Talk Cancer

Question:

The more I check on DaveW’s many logical reasonings the less I feel confidence about his ability to tell the whole truth

Mr. Harrison, There you go again. A week ago or so I posted a question for you. You chose not to respond and since you didn’t post any further attacks, I let it drop. But here you are again, calling someone who is a dedicated researcher and educator for this group a liar. I repeat. You call me drug happy old lady, and people who agree with me drug happy groupies. You call many of the regular posters who donate their valuable personal time helping other sufferers "liars" and other terrible, unforgivable names. And then you call the remainder of people who either post or lurk here (with very few exceptions) "dummies!" Now answer the question or stop the personal attacks! WHY ARE YOU HERE? What do you imagine you are accomplishing with your attacks? If you are this big brave man who claims he is posting his "real name" all three of them, why are you afraid to answer a simple question about your motivation for participating in a group for which you have no respect whatsoever? Ava

Response:

Amen to Ava’s comments.  If you feel it necessary to challenge someone’s posts then do it constructively.  I find Dave’s posts informative and supportive. Your cynical comments are neither necessary nor welcome.  

Response:

I found that US National Toxicology Program lists selenium sulfide as an animal carcinogen, but there is no evidence that other selenium compounds found in nutritional supplements are carcinogens.

Oh, forcryingoutloud.  So what?  Once again you’re not answering the points I’ve made. Also the latest study published by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concluded that among healthy women, there was no benefit or harm from beta-carotene supplementation (when consumed it is converted into vitamin A in the liver)…

Again, so what?  There’s not even one mention of the word ’selenium’ in the rest of your post. To clarify my position (yet again): You posted a couple of abstracts about selenium, and then made sweeping conclusions that were *not* supportable by the evidence you provided. To overcome the deficiency, it recommended that smokers should supplement themselves with a combination of antioxidants (beta-carotene [vitamin A], alpha-tocopherol [vitamin E], and vitamin C) to reduce cancer risk.

Ah.  You’re not talking selenium anymore, you’re talking about vitamin C.  So vitamin C might help people with known high risks for cancer.  Does this mean we should *all* take megadoses of vitamin C?  Of course not. But again, so what?  You’re original vitamin C posts were in relation to *psoriasis*.  You still have not provided any evidence whatsoever that vitamin C may be helpful in treating psoriasis. The more I check on DaveW’s many logical reasonings the less I feel confidence about his ability to tell the whole truth.  I have no doubt that he is a master of half-truth arguments, as one guy suggested privately.

Ah, have you been emailing with "JustDFacts"?  He also made similar vague attacks.  Why don’t you give me some specifics of what "logical reasonings" you’ve checked on?  I’m sure if you give me the details, I’ll be able to explain, in basic logic, why I made the statements I made. Also, since you’re accusing me of not telling the whole truth, I challenge you to point out one instance in which I failed to tell the whole truth. I’m still waiting for him to learn how use a language translator in order to read and decipher a foreign language scientific article.

One, I don’t have the means nor the time to order, translate, and read the articles in question.  Two (and I’ll repeat this for you), since you’ve supposedly read the studies, and they *prove* your point, you should be more than happy to post summaries of them for us to read, too.  It doesn’t make any sense for you not to, unless you haven’t read them. And criticizing my *not* having read them is nothing but an ad hominem attack, which doesn’t help your position at all.  It makes you look like a bully, and a childish bully, to boot. So much for a guy who worship science as the ultimate truth but always comes up empty in citing compelling case study to back up his own view.

Good grief.  Tell me how to search for a study which says "Will Brittian Harrison makes conclusions which are not supported by the evidence he has presented," and I’ll gladly cite them. You seem to think that I have any interest at all in trying to defend the position that selenium causes cancer, or that vitamin C cannot possibly help psoriasis.  Since I never once believed that selenium causes cancer, or that it’s an impossibility for vitamin C to help psoriasis, your continuing demands for references to back up my position are ludicrous.  I am led to believe that you aren’t reading my posts, you’re just assuming that I’m claiming the opposite of whatever it is you’re saying.  I am not. Even though you’ll probably go "yada yada yada" again, it’s not up to any of us to prove that you’re wrong, it’s up to you to prove to *us* that you’re correct.  Given the information you’ve posted, you have not done so.  The burden of proof in scientific claims is up to the person making the claims.  That’s you, Will Brittian Harrison. – Dave W.

Response:

The more I check on DaveW’s many logical reasonings the less I feel confidence about his ability to tell the whole truth. I have no doubt that he is a master of half-truth arguments, as one guy suggested privately.

Can everyone spell Troll?   T-R-O-L-L You can also spell it this way — Will Brittian Harrison I imagine this particular troll is having a lot of fun stirring things up in this NG.

Response:

My 2ps worth: I enjoy the abstracts that Will posts, as they provide interesting information but dislike his obnoxiousness to others for what seems like no reason. I agree with Dave W. that some of Will’s conclusions show logical flaws in their derivation from the information. Oh, and that phrase ‘without fact or truthfulness’ grates – dodgy grammar??? This is NOT a ‘put down Will’ post – I hope he continues to post the abstracts and maybe stops being so hostile and sticks to reason and logic. Before you buy.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Awhile ago someone falsely claimed here that taking selenium (Se) supplement maybe carcinogenic should read the research study done at Cornell University on Oct 1999. Good grief.  Go back and read the original post: Fran said she *thought* this.  It’s far from "falsely claiming" anything. Beyond that, while supplementing with selenium may help prevent cancer, overdosing on the stuff can cause serious medical problems other than cancer.  The Cornell study is far from a blanket recommendation to eat all the selenium that you possibly can. Take vitamin A for example.  Some is required for life, too much will kill you. Also note the abstract for that Cornell study doesn’t say whether or not dosing at, say, twice whatever levels they suggest (they don’t publish any dosage info in the abstract) *does* cause cancer through some mechanism other than the one which reduces the risk. – Dave W.

I found that US National Toxicology Program lists selenium sulfide as an animal carcinogen, but there is no evidence that other selenium compounds found in nutritional supplements are carcinogens. Also the latest study published by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concluded that among healthy women, there was no benefit or harm from beta-carotene supplementation (when consumed it is converted into vitamin A in the liver). There was a US study that found 28% increase of lung cancers among high-risk men (like smokers) who regularly consumed beta-carotene. However, one latest study indicated the beta-carotene itself is not carcinogenic but its oxidized products does and the fact that smoke also deplete the levels of other antioxidants may explained for higher incidence of cancer among smokers. To overcome the deficiency, it recommended that smokers should supplement themselves with a combination of antioxidants (beta-carotene [vitamin A], alpha-tocopherol [vitamin E], and vitamin C) to reduce cancer risk. 1: Nutr Rev 1999 Sep;57(9 Pt 1):263-72 Procarcinogenic and anticarcinogenic effects of beta-carotene. Wang XD, Russell RM Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Boston, MA, USA. [Medline record in process] A large body of observational epidemiologic studies has consistently demonstrated that individuals who eat more fruits and vegetables, which are rich in carotenoids, and people who have higher serum beta-carotene levels have a lower risk of cancer, particularly lung cancer. In contrast to these observations, two human intervention studies that used high-dose beta- carotene supplements reported an increased risk for lung cancer among smokers. Recently, in vitro and in vivo studies have shed light on the present conundrum regarding the potential chemopreventive activity of beta-carotene; that is, beta- carotene itself may act as an anticarcinogen, but its oxidized products may facilitate carcinogenesis. These studies support the hypothesis that the carcinogenic response to high-dose beta-carotene supplementation reported in the human intervention trials is related to the instability of the beta-carotene molecule in the free radical-rich environment in the lungs of cigarette smokers. This is especially possible because smoke also causes decreased tissue levels of other antioxidants, such as ascorbate and alpha-tocopherol, which normally have a stabilizing effect on the unoxidized form of beta-carotene. Nutritional intervention using a combination of antioxidants (beta-carotene, alpha-tocopherol, and vitamin C) as anticarcinogenic agents could be an appropriate way to rationally and realistically reduce cancer risk. PMID: 10568335, UI: 20034330 The more I check on DaveW’s many logical reasonings the less I feel confidence about his ability to tell the whole truth. I have no doubt that he is a master of half-truth arguments, as one guy suggested privately. I’m still waiting for him to learn how use a language translator in order to read and decipher a foreign language scientific article. So much for a guy who worship science as the ultimate truth but always comes up empty in citing compelling case study to back up his own view. — Will Brittian Harrison Before you buy.

Response:

Also note the abstract for that Cornell study doesn’t say whether or not dosing at, say, twice whatever levels they suggest (they don’t publish any dosage info in the abstract) *does* cause cancer through some mechanism other than the one which reduces the risk.

This guy does not have any hard scientific evidence to prove that Se cause cancer at higher doses. He is without facts and truthfulness. Boy I just hope this dude does not fool too many dummies out there believing everything he says are true just because he sound smart. I have yet to read anything from him citing solid scientific studies. — Will Brittian Harrison Before you buy.

Response:

This guy does not have any hard scientific evidence to prove that Se cause cancer at higher doses.

What’s with the third-person, Will?  Is this some odd way to avoid getting into the debates you try to avoid, by not directly addressing me? It has never been my contention that it does cause cancer, only that the Cornell study doesn’t say that selenium can’t possibly cause cancer.  Seems you’ve completely missed my point. He is without facts and truthfulness.

No, I just refuse to invent facts and/or truth.  The conclusions you are drawing are not supported by the evidence you have provided. Boy I just hope this dude does not fool too many dummies out there believing everything he says are true just because he sound smart.

How many of the newsgroup readers have you just insulted by calling them "dummies"? I have yet to read anything from him citing solid scientific studies.

I’ve cited plenty of studies in the past.  Look them up in Deja.  Just because you came late to the party is not my problem. Beyond that, I was pointing out a logical flaw in your argument, not any sort of scientific position that requires proof.  Most of my objections to the abstracts you post and positions you take are along these lines. – Dave W.

Response:

Just a side note here. The early warning sign of selenium toxicity is "garlicky" breath.  Doesn’t count if you just ate Italian : ) Jena

Response:

This guy does not have any hard scientific evidence to prove that Se cause cancer at higher doses. He is without facts and truthfulness. Boy I just hope this dude does not fool too many dummies

Mr. Harrison, I read with some amusement each of your extraordinarily rude posts and speaking for myself, I’m sick of them. As I understand it, in your esteemed opinion, I am a drug happy old bag who is a liar, people who agree with me or are kind to me are "drug happy groupies", Dave and many of the other extremely knowledgeable, diligent and kind posters, are also labeled "liars." I do not appreciate your accusations and challenge you to prove that one lie has been told by any of us. I said PROVE IT, Mr. Harrison. This cannot be done by dragging out obscure nonsense data from some third world quack that nobody has read or verified. This has become personal Sir, and so I challenge you to back up your insults. Additionally, you have stated more than once that the rest of the people who post here or read posts here, perhaps with some few exceptions, are "dummies." May I ask exactly what is the purpose of your posts?  To prove we are liars? Sorry, you haven’t done that in any way.  To educate the poor "dummies?" I don’t know because of course, I’m on drugs, but I don’t think one can educate people for whom they have no respect and you obviously have none for the readers or posters.  I am truly interested in your answer. Why are you here? Ava

Response:

Awhile ago someone falsely claimed here that taking selenium (Se) supplement maybe carcinogenic should read the research study done at Cornell University on Oct 1999.

Good grief.  Go back and read the original post: Fran said she *thought* this.  It’s far from "falsely claiming" anything. Beyond that, while supplementing with selenium may help prevent cancer, overdosing on the stuff can cause serious medical problems other than cancer.  The Cornell study is far from a blanket recommendation to eat all the selenium that you possibly can. Take vitamin A for example.  Some is required for life, too much will kill you. Also note the abstract for that Cornell study doesn’t say whether or not dosing at, say, twice whatever levels they suggest (they don’t publish any dosage info in the abstract) *does* cause cancer through some mechanism other than the one which reduces the risk. – Dave W.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Awhile ago someone falsely claimed here that taking selenium (Se) supplement maybe carcinogenic should read the research study done at Cornell University on Oct 1999. Good grief.  Go back and read the original post: Fran said she *thought* this.  It’s far from "falsely claiming" anything. Beyond that, while supplementing with selenium may help prevent cancer, overdosing on the stuff can cause serious medical problems other than cancer.  The Cornell study is far from a blanket recommendation to eat all the selenium that you possibly can. Take vitamin A for example.  Some is required for life, too much will kill you.

Polar bear liver is *off* the menu! BB Also note the abstract for that Cornell study doesn’t say whether or not dosing at, say, twice whatever levels they suggest (they don’t publish any dosage info in the abstract) *does* cause cancer through some mechanism other than the one which reduces the risk. – Dave W.

MFW Britpack www.kruse.co.uk There is only one war, and it’s not the rich against the poor, the blacks against the whites, the Federation against the Borg, or the Democrats versus the Republicans. It’s those of us who aren’t complete idiots against those of us who are.

Response:

Awhile ago someone falsely claimed here that taking selenium (Se) supplement maybe carcinogenic should read the research study done at Cornell University on Oct 1999. It states that