Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It might help for you to realize that "cancer" is not one disease. That is why it is difficult to determine a single cause for many cancers. The causes involve multiple factors, including genetic susceptibility.
Good nutrition is an admirable goal for manyreasons, but even ideal nutrition (if that could even be defined) will not guarantee that an individual will not get cancer of any kind.
oh ok. older cultures were very agricultural so the common person always had access to grain and other crops that they could readily convert into alcohol, so that's probably not a good example.
processed food would be a better example. people used to eat very natural diets because they lived off the land. but most people nowadays in the US at least are eating diets that are very high in processed food content. fast food, frozen foods, soft drinks, junk food that are high in calories and fat but low in nutrition. again, people are eating a lot of food but are still malnourished, not getting enough nutrients. that has been a factor not just in cancer but in heart disease, diabetes, obesity and other ailments people are suffering from.
oh ok. older cultures were very agricultural so the common person always had access to grain and other crops that they could readily convert into alcohol, so that's probably not a good example.
processed food would be a better example. people used to eat very natural diets because they lived off the land. but most people nowadays in the US at least are eating diets that are very high in processed food content. fast food, frozen foods, soft drinks, junk food that are high in calories and fat but low in nutrition. again, people are eating a lot of food but are still malnourished, not getting enough nutrients. that has been a factor not just in cancer but in heart disease, diabetes, obesity and a variety of other ailments people are suffering from.
Certainly diet plays a part in many diseases, but it is difficult to connect specific diets to specific cancers. That's why you see vegans with cancers.
When you use the word "cancer" it makes it sound like all cancers are equal. They are not. For example, the majority of cancer of the cervix has pretty well been shown to be related to human papillomavirus infection. But not everyone who gets an HPV infection gets cancer. There is probably some built in abnormality that makes it more likely for some women to develop cancers while others will throw the virus off. Add in smoking and you make it harder to fight off the virus. Sometimes the risks add up.
Being well nourished makes you healthier overall, but you can be well nourished and still get cancer.
By the time pancreatic cancer is diagnosed it is already to late,my sister just lost her husband to pancreatic cancer,he chose chemo which made quality of life worse,he lasted 7 months of misery.He was a very healthy individual who took excellent care of himself.You might buy some time but the outcome will be the same.
Yet all the evidence for processed foods sodas etc. is circumstantial and anecdotal, subject to conjecture and speculation. We've been over this before.
Certainly diet plays a part in many diseases, but it is difficult to connect specific diets to specific cancers. That's why you see vegans with cancers.
When you use the word "cancer" it makes it sound like all cancers are equal. They are not. For example, the majority of cancer of the cervix has pretty well been shown to be related to human papillomavirus infection. But not everyone who gets an HPV infection gets cancer. There is probably some built in abnormality that makes it more likely for some women to develop cancers while others will throw the virus off. Add in smoking and you make it harder to fight off the virus. Sometimes the risks add up.
Being well nourished makes you healthier overall, but you can be well nourished and still get cancer.
sure that may be true also. it seems to be the case with Steve Jobs. his exposure at a young age to hazardous working conditions in a computer factory appears to be the contributing factor of his pancreatic cancer. Jobs was known to be a health nut most of his life and his healthy diet may have postponed the growth of the cancer and helped to extend his life. if he had a poor diet, the reasoning goes, the cancer would have killed him a lot sooner and he would have died in his thirties.
perhaps surgery and chemo could have helped him to live longer than 56, but then again it might have killed him too which chemo therapy is known to do. I'm not saying chemo is always a bad thing, but its a last resort. you're taking a calculated risk. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
sure that may be true also. it seems to be the case with Steve Jobs. his exposure at a young age to hazardous working conditions in a computer factory appears to be the contributing factor of his pancreatic cancer. Jobs was known to be a health nut most of his life and his healthy diet may have postponed the growth of the cancer and helped to extend his life. if he had a poor diet, the reasoning goes, the cancer would have killed him a lot sooner and he would have died in his thirties.
perhaps surgery and chemo could have helped him to live longer than 56, but then again it might have killed him too which chemo therapy is known to do. I'm not saying chemo is always a bad thing, but its a last resort. you're taking a calculated risk. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Again, you’re speculating. You can’t definitely prove that his exposure was a precursor, nor can you prove that no exposure would have prevented his cancer. All your evidence is circumstantial.
Industrial countries didn't exist until they were industrialized. Cancer existed prior to that. But you're right - they didn't exist in industrial countries until the industrial revolution. That's because prior to the industrial revolution, they weren't industrialized countries.
perhaps surgery and chemo could have helped him to live longer than 56, but then again it might have killed him too which chemo therapy is known to do. I'm not saying chemo is always a bad thing, but its a last resort. you're taking a calculated risk. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
But, rejecting chemo/surgery DID kill him. His cancer was *treatable* at the early stages. He was diagnosed at the early stages. He could have been -cured- of his cancer, if he had chosen the expected non-alternative route. He rejected that route, and died as a result.
That is why he died. And that is the question the title of this thread asks: Why did he die, despite being a vegan? The answer is: because he rejected the recommended treatment. That's why he died.
sure that may be true also. it seems to be the case with Steve Jobs. his exposure at a young age to hazardous working conditions in a computer factory appears to be the contributing factor of his pancreatic cancer. Jobs was known to be a health nut most of his life and his healthy diet may have postponed the growth of the cancer and helped to extend his life. if he had a poor diet, the reasoning goes, the cancer would have killed him a lot sooner and he would have died in his thirties.
perhaps surgery and chemo could have helped him to live longer than 56, but then again it might have killed him too which chemo therapy is known to do. I'm not saying chemo is always a bad thing, but its a last resort. you're taking a calculated risk. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Jobs' summer job at Hewlett Packard consisted of putting screws in a component called a frequency counter. It is unlikely that he was exposed to anything in the course of that job that would have made him develop pancreatic cancer 40 years later.
Certainly diet plays a part in many diseases, but it is difficult to connect specific diets to specific cancers. That's why you see vegans with cancers.
When you use the word "cancer" it makes it sound like all cancers are equal. They are not. For example, the majority of cancer of the cervix has pretty well been shown to be related to human papillomavirus infection. But not everyone who gets an HPV infection gets cancer. There is probably some built in abnormality that makes it more likely for some women to develop cancers while others will throw the virus off. Add in smoking and you make it harder to fight off the virus. Sometimes the risks add up.
Being well nourished makes you healthier overall, but you can be well nourished and still get cancer.
Agree and will add to it: HPV-related throat cancer is occurring now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
