Cancer Overwhelmingly Due To Environment

Discussion in 'Cancer' started by jaa, Dec 17, 2015.

  1. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35111449

    "Earlier this year, researchers sparked a debate after suggesting two-thirds of cancer types were down to luck rather than factors such as smoking.
    The new study, in the journal Nature, used four approaches to conclude only 10-30% of cancers were down to the way the body naturally functions or "luck"."

    "Cancer is caused by one of the body's own stem cells going rogue and dividing out of control.
    That can be caused either by intrinsic factors that are part of the innate way the body operates, such as the risk of mutations occurring every time a cell divides, or extrinsic factors such as smoking, UV radiation and many others that have not been identified"

    "In the latest study, a team of doctors from the Stony Brook Cancer Centre in New York approached the problem from different angles, including computer modelling, population data and genetic approaches.
    They said the results consistently suggested 70-90% of the risk was due to extrinsic factors."
     
  2. mujuro

    mujuro Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    681
    Makes sense. Cancer is hardly the ravaging menace in the third world like it is in the developed world.

    Two things I am trying to do at the moment are:

    1) Reduce my exposure to electronic devices or electronics, so as to decrease EMF exposure
    2) Find ways to increase removal of estrogens through upregulating phase 1 and 2 liver detox, by taking calcium D-glucarate and a few other polyphenols.

    The latter is an attempt to combat the ubiquitous presence of xenoestrogens from petrochemicals and plastics, and phytoestrogens like soy which are to be found in almost every product with a plastic wrapper. Has Peat spoken at length about EMFs and cell behaviour?
     
  3. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,831
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    Vitamin B1 and B2 are together are more important for estrogen detox by the liver than all other supplements combined. Not saying that what you are taking is not a valid approach, just saying that ensuring adequate supply of these two vitamins accounts for the bulk of the liver's excreting abilities provided of course adequate protein is available as well.
     
  4. dookie

    dookie Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    518
    Gender:
    Male
    I took Calcium Glucarate for a while and didn't notice any clear effects. I took 500 mg several times per day. It seems as a safe supplement so I'll probably try it again some time, in higher amounts. What brand and doses are you using? Noticing anything?

    I made a topic a while back about Glucarate: viewtopic.php?f=89&t=8342
     
  5. mujuro

    mujuro Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    681
    No I don't really notice much either. I'm going to increase it to 2g daily. Back when I had a stool analysis done, I had elevated beta-glucuronidase. This was almost 2 years ago, and I was just coming out of a hypothyroid episode at the time so my digestion was horrendous. I am taking the Source Naturals brand. The reviews on iHerb consist of many middle aged women with uterine fibroids or breast tumors, and much to my surprise, a lot of them report shrinking or disappearance of these after months of using cal D.

    haidut - I should have that covered with my daily B complex, as it provides 50mg of each. The supplement I'm using for liver "detox" (I hate that word) is http://atpscience.com/shop/capsules/alpha-venus-men/. I think I will start cycling it, as we know upregulations don't last forever. They list the ingredients and mode of action of each under the Technical Data tab. I should state that some of the ingredients are no viewed in a positive light as it concerns Peat's ideas, but I'm giving it a run nonetheless and see how I feel.
     
Loading...