflammation may be a necessary precondition to tumor development. That I think is probably a true fact. Inflammation often accompanies or is caused by tissue hypoxia.

In a way, low CO2 correlates very strongly with cancer...

Inflammation also is frequently accompanied by many inflammatory markers (obviously) including those responsible for angiogenesis (TNF-a TLRs et al) and quick cell division (estrogen et al) and that is strongly correlated with tumorogenesis.

I think the truest fact is this: a healthy high metabolic performing body does not generally create cancer.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
The human organisms number one source of energy causes cancer? When you don't eat sugar and your body breaks down your own muscle tissue to make sugar, it does that so it can give itself cancer? Sounds odd.
 
Last edited:

DuggaDugga

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
204
Aw so cute. They try so hard. lol

Even one of the early sentences is conveyed in such a way that is misleading.
"Scientists have clarified how the Warburg effect, a phenomenon in which cancer cells rapidly break down sugars, stimulates tumor growth."

They haven't clarified anything actually. And they admit it! At the end of the article:
"However, the findings are not sufficient to identify the primary cause of the Warburg effect."

It's more hyperbole at best, to say things like "sugar awakens cancer cells" conveys a misunderstanding as to what cancer is. As if they are these evil groups of cells, lying in wait for the right moment to "wake up and mobilize," it's comical actually. The article basically, in a round about way is trying to give a grain of truth through obfuscation. OK here it is, the Warburg Effect, as if that's news. Lactic acid. OK, there's a good piece of the puzzle. But they chase their tail, they don't address anything. And they want to say (skipping over metabolic derangement, specifically how sugar is handled), that sugar must be the culprit based on effects that start with sugar, and that's just unwise. What's the alternative? Don't have any sugar at all? Very well. Derange the metabolism even further, perpetuate more issues down the road.

They haven't clarified a thing. They in fact missed the entire picture and are simply talking in circles. When you start seeing them addressing the deranged metabolism then
you'll know they are starting to scratch the surface.

Bingo.
At least they're finally starting to look at cancer as a metabolic disorder though.
The sooner we get away from the slash-and-burn treatments, the sooner we can start improving the quality and length of life of those with uncontrolled proliferation of metabolically deranged cells.
 
T

tca300

Guest
Sooooooo become a breatharian ? Because certain proteins ( amino acids ) and fats are actually shown to be directly involved in cancer.. utter silliness
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom