"Michael C Price" <michaelEXCISESPAMprice@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<fGPad.69$hb7.
18@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>..
> "peterb" <peterb@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> 
>
> Ah, I did not mean that the inevitable stream of DNA transcription
> errors are dependent on plant toxins.

I would have been surprised, thanks for clarifying.
 
>
> No.  I merely believe that very many *more* cancers are caused by
> natural substances (unsaturated fats, glucose etc) than synthetics
> (lead, DDT etc).  Replicatively-generated DNA transcription
> errors or mitogenic mutations are *another* major source of cancer.

I understand why you refer to these substances as "natural," though it
wasn't clear to me at first that you included non-paleo foods as being
a majority cause of cancer.   I probably was less than clear that my
references to man-made toxic substances include toxins that are a
"natural" by-product of organic chemical processes, including heavy
metals, hydrocarbons, and PCBs.  And since I define a toxic substance
as any chemical to which humans have no evolved metabolic response,
the majority of cancer triggers you have been referring to are the
same triggers I have been referring to, with some overlap due to
differences in definitions.  I'll admit that your use of the word
"natural" is more clinically accurate than my context-based use of the
word "unnatural," but I prefer to characterize these materials in such
a way as to avoid confusion.  Also, my focus in this thread has been
the wide range of pathology to which accelerating rates of disease
might be attributed to industrial chemicals, and not just cancer.  The
evidence is certainly stacking up.  While I have no idea what
percentage of cancers might be caused by man-made toxins (including
non-synthetic ones) as compared to the toxic affects of non-paleo
foods, I would be surprised if it isn't at least 50%.  The reason I
say that is the observed tendency in a wide range of these substances
to impede normal metabolic processes, including uptake of nutrients
and enzyme production, specific metagenic activity, and their
ubiquitous presence in air, water, and food.   It isn't proof, of
course.  But many hundreds of such studies on almost all classes of
man-made materials are supporting  the case that whatever tends to
destroy eco-systems in nature, have similar effects in the physiology
of Man.
 
>
> Coherent theory, but rather speculative.  Evidence? I don't see the evidence for t
his belief.

The evidence is the fact that increasing rates of many clinical
diseases (not to mention larger numbers of sub-clinical cases, often
in children), far outpace the smaller and more predictable percentage
increases in longevity.   I am working on numbers for the past twenty
years to see the divergence, but I know the variance will be
substantial.  I could venture a guess that rates of disease are
increasing at least 3-fold compared to percentage improvements in
lifespan.  Quite simply, morbidity is overall a better measurement of
success (or lack thereof) in modern health care, in light of the large
numbers of disease in pre-senescent individuals.  And I believe this
evidence supports my view that substances foreign to human physiology
are primarily responsible.

> For instance, you mention childhood diseases, but childhood mortality is n
ow > much lower than it
> ever was, both in the recent industrial past, throughout the agricultural
> epoch and in the preceding hunter-gather Palaeolithic times.

I was referring to morbidity.  Many illnesses previously observed only
in adults are affecting an increasing number of children, such as
obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.  Please note the article at
http://www.innovations-report.de/ht..5.ht
ml.

> What is the evidence that industrial toxins -- in the amounts the average
> person in the first-world imbibes -- cause more than a minute fraction of
> cancers?  I exclude voluntary lifestyle poisoning causes (tobacco,
> alcohol and other drug abuse) or drinking the unprocessed effluent
> from an industrial plant (mostly only a third-world problem).

I believe the available data in the form of toxicology studies is
overwhelming, even excluding tobacco.  I could refer you to numerous
data in a thousand studies on the health effects (many metagenic) of
dioxin (dairy and fish), fluoride (municipal waters), phthalates
(cosmetics and plastics), PFOS (cookware and food wrappers),
xenoestrogens (hormone disruptors), PCBs (a banned chemical in many
countries, but still contaminating our food supply), hydrocarbons
(automobile exhaust), thallium (coal burning), PBDEs (flame
retardant), DDT, the list goes on and on.  Obviously, there is no way
to know what percentage of cancer is associated with individual or
combined exposures, however a large amount of animal and human data
show a causal link to various metabolic challenges, including cancer,
from exposure to any of them.  Also, note that some estimates put the
level of adequate research into the health effects of industrial
chemicals at only 7%.  And there is no question that such toxins are
ubiquitous in the environment.  For instance, a 2004 study identified
the presence of 80 out of 105 targeted chemicals in the blood samples
of 7 families, spanning 3 generations, in the British Isles.  In
children, 75 such chemicals presented, whereas only 56 in their
grandparents, demonstrating that children are either more susceptible
or more chronically exposed.  In one study, DDT was found in the body
tissue of eskimos, and a 2001 analysis showed DDT present in 24% of
canned salmon.  In September 2000, researchers at CDC reported that
every one of 289 persons tested for the plasticizer dibutyl phthalate
(DBP) tested positive for this compound. In my view, thousands of
clinical studies showing a toxic potential from exposure to many of
these toxic materials make it impossible to assume they are benign.
 
