Jump to content

Folate deficiency causes Cancer


Consistency
 Share

Recommended Posts

Doesn't it seem egotistical to assume one shouldn't be helped because they undertook activities you personally disagree with.

It isn't and It has nothing to do with me.

 

The law of nature: The strong survive and the weak wither away.

First part in the abstract:

 

 

Inappropriate diet may contribute to one third of cancer deaths. Folates, a group of water-soluble B vitamins present in high concentrations in green, leafy vegetables, maintain DNA stability through their ability to donate one-carbon units for cellular metabolism. Folate deficiency has been implicated in the development of several cancers, including cancer of the colorectum, breast, ovary, pancreas, brain, lung and cervix. Generally, data from the majority of human studies suggest that people who habitually consume the highest level of folate, or with the highest blood folate concentrations, have a significantly reduced risk of developing colon polyps or cancer. However, an entirely protective role for folate against carcinogenesis has been questioned, and recent data indicate that an excessive intake of synthetic folic acid (from high-dose supplements or fortified foods) may increase human cancers by accelerating growth of precancerous lesions.

So diet may contribute, and it both reduces and causes. It has to do with DNA stability and is a risk reward probability, not a definite.

LOL. You didn't understand anything.

 

Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate.

 

The research says...

 

1) Synthetic(man-made) folic acid is one of the causes of cancer and aggrevates the cancer that is already in the body.

 

2) A deficiency of natural folate from raw edible leaves causes cancer.

 

3) Natural folate from raw edible leaves reverses cancer; along with all the other powerful anti-cancer nutrients in leafy greens.

 

So your original statement that it is only environment and diet is not born out by the first section of the first paper you cite as evidence.

The root cause of cancer is a toxic environment and a nutritionally deficient diet.

Edited by Consistency
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The root cause of cancer is a toxic environment and a nutritionally deficient diet.

 

 

This is fundamentally wrong. The root cause of cancer is unregulated cell growth caused by gene malfunction. The reasons that genes malfunction to cause cancer is multifactorial, including genetic predisposition and environmental factors.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Pathophysiology

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't and It has nothing to do with me.

 

The law of nature: The strong survive and the weak wither away.

 

LOL. You didn't understand anything.

 

Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate.

 

The research says...

 

1) Synthetic(man-made) folic acid is one of the causes of cancer and aggrevates the cancer that is already in the body.

 

2) A deficiency of natural folate from raw edible leaves causes cancer.

 

3) Natural folate from raw edible leaves reverses cancer; along with all the other powerful anti-cancer nutrients in leafy greens.

 

 

The root cause of cancer is a toxic environment and a nutritionally deficient diet.

Spectacularly wrong and also off-topic.

 

In particular re "Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate."

No it's not.

Learn some chemistry.

 

Any way, back at the topic.

Why is it that so many people who understand that biodiversity is a good thing, think that the same doesn't apply to humans.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did. The current predominate method of treating disease is through the use of chemotherapeutic agents, i.e. drugs. We do not, and probably cannot know what every single drug interaction in every single person will be, much as we do not and probably cannot know the outcome of every single gene interaction in every single individual and environment.

 

Ergo, if not knowing every single gene interaction makes gene therapy unethical, by extension of logic, this also makes the treatment of disease with drugs/vaccines also unethical. If so, you'd have to consider virtually all modern medicine unethical.

Science is just like religion; just a different cult that makes stuff up without knowing everything about nature; we are part of nature and so is our biochemistry.

 

The treatment of disease with drugs/vaccines is unethical and unnecessary when eating a diet rich in plants.

This sweeping generalization is blatantly false in most circumstances. A vast multitude of chemotherapeutic agents cure disease - for example, the use of antibiotics to cure a tuberculosis infection. Also, most drug therapies do not come with "horrendous side effects, like death." Here's a list of 5,000 drug side effects. The majority do not have fatal side effects. http://www.drugs.com/sfx/

Yes antibiotics do cure a tuberculosis infection in immunosuppressed individuals. The root cause is always a major nutritional deficiency and a toxic environment. We produce our own antimicrobial peptides when we are healthy.

 

Chemotherapy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy#Adverse_effects

Damage to specific organs is possible:

Nice soup of side effects eh? Its like injecting battery acid in the veins.

Gene therapy is egotistical, but deciding based on your personal, subjective ideals who deserves medical treatment and who doesn't is not? And if we apply this, well, interesting logic in an objective way wouldn't you have more of an issue with say - bypass surgery to treat angina, or gastric banding to treat obesity than gene therapy to treat inherited illness which are entirely not a result of lifestyle choices?

I am not deciding who gets it or not. I am saying that geneticists need to stop messing around with nature like they know everything.

 

I have an equal issue with everything in the medical industry. I understand your logic though however you don't know what will happen in future generations with the modifications of genetic therapy. Its a gamble and our lives aren't worth that.

Every single human being has a "mutated" germline. On average, you have 60 novel mutations, in comparison with your parents. http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/press/2011/110612.html

Do all DNA mutations lead to cancer?

Given that your premise that genes do not play a role in cancer development is explicitly contradicted in the abstract of the article you are citing as proof of that statement - it might be an idea to take you own advice.

Genes aren't the root cause.

 

Folate deficiency(& other nutritional deficiencies) and/or toxic environment leads to Proto-oncogenes to Oncogenes to Cancer.

 

Folate is necessary for the production and maintenance of new cells, for DNA synthesis and RNA synthesis, and for preventing changes to DNA, and, thus, for preventing cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folic_acid#Biological_roles

Spectacularly wrong and also off-topic.

 

In particular re "Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate."

No it's not.

Learn some chemistry.

 

Any way, back at the topic.

Why is it that so many people who understand that biodiversity is a good thing, think that the same doesn't apply to humans.

Its on topic because I am pointing out why genetic therapy is unethical.

 

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/folate/NS_patient-folate Are they wrong?

http://nutritionovereasy.com/2011/01/folate-vs-folic-acid-whats-the-difference/ Are they wrong?

 

Which one is folic acid in the chart below?

http://www.genome.jp/kegg-bin/show_pathway?org_name=hsa&mapno=00790&mapscale=1.0&show_description=show

Edited by Consistency
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot sensibly say "genetic therapy is unethical because oranges are full of uranium".

You can not support a position by making a statement which is false so you can not justify your claim that "Its on topic because I am pointing out why genetic therapy is unethical.".

 

As it happens I agree with you in that such therapy is, at best, ethically questionable and that each case should be judged on its own merit but you still said "Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate."

and it's still strictly wrong, even if you copied it..

 

Those web pages you cite are also wrong about folate, but they are right about this "Folic acid and folate work the same in the body,."

 

The body doesn't actually use folate, It uses tetrahydrofolate and dihydrofolate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a veritable smorgasbord of logical fallacy in that post.

 

1. Non sequitur.

 

 

Science is just like religion; just a different cult that makes stuff up without knowing everything about nature; we are part of nature and so is our biochemistry.

 

So the argument goes as follows:

"Scientist will probably never know everything about X."

"Then science is like a religion because it doesn't know everything about X and therefore just makes stuff up."

 

The bolded section is not a logical extension of scientists not knowing everything about X, unless you can provide examples of a scientific conclusion which is "made up".

 

2. Plain fallacy

 

 

The treatment of disease with drugs/vaccines is unethical and unnecessary when eating a diet rich in plants.

 

All disease cannot be prevented/cured simply by eating a diet rich in plants. You might notice that vegetarians are not immortal, and therefore diet cannot prevent all disease.

 

3. Plain fallacy

 

 

Yes antibiotics do cure a tuberculosis infection in immunosuppressed individuals. The root cause is always a major nutritional deficiency and a toxic environment. We produce our own antimicrobial peptides when we are healthy.

 

The root cause of pathogenic disease is pathogens. A healthy human cannot clear all pathogens on its own. E.g. African trypanosomiasis is 100% fatal is not treated by drugs http://msf.openrepository.com/msf/handle/10144/114145 and the cause is trypanosome transmission by tsetse fly bites.

 

4. Special pleading.

 

 

Nice soup of side effects eh? Its like injecting battery acid in the veins.

 

Oncological chemotherapy is not typical of all medications. The side effects are not generalizable to other drugs.

 

5. Strawman.

 

 

I understand your logic though however you don't know what will happen in future generations with the modifications of genetic therapy. Its a gamble and our lives aren't worth that.

 

I've already shown that germ line engineering is not synonymous with genetic engineering.

 

6. Shifting the goalposts.

 

 

Do all DNA mutations lead to cancer?

 

The discussion was: about Xscid, not cancer. You claimed that X-Scid sufferers are "mutated". I demonstrated that humans are all "mutated". Whether or not all mutations cause cancer is irrelevant to the premise of the discussion.

 

7. Shifting the goalpoasts AND Confusing cause and effect.

 

 

Folate deficiency(& other nutritional deficiencies) and/or toxic environment leads to Proto-oncogenes to Oncogenes to Cancer.

 

A) Your initial claim was "Diet and environment have everything to do with cancer."

My contrary claim was : "Of course environmental factors play a role in cancer genesis and the activation of oncogenes, but to try and exclude the genetic elements of oncology is absolutely nonsensical at the most fundamental level."

 

Your article, in the abstract acknowledges a genetic component to cancer risk - contradicting you initial claim and supporting my counter. Your own evidence disproves your initial claim and your subsequent statement is a shift of the goalposts.

 

B) Go back to your article: contributes to ≠ "causes". Involved in ≠ "causes". Implicated in ≠ "causes".

 

Environmental factors are contributing factors in cancer development - and are almost universally variable in the formation of cancers. E.g. some smokers will never develop lung cancer. Some non-smokers will. The mechanistic cause, common to all cancers is unregulated cell division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed out a contradiction in terms, but I can't say I blame you.

"Genes aren't the root cause.

Folate deficiency(& other nutritional deficiencies) and/or toxic environment leads to Proto-oncogenes to Oncogenes to Cancer."

 

 

So genes (specifically proto oncogenes) lead to cancer but genes don't lead to cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot sensibly say "genetic therapy is unethical because oranges are full of uranium".

You can not support a position by making a statement which is false so you can not justify your claim that "Its on topic because I am pointing out why genetic therapy is unethical.".

 

As it happens I agree with you in that such therapy is, at best, ethically questionable and that each case should be judged on its own merit but you still said "Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate."

and it's still strictly wrong, even if you copied it..

 

Those web pages you cite are also wrong about folate, but they are right about this "Folic acid and folate work the same in the body,."

 

The body doesn't actually use folate, It uses tetrahydrofolate and dihydrofolate.

 

I mean't genetic therapy is unethical in the sense that its based on greed and keeping the mass uneducated about prevention of disease.

 

Is folic acid in supplements petroleum-derived? And if the supplements are petroleum-derived, do they contain petroleum impurities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The root cause of pathogenic disease is pathogens. A healthy human cannot clear all pathogens on its own. E.g. African trypanosomiasis is 100% fatal is not treated by drugs http://msf.openrepository.com/msf/handle/10144/114145 and the cause is trypanosome transmission by tsetse fly bites.

 

I am not going to waste my time answering your other questions.

 

Learn how the immune system works with nutrients...

 

Antimicrobial peptides are regulated by Retinoids(Vitamin A), Vitamin D and other metabolites. Vitamin A being the most efficient. Vitamin A deficiency is a known problem in Africa.

 

Scientific facts....

-Killing of African trypanosomes by antimicrobial peptides.

-Human cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide (CAMP) gene is a direct target of the vitamin D receptor and is strongly up-regulated in myeloid cells by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3

-Regulation of Cathelicidin Gene Expression: Induction by Lipopolysaccharide, Interleukin-6, Retinoic Acid(Vitamin A), and Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium Infection

-Malaria and vitamin A deficiency in African children: a vicious circle?

-Kallikrein expression and cathelicidin processing are independently controlled in keratinocytes by calcium, vitamin D(3), and retinoic acid(Vitamin A).

 

People need drugs because they aren't eating edible leaves on a daily basis in the first place to fulfill their Vitamin A, folate and other nutrient requirements.

 

You missed out a contradiction in terms, but I can't say I blame you.

"Genes aren't the root cause.

Folate deficiency(& other nutritional deficiencies) and/or toxic environment leads to Proto-oncogenes to Oncogenes to Cancer."

 

 

So genes (specifically proto oncogenes) lead to cancer but genes don't lead to cancer.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause

Edited by Consistency
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean't genetic therapy is unethical in the sense that its based on greed and keeping the mass uneducated about prevention of disease.

 

Is folic acid in supplements petroleum-derived? And if the supplements are petroleum-derived, do they contain petroleum impurities?

No, they aren't. But why would it matter?

You do know that petroleum derived materials and plant derived ones are the same , don't you?

After all, petroleum is plant derived.

Or are you one of the "natural is good, artificial is bad" believers who don't understand that most of the more potent toxins are natural?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am not going to waste my time answering your other questions.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Consistency,

 

This type of behavior is completely unacceptable on our forum.

Arete points out major flaws in your arguments, and you dismiss that by saying that you will not waste any more time on answering that? This completely disrupts the scientific discussion that is taking place here. Your behavior breaks our forum rules (most importantly section 2.4, on logical fallacies and 2.8 on soapboxing). You were already suspended for thread hijacks, and insulting, but now you just completely dismiss posts that say you're using logical fallacies.

 

You have a choice: either participate, and answer questions without using logical fallacies. Or be gone.

 

Consider this your very last warning.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ok, so this experiment is not evidence that antimicrobial peptides can clear a T. brucei rhodesiense or gambiense infection in humans:

 

Humans have natural trypanolytic factors in their blood - predominately apolipoprotein L-1 (ApoL-1) which causes trypanosomes to lyse and clears most trypanosomatid infections in humans (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.mi.48.100194.001035). This is why the Trypanosomatid animal parasites - like T. brucei brucei, T. evansi, T. equiperdum, T congolense, T. vivax, etc can't infect humans. The strain used in the experiment - 427; is a T. brucei brucei strain susceptible to lysis by ApoL-1 and not infectious in humans.http://tryps.rockefeller.edu/DocumentsGlobal/lineage_Lister427.pdf

 

The problem with extrapolating experimental results from a T. b. brucei experiment to the human infectious trypanosomes - i.e. T. b. rhodesiense and T. b. gambiense is they have evolved mechanisms for evading lysis by ApoL-1. T. b. rhodesiense through the inclusion of a serum resistance associated (SRA) gene http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPAR%2FPAR131_02%2FS0031182005007560a.pdf&code=b6f6341d66d6ed2a7ed3eff3d6c22b2f unique to that subtype and T. b. gambiense through a mechanism associated with reduced uptake of ApoL-1 enbaled by a modified Haptoglobin-Haemoglobin receptor protein (HpHbR) http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.529136

 

Resultantly, lysis of trypanosomes susceptible to human innate immunity in mice by the addition of suite of human derived peptides is both unsurprising, and not informative for HAT treatment (as the parasite tested doesn't cause HAT, and the model used has no innate immunity to trypanosomatids). We know it works, and it is why most trypanosomes cannot infect humans. Also note, that all of the infected mice did die - they just took longer to die than the control mice.

 

Also note, this isn't necessarily a critique of the study you cited, which was published before much of the characterization of human innate immunity to trypanosomatids and the subsequent mechanistic determination of how the human infective forms evade it. It is an explanation of why it doesn't prove the point you are trying to make with it.

 

 

Next, I think you need to read your own link on root causes. No one ever questioned the fact that malnutrition is a contributing factor for both genetic and infectious disease. However, suggesting that for example - the root cause of trypanosomiasis is vitamin A deficiency and not a parasite is as previously stated, fundamentally incorrect. A person without a vitamin A deficiency (like a European tourist http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/1/e18.short) can still contract trypanosomiasis.

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they aren't. But why would it matter?

You do know that petroleum derived materials and plant derived ones are the same , don't you?

After all, petroleum is plant derived.

Or are you one of the "natural is good, artificial is bad" believers who don't understand that most of the more potent toxins are natural?

 

http://www.doctorsresearch.com/articles4.html - He is wrong?

 

They are the same under a microscope bu they aren't the same. Edible plants contain co-factors which help with absorption and I'm sure other molecules that have not been discovered yet.

 

Petroleum isn't directly plant derived. It takes years for biological dead matter to turn into petroleum.

 

Which natural toxins are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.doctorsresearch.com/articles4.html - He is wrong?

 

They are the same under a microscope bu they aren't the same. Edible plants contain co-factors which help with absorption and I'm sure other molecules that have not been discovered yet.

 

Petroleum isn't directly plant derived. It takes years for biological dead matter to turn into petroleum.

 

Which natural toxins are you talking about?

Yes, he is.

They are the same. If you can prove otherwise you will not only advance your argument, but win a Nobel prize for chemistry.

Bio-availability is another question.

 

Derived very slowly is still derived.

A quick search led me to this page

http://www.thetoyzone.com/2009/33-most-deadly-substances-on-earth/

 

All but 5 of their top 55 are natural.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he is.

They are the same. If you can prove otherwise you will not only advance your argument, but win a Nobel prize for chemistry.

Bio-availability is another question.

 

Derived very slowly is still derived.

A quick search led me to this page

http://www.thetoyzone.com/2009/33-most-deadly-substances-on-earth/

 

All but 5 of their top 55 are natural.

 

 

Of course there will be poisonous plants. Thats nature. The strong survive and the weak(stupid) wither away.

 

What about this... http://www.physiciantrends.com/Blog/Lifestyle-Medicine/Natural-vs.-Artificial-Supplements.html & http://www.powersupplements.com/ala/01c55144.html ?

Edited by Consistency
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following quote from one of Consistency's links is completely and utterly wrong: "Vitamins found in any real food are chemically and structurally
different from those commonly found in ‘natural vitamin’ formulas
." And unfortunately, I notice that many links make claims like this.

 

The molecules, such as vitamins, have been subjected to many types of analyses to determine their exact structure, and there is no indication that they are any different when synthetic or natural. They are indeed chemically and structurally the same.

 

It would make sense if the impurities in petroleum derived materials and plant derived materials would be different. For the non-chemists among us: everything in life, the universe and everything always contains impurities. It is not like this is a bad thing (impurity sounds bad). It is just always there. Separation processes are never 100%, and impurities are just a fact of life. And between petroleum and plants they are possibly different. This does not mean they are by always harmful when from petroleum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.