Why Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, fibromylagia, cancer & more.

This blog is about the on-going challenge I'm having to finish the book about CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/UK) and several secondary diseases which can present as a result, i.e., fibromyalgia, depression, IBD, cancer (especially colon cancer), schizophrenia and Parkinson's, etc.
If you have followed the recent news that an American lab determined that the retrovirus, XMRV, was found in over 90% of people with CFS, although British and German labs have not been able to find this virus in CFS patients' blood, then you might assume that a cure is in sight. Vaccination is being talked about; the use of AZT (the same drug as HIV/AIDS patients take) is also being talked about, even though AZT can make a person who does not have AIDS very sick indeed. I tried to post my scepticism about the XMRV virus several times on the recent New York Times blog about the virus and CFS: I just mentioned that it is a well-known fact amongst CFS researchers that people with CFS are extremely prone to having antibodies to whatever virus is prevalent without actually ever coming down with a viral disease, and my comments got posted only once and were then quickly removed within a few days. So I doubt my that stating the non-viral cause is going to go down well either.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Stand Up To Cancer! Really?

So September (2010) was the Stand Up To Cancer month. The money raised goes to a very good cause but how much interest is there in cancer prevention? What if half of all cancers good very easily be prevented? Why wouldn't the government want to do this - obviously the drug companies, hospitals and doctors would stand to lose a great chunk of their income and so are not actually interested in preventing cancer.
Thirty-two years ago, in 1978, an article was published in the journal, Cancer Research, "Effect of dietary undegraded carrageenan on colon carcinogenesis in F344 rats treated with azoxymethane or methylnitrosourea".
Now going from memory since within a week of reordering the article, I lost it again which makes it seem as though there is a curse on the article, I'll try to dredge up what I remember. 1 of 2 known carcingens, azoxymethane (AZM) or methylnitrosourea (MNS) was given to rats who were on a diet of carrageenan: 100% of those rats developed precancerous pinpoint ulcers in their distal colons (if the experiment had continued further, the adenomatous ulcers would have progressed to cancerous tumors).
Only half of a further group of rats just fed 1 or other of the 2 carcinogens (AZM or MNS) developed such ulcers. 2 out of 10 of another group of rats just fed carrageenan also developed these ulcers.
So carrageenan acted to boost the action of other carcinogens (a synergistic reaqction). We also drink and eat carcinogens (azo colors added to foods and drinks; nitrates in bacon and deli meats, etc), so the carrageenan that we also ingest just like the rats will also act synergestically to cause ulcers and, later, tumors in our colons too.
It's obvious that the removal of carrageenan from the human diet would reduce cancer by up to 50%. You might think that carrageenan's effects are just limited to the colon but the whole body is affected. What happens to the colon is just the first symptom of similar damage happening within the body.
Now why after all this time hasn't carrageenan been removed from the human diet? I'll let you answer that one!