Soda warning: High sugar intake linked to pancreatic cancer

Rich wrote:
"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Rod" wrote:

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Jan Drew" wrote:

http://www.newstarget.com/z021031.html

Originally published November 9 2006
Soda warning: High sugar intake linked to pancreatic cancer
(NewsTarget) On Wednesday, research was released from the Karolinska
Institute in Sweden that showed people who drink soft drinks or add
sugar
to
their coffee increase their risk of developing pancreatic cancer.
It's just as well that I switched over to aspartame when I was
diagnosed with diabetes, isn't it? My pancreas is in enough trouble
already.
Maybe you will be able to tell us all how effective your switch has been?
Like do you still have Diabetes? If so, what do you believe is the cause?
I will have diabetes until I die. There is no cure. I do have it under
reasonably good control, though, which I achieved by changing my diet,
getting more exercise, and using medication )which I might not have to
take forever). If I stop the metformin and go back to eating twice as
much food as I need I will be back to where I was in a very short
time.

Nobody knows the cause, but, like many things, it appears to be a
combination of genetics and environment. It is not caused by obesity
(my spare tyre was a result of insulin resistance, not a cause), it is
not caused by lethargy, it is not caused by eating sugar. Finding a
cause will take the search for a cure a long way forward.

You suffer from a chronic incurable disease, so you should understand
that even if all the signs and symptoms are controlled the disease is
still there. Diabetes is no different. If I went a month without my
blood glucose level ever rising above 5mmol/l at any time I would be
ecstatic. But I wouldn't be cured.


Actually, a pancreas transplant effects a virtual "cure" of diabetes, but it
trades off for a life-long chemical suppression of the immune system. More
promising is the artificial pancreas, a microprocessor managed implanted
device that determines blood sugar level every few minutes and calculates
and delivers an appropriate insulin dose in real time. All you would have to
do is refill the device's reservoir with an injection of Humulin-R every
three or four months. The ultimate treatment would be to discover a way to
produce stem cells with your own DNA profile and a way to use them to
produce a whole new pancreas that your body would not reject. While we're at
it, let's fantasize a way to alter the DNA of that pancreas to defeat the
genetic process that caused your original organ to cease producing enough
insulin, and a way to alter the DNA of your whole body to reverse "insulin
resitance."

All of this is so likely to occur as to be inevitable, possibly within your
lifetime. So keep your HgB A1C down and your fingers crossed. When it
happens, you want to still have your kindeys, retinas, and feet.

Nice to see you back....everything OK, I hope.

The insulin pump is a reality but the problem is that it still requires
human testing. The goal is to develop an algorithm that will allow a
sensor to report blood glucose and then give just enough insulin to
moderate it, when needed. Since people respond differently to insulin,
i.e. the degree of the decrease in blood glucose, along with the time of
the response, are individual responses, the system has to be very
"smart" and this is where the problem lies.

"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
.. .
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Rod" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
om...
"Jan Drew" wrote:

http://www.newstarget.com/z021031.html

Originally published November 9 2006
Soda warning: High sugar intake linked to pancreatic cancer
(NewsTarget) On Wednesday, research was released from the Karolinska
Institute in Sweden that showed people who drink soft drinks or add
sugar
to
their coffee increase their risk of developing pancreatic cancer.

It's just as well that I switched over to aspartame when I was
diagnosed with diabetes, isn't it? My pancreas is in enough trouble
already.

Maybe you will be able to tell us all how effective your switch has
been?
Like do you still have Diabetes? If so, what do you believe is the
cause?

I will have diabetes until I die. There is no cure. I do have it under
reasonably good control, though, which I achieved by changing my diet,
getting more exercise, and using medication )which I might not have to
take forever). If I stop the metformin and go back to eating twice as
much food as I need I will be back to where I was in a very short
time.

You did not answer Rod's question.

insult snipped

Rod asked "Like do you still have Diabetes?"

I answered "I will have diabetes until I die".

Rod asked "how effective your switch has been?"

I answered "I do have it under reasonably good control, though, which
I achieved by changing my diet, getting more exercise, and using
medication )which I might not have to take forever)".

You did not answer Rod question, deceiver.

I suppose that "deceiver" implies "liar".

Kaching! $1

Can everyone see how Jan quoted me telling her how I had answered
Rod's questions?

By the way, Jan - Rod thought that I answered his questions. Are you
going to call him a liar?