>
> I have not researched thus extensively but I recall reading about
> the probability of the incorporation of inappropriate DNA bases;
> the numbers were given without reference to toxins.

I respect your adherence to the available data, however the absence of
toxicology implicating such chemicals in specific DNA expression does

not itself constitute evidence.  This may be akin to finding a dead
body next door to 5 bodies in the room next door.  I think all we
might say in the

case of thymidine and uraecil is that the jury is still out.  We don't
know, for instance, if the causal agent might be fluoride, or some
other

ubiquitous chemical, whether organic or synthetic.
 
>
> For colon cancer I believe it is the primary cause.  One of the ways
> that folate supplementation lowers long-term colon cancer rates is
> by making more thymidine available to the DNA copying processes.
> The probability of uraecil misincorporation into DNA is a function of
> the ambient uraecil/thymidine ratio.  I can't do better than direct your
> attention to the two references I gave earlier:
>
> [25a] Folate deficiency causes uracil misincorporation into human DNA 
and
> chromosome breakage: Implications for cancer and neuronal damage.  Blount
> BC, Mack MM, Wehr CM, MacGregor JT, Hiatt RA, Wang G, Wickramasinghe SN,
> Everson RB, Ames BN in Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94 (1997) pp 3290-3295   PMI
D:
> 9096386
> "Folate deficiency causes massive incorporation of uracil into human DNA (
4
> million per cell) and chromosome breaks. The likely mechanism is the
> deficient methylation of dUMP to dTMP and subsequent incorporation of urac
il
> into DNA by DNA polymerase. During repair of uracil in DNA, transient nick
s
> are formed; two opposing nicks could lead to chromosome breaks. Both high
> DNA uracil levels and elevated micronucleus frequency (a measure of
> chromosome breaks) are reversed by folate administration. A significant
> proportion of the U.S. population has low folate levels, in the range
> associated with elevated uracil misincorporation and chromosome breaks. Su
ch
> breaks could contribute to the increased risk of cancer and cognitive
> defects associated with folate deficiency in humans."
>
> [25b] DNA damage in folate deficiency.  Blount BC, Ames BN in Baillier
es
> Clin Haematol 1995 Sep;8(3):461-78  PMID: 8534957
> "Folate deficiency significantly increases uracil content and chromosome
> breaks (as measured by micronucleated cells) in human leukocyte DNA. Folat
e
> supplementation reduces both the uracil content of DNA and the frequency o
f
> micronucleated cells, indicating that uracil misincorporation may play a
> causative role in folate deficiency-induced chromosome breaks. A calculati
on
> is presented to explain how the levels of uracil found in DNA could cause
> chromosome breaks. Based on this calculation, the frequency of uracil repa
ir
> events that might result in double-strand DNA breaks increases by 1752-fol
d.
> These results are consistent with clinical and epidemiological evidence
> linking folate deficiency to DNA damage and cancer."
> 
>
> I am not aware of this being a major factor in diet deficiencies.

Avitaminosis is not causally linked to man-made chemicals in specific
case studies, so far.  But clinical data showing adverse effects of

metabolic function in both animal and human studies make it clear that
deficiencies can be related to a variety of chemical exposures.
Whether

these effects progress to full-blown nutrient deficiency is not known,
but I believe they are at least contributory.  if they are, that means
they are

actively promoting disease.  There is, of course, medical consensus
that diaretics often upset electrolyte imbalance, that calcium
blockers, by

design, impede absorption of calcium, and that other drugs have
similiar unwanted effects that require nutrient supplementation, for
example in

cancer therapy.

> [..] 
>
> I'll skip this for the moment :-)
> 
>
> Cancer is due to genetic mutations (and epigenetic malfunctioning)
> and is the endpoint of a number of mutations; i.e. to be cancerous
> a cell must have acquired a number of mutations.  Cells progress
> though a number pre-cancerous states on their way to full-blown
> metastasising tumourhood.  Mutations accumulate with time, hence as
> we age there is an increasing probability of any particular cell sourcing
> a tumour.  Consequently, to get cancer when we are young is more
> unlucky than when we are old.  Eventually it becomes a certainty.
>
> The exception is childhood cancers which are due to inherited
> genetic defects from our parents or inappropriate stem cells left over
> from the foetal stage (e.g. some forms of leukaemia, brain tumours).
> These rates decline with age simply due to the early mortality of
> the victims.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael C Price
> ----------------------------------------
> http://mcp.longevity-report.com
> http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]