Dietary supplements increase cancer risk

[GysdeJongh]

Causation is no corelation. All dokters are idiots paid by big pharma, so
they will do anything to deprive us from cheap and effective solutions.
Supplements and vitamins are essential for your health. The more you take
the better of course.
Gys


<http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-dietary-supplements-cancer.html>

Beta-carotene, selenium and folic acid - taken up to three times their
recommended daily allowance, these supplements are probably harmless. But
taken at much higher levels as some supplement manufacturers suggest, these
three supplements have now been proven to increase the risk of developing a
host of cancers.

"It's not that these nutrients are toxic - they're essential and we need
them, but we need them in a certain balance," says Tim Byers, MD, MPH,
professor of epidemiology at the Colorado School of Public Health and
associate director for prevention and control at the University of Colorado
Cancer Center.

Byers is senior author of a commentary recently published in the Journal of
the National Cancer Institute that discusses the clinical and policy
implications of the increased cancer risk from high dose dietary
supplements.

We have a window into less than half of the biology of what these nutrients
are doing," Byers says. "We say generalized things about them, calling them
an antioxidant or an essential mineral, but true biology turns out to be
more complex than that. The effects of these supplements are certainly not
limited to the label we give them. And, as we've seen, sometimes the
unintended effects include increased cancer risk."

"We need to do a better job as a society in ensuring that the messages
people get about value versus risk is accurate for nutritional supplements,"
Byers says. "My conclusion is that taking high doses of any particular
nutrient is more likely to be a bad thing than a good thing."

[mainframetech]

On May 15, 5:35 pm, "GysdeJongh" <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl>
wrote:

In the case of folic acid, I've taken far above normal amount of it
daily for the last 6 years with no adverse effects. Apparently it
only affects some people, if that.

Chris

[ra...@val.com]

>   In the case of folic acid, I've taken far above normal amount of it
> daily for the last 6 years with no adverse effects.  Apparently it
> only affects some people, if that.

I'd really recommend a tutorial on stats and probability. The data
don't show that Everyone that takes excess (above RDA) of folic acids
has problems, but a significant number do.

Many have made the same claims of smoking and health. Even me in my
younger, smoking days. Do you think that's a valid refutation of the
data on cigarettes.

The data on folic acid at amounts >1mg is pretty substantial.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35874922/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/your-breakfast-giving-you-cancer/#.T7LWcOuo6lI

Randy

[mainframetech]

> The data on folic acid at amounts >1mg is pretty substantial.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35874922/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/y...
>
> Randy

One of the reasons Folic Acid is added to so many things in our diet
is that the food processing they do on our food takes it out, along
with many other vitamins and nutrients. The story goes that they were
made to put back many of them, but it took 30 years to get the FDA to
insist on putting back Folic Acid. I personally doubt that the food
processors are putting back any more than they took out to keep costs
down.

If a 'significant number' are affected by too much Folic Acid, I
too would like to see the statistics on that, or even the anecdotal
information. You see there's a group out there that would be very
happy to have everyone get away from supplements and vitamins, and
they have enough money to cause all kinds of stories to be generated
and spread around.

As it turns out, before I quit I smoked 1.5 packs a day for about 45
years with no cancer, so that's 2 people to begin new statistics.
When you get them compiled, let me know...:)

Chris

[ra...@val.com]

mainframetech wrote:
> I personally doubt that the food
> processors are putting back any more than they took out to keep costs
> down.

reply:
They are putting a Lot (a whole lot in many cases >300%) more in than
they take out. Some boxed cereals add the full RDA amount in one
serving.

mainframe tech wrote:
"If a 'significant number' are affected by too much Folic Acid, I
too would like to see the statistics on that, or even the anecdotal
information."

mainframe tech wrote:
"I provided a pop press piece that discusses the research. I suggest
you start here:.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35874922/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/y#.T7OobetrbQM"

Also review the link that Gys provided.

One review estimated 15.000 additional cancers due to excess folic
acid intake from 1996 - 2000!

Here's some more references:

Cole BF, Baron JA, Sandler RS, et al. Folic acid for the prevention of
colorectal adenomas: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2007;297(21):
2351–2359.

Figueiredo JC, Grau MV, Haile RW, et al. Folic acid and risk of
prostate cancer: results from a randomized clinical trial. J Natl
Cancer Inst. 2009;101(6):432–435.

Kim YI. Role of folate in colon cancer development and progression. J
Nutr. 2003;133(11)(suppl 1):3731S–3739S.

Mason JB. Folate, cancer risk, and the Greek god, Proteus: a tale of
two chameleons. Nutr Rev. 2009;67(4):206–212.

Collin SM, Metcalfe C, Refsum H, et al. Circulating folate, vitamin
B12, homocysteine, vitamin B12 transport proteins, and risk of
prostate cancer: a case-control study, systematic review, and meta-
analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(6):1632–1642.

Lawson KA, Wright ME, Subar A, et al. Multivitamin use and risk of
prostate cancer in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and
Health Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(10):754–764.

Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ, Chang SC, Leitzmann MF, et al. Folate intake,
alcohol use, and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the Prostate,
Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Am J Clin Nutr.
2006;83(4):895–904.

Randy

[Maya Zuiderweg]

mainframetech formuleerde de vraag :

One more: my mother smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for over 70
years. No cancer.
M.

[Trawley Trash]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:35:50 +0200
"GysdeJongh" <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:

> Causation is no corelation. All dokters are idiots paid by big
> pharma, so they will do anything to deprive us from cheap and
> effective solutions. Supplements and vitamins are essential for your
> health. The more you take the better of course.
> Gys
>
>
> <http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-dietary-supplements-cancer.html>
>
> Beta-carotene, selenium and folic acid - taken up to three times
> their recommended daily allowance, these supplements are probably

> harmless...

...

> We have a window into less than half of the biology of what these
> nutrients are doing," Byers says. "We say generalized things about
> them, calling them an antioxidant or an essential mineral, but true
> biology turns out to be more complex than that. The effects of these
> supplements are certainly not limited to the label we give them. And,
> as we've seen, sometimes the unintended effects include increased
> cancer risk."

...

> ...Byers says. "My conclusion is that taking

> high doses of any particular nutrient is more likely to be a bad
> thing than a good thing."

In plain English Byers words translate to: "We don't know, that means
it's possible."

Let's turn to some other sources.

From wikepedia:

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

! Cancer

! Many cancer cells have a high requirement for folic acid and
! overexpress the folic acid receptor. This finding has led to the
! development of anti-cancer drugs that target the folic acid
! receptor.[31]

! A meta-analysis published in 2010 failed to find a statistically
! significant cancer risk due to folic acid supplements.[32]

! Some investigations have proposed good levels of folic acid may be
! related to lower risk of esophageal, stomach, and ovarian cancers, but
! the benefits of folic acid against cancer may depend on when it is
! taken and on individual conditions. In addition, folic acid may not be
! helpful, and could even be damaging, in people already suffering from
! cancer or from a precancerous condition. Likewise, it has been
! suggested excess folate may promote tumor initiation.[33] Folate has
! shown to play a dual role in cancer development; low folate intake
! protects against early carcinogenesis, and high folate intake promotes
! advanced carcinogenesis.[34] Therefore, public health recommendations
! should be careful not to encourage too much folate intake.[34]

! Diets high in folate are associated with decreased risk of colorectal
! cancer; some studies show the association is stronger for folate from
! foods alone than for folate from foods and supplements,[35] Colorectal
! cancer is the most studied type of cancer in relation to folate and
! one carbon metabolism. One study concluded that there was not strong
! support for an association between prostate cancer risk and
! circulating concentrations of folate or vitamin B12. The researchers
! noted that while elevated concentrations of vitamin B12 may be
! associated with an increased risk for advanced stage prostate cancer,
! that this was not true of folic acid and that the association between
! B12 and cancer risk required examination in other large prospective
! studies.[36]

! Most epidemiologic studies suggest diets high in folate are associated
! with decreased risk of breast cancer, but results are not uniformly
! consistent. One broad cancer screening trial reported a potential
! harmful effect of much folate intake on breast cancer risk, suggesting
! routine folate supplementation should not be recommended as a breast
! cancer preventive,[37] but a 2007 Swedish prospective study found much
! folate intake was associated with a lower incidence of postmenopausal
! breast cancer.[38] A 2008 study has shown no significant effect of
! folic acid on overall risk of total invasive cancer or breast cancer
! among women.[39] Folate intake may not have any effect on the risk of
! breast cancer but may have an effect for women who consume at least 15
! g/d of alcohol.[40] Folate intake of more than 300 痢/d may reduce the
! risk of breast cancer in women who consume alcohol.[40]

! Most research studies associate high dietary folate intake with a
! reduced risk of prostate cancer.[36] Recently, a clinical trial showed
! daily supplementation of 1 mg of folic acid increased the risk of
! prostate cancer, while dietary and plasma folate levels among vitamin
! nonusers actually decreased the risk of prostate cancer.[41] A Finnish
! study consisting of 29,133 older male smokers observed prostate cancer
! risk had no relationship with serum folate levels.[7] [edit]

And there is no mention of cancer risk here on a government website
for users:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000723/

There are many known cancer hazards
in foods, for example nitrates used as preservatives. People who
are serious about reducing cancer risk have a lot of reading to do,
and excess vitamins is among the least of their worries.

You have a long way to go before you have half the evidence of the
link between lung cancer and cigarettes that we had in 1960. There
is much anecdotal evidence even before this. Particularly notable
was the death of King George VI from lung cancer in 1952. The
strong anecdotal evidence connecting smoking and lung cancer was the
reason that those statistical studies were funded.

It is wrong to claim that statistical studies alone prove cause and
effect. The frequent use of the comparison with tobacco is
disingenuous. In this case it is even wrong to claim that statistical
studies show the claimed linkage.

[deT notsuH]

Maybe wickedpedia isn't the best reference to go by....

Not sure if this link will work for you, but it is the actual article
referenced in the link posted by Gysde:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/10/732.full
Since you are most focused on folic acid, here's the relevant section
(RCT = randomized controlled trial, widely regarded as the gold standard):
<quote>
Folic Acid

Folate, a water soluble B-vitamin, is required for a variety of
methylation-related processes. Although the terms “folate” and “folic
acid” are sometimes used synonymously, the latter refers to the
synthetic oxidized form that is commonly used in fortification and
supplements, whereas naturally occurring folates are reduced molecules
that exist in nature in several different forms with various degrees of
polyglutamation. The association of folate and folic acid with cancer
risk has been most intensely studied with regard to colorectal
neoplasia. Although it has been proposed that synthetic sources of
folate might confer greater protection than natural forms, results of
one meta-analysis of observational studies of colorectal cancer showed
that total folate (dietary plus synthetic sources) did not provide
greater protection than dietary folate. In contrast to observational
data showing a protective association of folate status with risk, a
recent meta-analysis of RCTs found no effect of folic acid
supplementation on risk of colorectal adenomas over the 3-year treatment
period. In view of these findings, folic acid does not seem to be a
promising avenue for colon cancer prevention as previously hoped.

Contrary to the hypothesized benefit, the results of one trial showed
that long-term folic acid supplementation increases risk of advanced
colorectal adenomas (relative risk = 1.67; 95% confidence interval =
1.00 to 2.80) and of developing three or more adenomas (relative risk =
2.32; 95% confidence interval = 1.23 to 4.35). In this RCT, increased
risk of prostate cancer was also found. Because preclinical studies show
the potential for a pro-neoplastic effect of folate—at least in animals
with preexisting neoplasms—the possibility of enhanced carcinogenesis is
a concern. Consistent with this idea, observational studies have linked
higher dietary intake as well as higher circulating concentrations of
folate with increased prostate cancer risk; higher risk of breast cancer
has also been shown among individuals with higher folic acid intake.
Whether folic acid supplementation can have adverse effects is a topic
that needs further investigation. This is particularly important in
countries such as the United States, where government-mandated folic
acid fortification of the food supply, which began in 1996, has resulted
in higher overall intake of this nutrient and use of supplements
containing folic acid is widespread.
<endquote>

And the snippet below, from the conclusions, is priceless:
<quote>
Whether these trials will find benefits from supplementation for cancer
prevention is unknown. In considering the current evidence, many expert
committees and organizations have made public health recommendations,
generally concluding that nutritional supplements have little to no
benefit in preventing cancer (Table 1 [sniped]).

Given this general consensus, why do so many people in the United States
continue to use dietary supplements? A large part of the answer lies in
messages from supplement manufacturers, who suggest that there are
health benefits, including cancer prevention, from supplements.
Undoubtedly, use is driven by a common belief that supplements can
improve health and protect against disease, and that at worst, they are
harmless. However, the assumption that any dietary supplement is safe
under all circumstances and in all quantities is no longer empirically
reasonable. Believers in supplements are sometimes quick to discredit
caution over supplement use, as they suggest that the tendency of
mainstream science to ignore nonconventional evidence is tainted or that
mainstream science is somehow corrupted by its link to a
medical–industrial complex that seeks to protect profits rather than
prevent disease. Results of a recent survey showed that most US
supplement users report that they would continue to use supplements even
if scientific evidence found them to be ineffective or if the FDA
specifically deemed them ineffective. Perhaps, it is generally assumed
by supplement users that these products are as well regulated as
over-the-counter medications. These beliefs underscore the need for
efforts by scientists and government officials to encourage the public
to make prudent decisions based on sound evidence with respect to use of
dietary supplements for cancer prevention.
<endquote>

> ! g/d of alcohol.[40] Folate intake of more than 300 µg/d may reduce the

--
deT notsuH bass-ackwards ude.hcimu@pcird
After a certain age, if you don't wake up aching in every joint, you
are probably dead.

[GysdeJongh]

deT notsuH wrote:
> Maybe wickedpedia isn't the best reference to go by....
>
> Not sure if this link will work for you, but it is the actual article
> referenced in the link posted by Gysde:
> http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/10/732.full
> Since you are most focused on folic acid, here's the relevant section
> (RCT = randomized controlled trial, widely regarded as the gold
> standard): <quote>
> Folic Acid

Thank you for the extensive quote from this article deT notsuH :) It's not
free to read for everyone so I welcome this contribution.

I posted a bit cynical comment on top of my post to help the usual suspects
with their usual comment. Did not help of course

Thx again
Gys

[GysdeJongh]

Hi Randy,
nice to see you back posting. For a few seconds I wondered if our mutual
friend <Empty> Boob </Emprty>spoiled the fun for you.

I smoked from about 6 years old. I was born in the Rotterdam Harbour area.
Every body smoked. Even the cat. My grandfather smoked till he was 95. I
smoked till 1996 2 packs a day. That is packs of dark tobaco to make your
own (40) cigarettes.

I don't have any cancers, nor my grandfather. My sister just dies of lung
cancer. She never smoked. Statistics is not for sissies.

Gys

[GysdeJongh]

Cancer is a Bingo in Molecular Biology. Loosely speaking : you only can
collect your price is you have 10 numbers on a row right. Even 9 numbers on
a row right won't do.

Your mother smoked 2 packs / day for over 70 years and won nothing. She did
not manage to get 10 right numbers on a row. You don't know if she had 9
numbers and died just before the tenth.

My grandmother bought a ticket in the State Lottery for about 30 years and
never ver won anything. That gave her the right to get a ticket for free for
the rest of her life.

She (of course) won nothing with those free tickets either. She used to say
: "Hey I'm lucky in love, you can't have it all"

What does it prove ? Does it prove that no one will ever win the States
Lotery ? That no one will ever win any Bingo ? That no one will ever get
cancer ?

Gys

[ra...@val.com]

Gys Quoted:

" ...Byers says. "My conclusion is that taking
high doses of any particular nutrient is more likely to be a bad
thing than a good thing."

Trawley responded:

>   In plain English Byers words translate to: "We don't know, that means
>   it's possible."

That's sure not a "plain English" translation to my mind, especially
when considering the references.
The fact that, animal studies, where extraneous variables can be
tightly controlled, show the similar results is very damning in my
view.
[1] . T

Also the human studies include not only "obeservation data, but case
controlled data is not something to easily scuff at. I love Wikipedia,
but its a starting off point for research - not the final word. {2]
[3]
These references is by no means exhaustive.

1.
Role of Folate in Colon Cancer Development and Progression1
Young-In Kim2
+ Author Affiliations

Departments of Medicine and Nutritional Sciences, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Division of Gastroenterology,
St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
↵2To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
young...@utoronto.ca.
Abstract

Folate, a water-soluble B vitamin and important cofactor in 1-carbon
transfer, is an important nutritional factor that may modulate the
development of colorectal cancer. Epidemiologic and clinical studies
indicate that dietary folate intake and blood folate levels are
inversely associated with colorectal cancer risk. Collectively, these
studies suggest an ∼40% reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer in
individuals with the highest dietary folate intake compared with those
with the lowest intake. Animal studies using chemical and genetically
predisposed rodent models have provided considerable support for a
causal relationship between folate depletion and colorectal
carcinogenesis as well as a dose-dependent protective effect of folate
supplementation. However, animal studies have also shown that the dose
and timing of folate intervention are critical in providing safe and
effective chemoprevention; exceptionally high supplemental folate
levels and folate intervention after microscopic neoplastic foci are
established in the colorectal mucosa promote rather than suppress
colorectal carcinogenesis. These animal studies in conjunction with
clinical observations suggest that folate possesses the dual
modulatory effects on carcinogenesis depending on the timing and dose
of folate intervention. Folate deficiency has an inhibitory effect
whereas folate supplementation has a promoting effect on progression
of established neoplasms. In contrast, folate deficiency in normal
epithelial tissues appears to predispose them to neoplastic
transformation, and modest levels of folate supplementation suppress
the development of tumors in normal tissues. Notwithstanding the
limitations associated with animal models, these animal studies
suggest that the optimal timing and dose of folate intervention need
to be established for safe and effective chemoprevention in humans.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/11/3731S

2.

Folate, cancer risk, and the Greek god, Proteus: a tale of two
chameleons.

Mason JB.

Source
USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University,
Boston, Massachusetts 02111, USA. joel....@tufts.edu
Abstract

Evidence indicates that an abundant intake of foodstuffs rich in
folate conveys protection against the development of colorectal
cancer, and perhaps some other common cancers as well. The issue is
complex, however, since some observations in animal and human studies
demonstrate that an overly abundant intake of folate among those who
harbor existing foci of neoplasia might instead produce a paradoxical
promotion of tumorigenesis. The pharmaceutical form of the vitamin,
folic acid, might affect the process in a manner that is distinct from
natural forms of the vitamin, although this remains a speculative
concept. Our limited understanding of this complex relationship is
impeding efforts to move ahead with widespread folic acid
fortification, but this delay may be necessary to ensure that such
programs are instituted in a safe manner.

3.

Circulating folate, vitamin B12, homocysteine, vitamin B12 transport
proteins, and risk of prostate cancer: a case-control study,
systematic review, and meta-analysis.

Collin SM, Metcalfe C, Refsum H, Lewis SJ, Zuccolo L, Smith GD, Chen
L, Harris R, Davis M, Marsden G, Johnston C, Lane JA, Ebbing M, Bønaa
KH, Nygård O, Ueland PM, Grau MV, Baron JA, Donovan JL, Neal DE, Hamdy
FC, Smith AD, Martin RM.

Source
Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United
Kingdom. simon....@bristol.ac.uk

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Disturbed folate metabolism is associated with an increased risk of
some cancers. Our objective was to determine whether blood levels of
folate, vitamin B(12), and related metabolites were associated with
prostate cancer risk.
METHODS:
Matched case-control study nested within the U.K. population-based
Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study of prostate-
specific antigen-detected prostate cancer in men ages 50 to 69 years.
Plasma concentrations of folate, B(12) (cobalamin), holo-haptocorrin,
holo-transcobalamin total transcobalamin, and total homocysteine
(tHcy) were measured in 1,461 cases and 1,507 controls. ProtecT study
estimates for associations of folate, B(12), and tHcy with prostate
cancer risk were included in a meta-analysis, based on a systematic
review.

RESULTS:
In the ProtecT study, increased B(12) and holo-haptocorrin
concentrations showed positive associations with prostate cancer risk
[highest versus lowest quartile of B(12) odds ratio (OR) = 1.17 (95%
confidence interval, 0.95-1.43); P(trend) = 0.06; highest versus
lowest quartile of holo-haptocorrin OR = 1.27 (1.04-1.56); P(trend) =
0.01]; folate, holo-transcobalamin, and tHcy were not associated with
prostate cancer risk. In the meta-analysis, circulating B(12) levels
were associated with an increased prostate cancer risk [pooled OR =
1.10 (1.01-1.19) per 100 pmol/L increase in B(12); P = 0.002]; the
pooled OR for the association of folate with prostate cancer was
positive [OR = 1.11 (0.96-1.28) per 10 nmol/L; P = 0.2) and
conventionally statistically significant if ProtecT (the only case-
control study) was excluded [OR = 1.18 (1.00-1.40) per 10 nmol/L; P =
0.02].
CONCLUSION:
Vitamin B(12) and (in cohort studies) folate were associated with
increased prostate cancer risk.

> ! g/d of alcohol.[40] Folate intake of more than 300 µg/d may reduce the

[mainframetech]

On May 16, 9:33 am, "ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> mainframetech wrote:
> > I personally doubt that the food
> > processors are putting back any more than they took out to keep costs
> > down.
>
> reply:
> They are putting  a Lot (a whole lot in many cases >300%) more in than
> they take out. Some boxed cereals add the full RDA amount in one
> serving.
>

That doesn't make sense. For every box of cereal they remove a
certain amount, which is spread over the many bowls in each box. Why
would they put back in more per bowl than they took out? Not good
sense for a corporation to spend more than necessary. I can see them
putting in a bit more than they're supposed to just to be sure they
meet their obligation, but not much more than that.

> mainframe tech wrote:
>
> "If a 'significant number' are affected by too much Folic Acid, I
> too would like to see the statistics on that, or even the anecdotal
> information."
>
> mainframe tech wrote:
>
> "I provided a pop press piece that discusses the research. I suggest

> you start here:.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35874922/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/y..."
>
***** Error. I didn't write that line.

Sorry. I mentioned that I'd like to see the statistics or anecdotal
information, but I forgot to mention that I had no intention of doing
the research, or looking up a bunch of studies for you. I thought you
had come across some statistics somewhere or some comprehensive
anecdotal information. And I would have liked to see it.

As noted, I still take a much larger amount of folic acid than the
RDA with no obvious negative effects. That's a count of one in the
statistics if you're going to compile them. Add me in.

You see, I've looked at Folic Acid off and on for many years and
haven't seen talk of cancer until the last few years. For the way I
look at things, I'm a bit leery of something new of this type that
would be suchj a godsend to the drug industry. They would be very
happy that folic acid caused cancer, and if you'll think about it,
there have been a number of articles about exactly that, but talking
of many other supplements and vitamins. Some of which have been taken
in large doses by many for many years, such as C and D.

I'll keep an eye out for some statistics and who presents them and
see what comes of it...Thanks..:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

> ! g/d of alcohol.[40] Folate intake of more than 300 µg/d may reduce the

You raise an important point that the supplement or vitamin in
question or the person in question can both have many other factors
that may bear on any particular point. The complexity of the human
organism makes any quest much more involved than we can know yet.
Even a particular compound may have elements beyond what we know of
it. It's a lot like just accepting GMO foods because someone said
they're exactly like the normal foods. In the case of DNA, the
differences and cross reliances are too many to fathom, and many are
not yet known and still being discovered daily.

Chris

[mainframetech]

An interesting study was done where they gave both sides of it the
placebo, but they told one side they were getting a placebo. They
still had noticeably better results than the other side! Here's the
article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug

And here's the study:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015591

All this says is that the witch doctors knew what they were doing all
along...:)

[Trawley Trash]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
"ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:

> Trawley responded:
> >   In plain English Byers words translate to: "We don't know, that
> > means it's possible."
>
> That's sure not a "plain English" translation to my mind, especially
> when considering the references.

No relevant references in the link Gys posted. Did you read the same text
that I did?

> The fact that, animal studies, where extraneous variables can be
> tightly controlled, show the similar results is very damning in my
> view.
> [1] . T

Wikipedida quoted a 2010 study that found no correlation.

Furthermore I have the following objections:

1) Supplements causing cancer has nothing to do with diabetes.
You are spamming here for some hidden agenda.

2) It is not correct to say that a few studies involving folate
justify the statement that "Dietary supplements cause cancer."
If folate does cause cancer, then do post about it in an
appropriate venue, or correct wikipedia.

3) There are many other reasons for supplements than curing
cancer. The positive benefits must be weighted against
the risks.

These positive benefits are individual in nature. We
each have a unique biochemistry, and the benefit is something
we each have to decide for ourselves.

[Trawley Trash]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:41:36 -0400
deT notsuH <pcird*BACKWARDS*@umich.edu> wrote:

> Maybe wickedpedia isn't the best reference to go by....

Agreed, but you didn't even look it up. Other studies
referenced in the Wikepedia article showed no statistically
significant correlation. You have no comment on these.

> Not sure if this link will work for you, but it is the actual
> article referenced in the link posted by Gysde:
> http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/10/732.full

You have no comment on the wikipedia article, just another
reference that we cannot read. According to the quoted text
there is only 95 percent confidence in the result. That is
not enough to override other contradicting studies.

> Since you are most focused on folic acid, here's the relevant section
> (RCT = randomized controlled trial, widely regarded as the gold
> standard): <quote>

No, I am not focused on folic acid. Gys brought the subject up.
I do not like to see a shakey study result on one supplement used to
back of the overly broad generalization that "Dietary Supplements
increase cancer risk." This implies that other supplements that
were not studied also cause cancer. That is wrong.

The original link posted does not even sufficiently back up the
assertion that folic acid is linked to cancer.

Even if folic acid is linked to
cancer, that does not show that folic acid *causes* cancer. For
one thing the most common use of the supplement is by pregnant women.
Pregnant women are more likely to have health problems.

Then there is the presumed benefit of taking folic acid in preventing
health problems in the developing fetus. You need much more
convincing data than has been shown so far to say pregnant women
should not take this supplement.

The references quoted are not suffient make the point.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Op 16-5-2012, heeft GysdeJongh verondersteld :

I did not say it proved anything.
Just added one more for Chris :-)

Ah, the Staatsloterij (State Lottery). Husband-of-now bought his first
lottery ticket when a student, won directly a quite big sum of money
(for a student it was at that time), was hooked forever, still buys
them, never wins anymore.
Does that prove anything?
M.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

GysdeJongh had uiteengezet :

...lies, damned lies, and statistics...
M.

[ra...@val.com]

Randy wrote:
"They [food manufacturers] are putting  a Lot (a whole lot in many

cases >300%) more in than
they take out. Some boxed cereals add the full RDA amount in one
serving."

mainframetech wrote

  "That doesn't make sense.  For every box of cereal they remove a
certain amount, which is spread over the many bowls in each box.
 Why
would they put back in more per bowl than they took out?  Not good
sense for a corporation to spend more than necessary."

Reply:
Because in 1998 the US government Required it!!
Its was voluntary in 1996 and mandatory in 1998 that folic acid be
added to enriched grain products.
Other B vitamins have been added for over 50 years.

Next time you at the grocery store read the nutrition label on cereal
boxes. Many contain between 25 - 100 percent of the RDA of folic acid.
Combined with a good diet and supplement it's easy to get a mega dose
- the same dosages that animal and humans studies have found
problematic.
Most common box cereal products have the equivalent of a "one a day"
Wallgreen's multiple per serving.

Read the ingredients - supplemental vitamins are added. Without the
artificial supplementation, a single serving of even whole grain
cereals wouldn't have anything near the amounts of folic acid or other
vitamins.

mainframetech wrote:
>   Sorry.  I mentioned that I'd like to see the statistics or anecdotal
> information, but I forgot to mention that I had no intention of doing
> the research, or looking up a bunch of studies for you.  I thought you
> had come across some statistics somewhere or some comprehensive
> anecdotal information.  And I would have liked to see it.

What a gigantic load of crap! I provide studies, but its too much for
you look them up on google. And you call that doing research for me??
Not only do I provide the studies, but I'm required to "cut and paste"
the information from the studies so you don't have to do any work what
so ever.

Ok here some numbers for you:

1.
A random controlled placebo trial (not an observational study) got
these results:
A 67% increase in Advanced Colorectal Adenomas in the group taking the
folic acid supplement compared to placebo.
A 132% increase of developing 3 or more adenomas in the group taking
folic acid. [a][b]

2.
Last year, health officials in Chile reported that hospitalization
rates for colon cancer among men and women age 45 and older more than
doubled in their country since fortification was introduced in 2000.
[c]

3.
In 2007, Joel Mason, MD, director of the Vitamins and Carcinogenesis
Laboratory at the Tufts University School of Medicine, described a
study of the United States and Canada suggesting that rates of colon
cancer rose — following years of steady decline — in the late 1990s
(around the time our food was being fortified).

Better screening or an aging population could not explain the
difference, which amounts to an additional 15,000 cases of cancer per
year in the United States alone between 1996 and 2000, according to
Mason's calculations. "It's a critical enough issue that it can't be
ignored," he says. [c]

4.
In one study conducted in Norway, which doesn't fortify foods,
supplementation with 800 mcg of folic acid (plus B12 and B6) daily for
more than 3 years raised the risk of developing lung cancer by 21
percent. [c]
Another, in which men took either folic acid or a placebo, showed
those consuming 1,000 mcg of folic acid daily had more than twice the
risk of prostate cancer. [c]

Refs:
a:

Cole BF, Baron JA, Sandler RS, et al. Folic acid for the prevention of
colorectal adenomas: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2007;297(21):
2351–2359.

b:
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnci/press_releases/martinezdjs195.pdf

c:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35874922/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/y#.T7RBzEWo6lI

[None Given]

Late in the game intervention may promote cancer a bit as early
interventions may well prevent cancers when it comes to folic acid.
Better men than me have offered this hypothesis.

Indeed there is evidence that high dose folic acid doesn't
speed cancer. Perhaps this only in some and not in others, etc.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155439/?tool=pubmed

Quote: therefore, even in the patients most likely to be affected by the proposed negative effects of folate, the vitamin did not increase the risk even at high doses given during 6.5 years.

High dose folic acid hasn't killed me yet and I am 50 years in
on my experiment.

Another quote: Thus, a very large body of evidence from both randomized trials and observational studies has failed to show increased risk of colorectal cancer associated with prolonged exposure to folate.

Anyway, my bet is folic and crew help prevent the primary lesions
to the DNA that leads to cancer or precancer, whereas, a late
intervention in a conventional thinker aka non-lifetime user
of folic acid and crew may speed prostate cancer especially
in an "old women" males that tremble at the thought of taking a meaningful
vitamin D3 dose. Then again maybe that only works at higher
testosterone level ;-)

phthalates and parabens aren't likely
good for the prostate....................Trig

[ra...@val.com]

Trawley wrote:
>   You have no comment on the wikipedia article, just another
>   reference that we cannot read.  According to the quoted text
>   there is only 95 percent confidence in the result.  That is
>   not enough to override other contradicting studies.

The problem with the Wikipedia article is that you only link the
article, but not the studies that the article referenced.

First of all the Wiki article was very explicit about the concerns of
folic acid and cancer.

"In addition, folic acid may not be helpful, and could even be
damaging, in people already suffering from cancer or from a
precancerous condition. Likewise, it has been suggested excess folate
may promote tumor initiation.[33] Folate has shown to play a dual role
in cancer development; low folate intake protects against early
carcinogenesis, and high folate intake promotes advanced
carcinogenesis.[34] Therefore, public health recommendations should be
careful not to encourage too much folate intake.[34]" [I've provided
the references below]

Secondly many of the studies cited did not differentiate between folic
acid supplements and folate from foods. It's the folic acid from
supplements that's being singled out in this thread. Folate from
natural foods is a different matter. The Wiki even cites this study
that shows just this point:

"Recently, a clinical trial showed daily supplementation of 1 mg of
folic acid increased the risk of prostate cancer, while dietary and
plasma folate levels among vitamin nonusers actually decreased the

risk of prostate cancer.[41]"

Now one study ( a meta study of a number of random controlled trials)
was cited in that did not find increased issues with folic acid
supplement users [32], but also no benefits were noted.

Note that these trials only lasted an average 5 years and they did
not go looking for problems.

Contrast this paper with this study [1] where the actually did
Colonoscopies and looked for problems before folks would have noticed
anything.
The found:

"A 67% increase in Advanced Colorectal Adenomas in the group taking
the folic acid supplement compared to placebo.
A 132% increase of developing 3 or more adenomas in the group taking
folic acid."

Animal studies, where variables can be more tightly controlled have,
have shown that folic acid and cancer is concerning. That's a big
smoking gun in this discussion.

Trawley wrote:
>   Then there is the presumed benefit of taking folic acid in preventing
>   health problems in the developing fetus.  You need much more
>   convincing data than has been shown so far to say pregnant women
>   should not take this supplement.

The studies on folic acid and cancer Did not use pregnant women. Where
did you get that idea.
Any women planing on getting pregnant women should make absolutely
certain she's obtaining adequate folate - even it that means taking
supplements.
Other than a possible young type 1 female, I doubt anyone else fits
that description here.

Randy

Refs:
1.

A 67% increase in Advanced Colorectal Adenomas in the group taking the
folic acid supplement compared to placebo.
A 132% increase of developing 3 or more adenomas in the group taking
folic acid. [a][b]

32.
Clarke R et. al. (2010). "Effects of Lowering Homocysteine Levels
With B Vitamins on Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, and Cause-Specific
Mortality Meta-analysis of 8 Randomized Trials Involving 37 485
Individuals". Archives of Internal Medicine 170 (18): 1622–1631. doi:
10.1001/archinternmed.2010.348. PMID 20937919.

33.
Kim YI (1 November 2004). "Will mandatory folic acid fortification
prevent or promote cancer?". Am J Clin Nutr 80 (5): 1123–8. PMID
15531657.
^ a b Ulrich, CM (2007). "Folate and cancer prevention: a closer look
at a complex picture". The American journal of clinical nutrition 86
(2): 271–273. PMID 17684194.

34.
^ a b Ulrich, CM (2007). "Folate and cancer prevention: a closer look
at a complex picture". The American journal of clinical nutrition 86
(2): 271–273. PMID 17684194.

41.
Figueiredo, JC; Grau, MV; Haile, RW; Sandler, RS; Summers, RW;
Bresalier, RS; Burke, CA; McKeown-Eyssen, GE et al (2009). "Folic Acid
and Risk of Prostate Cancer: Results From a Randomized Clinical
Trial". Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101 (6): 432–5. doi:
10.1093/jnci/djp019. PMC 2657096. PMID 19276452.

[ra...@val.com]

Gys wrote:
> nice to see you back posting. For a few seconds I wondered if our mutual
> friend <Empty> Boob </Emprty>spoiled the fun for you.

Nope still here. I finally realized that Wes's advice was wise. Still
having fun and Glad to see deT, a new balanced poster. We are in
desperate need for more like him.

Also, I didn't realize we had a "hidden agenda". If you figure out
what it is, please let me know.

Finally - please stay active here. Sometimes I fear you will take off
on that bike, never to return.

Regards
Randy

[Don Roberto]

On 5/15/2012 2:35 PM, GysdeJongh wrote:
> Causation is no corelation. All dokters are idiots paid by big pharma,
> so they will do anything to deprive us from cheap and effective
> solutions. Supplements and vitamins are essential for your health. The
> more you take the better of course.
> Gys
>
>
> <http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-dietary-supplements-cancer.html>
>
> Beta-carotene, selenium and folic acid - taken up to three times their
> recommended daily allowance, these supplements are probably harmless.
> But taken at much higher levels as some supplement manufacturers
> suggest, these three supplements have now been proven to increase the
> risk of developing a host of cancers.
>
> "It's not that these nutrients are toxic - they're essential and we need
> them, but we need them in a certain balance," says Tim Byers, MD, MPH,
> professor of epidemiology at the Colorado School of Public Health and
> associate director for prevention and control at the University of
> Colorado Cancer Center.
>

So what's new?
As sse Great Poet put it:
"Too little or too much
Decides who wears the crutch".

[Don Roberto]

On 5/15/2012 3:29 PM, ra...@val.com wrote:
>> In the case of folic acid, I've taken far above normal amount of it
>> daily for the last 6 years with no adverse effects. Apparently it
>> only affects some people, if that.
>
> I'd really recommend a tutorial on stats and probability.

So, get with it!
BUT *do* start with a couple of remedial courses on Math & Science 101.

The data
> don't show that Everyone that takes excess (above RDA) of folic acids
> has problems, but a significant number do.
>

To once again quote sse Great Poet:

"Too little or too much
Decides who wears the crutch."

It's that simple.

> Many have made the same claims of smoking and health. Even me in my
> younger, smoking days.

Figures.
Yours truly OTOH never lost sight of reality even when - in his younger
days -he was smoking like a chimney.

Do you think that's a valid refutation of the
> data on cigarettes.
>

ANYONE of relatively sound mind, who has smoked for a number of years
ever needed any data to know cigarettes are unhealthy.

> The data on folic acid at amounts>1mg is pretty substantial.

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35874922/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/your-breakfast-giving-you-cancer/#.T7LWcOuo6lI
>

Whoop-de-do

Don Roberto

[GysdeJongh]

ra...@val.com wrote:
> Trawley wrote:
>> You have no comment on the wikipedia article, just another
>> reference that we cannot read. According to the quoted text
>> there is only 95 percent confidence in the result. That is
>> not enough to override other contradicting studies.
>
> The problem with the Wikipedia article is that you only link the
> article, but not the studies that the article referenced.

my idea is Trawley does not even read his own links. He did not notice that
his own Wiki article contradicts his position that all supp's are safe.

Thx for explaining that to him Randy
Gys

[GysdeJongh]

Don Roberto wrote:

<Empty></Empty>

Ah good morning Her Flick

[Bjørn Steensrud]

Maya Zuiderweg wrote:

> mainframetech formuleerde de vraag :

>> As it turns out, before I quit I smoked 1.5 packs a day for about 45
>> years with no cancer, so that's 2 people to begin new statistics.
>> When you get them compiled, let me know...:)
>>
>> Chris
>
> One more: my mother smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for over 70
> years. No cancer.
> M.

And my grandfather smoked, home rolled cigarettes, died of lung cancer at
80.

[mainframetech]

> b:http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnci/press_releases/martin...
>
> c:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35874922/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/y...

==========================

First of all, I didn't say I had an interest in studies, so why
would I want to browse through a list of them, or through long copies
of them? Your assumption was incorrect. I appreciate you providing
your interpretation of the examples you made above, though some seem a
bit weak to me next to the large number of people that have used Folic
Acid tin large doses for many years. That all this cancer talk
connected with supplements has come out only in the last few years is
a concern to me. Since those folks that would rather have people
avoid supplements would like to see studies and articles making the
connection between cancer and the supplements, I'm a bit leery of
those studies and articles when I see them. Studies have been known
to be faked or swayed to incorrect conclusions by nefarious funders.

Second, remember, I'm more the 'human motivation' and goals type,
than the 'scientific studies are logical and objective' type. The
scientific method is a nice idea the rare times that human intentions
aren't involved in the process.

Chris

[outsider]

On 5/17/2012 5:04 AM, Don Roberto wrote:


> ANYONE of relatively sound mind, who has smoked for a number of years
> ever needed any data to know cigarettes are unhealthy.

My dad always said that in exchange for the TB, venereal diseases,
smallpox, and the like, that the white man inflicted on the American
Indian, the Indian more than got even by introducing the white man
to tobacco.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Bjørn Steensrud was zeer hard aan het denken :

My grandfather chewed tobacco for 75 years.
Had a spittoon, was very apt at producing a wonderful jetstream of
brown spit into a tin in the corner of the room. I admired him for
that, my mother hated it.
No cancer.
My grandmother died of stomach-cancer, she never touched tobacco in any
form whatever.
They both are long dead, cancer or not.
Living is dangerous, one dies of it ;-)
M.

[GysdeJongh]

Maya Zuiderweg wrote:
> Op 16-5-2012, heeft GysdeJongh verondersteld :

>> Cancer is a Bingo in Molecular Biology. Loosely speaking : you only
>> can collect your price is you have 10 numbers on a row right. Even 9
>> numbers on a row right won't do.
>>
>> Your mother smoked 2 packs / day for over 70 years and won nothing.
>> She did not manage to get 10 right numbers on a row. You don't know
>> if she had 9 numbers and died just before the tenth.
>>
>> My grandmother bought a ticket in the State Lottery for about 30
>> years and never ver won anything. That gave her the right to get a
>> ticket for free for the rest of her life.
>>
>> She (of course) won nothing with those free tickets either. She used
>> to say
>>> "Hey I'm lucky in love, you can't have it all"
>>
>> What does it prove ? Does it prove that no one will ever win the
>> States Lotery ? That no one will ever win any Bingo ? That no one
>> will ever get cancer ?
>>
>> Gys
>
> I did not say it proved anything.
> Just added one more for Chris :-)
>
> Ah, the Staatsloterij (State Lottery). Husband-of-now bought his first
> lottery ticket when a student, won directly a quite big sum of money
> (for a student it was at that time), was hooked forever, still buys
> them, never wins anymore.
> Does that prove anything?

I hope he studied Social Astrology and does not know more about statistics
than you do, so you can live a happy life together and agree on important
subjects.

<http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/statistical-jokes-1-fun-with-correlation/>

The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the
British or the Americans. On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and
also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans. The
Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the
British or the Americans. The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine
and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans.
Conclusion: Eat and drink whatever you like. It's speaking English that
kills you.

It is commonly believed that anyone who tabulates numbers is a statistician.
This is like believing that anyone who owns a scalpel is a surgeon. ~ Hooke
R. (How to Tell the Liars from the Statisticians)

It is very unlikely that there are 2 bombs on the same plane, so if you must
be on a plane be sure to take a bomb with you

Gys

[W. Baker]

Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
: Bj?rn Steensrud was zeer hard aan het denken :

Did she eat lots of smoked and preserved meats? That's another thing
claimed to increase the liklihood of cancer.

Wendy

[Trawley Trash]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
"ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:

> The problem with the Wikipedia article is that you only link the
> article, but not the studies that the article referenced.

The references are there in the wikepedia article. Why should
I clutter up the newsgroup with this?

> First of all the Wiki article was very explicit about the concerns of
> folic acid and cancer.

A classic case of reversing the meaning by taking a quotation
out of context. Here is the missing part.

! Many cancer cells have a high requirement for folic acid and
! overexpress the folic acid receptor. This finding has led to the
! development of anti-cancer drugs that target the folic acid
! receptor.[31]

! A meta-analysis published in 2010 failed to find a statistically
! significant cancer risk due to folic acid supplements.[32]

! Some investigations have proposed good levels of folic acid may be
! related to lower risk of esophageal, stomach, and ovarian cancers, but
! the benefits of folic acid against cancer may depend on when it is
! taken and on individual conditions.

> "In addition, folic acid may not be helpful, and could even be
> damaging, in people already suffering from cancer or from a

<snip>

You cut the quote in the middle of a paragraph to reverse
the meaning.

The papers that claim there is a cancer risk are talking about folic
acid supplements used to fortify flour. The very cheapest form of it
and the most likely to cause problems.

Obviously you can read, but only the words you want to see.

[Bjørn Steensrud]

... and election promises.

[outsider]

On 5/17/2012 10:48 AM, GysdeJongh wrote:

> It is very unlikely that there are 2 bombs on the same plane, so if you
> must be on a plane be sure to take a bomb with you

That's a great although old joke. However there is a lot of reason to
believe that a plane from the US to Mexico, that blew up, did indeed
have 2 bombs aboard. "Very unlikely"? Good hedge, poor statistical
rhetoric. :-)

If you want an even better unlikelihood, take 3 bombs aboard. :-)
Of course you could just avoid planes that have Jihadist looking
passengers.

[GysdeJongh]

or go by bike

[outsider]

I found the bottom of the ocean a real challenge! :-)

(But there's lots of interesting stuff down there....)

[ra...@val.com]

Trawley Wrote:
>   You cut the quote in the middle of a paragraph to reverse
>   the meaning.

BULLSHIT!!
Here's the paragraph I quoted:

//********************************

"In addition, folic acid may not be helpful, and could even be
damaging, in people already suffering from cancer or from a

precancerous condition. Likewise, it has been suggested excess folate
may promote tumor initiation.[33] Folate has shown to play a dual role
in cancer development; low folate intake protects against early
carcinogenesis, and high folate intake promotes advanced
carcinogenesis.[34] Therefore, public health recommendations should be
careful not to encourage too much folate intake.[34]"

//********************************

How in the world does "this" change the meaning of the above:

//*****************************************

" ! Many cancer cells have a high requirement for folic acid and
! overexpress the folic acid receptor. This finding has led to the
! development of anti-cancer drugs that target the folic acid
! receptor.[31]"

//******************************************

How?? The wiki article is nothing but summations of various research
articles (and references) often with contradictory findings. It in no
way clears folic acid as being involved in cancer issues - in fact it
detailed many of the studies showing a worrisome relationship. It was
not comparing studies to make a conclusion but simply reciting various
research studies - a number of which were very worrisome.

To suggest that I've distorted the meaning our context is WRONG!! If
you disagree then demonstrate.

Also I Did Not leave out the discussion of this study:

//******************************

"! A meta-analysis published in 2010 failed to find a statistically
! significant cancer risk due to folic acid supplements.[32]"

//*******************************
Here's what I said:
//****************************************************

"Now one study ( a meta study of a number of random controlled
trials)
was cited in that did not find increased issues with folic acid
supplement users [32], but also no benefits were noted.

Note that these trials only lasted an average 5 years and they did
not go looking for problems.

Contrast this paper with this study [1] where the actually did
Colonoscopies and looked for problems before folks would have noticed
anything.

The found:
"A 67% increase in Advanced Colorectal Adenomas in the group taking
the folic acid supplement compared to placebo.
A 132% increase of developing 3 or more adenomas in the group taking
folic acid."

//
***********************************************************************************

Trawley Wrote:
"The papers that claim there is a cancer risk are talking about folic
 acid supplements used to fortify flour.  The very cheapest form of
it
 and the most likely to cause problems."

Reply:
What papers are you refering to?? The one's I mentioned as problematic
and the one's mentioned in the Wiki article used supplemental folic
acid.
Come on Man - Dont' make this stuff up on the fly.

Please provide evidence that the folic acid Added to foods is
different than what's used in supplements and more dangerous.

Randy

[Maya Zuiderweg]

GysdeJongh heeft ons zojuist aangekondigd :

Sheesh, I just said that I did _not_ want to prove anything.
Anectodal humbug is just a funny subject, thats all.
M. -a nonbeliever-

[Maya Zuiderweg]

W. Baker gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :

The grandparents I mean lived on a farm, were kinda poor. The meat they
ate was scarce. When on visit there (i.e. on rare occasions), a chicken
was throttled -> 2 days of great chickensoup.
M.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Bjørn Steensrud schreef :

How are things in Norway nowadays?
(wont mention the awful happenings there - in this group)
M.

[Bjørn Steensrud]

Doing fine. There's a parliament election coming up next year, I'll do my
bit to get a change of government. The current one is getting a bit
complacent - seems to be a trend. In fact, it was their promises I was
thinking of.

No, that subject is not for this group. I'll just mention that some 30-40
volunteers who helped survivors will receive symbolic awards, at least,
high-ranking medals of honor.

[Trawley Trash]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
"ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:

> Secondly many of the studies cited did not differentiate between folic
> acid supplements and folate from foods. It's the folic acid from
> supplements that's being singled out in this thread. Folate from
> natural foods is a different matter. The Wiki even cites this study
> that shows just this point:

Folic acid from cheap supplements used to fortify flour. None
of us here are in that business.

[Trawley Trash]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
"ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:

>
> Trawley Wrote:
> >   You cut the quote in the middle of a paragraph to reverse
> >   the meaning.
> BULLSHIT!!
> Here's the paragraph I quoted:
>
> //********************************
> "In addition, folic acid may not be helpful, and could even be
> damaging, in people already suffering from cancer or from a
> precancerous condition. Likewise, it has been suggested excess folate
> may promote tumor initiation.[33] Folate has shown to play a dual role
> in cancer development; low folate intake protects against early
> carcinogenesis, and high folate intake promotes advanced
> carcinogenesis.[34] Therefore, public health recommendations should be
> careful not to encourage too much folate intake.[34]"
> //********************************
>
> How in the world does "this" change the meaning of the above:
>
> //*****************************************
> " ! Many cancer cells have a high requirement for folic acid and
> ! overexpress the folic acid receptor. This finding has led to the
> ! development of anti-cancer drugs that target the folic acid
> ! receptor.[31]"
> //******************************************

That doesn't, but the next two sentences do. First this one:

! A meta-analysis published in 2010 failed to find a statistically
! significant cancer risk due to folic acid supplements.[32]

Now for the first sentence in the next paragraph. This
is the sentence you cut:

! Some investigations have proposed good levels of folic acid may be
! related to lower risk of esophageal, stomach, and ovarian cancers, but
! the benefits of folic acid against cancer may depend on when it is

! taken and on individual conditions...

So the wikipedia article points out there speculation in both
directions, and no clear result from studies.

One study by itself with 95 percent confidence does not refute
dozens of other studies which show little or no correlation.
You will see an odd result like that roughly one time in twenty.

> How?? The wiki article is nothing but summationsce of various

> research articles (and references) often with contradictory findings.
> It in no way clears folic acid as being involved in cancer issues -
> in fact it detailed many of the studies showing a worrisome
> relationship. It was not comparing studies to make a conclusion but
> simply reciting various research studies - a number of which were
> very worrisome.


> To suggest that I've distorted the meaning our context is WRONG!! If
> you disagree then demonstrate.
>
> Also I Did Not leave out the discussion of this study:
>
> //******************************
> "! A meta-analysis published in 2010 failed to find a statistically
> ! significant cancer risk due to folic acid supplements.[32]"
> //*******************************
> Here's what I said:
> //****************************************************
> "Now one study ( a meta study of a number of random controlled
> trials)
> was cited in that did not find increased issues with folic acid
> supplement users [32], but also no benefits were noted.

.
That is not the same thing. The article makes clear that the
study is recent *meta-study* that evaluates the results of
several other studies. It has a bit more weight in terms
of summarizing the current state of knowledge than the
reference you prefer.

> Note that these trials only lasted an average 5 years and they did
> not go looking for problems.
>
> Contrast this paper with this study [1]

Reference [1] does not contain the text you quote below. Is it from
the wikepedia article or some other list of references?

> where the actually did
> Colonoscopies and looked for problems before folks would have noticed
> anything.
>
> The found:
> "A 67% increase in Advanced Colorectal Adenomas in the group taking
> the folic acid supplement compared to placebo.
> A 132% increase of developing 3 or more adenomas in the group taking
> folic acid."
> //
> ***********************************************************************************

I have no idea where you lifted the above text. Your reference is to
a database on folic acid that contains links to dozens of places,
but no text like this. Perhaps you would do us the courtesy of
pointing out which one of the papers contains those words.

> Trawley Wrote:
> "The papers that claim there is a cancer risk are talking about folic
>  acid supplements used to fortify flour.  The very cheapest form of
> it
>  and the most likely to cause problems."
>
> Reply:
> What papers are you refering to??

The ones referred to later in the wikipedia article where it talks
about fortifying flour with folic acid supplements. As is done, for
example, in the United States. If folic acid supplementation causes
cancer, then this points out a serious defect in government policy
in this area. It deserves to be discussed somewhere in a relevant
forum. Which is not here.

> The one's I mentioned as problematic
> and the one's mentioned in the Wiki article used supplemental folic
> acid.
> Come on Man - Dont' make this stuff up on the fly.
>
> Please provide evidence that the folic acid Added to foods is
> different than what's used in supplements and more dangerous.

Please provide evidence that folic acid supplements increase cancer
risk.

[mainframetech]

Hmm. As the statistics grow, we may see a pattern developing.
Some people are immune to cancer and others are not. One book I rwad
about genes said there was one of the genes that specifically allowed
or disallowed cancewr depending on its presence in the person at
issue.

I'm still glad I stopped smoking though. It was affecting my
taking a deep breath and getting value out of each inhale. Now I'll
live forever. I can feel it...:) If I were told I had 6 months left,
I'd begin smoking again. It got that good a grip on me.

Chris

[Chris Malcolm]

Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> ANYONE of relatively sound mind, who has smoked for a number of years
> ever needed any data to know cigarettes are unhealthy.

Unless they were sufferers from ulcerative colitis, in which case they
might have made the discovery that smoking stops it. It's not
necessary to smoke a lot. Some prefer the other side effects of
smoking to the side effects of the drugs otherwise needed to control
their UC.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Bjørn Steensrud gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :

Quite common though: election promises going far further than anyone
can ever make true.
Form of advertising, I think.

>
> No, that subject is not for this group. I'll just mention that some 30-40
> volunteers who helped survivors will receive symbolic awards, at least,
> high-ranking medals of honor.

Okay.

M.

[Julie Bove]

Smoking can also mask the symptoms of a thyroid disorder. My thryroid went
wacky when I quit smoking.

And, IMO, smoking helps with a lot of other things. I have read that people
who are depressed often feel better when they smoke. AFAIK I never was
depressed but I do know that I sure felt better when I smoked. I was a lot
more calm and I had a lot more energy.

[ra...@val.com]

Trawley Wrote:
//*********************************

>   That doesn't, but the next two sentences do.  First this one:
>
> ! A meta-analysis published in 2010 failed to find a statistically
> ! significant cancer risk due to folic acid supplements.[32]

//********************************

Reply:
For the third friggin time, my critic of this meta study was that it
only lasted 5 years and they Didn't look to see what was happening
inside these folks bodies.

This is contrasted with this study [1] [2] where folks were given
colonoscopies at the start and end of the trial and the finding were:

//*****************************************

A 67% increase in Advanced Colorectal Adenomas in the group taking
the folic acid supplement compared to placebo.
A 132% increase of developing 3 or more adenomas in the group taking
folic acid."
//****************************************

With out the colonoscopies these folks might have also been given a
clean bill of health.

This is striking because the initial animal studies showed increased
colon cancers resulting from high supplement folic acid. The what
spurred the investigation in humans.

Trawley Wrote:
 " Now for the first sentence in the next paragraph.  This
  is the sentence you cut"

Trawley Quoted:

> ! Some investigations have proposed good levels of folic acid may be
> ! related to lower risk of esophageal, stomach, and ovarian cancers, but
> ! the benefits of folic acid against cancer may depend on when it is
> ! taken and on individual conditions...
> So the wikipedia article points out there speculation in both
>   directions, and no clear result from studies.

Hardly - Instead look at the complete paragraph as a whole:

//**********************************

Some investigations have proposed good levels of folic acid may be

related to lower risk of esophageal, stomach, and ovarian cancers, but

the benefits of folic acid against cancer may depend on when it is

taken and on individual conditions. In addition, folic acid may not be

helpful, and could even be damaging, in people already suffering from
cancer or from a precancerous condition. Likewise, it has been
suggested excess folate may promote tumor initiation.[33] Folate has
shown to play a dual role in cancer development; low folate intake
protects against early carcinogenesis, and high folate intake promotes
advanced carcinogenesis.[34] Therefore, public health recommendations
should be careful not to encourage too much folate intake.[34]

//***********************************

If anything Wiki recommending against higher intake. I repeat the last
sentence:

From Wiki:
//******************

"Therefore, public health recommendations should be careful not to
encourage too much folate intake.[34]"
//*****************

Trawley wrote:
>   One study by itself with 95 percent confidence does not refute
>   dozens of other studies which show little or no correlation.
>   You will see an odd result like that roughly one time in twenty.

I have no idea to what study you are referring to but your confusing
"confidence intervals" with "p values" not the same.

I find Wikipedia invaluable as a starting point but not the final
word. I'd recommend anyone desiring a fuller picture refer to the
references below and elsewhere in this thread.

I"ve seen no convincing evidence of benefit of supplemental folic acid
and a good deal to be wary of

Refs:
1.
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnci/press_releases/martinezdjs195.pdf

2.

Cole BF, Baron JA, Sandler RS, et al. Folic acid for the prevention
of
colorectal adenomas: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2007;297(21):
2351–2359.

34:
a b Ulrich, CM (2007). "Folate and cancer prevention: a closer look
at a complex picture". The American journal of clinical nutrition 86
(2): 271–273. PMID 17684194.

33:
^ Kim YI (1 November 2004). "Will mandatory folic acid fortification
prevent or promote cancer?". Am J Clin Nutr 80 (5): 1123–8. PMID
15531657.

35:
^ Sanjoaquin MA, Allen N, Couto E, Roddam AW, Key TJ (2005). "Folate
intake and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analytical approach". Int J
Cancer 113 (5): 825–8. doi:10.1002/ijc.20648. PMID 15499620.

41:
^ a b Figueiredo, JC; Grau, MV; Haile, RW; Sandler, RS; Summers, RW;
Bresalier, RS; Burke, CA; McKeown-Eyssen, GE et al (2009). "Folic Acid
and Risk of Prostate Cancer: Results From a Randomized Clinical
Trial". Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101 (6): 432–5. doi:
10.1093/jnci/djp019. PMC 2657096. PMID 19276452.

[Don Roberto]

On 5/16/2012 9:45 PM, ra...@val.com wrote:

>
> Gys wrote:
>> nice to see you back posting. For a few seconds I wondered if our mutual
>> friend<Empty> Boob</Emprty>spoiled the fun for you.
>

> Nope still here. I finally realized that Wes's advice was wise.

Yep, there certainly is no point in discussing anything with anyone who
doesn't agree with everything you write.

Besides -
"When friends are few,
Kissing butt is what you gotta do" -
as sse Great Poet would say.


Still
> having fun and Glad to see deT, a new balanced poster.

That's "fair *and* balanced".

We are in
> desperate need for more like him.
>

Who's "we"?

> Also, I didn't realize we had a "hidden agenda". If you figure out
> what it is, please let me know.
>

Don't be so coy.
It's your superior qualifications, of course. You know - the ones you
only disclose to those who don't want to to know.


> Finally - please stay active here. Sometimes I fear you will take off
> on that bike, never to return.
>

"When friends are few,
Kissing butt is what you gotta do" -

One of the drawbacks when engaging the redundant :-(


Don Roberto

[ra...@val.com]

bob wrote:
> Yep, there certainly is no point in discussing anything with anyone who
> doesn't agree with everything you write.

Quite the contrary - I relish substantial discussions.

You, on the other hand, never discuss anything substantial. In fact
your lack of any significant/sincere contributions here (personal or
technical) is essentially zero or so low to barely register. You are
in a class all to your own in this regard.

The tone of your posts are emotional equivalent to a spoiled 7 year
old brat - nothing but immature insults. What's notable is that what
you are is visible for all to see. You either don't care (sociopath)
or suffer from a pathological lack of personal insight.

Randy

[Peppermint Patootie]

In article <a1litm...@mid.individual.net>,

Apparently smoking (tobacco) also reduces symptoms of some people with
schizophrenia. Self-medication. I can't remember where I learned that.

PP
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm

[mainframetech]

On May 18, 3:53 pm, Peppermint Patootie
<peppermint_patoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <a1litmFn5...@mid.individual.net>,
>  Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> > Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > ANYONE of relatively sound mind, who has smoked for a number of years
> > > ever needed any data to know cigarettes are unhealthy.
>
> > Unless they were sufferers from ulcerative colitis, in which case they
> > might have made the discovery that smoking stops it. It's not
> > necessary to smoke a lot. Some prefer the other side effects of
> > smoking to the side effects of the drugs otherwise needed to control
> > their UC.
>
> Apparently smoking (tobacco) also reduces symptoms of some people with
> schizophrenia.  Self-medication.  I can't remember where I learned that.
>
> PP
> --
> "What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
> of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
>                                                                 - Chris Malcolm

PP,

I remember that too. Here's a conclusion from a study that agrees
with your thought:

"Subsequent human clinical trials demonstrated improved sensory
inhibition in 12 schizophrenia patients and showed improvement in
several subtests of the RBANS learning and memory assessment
instrument. These data suggest that therapeutic agents selected for α7
nicotinic activity may have utility in treating certain symptoms of
schizophrenia."

From: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006295207004686

I remember when I smoked that I would light up a cigarette when I
was working on a particularly knotty programming problem, but usually
not otherwise. It seemed to help me focus and cleared my head of
other intrusions. I drank Coke (the soft drink) also for the same
reason. It took me a couple years to realize that it was happening,
and I was automatically using the smoking for clearing my head.

IF (big IF) my experience is related to the idea of smoking helping
schizophrenics, then self-medicating is what's happening. Just a
thought, not an official study...:)

As well, there is also a movement going on to use Vitamin B3
(Niacin) to treat schizophrenia, and there are many anecdotal success
stories. For those wanting help of that kind, there is little cost or
danger of taking vitamin B3 in the right quantities to try it and see
if it does what has been said. Here are a couple sites to look into
it if it seems of interest:
http://www.doctoryourself.com/review_hoffer_B3.html
http://www.4optimallife.com/Alternative-Medicines-Cures-For-Schizophrenia-Mental-Illness.html

Chris

[Trawley Trash]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 20:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
"ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:

> I find Wikipedia invaluable as a starting point but not the final
> word. I'd recommend anyone desiring a fuller picture refer to the
> references below and elsewhere in this thread.

It is the final word for me, because I have never taken folic
acid. I have no interest whatsoever in this topic. Look at
the subject of this thread: "Dietary supplements increase
cancer risk." That is a lot broader than folic acid. I do
not take this, I have never heard of anyone taking it except
the dose given in government mandated enrichment of flour.

> I"ve seen no convincing evidence of benefit of supplemental folic acid
> and a good deal to be wary of

OK. Why does the government insist that flour be fortified with it?
Answer the questin please instead of ignoring my input and
pasting another long list of irrelevant papers.

[ra...@val.com]

Trawley wrote:
//******************************************************

It is the final word for me, because I have never taken folic
  acid.  I have no interest whatsoever in this topic.  Look at
  the subject of this thread:  "Dietary supplements increase
  cancer risk."  That is a lot broader than folic acid.  I do
  not take this, I have never heard of anyone taking it except
  the dose given in government mandated enrichment of flour.

OK. Why does the government insist that flour be fortified with
it?
Answer the questin please instead of ignoring my input and
pasting another long list of irrelevant papers."

//******************************************************

Reply:

1. First of all, I resent your "Do you still beat your wife" pharsing.
I answer questions directly with you and anyone else on ASD. Always
have.

2. The Government mandated fortication with folic acid because of a
proven reduction of a specific type of tragic birth defect. And it's
been very successful!! Incidences of these birth defects have been
significantly reduced. But this move was to compensate for the fact
that many pregnant mothers will not eat healthy diets and/or do not
take a low dose prenatal supplement, but will eat a bowl of frosted
flakes for breakfast.

3. In 1996 most of the negative data on folic acid was not available.
Recently the UK mandated fortification, but not without a lot of
debate in the scientific community. New Zealand recently refused to
enforce fortification because of the negative data. There is
epidemiological data that the US has seen about 15000 additional cases
of colon cancer that can be attributed to fortifcation (and levels
were dropping previously) and Chile has seen a doubling of colon
tumors since they fortified.

4. Mainframetech turned the conversation to folic acid when he
reported that he supplemented with high does and he was doing OK - so
it couldn't be all bad. That's when I supplied the negative data on
high dose supplementation.

5. This thread and two others were based on this paper published by
the NCI:
//**********************
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnci/press_releases/martinezdjs195.pdf
//**********************
This is an objective discussion of the data on use of supplement for
cancer prevention, including data on cancer promotion.

My thrust is not for this or that supplement but as a counter of the
mishmash of pigheadedness, false presumptions (look at the erroneous
presumptions on the FDA/B6 issue), love of conspiracy theories and
anti-science sentiments that dominates a lot of discussions on ASD.

Five years ago when I discovered I was pre-diabetic rapidly
approaching full diabetes this is the first place I came to for
advice. I ask 1 simple question and was immediately branded a spy for
a vegan warring tribe (I eat meat everyday). I was shocked and
saddened. I thought I would find a community with the most up to date
information. Instead I found folks (with some notable but too rare
exceptions) that only cared for science when it validated their belief
systems and succumbed to conspiracy theories when contradicted by
evidence.

Things have gotten better and I hope that continues but I will
continue to express what I consider an evidence based point of view.

Randy

[Julie Bove]

"Trawley Trash" <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:klcj89-...@jester.gnet...

And cereal. Lack of folic acid in a pregnant woman can cause birth defects.

[GysdeJongh]

no, that works the other way around : women who carry a baby with a birth
defect will get a spontaneous abortion *IF* the have enough folic acid in
their diet

[Don Roberto]

On 5/17/2012 5:20 PM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Don Roberto<anothas...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> ANYONE of relatively sound mind, who has smoked for a number of years
>> ever needed any data to know cigarettes are unhealthy.
>
> Unless they were sufferers from ulcerative colitis,

Ah, yes - the exception to validate the rule...

in which case they
> might have made the discovery that smoking stops it. It's not
> necessary to smoke a lot. Some prefer the other side effects of
> smoking to the side effects of the drugs otherwise needed to control
> their UC.
>

Perhaps righteous ranting Randy can provide some data on just how many
of the 0.1% of the population suffering from ulcerative colitis prefer
puffing to pill popping.

[Don Roberto]

Like this?
http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/520/files/2011/05/et.jpg

After Pieter Breugel
http://tinyurl.com/cpy86r7
and Hieronymous Bosch
http://tinyurl.com/77nfcpt

such lofty lightness™© could do a lot for the tortured Dutch soul.

Don Roberto
-----------------------
It is possible for your mind to be so open
that your brain falls out.

[Don Roberto]

On 5/17/2012 10:13 AM, Trawley Trash wrote:

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
> "ra...@val.com"<ra...@val.com> wrote:
>
> Obviously you can read, but only the words you want to see.
>

How else can he proof to himself that he is right all the time?

Don Roberto
--------------------
Never argue with idiots.
First they drag you down to their level
and then they beat you with experience.

[Don Roberto]

[Don Roberto]

On 5/18/2012 6:55 AM, ra...@val.com wrote:
> bob wrote:
>> Yep, there certainly is no point in discussing anything with anyone who
>> doesn't agree with everything you write.
>
> Quite the contrary - I relish substantial discussions.
>

Where righteous ranting Randy gets to say what constitutes "substantial
discussions".

> You, on the other hand, never discuss anything substantial.

Don't you think that crying about others not playing by what you think
the rules should be is silly?

In fact
> your lack of any significant/sincere contributions here (personal or
> technical) is essentially zero or so low to barely register. You are
> in a class all to your own in this regard.
>

Even if you have to say so yourself.

> The tone of your posts are emotional equivalent to a spoiled 7 year
> old brat - nothing but immature insults. What's notable is that what
> you are is visible for all to see.

Problem is not "all" see me the way you do.
But then those who don't see me the way you do are all wrong.
Right?

You either don't care (sociopath)
> or suffer from a pathological lack of personal insight.

And what might be your qualifications to make such a personally
insightful diagnosis, Dr. Randy?

Don Roberto

[Don Roberto]

On 5/19/2012 7:28 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On May 19, 12:22 am, "ra...@val.com"<ra...@val.com> wrote:
>> Trawley wrote://******************************************************

>> 4. Mainframetech turned the conversation to folic acid when he
>> reported that he supplemented with high does and he was doing OK - so
>> it couldn't be all bad. That's when I supplied the negative data on
>> high dose supplementation.
>
>

> The statement is that I was the one that turned the conversation
> to Folic Acid, which is not true. I said my piece becasue someone
> else had turned the conversation to Folic Acid.
>

That can't be true because righteous ranting Randy is always right.

Don Roberto

[Trawley Trash]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 21:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
"ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:

> 5. This thread and two others were based on this paper published by
> the NCI:
> //**********************
> http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnci/press_releases/martinezdjs195.pdf
> //**********************
> This is an objective discussion of the data on use of supplement for
> cancer prevention, including data on cancer promotion.

Finally a reference that checks out. This paper does indeed contain
the text you quoted regarding the increase in colorectol adenomas.
However it does seem to me that you have taken this quote out of
context just as you did with the wikipedia article. There are a
few studies that do show increased cancer risk, as well as others
that do not. The conclusion of the paragraph is:

! Whether folic acid supplementation can have adverse effects
! is a topic that needs further investigation. This is especially
! true in countries such as the United States...(which fortify flour).

Supplementation is not the same thing as supplements we might
buy in a health food store. For economic reasons fortified
flour is going to use the very cheapest form.

I do not pay a lot of attention to marketing claims, but the
ones I read say antioxidants prevent cancer. The most potent
antioxidants are *not* vitamins, and the most potent antioxidant
vitamin is *not* folic acid. So I am at a loss to think of a
reason why anyone would megadose on folic acid to prevent cancer.

> My thrust is not for this or that supplement but as a counter of the
> mishmash of pigheadedness, false presumptions (look at the erroneous
> presumptions on the FDA/B6 issue), love of conspiracy theories and
> anti-science sentiments that dominates a lot of discussions on ASD.

One thing for sure. Polemics are not helping you to get your
message accross.

> Five years ago when I discovered I was pre-diabetic rapidly
> approaching full diabetes this is the first place I came to for
> advice.

I disagree with the label pre-diabetes, because it implies
the disease is continuous and irreversable. That is not
my experience, and the Swedish scientist Staffan Lindeberg
has has shown similar results. Maybe I will have more
to say about this when I have finished reading his book.

For the moment I can only say that my FBG has dropped from
300 into the 90s: consistently, without any medication.
Sometimes it is lower; this morning it was 83. Yesterday
my big meal consisted of lamb stew, two baked potatoes,
twelve ounces of orange juice, and half a coconut. After
a short nap, my blood glucose peaked at 71. That is not a typo.

It appears that wholesome milk and whole grain goodness
*cause* diabetes. At least it does in me, and there are others
who have had the same result.

> I ask 1 simple question and was immediately branded a spy for
> a vegan warring tribe (I eat meat everyday). I was shocked and
> saddened. I thought I would find a community with the most up to date
> information. Instead I found folks (with some notable but too rare
> exceptions) that only cared for science when it validated their belief
> systems and succumbed to conspiracy theories when contradicted by
> evidence.

If you have been around newsgroups for a while, you would realize
that this is *typical*. There are a lot of misunderstandings,
because we do not know each other at all. We all make assumptions
about others that turn out to be false.

> Things have gotten better and I hope that continues but I will
> continue to express what I consider an evidence based point of view.

To me the most valuable part of a newsgroup is hearing the experience
of others.

[mainframetech]

On May 19, 12:22 am, "ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:

> 4. Mainframetech turned the conversation to folic acid when he
> reported that he supplemented with high does and  he was doing OK - so
> it couldn't be all bad. That's when I supplied the negative data on
> high dose supplementation.

The statement is that I was the one that turned the conversation

to Folic Acid, which is not true. I said my piece because GysdeJongh
had opened the conversation with Folic Acid.

Chris (mainframetech)

[ra...@val.com]

Trawley Wrote:
>   Supplementation is not the same thing as supplements we might
>   buy in a health food store.  For economic reasons fortified
>   flour is going to use the very cheapest form.

1. The studies that found a relationship between folic acid and cancer
Were using supplements - the kind you buy in the health food store.
They were not using folic acid from enriched foods.

2. Your suggestion that folic acid from foods is different and more
troublesome than a supplements is:
a: Irrrelavent - because folic acid supplements, not folic acid from
enriched flours, was used in the experiements that found an
association with cancer.
b: Just a suggestion, until you provide some evidence

Trawley Wrote:
>   I do not pay a lot of attention to marketing claims, but the
>   ones I read say antioxidants prevent cancer.  The most potent
>   antioxidants are *not* vitamins, and the most potent antioxidant
>   vitamin is *not* folic acid.  So I am at a loss to think of a
>   reason why anyone would megadose on folic acid to prevent cancer.

Reply:
There is a very good reason, based on early data, why folic acid was
considered a candidate for colon cancer prevention.
In early rodents and human studies supplemental folic acid was shown
to prevent colon cancer/pre--cancer. At that point researchers decided
hey let's up the dosage and maybe we can do even better. It's then
that increased colon issues were discovered - In both animals and
human studies. It seems that the benefits/hazards of folic acid
conform to a U curve - Too little bad, too much bad, the right amount
as good as it gets.

As far as why anyone would take it - ask Mainframetech - he's the one
that reported taking high doses and is why I presented the data.
Other folks take it because they are only familiar the older and not
newer data.
Another set of people take it because it reduces homocysteine, which
is thought to increase heart disease. This has been studied
extensively and found not to be true. There is also some work
indicating that high folic acid might be beneficial for the aging
brain, but I'm not up to speed of where this stands.

Trawley wrote:
"Finally a reference that checks out."

Reply:
Are you saying I've provided references that don't check out? Can you
provide an example?

Trawley Quoted from another paper:

"! Whether folic acid supplementation can have adverse effects
! is a topic that needs further investigation. This is especially
! true in countries such as the United States...(which fortify
flour)"

This is from a study that found a 67% increase in colon tumors and
and 132% increase of multiple colon tumors of those taking folic acid
(under placebo conditions). The reason the conclusion was stated this
way is because the primary end point of the study was prevention of
colon tumors not folic acid causing cancer. That does not negate the
significant findings that were discovered. Also the animal studies,
where conditions can be tightly controlled show the same thing. And
other many additional human studies have found the same relationship.

You seem to think since all studies haven't found an association then
no mention of the studies that have should be discussed. That's
absurd. And to your point of my distorting the wiki article that's
baseless. The wiki article was just a collection of studies on folic
acid - it was not analyzing studies to make a conclusion, it just
presented the data and it was by no means comprehensive at that..
If anything the wiki article made it clear that supplementation was
not wise.

From wikipedia:
//****************

Therefore, public health recommendations should be careful not to

encourage too much folate intake.[1]
//****************

From my view point folic acid is not the brunt of this discussion.
It's the impossibility to have a reasonable conversation.
In one thread you claim the FDA/NCI are up to no good and then claim
that if folic acid were harmful the government wouldn't allow
fortificaton. You've even accused FDA of promoting bad diets for
diabetics when they don't even offer food plans or recommendations for
diabetes. You dismiss studies you have reviewed and implying that
you've read them have and claim that since all studies don't agree
it's not proper to mentions studies with negative findings.

As far as you personal results go - they are very, very impressive
and good for you - but that's doesn't justify your shoddy tactics when
discussing research findings

Randy


Ref:
1.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/2/271.full

2.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35874922/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/your-breakfast-giving-you-cancer/#.T7e-r0VrbQN

3:
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnci/press_releases/martinezdjs195.pdf

[Peppermint Patootie]

In article <4fb7401c$0$29511$8a7a...@news4.usenet4u.nl>,

That's not backwards. Prevention of births of babies with defects is
the same as preventing birth defects.

Not that I'm convinced you're correct about what it is that folic acid
does.

PP

[Peppermint Patootie]

In article
<eb8f1028-a087-41eb...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I remember that too. Here's a conclusion from a study that agrees
> with your thought:
>
> "Subsequent human clinical trials demonstrated improved sensory
> inhibition in 12 schizophrenia patients and showed improvement in
> several subtests of the RBANS learning and memory assessment

> instrument. These data suggest that therapeutic agents selected for �7

> nicotinic activity may have utility in treating certain symptoms of
> schizophrenia."
>
> From: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006295207004686
>
> I remember when I smoked that I would light up a cigarette when I
> was working on a particularly knotty programming problem, but usually
> not otherwise. It seemed to help me focus and cleared my head of
> other intrusions. I drank Coke (the soft drink) also for the same
> reason. It took me a couple years to realize that it was happening,
> and I was automatically using the smoking for clearing my head.

Heh! I'm a software geek, too, and I can remember the days when I'd
have a full-sugar Pepsi available to one hand and a lit Kool for the
other. Then I'd zero in on what I was debugging or coding, and when I
came up for air I'd have the thing done. I also had untreated ADD,
which at the time was helping me go into "laser brain" mode. It was
only later that it started ungluing my attention and called for the
medication that keeps me on track today.

> IF (big IF) my experience is related to the idea of smoking helping
> schizophrenics, then self-medicating is what's happening. Just a
> thought, not an official study...:)

Thoughts are good. Lighting up a cigarette does a few things in the
body, including but not limited to causing the release of some glucose
into the blood and triggering the action of the bowels. Both of those
effects can be identified as reasons for a smoker's drive to light up at
certain times a day.

For schizophrenics, if the smoking relieved one or more symptoms, then
it is by definition self-medication.

> As well, there is also a movement going on to use Vitamin B3
> (Niacin) to treat schizophrenia, and there are many anecdotal success
> stories. For those wanting help of that kind, there is little cost or
> danger of taking vitamin B3 in the right quantities to try it and see
> if it does what has been said. Here are a couple sites to look into
> it if it seems of interest:
> http://www.doctoryourself.com/review_hoffer_B3.html
> http://www.4optimallife.com/Alternative-Medicines-Cures-For-Schizophrenia-Ment
> al-Illness.html
>
> Chris

Interesting. Not sufficiently interesting for me to follow the links
right now (when I'm supposed to be doing chores), but I find this kind
of thing fascinating. I self-medicated for depression and PTSD for
years with various substances and activities, and I find it helpful to
be reminded that I was actually taking care of myself, albeit not in the
best way, and wasn't just a loser with bad habits. ;-)

Thanks, Chris!

PP

[None Given]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:33:12 AM UTC-7, ra...@val.com wrote:
> mainframetech wrote:
> > I personally doubt that the food
> > processors are putting back any more than they took out to keep costs
> > down.
>
> reply:
> They are putting a Lot (a whole lot in many cases >300%) more in than
> they take out. Some boxed cereals add the full RDA amount in one
> serving.
>
> mainframe tech wrote:
> "If a 'significant number' are affected by too much Folic Acid, I
> too would like to see the statistics on that, or even the anecdotal
> information."
>
> mainframe tech wrote:
> "I provided a pop press piece that discusses the research. I suggest
> you start here:.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35874922/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/y#.T7OobetrbQM"
>
> Also review the link that Gys provided.
>
> One review estimated 15.000 additional cancers due to excess folic
> acid intake from 1996 - 2000!
>
> Here's some more references:


Snip

Try the first two abstracts in the following.
FA reduces colorectal cancer and is a null result
on another cancer. Note the size of "your" study compared
to the one I am citing.

1. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Oct;94(4):1053-62. Epub 2011 Aug 3.

Pre- and postfortification intake of folate
and risk of colorectal cancer in a
large prospective cohort study in the United States.

Gibson TM, Weinstein SJ, Pfeiffer RM, Hollenbeck AR,
Subar AF, Schatzkin A, Mayne
ST, Stolzenberg-Solomon R.

Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA. gibs...@mail.nih.gov

Comment in
Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Oct;94(4):965-6.

BACKGROUND:
A higher folate intake is associated with a decreased colorectal
cancer risk in observational studies, but recent evidence suggests that excessive
folate supplementation may increase colorectal cancer risk in some individuals.
Therefore, mandatory folic acid fortification of grain products in the United
States may have unintended negative consequences.
OBJECTIVE:
We examined the association between folate intake and colorectal
cancer risk, including 8.5 y of postfortification follow-up.
DESIGN:
We examined the association between folate intake and colorectal cancer
in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study-a US cohort study of 525,488 individuals
aged 50-71 y initiated in 1995-1996. Dietary, supplemental, and total folate
intakes were calculated for the pre- and postfortification periods (before and
after 1 July 1997) based on a baseline food-frequency questionnaire. HRs and 95%
CIs were calculated by using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression
models.
RESULTS: During follow-up through 31 December 2006 (mean follow-up: 9.1 y), 7212
incident colorectal cancer cases were identified. In the postfortification
analysis (6484 cases), a higher total folate intake was associated with a
decreased colorectal cancer risk (HR for ≥900 compared with <200 μg/d: 0.70; 95%
CI: 0.58, 0.84). The highest intakes specifically from supplements (HR: 0.82; 95%
CI: 0.72, 0.92) or from diet (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.97) were also protective.
The pattern of associations was similar for the prefortification period, and no
significant differences between time periods were observed.
CONCLUSIONS:
In this large prospective cohort study that included 8.5 y of
postfortification follow-up, folate intake was associated with a decreased
colorectal cancer risk. Given that the adenoma-carcinoma sequence may take ≥10 y,
additional follow-up time is needed to fully examine the effect of folic acid
fortification.

PMCID: PMC3173023 [Available on 2012/10/1]
PMID: 21813806 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1. Gastroenterology. 2011 Jul;141(1):98-105, 105.e1. Epub 2011 Apr 14.

High levels of folate from supplements and fortification are not associated with
increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Stevens VL, McCullough ML, Sun J, Jacobs EJ, Campbell PT, Gapstur SM.

Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-1002, USA. Victoria...@cancer.org

Comment in
Gastroenterology. 2011 Jul;141(1):16-20.

BACKGROUND &#38; AIMS:
Folate intake has been inversely associated with
colorectal cancer risk in several prospective epidemiologic studies. However, no
study fully assessed the influence of the high levels of folate that are
frequently consumed in the United States as a result of mandatory folate
fortification, which was fully implemented in 1998, and the recent increase in
use of folate-containing supplements. There is evidence that consumption of high
levels of folic acid, the form of folate used for fortification and in
supplements, has different effects on biochemical pathways than natural folates
and might promote carcinogenesis.
METHODS:
We investigated the association between folate intake and colorectal
cancer among 43,512 men and 56,011 women in the Cancer Prevention Study II
(CPS-II) Nutrition Cohort; 1023 were diagnosed with colorectal cancer between
1999 and 2007, a period entirely after folate fortification began. Cox
proportional hazards regression was used to calculate multivariate hazards ratios
(RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS:
Intake of high levels of natural folate (RRQ5vsQ1=0.86; 95% CI:
0.70-1.06; P trend=.12) or folic acid (RRQ5vsQ1=0.84; 95% CI: 0.68-1.03; P
trend=.06) were not significantly associated with risk of colorectal cancer.
Total folate intake was significantly associated with lower risk (RRQ5vsQ1=0.81;
95% CI: 0.66-0.99; P trend=.047).
CONCLUSIONS:
Intake of high levels of total folate reduces risk of colorectal
cancer; there is no evidence that dietary fortification or supplementation with
this vitamin increases colorectal cancer risk.

Copyright © 2011 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID: 21586288 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Dec 21;103(24):1840-50. Epub 2011 Oct 27.

Folate intake and risk of pancreatic cancer:
pooled analysis of prospective
cohort studies.

Bao Y, Michaud DS, Spiegelman D, Albanes D, Anderson KE, Bernstein L, van den
Brandt PA, English DR, Freudenheim JL, Fuchs CS, Giles GG, Giovannucci E,
Goldbohm RA, Håkansson N, Horn-Ross PL, Jacobs EJ, Kitahara CM, Marshall JR,
Miller AB, Robien K, Rohan TE, Schatzkin A, Stevens VL, Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ,
Virtamo J, Wolk A, Ziegler RG, Smith-Warner SA.

Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

BACKGROUND:
Epidemiological studies evaluating the association between folate
intake and risk of pancreatic cancer have produced inconsistent results. The
statistical power to examine this association has been limited in previous
studies partly because of small sample size and limited range of folate intake in
some studies.
METHODS:
We analyzed primary data from 14 prospective cohort studies that
included 319,716 men and 542,948 women to assess the association between folate
intake and risk of pancreatic cancer. Folate intake was assessed through a
validated food-frequency questionnaire at baseline in each study. Study-specific
relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox
proportional hazards models and then pooled using a random effects model. All
statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS:
During 7-20 years of follow-up across studies, 2195 pancreatic cancers
were identified. No association was observed between folate intake and risk of
pancreatic cancer in men and women (highest vs lowest quintile: dietary folate
intake, pooled multivariable RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.25, P(trend) = .47;
total folate intake [dietary folate and supplemental folic acid], pooled
multivariable RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.80 to 1.16, P(trend) = .90). No between-study
heterogeneity was observed (for dietary folate, P(heterogeneity) = .15; for total
folate, P(heterogeneity) = .22).
CONCLUSION:
Folate intake was not associated with overall risk of pancreatic
cancer in this large pooled analysis.

PMCID: PMC3243674 [Available on 2012/12/21]
PMID: 22034634 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Cross your legs Randy, FA may increase prostate
cancer in some in the population.

Wide confidence intervals ...................Trig

[None Given]

Later large study different conclusion.
Read the first 2 abstracts.

[GysdeJongh]

Thx Peppermint :)
Ok, if the body detects that something is very wrong with the fetus, it just
absorbs the fetus. The detection and absorbtion needs Folkic Acid as a
methyl donor to silence a few genes. Most of the time the woman does not
even know that she was pregnant.

But I agree
Only words...
Gys

[ra...@val.com]

Trig Wrote:
"Note the size of "your" study compared
to the one I am citing."

Reply:
The different size of the two studies is due the the fact that one is
a random placebo controlled trial, the other is an observational study
where folks fill out forms on what they remembered they ate. I have
nothing against these sorts of observational studies, but they don't
compare to the precision of a random controlled trial. Observational
studies are a good starting point, random controlled trials are the
next step.

A further complication is that folic acid is a double edge sword -
when intakes are low to moderate - increasing intake can decrease
cancer rates. Its when high supplemental intakes are used that
problems are seen.These large observational studies are confounded by
these factors and we really don't know with high precision how much is
being consumed. In fact in one observations study where they made an
attempt to separate the women taken high dose supplements (>400ug) a
20% increase in breast cancer was noted. [1]

On the other hand in the random controlled trials 1/2 the folks get a
high dose supplement and half get a placebo. And neither the subjects
or the researchers know who's getting what. So far all the random
controlled trials that have been done with high dose folic acid
supplements have found No benefit on preventing cancer and some have
found increased rates. [2]

From one of the abstracts you provided:

"Given that the adenoma-carcinoma sequence may take ≥10 y,
additional follow-up time is needed to fully examine the effect of
folic acid
fortification."

In another random controlled trial, not been mentioned previously, the
incidence of prostrate cancer was 3X in the high dose folic acid group
compared to the placebo groups but this only showed up after 10 years.
This didn't show up earlier. [3]

The kicker in this discussion is the hard animal and biochemical
evidence showing mechanisms of how high dose folic acid can have these
effects.
To my mind that's the final smoking gun. [4] [5] [6] [7]

As far as I see it:
There is no evidence the high dose folic acids prevents cancer in
numerous random controlled trials.
Some of these trials show increased cancer.
Animal and molecular studies show mechanistic explanations for the
above.

Getting folate naturally from foods is protective and positive,
whereas high does supplements haven't been found to have positive
benefits and some results show problems.

Randy

Refs:

1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16600944

2.
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnci/press_releases/martin...

3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19276452

4.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/11/3731S.full

5.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070710064813.htm

6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763118/?tool=pubmed

7.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/2/271.full

[None Given]

I'll note the CI is just barely in favor of this worry.
The 95% range went down to 1.01. It's suggestive but its not
quite the church bell at midnite at the end of worlds.

Perhaps the danger is with the synthetic stuff? The one of the
natural poly form looks to be "timed released form" so to speak and
other natural forms would already have it methyl group or in
other words its already l-folinic acid.

It would be interesting to check for a risk or reward on
the cancer front by way of other methyl group contributors.

folinic.................Trig


>

[None Given]

1. Br J Pharmacol. 2012 Apr 27. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.02002.x. [Epub ahead
of print]

Epigenetic mechanisms in anti-cancer actions of bioactive food components-the
implications in cancer prevention.

Stefanska B, Karlic H, Varga F, Fabianowska-Majewska K, Haslberger AG.
<snip>

The hallmarks of carcinogenesis are aberrations in gene expression and protein
function caused by both genetic and epigenetic modifications. Epigenetics refers
to the changes in gene expression programming that alter the phenotype in absence
of a change in DNA sequence. Epigenetic modifications, which include amongst
others DNA methylation, covalent modifications of histone tails, and regulation
by non-coding RNAs, play a significant role in normal development and genome
stability. The changes are dynamic and serve as an adaptation mechanism to a wide
variety of environmental and social factors including diet. A number of studies
provide evidence that some natural bioactive compounds found in food and herbs
can modulate gene expression by targeting different elements of the epigenetic
machinery. Nutrients that are components of one carbon metabolism such as folate,
riboflavin, pyridoxine, cobalamin, choline, betaine, and methionine, affect DNA
methylation by regulating levels of S-adenosyl-L-methionine, a methyl group
donor, and S-adenosyl-L-homocysteine which is an inhibitor of enzymes catalyzing
the DNA methylation reaction. Other natural compounds target histone
modifications and levels of non-coding RNAs such as vitamin D that recruits
histone acetylases or resveratrol that activates the deacetylase sirtuin and
regulates oncogenic and tumour suppressor micro-RNAs. Since epigenetic
abnormalities have been shown to be both causative and contributing factors in
different health conditions including cancer, natural compounds that are direct
or indirect regulators of the epigenome constitute an excellent approach in
cancer prevention and potentially in anti-cancer therapy.

PMID: 22536923 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]


It seems we "know" less than we should. Perhaps another intervention
such as upping methyl group intake along with synthetic folic acid
would wipe away the apparenly slight risk.

[None Given]

> Getting folate naturally from foods is protective and positive,
> whereas high does supplements haven't been found to have positive
> benefits and some results show problems.
>
> Randy

Here a circumstance high folic acid is of value granted
the issue isn't cancer but NTD births.

Question One of my epileptic patients who takes carbamazepine is planning to become pregnant. She told me that Motherisk advised her to take 5 mg of folic acid daily until the end of the first trimester. Are there other women who need more than the regular dose of folic acid included in prenatal vitamins?

Answer Women who are at high risk of having babies with neural tube defects and who would benefit from higher doses of folic acid include those with certain folate-enzyme genotypes, previous pregnancies with neural tube defects, diabetes, malabsorption disorders, or obesity, or those who take antifolate medications or smoke. Such women should take 5 mg/d of folic acid for the 2 months before conception and during the first trimester.

[ra...@val.com]

Trig Wrote:
"It seems we "know" less than we should. Perhaps another intervention
such as upping methyl group intake along with synthetic folic acid
would wipe away the apparenly slight risk."

Our make the problem worse.
The deal is that "upping methyl groups" might suppress good genes not
just bad ones.
Your playing with fire.

See:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071201082319.

DNA Methylation Shown To Promote Development Of Colon Tumors

DNA Methylation Shown To Promote Development Of Colon Tumors
ScienceDaily (Dec. 1, 2007) — Damaged or defective genes have long
been known to be the cause of some cancers. Over the past decade,
however, scientists have discovered that even healthy genes can be
switched on or off and can cause cancer without any changes in the
underlying DNA sequence--although how this happens has remained poorly
understood.

Researchers in the laboratory of Whitehead Member Rudolf Jaenisch now
have established a direct causal connection between hypermethylation
(the accumulation of too many methyl molecules on regions of DNA) and
the development of colon tumors in mice.

The research directly demonstrated that hypermethylation switches off
tumor suppressor genes--the "housekeeping" genes that keep cancer
cells in check. The study, published December 1 in Genes and
Development, found that hypermethylation boosted the number of
intestinal tumors by 60-100 percent and significantly increased the
average size of microscopic early-stage tumors.
While DNA methylation has been correlated with tumor development in
numerous studies of human cancers, this is the first in vivo work
demonstrating a causal connection in mammals. Better understanding of
the process is a promising pathway to the prevention, diagnosis and
treatment of certain cancers with minimal side effects.

"Our research found a family of tumor-suppressor genes in mice that
was silenced when methylated," says lead author Heinz Linhart. "This
is important because the same genes are known to be silenced by
methylation in human colon cancer cells. If we can switch on the gene
that creates this abnormal methylation pattern, the next step is to
find out if we can reverse the abnormal pattern by simply switching it
off, reactivating the genes that suppress tumors. This is the
therapeutic hope."

DNA methylation and packaging of DNA by proteins and other molecules
(often referred to epigenetic mechanisms) regulate the activity of
certain genes and genetic regions, depending on what each cell needs
to do. Since almost every cell of an organism has the identical DNA
sequence the "packaging" of this DNA by these epigenetic mechanisms is
a key element in determining cell identity and helps generate the wide
variety of cell types that are found in the human body.

"If we tried to read a book that had the letters arranged in rows, we
could not understand it," says Linhart. "We not only need the letters
arranged in sequence, we need spaces and formatting to separate the
letters into words, sentences and paragraphs. In the same way, we can
imagine the human genome as a list of letters printed one after the
other, without spaces or formatting. Methylation and protein
"packaging" of DNA help the cell 'read' and make sense of the DNA
sequence, determining which genes need to be active to perform a
particular function, and which ones need to be switched off."

As cells renew and divide, their characteristic methylation and
packaging pattern is usually maintained and transmitted to the new
cells, ensuring that recently formed heart cells, for example, carry
the same correct instructions for how to behave in order to contract
and pump blood.
Trouble arises, however, when there is either too little methylation
throughout the DNA (hypomethylation) or too much on specific regions
of the strand (hypermethylation)--both of which are frequently
observed in cancer. In the last decade, scientists at Whitehead
Institute and elsewhere demonstrated that the first phenomenon--too
little methylation throughout the genome--is causally associated with
the development of cancer.

The most recent Whitehead study established a direct causal connection
between the second form of methylation imbalance--regional increases
in methylation--and the development of colon tumors. The scientists
did this by giving mice prone to developing intestinal tumors four
variations of an enzyme that causes methylation. "We wanted to
determine the impact of inducing methylation on tumor development,"
says Linhart. "Does it inhibit it, do nothing or promote it""

Surprisingly and importantly, methylation appears to target specific
regions of the DNA and the genes within them rather than being
distributed randomly. "We found that key tumor-suppressor genes in
certain DNA regions were silenced months before tumors appear," says
Linhart. This specific targeting extends to organs as well: A given
gene that is methylated in the colon, for example, does not become
methylated in the spleen. The specificity of the process could prove a
major advantage for diagnostic and therapeutic approaches based on DNA
methylation.
"The enzymes that silence tumor-suppressing genes would be terrific
targets for treatment," says senior author Rudolf Jaenisch. "If we can
inactivate them and rescue the cancer-prevention functions of these
genes, there would be predictably no side effects. And if we can
examine circulating blood for signs of early methylation, we might be
able to prevent tumors from developing."
Although this study focused on mice, Jaenisch notes that "current
clinical trials using a drug to inhibit methylation in people with
leukemia appear to delay the disease."

[Trawley Trash]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 07:40:25 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> That can't be true because righteous ranting Randy is always right.

Ranting Randy up all night,
Spoiling for a verbal fight.
Now he finds his boat is listing,
Wrote by rote a fatal posting.
Thought he'd blinded with his light,
Sadly through an oversight,
Knows he did not write it right.

[Bjørn Steensrud]

wrote:

Our youngest child was born when my wife was 45. We got genetic counseling
from a hospital specialist, who explained that the bodies of younger mothers
are better at discovering faulty fetuses and absorbing/aborting them, which
is why the risk of Down's syndrome babies is higher in older mothers.
(Fortunately all tests showed there was noting wrong and the baby is
approaching 30 - and may be hearing her biological clock ticking ...)

[ra...@val.com]

On May 19, 4:20 pm, Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 07:40:25 -0700
>

> Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:
> > That can't be true because righteous ranting Randy is always right.
>
>   Ranting Randy up all night,
>   Spoiling for a verbal fight.
>   Now he finds his boat is listing,
>   Wrote by rote a fatal posting.
>   Thought he'd blinded with his light,
>   Sadly through an oversight,
>   Knows he did not write it right.

That's actually very good, clever - really!

I think you've found you niche -I'd recommend sticking to limericks,
much more effective that your straight discourse. For one thing you
can make up stuff and don't even have to pretend it's true.

What rhymes with "allergy"?

Randy

[None Given]

On Saturday, May 19, 2012 11:30:10 PM UTC-7, ra...@val.com wrote:
> Trig Wrote:
> "It seems we "know" less than we should. Perhaps another intervention
> such as upping methyl group intake along with synthetic folic acid
> would wipe away the apparenly slight risk."
>
> Our make the problem worse.
> The deal is that "upping methyl groups" might suppress good genes not
> just bad ones.
> Your playing with fire.

LOL. life is fire. Eggs? Beets? (OK something from beets ;-)
You're also playing with fire. Conventional approach is
a failed approach, IMO.

This discussion has been enough for me to consider one of
my older approaches to folic acid. It should provide a set of
more natural folic acid forms.

Some workers apparently to think the oxidized synthetic form
is the problem. Anyway this screams for the need to
understanding mechanism. Otherwise everyone is dancing in a mine field
and this includes conventional approach folks.
This are other issues here such NTDs and blood pressure which
are is the plus catagory.

[Trawley Trash]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 09:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
"ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:

> 1. The studies that found a relationship between folic acid and cancer
> Were using supplements - the kind you buy in the health food store.
> They were not using folic acid from enriched foods.

You snipped two sentences from the paragraph you quoted, and
those two sentences made it clear that they were considering
fortified flour. Every quote of yours seems to be missing
context that substantially modifies the meaning.

Although someone here mentioned taking high dose folic acid,
he *did* *not* *say* he took it to prevent cancer.

[Trawley Trash]

I note that you seem to have difficulty pretending
things are true. I hope you find your niche soon!

[ra...@val.com]

Could you provide the two sentences I left out.

Randy

[mainframetech]

=======================

I'm one of those that mentioned taking larger doses of Folic Acid.
The purpose being to lower homocysteine, which is a cause of
inflammation and therefore atherosclerosis (clogged arteries).
http://www.livestrong.com/article/477956-homocysteines-role-in-high-cholesterol/

I had no intent to affect any form of cancer.

Chris

[Ellen K.]

"Trawley Trash" <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:kgnk89-...@jester.gnet...

Are you saying carbs from grain spike you but potatoes do not? Wow, maybe
I'm going to try eating a potato one of these days. One of my favorite main
courses before dx was a tofu-stuffed potato. (nuke the potato but not all
the way, scoop out the insides and mash with tofu, olive oil, salt, fresh
minced garlic, black pepper, any other spices you like, put the mixture back
in the skin, nuke another minute or two).

>> I ask 1 simple question and was immediately branded a spy for
>> a vegan warring tribe (I eat meat everyday). I was shocked and
>> saddened. I thought I would find a community with the most up to date
>> information. Instead I found folks (with some notable but too rare
>> exceptions) that only cared for science when it validated their belief
>> systems and succumbed to conspiracy theories when contradicted by
>> evidence.
>
> If you have been around newsgroups for a while, you would realize
> that this is *typical*. There are a lot of misunderstandings,
> because we do not know each other at all. We all make assumptions
> about others that turn out to be false.
>
>> Things have gotten better and I hope that continues but I will
>> continue to express what I consider an evidence based point of view.
>
> To me the most valuable part of a newsgroup is hearing the experience
> of others.
>

I strongly agree with that last sentence. I have learned so much from
others' posting their experiences here!!!

[Trawley Trash]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 14:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
"ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:

> >   You snipped two sentences from the paragraph you quoted, and
> >   those two sentences made it clear that they were considering
> >   fortified flour.  Every quote of yours seems to be missing
> >   context that substantially modifies the meaning.
> >
> >   Although someone here mentioned taking high dose folic acid,
> >   he *did* *not* *say* he took it to prevent cancer.
>
> Could you provide the two sentences I left out.

I already did that in my previous message. Here it is again:

! Whether folic acid supplementation can have adverse effects
! is a topic that needs further investigation. This is especially

! true in countries such as the United States...(which fortify flour).

[ra...@val.com]

On May 22, 9:17 am, Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 14:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
>
> "ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> > >   You snipped two sentences from the paragraph you quoted, and
> > >   those two sentences made it clear that they were considering
> > >   fortified flour.  Every quote of yours seems to be missing
> > >   context that substantially modifies the meaning.
>
> > >   Although someone here mentioned taking high dose folic acid,
> > >   he *did* *not* *say* he took it to prevent cancer.
>
> > Could you provide the two sentences I left out.

Trawley wrote:
>   I already did that in my previous message.  Here it is again:
>
> !  Whether folic acid supplementation can have adverse effects
> !  is a topic that needs further investigation.  This is especially
> !  true in countries such as the United States...(which fortify flour).

And how does that have any bearing on my statement here:

//******************************

The studies that found a relationship between folic acid and cancer
Were using supplements - the kind you buy in the health food store.
They were not using folic acid from enriched foods.

//******************************

I'm referring to two random controlled trials using folic acid.
Sorry I can't see any connection with your quote from Wikipedia.

Randy

[Trawley Trash]

My quote is not from wikepedia, but from the reference you
supplied:

http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnci/press_releases/martinezdjs195.pdf

The paper talks about possible carcinogenic effects of fortified
flour.

[ra...@val.com]

On May 22, 6:29 pm, Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 09:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
>
> "ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> > I'm referring to two random controlled trials using folic acid.
> > Sorry I can't see any connection with your quote from Wikipedia.
>
>   My quote is not from wikepedia, but from the reference you
>   supplied:
>

>    http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnci/press_releases/martin...

>
>   The paper talks about possible carcinogenic effects of fortified
>   flour.

You said that because I left this quote off I distorted the meaning of
what I did quote. I still don't have the slightest idea of what your
talking about.

Randy

[Trawley Trash]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
"ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:

> You said that because I left this quote off I distorted the meaning of
> what I did quote. I still don't have the slightest idea of what your
> talking about.

If you did, you would never admit it.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t."

[Don Roberto]

+1

[Robert Miles]

Energy?

Robert Miles