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....0ef4625d0259af


Maybe you will be able to tell us all how effective your switch has been?

Press the up arrow a couple of times.



Nobody knows the cause, but, like many things, it appears to be a
combination of genetics and environment. It is not caused by obesity
(my spare tyre was a result of insulin resistance, not a cause), it is
not caused by lethargy, it is not caused by eating sugar. Finding a
cause will take the search for a cure a long way forward.

You suffer from a chronic incurable disease, so you should understand
that even if all the signs and symptoms are controlled the disease is
still there. Diabetes is no different. If I went a month without my
blood glucose level ever rising above 5mmol/l at any time I would be
ecstatic. But I wouldn't be cured.
--
Peter Bowditch

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:s5s5h.1901$T_.559@trndny06...

There went Markey's UDP again.

He is replying to a thread posted by me.

http://www.newstarget.com/z021031.html

Originally published November 9 2006
Soda warning: High sugar intake linked to pancreatic cancer
(NewsTarget) On Wednesday, research was released from the Karolinska
Institute in Sweden that showed people who drink soft drinks or add sugar to
their coffee increase their risk of developing pancreatic cancer.
The researchers studied the diets of nearly 80,000 men and women between
1997 and 2005. Of those, 131 developed cancer of the pancreas. The group of
people who reported drinking sodas or syrup-based drinks twice a day or more
were 90 percent more likely to develop pancreatic cancer than those who did
not consume such beverages; people who added sugar to their drinks about
five times a day were 70 percent more likely to contract the disease; and
those who consumed the popular Swedish sugary dessert known as creamed fruit
were at a 50 percent increased risk for the cancer, according to the results
published in the American Jounral of Clinical Nutrition.


"The researchers have now been able to show that the risk of developing
pancreatic cancer is related to the amount of sugar in the diet," said a
statement released by the institute.


"Despite the fact that the chances of developing pancreatic cancer are
relatively small, it's important to learn more about the risk factors behind
the disease," said researcher Susanna Larsson.


Pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly forms of the disease, and is
notoriously difficult to treat because it usually does not get diagnosed
until it has spread beyond the pancreas. About 216,000 new cases of the
cancer are diagnosed each year, mostly in developed countries and mostly in
people older than 60.


"It is perhaps the most serious form of cancer, with very poor prognoses for
its victims," Larsson said. "Since it's difficult to treat and is often
discovered too late, it's particularly important that we learn to prevent
it."


"Pancreatic cancer is just one more serious health danger that comes from
drinking soft drinks and sugar-laden beverages," said Mike Adams, a health
advocate and author of "The Five Soft Drink Monsters." "In both Europe and
the United States, these drinks are contributing, not only to cancer, but
also to the spreading obesity epidemic and the subsequent increase in type 2
diabetes cases.


"The path to true health does not include any refined sugars whatsoever,
least of all from 'sugar water' or sweetened juice drinks," he said.

"J" wrote in message
...

Mark Probert wrote:

Nice to see you back....everything OK, I hope.

The insulin pump is a reality but the problem is that it still requires
human testing. The goal is to develop an algorithm that will allow a
sensor to report blood glucose and then give just enough insulin to
moderate it, when needed. Since people respond differently to insulin,
i.e. the degree of the decrease in blood glucose, along with the time of
the response, are individual responses, the system has to be very
"smart" and this is where the problem lies.

Mark, quit crossposting to alt.support.cancer
Thanks
J

Mark did crosspost. I did.
Verizon's AUP
"Usenet Policy and Posting Restrictions: Usenet comprises a system of
bulletin
boards called newsgroups. Usenet access is provided to Internet access
customers
of
Verizon through the Verizon network. Verizon Usenet may not be accessed
via any
other network. You may open no more than five simultaneous connections to
newsgroups at any one time.

You must familiarize yourself with the subjects and established guidelines
and
restrictions of any newsgroup in which you participate and we reserve the
right,
in our sole
discretion, to terminate your Service in the event you violate newsgroup
guidelines or restrictions.


That may be Verizon's AUP.

It is not outlook express AUP when I post from

Stupid and nasty, a sad, sad combination.

May you get what you deserve.
FYI PET scans use all manner of methods to detect "sugar" concentrations.
YOU judged what it means.

Sugar aggravates cancer.
Sugar is not a natural substance to the human system. It takes very
little to be excessive.

