Research shows the refined sugar helps cancer cells proliferate
Reuters
By Maggie Fox
8/2/2010
WASHINGTON — Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.
Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.
They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types. (Continues @ LINK)
"Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." Stephen Colbert
I thought fructose was the natural sugar found in fruit, no?
I remember learning about sugar or at least processed sugar from a book I finished several months ago called the Anti-Cancer diet. That book will scare you straight!
I'm glad you found it informative. Both my parents died of cancer and so it's a blessing to see so much research opening up, and bringing to light some of the causes and healing methods to address what many believed was incurable before.
Have you read the articles that have appeared of late regarding virus and how many cancers are caused by that? I tried everything in my power to save my parents, as did they, but in the end it was over and they succumbed. Not without suffering the treatments that gave them a little longer to live and hope, however. Before I die I'd love to see a headline that reads, "Universal Cancer Cure Discovered!"
Now, back OT.
Fructose is a simple sugar. It's found in sweet stuff and honey and is used as a preservative. Most commonly one will see it on many processed food labels, especially soda's, listed in "High Fructose Corn Syrup."
This video link talks about food intolerance and "malabsorption", which has everything to do with ones level of health over all. There's a link under the screen that provides a lot of information on malabsorption and especially fructose intolerance.
"Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose" - considering the function of the pancreas, this isn't a complete surprise (insulin production). Another tiny piece of the puzzle.
My son is preparing for a career as a genetic 'engineer', attempting to help people survice such conditions through genetic 'fixes'. His greatest ambition is to be part of a team in some footnote of a future medical book about 'How we beat cancer'........and MS, diabetes, arthritis, etc, etc.
HPV vaccine is available free here for girls and young women between the ages of 12-18. It's called Gardasil, and it immunises against HPV viruses 16 and 18, which are known to cause about 70% of cervical cancers. This vaccine is very effective in preventing infection.
> This is a very bad food product that nobody should be ingesting.
I'd adjust that claim a bit. How about "Fructose, like almost anything, is dangerous in excessive quantities. In the amounts found in natural fruits, it is almost impossible to overdo it. But refined and used as a high-concentration sweetener, it can mess up your biochemistry in many ways. It is best to avoid high-fructose corn sweetener and other refined sugars except as rare treats."
I eat large amounts of fruit in my diet and have no apparent problems from it. I suspect that would change if I switched to an equal amount of sodas and candies flavored with refined fructose. As the physician Paracelsus said, "The dose makes the poison." Remember, even carrots can be dangerous if you eat too many of them for too long!
> And then there's that common household chemical, dihydrogen monoxide: it's killed
> thousands of people.....
And done many billions of dollars of damage to the U.S. just this year alone! I have somewhere at work, in a file, the Material and Safety Data Sheet for dihydrogen monoxide which states what its LD50 (lethal dose for half the test subjects) is. Can you imagine having the job of determining that?
Heh - I was recently in a discussion where someone was talking about how soy was good for you because it contained all these phytoestrogens that helped with such-and-such. Another person then complained that soy was bad for you because it contained hormone mimics that messed up your biochemistry in unnatural ways. It took me a while to get them to understand that they were talking about the same chemicals doing the same things, and that whether it was good or bad overall was situational and dose-dependent ...
I have somewhere at work, in a file, the Material and Safety Data Sheet for dihydrogen monoxide which states what its LD50 (lethal dose for half the test subjects) is. Can you imagine having the job of determining that?