May you get what you deserve because of PURPOSEFUL blindness..
FYI PET scans use all manner of methods to detect "sugar" concentrations.


Actually, I do know how PET scans work. It's your sweeping statements and
nasty side that I have problems with.

In article ,
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:00:30 +0000, Jan Drew wrote:

http://www.newstarget.com/z021031.html

Originally published November 9 2006
Soda warning: High sugar intake linked to pancreatic cancer
(NewsTarget) On Wednesday, research was released from the Karolinska
Institute in Sweden that showed people who drink soft drinks or add sugar to
their coffee increase their risk of developing pancreatic cancer.
Hmmmm.... something more carcinogenic than Cyclamates?
Time for the FDA to approve cyclamates and ban sugar.

Cyclamates are probably not that carcinogenic in the first place.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher

"Bozz" wrote in message
...
Stupid and nasty, a sad, sad combination.

May you get what you deserve.
FYI PET scans use all manner of methods to detect "sugar" concentrations.
YOU judged what it means.

Sugar aggravates cancer.
Sugar is not a natural substance to the human system. It takes very
little to be excessive.

May you get what you deserve because of PURPOSEFUL blindness..
FYI PET scans use all manner of methods to detect "sugar" concentrations.


Actually, I do know how PET scans work. It's your sweeping statements and
nasty side that I have problems with.


Sugar aggravates cancer of practically every kind.
Medicine is primarily intended to compensate or eliminate the results of
cancer.
Arguing against some of the basics of cancer prevention is unconscionable.

200 years ago there was practically no cancer or heart disease.
200 years ago it was almost impossible to get sugar except for honey.
Today we have every cancer possible, especially in the USA and other Western
cultures.
Today, in the USA, the average consumption of sugar is 150 lbs a year, yes
150 lbs a year.
Now we are finding even melanoma is not originated by the sun AS MUCH as it
is a result of low D3 and is also exaggerated by high sugar intake.
(Of course the ones who go without sun and then literally bake themselves to
the point of injury are going to set the stage for cancer)
Many read that type of info and assume high sugar intake to be about 50 lbs
per year, but that is 1/3 the average intake.
It means about 5 lbs a year over and above fruits and other natural sources.

The thread is about cancer prevention, not maintaining status quo (high
incidence of deadly cancer). May those who profit from or tell others to
ignore known prevention by purposeful blindness or blinding, get what the
deserve.

I'm sorry if you think that being strongly against imbued murder (homicide)
is "nasty".

Just in case you might be curious about major differences in diet from 200
years ago, two other foods popped up, Corn and Tomatoes. No correlation
could be established.

"Vernon" anere@anhere wrote:

200 years ago there was practically no cancer or heart disease.
200 years ago it was almost impossible to get sugar except for honey.

Away goes Vernon on another flight of fancy.

I live in a country where the original colony was relatively more
difficult to supply than the International Space Station is today. One
of the things done during the 1787-8 First Fleet trip to Australia was
to collect sugar cane from South Africa so that the fledgling colony
could have a reliable supply of sugar. Intensive cane farming started
on Norfolk Island in 1788. In 1821 large-scale farming was commenced
in Australia using cane brought in from Norfolk Island, but up until
that time sugar was supplied from what we would today call "hobby
farms".

And why was sugar needed for the colony? Because the ration for a
convict was 1 pound of sugar per week.

This must be why everybody in Australia in the early years died of
cancer - it was because of the sugar they were eating. But didn't
Vernon also say that there was "practically no cancer" then.

Please explain these seemingly contradictory statements, Vernon - if
cancer was unknown when people ate a pound of sugar a week, why is it
prevalent now when consumption is much less than that. That's after
you explain how convicts could be supplied with a pound a week when it
was almost impossible to get.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

In message , Vernon wrote:

Sugar aggravates cancer of practically every kind.

He's right, you know. Cancer is always totally eliminated
by reducing serum sugars to zero.

--
begin signature.exe
A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people* normally*read*text.
Q:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing?
A:*Top-posting.
Q:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet?

In message , Vernon wrote:

200 years ago there was practically no cancer or heart disease.

I'd be very interested in seeing the age-cohort statistics
to back that up, considering that my own family history
going back well over 200 years has almost all of the adults
dying of either heart disease or cancer.

--
begin signature.exe
A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people* normally*read*text.
Q:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing?
A:*Top-posting.
Q:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet?