Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Hey! Thanks to our uber-Chapterleader's efforts, Cannell is going to be speaking at the WAPF Westside chapter meeting 21 Jan. What am I going to ask him? I mean, I know what I'm going to ask him but you guys are sharper than me. Tersa B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Suze- >The " primitive " undifferentiated cancer cell >is the " primitive " embryo. Although I guess that's a really, really rough >ananalogy. Yeah... I think " primitive " obscures more than it reveals, honestly. To be extremely brief and over-compressed, subscribes to the theory that like many other species, humans actually reproduce through alternating sexual and asexual generations, and that embryonic stem cells are actually from the asexual stage of reproduction. As the embryo develops into a fetus, the fetus is " seeded " with a stock of these undifferentiated asexual cells which can be used for tissue repair and regeneration as needed, but sometimes the governing mechanisms fail to kick in and these cells run amok, turning into cancers. Most cancers share a wide variety of capabilities with embryonic cells, such as the abilities to stimulate angiogenesis and to implant themselves by dissolving endothelial barriers. The signal that turns off unchecked growth in fetal development is actually the first production of pancreatin enzymes, which is what leads to the idea of treating (endothelial) cancers with pancreatin. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 - >Hey! Thanks to our uber-Chapterleader's efforts, Cannell is >going to be speaking at the WAPF Westside chapter meeting 21 Jan. >What am I going to ask him? I mean, I know what I'm going to ask him >but you guys are sharper than me. What specifically his evidence is for his assertion that vitamin A interferes with the VDR and with any other aspect of D absorption, production or utilization in the body would be a start, but can probably provide a much better and more specific list of questions. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 On 1/8/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote: > 's answer was correct. Just think of a rough analogy to embrionic cells > that lectured about. The " primitive " undifferentiated cancer cell > is the " primitive " embryo. Although I guess that's a really, really rough > ananalogy. Well I understand what an undifferentiated cell is, which I think is quite similar to the undifferentiated tissues/cells in an embryo, but it is NORMAL to have undifferentiated cells, so I still don't understand the relation to the cancer process. By the way, I didn't see 's lecture, although I got the rough runover from you and . I was thinking of ordering the video of it. Do you think the video would have benefit over the audio at all? It seemed to me like the one lecture definitely worth paying for, by your and 's description. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Chris- >Do you think the video would have benefit over the audio at all? >It seemed to me like the one lecture definitely worth paying for, by >your and 's description. There weren't any visual aids that I can recall, so you might as well go with audio. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Chris- >It seemed to me like the one lecture definitely worth paying for, by >your and 's description. The only problem with the lecture is that needed to have about twice as much time as he did, if not more. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 On 1/8/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > What specifically his evidence is for his assertion that vitamin A > interferes with the VDR and with any other aspect of D absorption, > production or utilization in the body would be a start, but can > probably provide a much better and more specific list of questions. Well Cannel has all sorts of great things to say, besides his anti-A quackery. So, local folks who aren't in the know would be interested in things like, how much D to take? How do I get D from food? What's the difference between vitamin D2 and vitamin D3? and so on. With respect to the A thing, I should be done with my article by that point, and if it isn't published, I can send it along to you , and you might be able to draw questions comments or talking points from the article. I intend to send it to Dr. Cannel as well. If I can do that sooner it would be better as it would be better to convince him privately than to publicly confront him at what he would assume to be a friendly gathering, I'd think. , in some tissues vitamins A and D compete for the retinoid X receptor, which is necessary to bind to either vitamin complexed to its primary receptor (one of the RARs (retinoic acid receptors) and the VDR (vitamin D receptor)), in order to allow the vitamin/receptor to alter gene expression, but it depends on the tissue because it only matters if the retinoid X receptor comes in short supply. There are also various interactions in which one vitamin might induce the release of the other from a gene. There are also many interactions in which the opposite is true and they enhance each other. None of those interactions involving the VDR are likely to be related to the three studies Cannel posted in his newsletter, which are mostly likely, in my view, mediated by the 1,25,D3-MARRS (membrane-associated rapid response steroid-binding protein), although none of the studies actually elucidate that, in part because they all were conducted before its discovery last year, and ALL of which indicate CLEARLY that the absolute amount of vitamin A is irrelevant. One of the studies even used vitamin D2 as the form of vitamin D, which in the very same newsletter Cannel says competitively inhibits D3 from reachign the VDR and doesn't carry out the effect of vitamin D, which makes me yet more curious as to why he connects those studies with the Vitamin D receptor. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Chris- >Well Cannel has all sorts of great things to say, besides his >anti-A quackery. For some reason I thought we were talking specifically about his vitamin A recommendations, but of course you're completely right -- in a venue like this, it's much more important to have him disseminate useful information to the lay public than to get into some kind of confrontation which might harden his support of a single mistaken position. >I intend to send it to Dr. Cannel as well. If I can do that sooner it >would be better as it would be better to convince him privately than >to publicly confront him at what he would assume to be a friendly >gathering, I'd think. Completely right, and I obviously wasn't thinking at all. If anyone broaches the issue at all at that event, it should doubtless be privately, either beforehand or afterwards. >, in some tissues vitamins A and D compete for the retinoid X >receptor, which is necessary to bind to either vitamin complexed to >its primary receptor (one of the RARs (retinoic acid receptors) and >the VDR (vitamin D receptor)), in order to allow the vitamin/receptor >to alter gene expression, but it depends on the tissue because it only >matters if the retinoid X receptor comes in short supply. There are >also various interactions in which one vitamin might induce the >release of the other from a gene. I remember you mentioning this before, come to think of it. Do you know which tissues? And under what conditions does the retinoid X receptor express insufficiently? Is it due to genetic or environmental factors? >One of the studies >even used vitamin D2 as the form of vitamin D Really? Odd that he'd cite it, then. >, which in the very same >newsletter Cannel says competitively inhibits D3 from reachign the VDR >and doesn't carry out the effect of vitamin D, which makes me yet more >curious as to why he connects those studies with the Vitamin D >receptor. I've definitely got to catch up with his newsletters, starting with the one forwarded me. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 ....With respect to the A thing, I should be done with my article by that > point, and if it isn't published, I can send it along to you , > and you might be able to draw questions comments or talking points > from the article. This is what I was hoping you would say! > I intend to send it to Dr. Cannel as well. If I can do that sooner it > would be better as it would be better to convince him privately than > to publicly confront him at what he would assume to be a friendly > gathering, I'd think. Oh dear no, no confronting--not me! I really enjoyed his presentation at the conf., I'm just hoping to find out more information. I remembered him saying to take clo and supplemental D to add up to 4000IU daily in absence of sun exposure so it surprised me when he flipped on the clo in his newsletter. B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 - >Oh dear no, no confronting--not me! I really enjoyed his presentation >at the conf., I'm just hoping to find out more information. You don't think you should roundly castigate him for occasionally feeding his 3yo son Mcs? I mean, wouldn't public shaming help change his behaviour? <g> - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 > You don't think you should roundly castigate him for occasionally > feeding his 3yo son Mcs? I mean, wouldn't public shaming help > change his behaviour? <g> , He has a three-year old son? I thought he had a two-year old daughter to whom he gives 2000 IU of D daily? I must have been off with Suze somewhere? B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 - >He has a three-year old son? I thought he had a two-year old daughter >to whom he gives 2000 IU of D daily? I could be wrong, but I remember him mentioning that he's very conscious of the bad stuff in a Mcs meal on those rare occasions when he feeds one to his 3yo son. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 > I could be wrong, but I remember him mentioning that he's very > conscious of the bad stuff in a Mcs meal on those rare > occasions when he feeds one to his 3yo son. , *gasp* http://tinyurl.com/3pa59 B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 On 1/8/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > >, in some tissues vitamins A and D compete for the retinoid X > >receptor, which is necessary to bind to either vitamin complexed to > >its primary receptor (one of the RARs (retinoic acid receptors) and > >the VDR (vitamin D receptor)), in order to allow the vitamin/receptor > >to alter gene expression, but it depends on the tissue because it only > >matters if the retinoid X receptor comes in short supply. There are > >also various interactions in which one vitamin might induce the > >release of the other from a gene. > I remember you mentioning this before, come to think of it. Do you > know which tissues? In thyroid (of whatever animal was studied) competition for the RXR was one mechanism of antagonism; in healthy human bone marrow cells, there was a dominant negative effect of D on A-mediated gene alteration (meaning D inhibited A but not vice versa), but RXR was in large enough supply that it did not mediate the antagonism. There are other studies and I haven't read them all. I don't think that most of them have to do with bone and this particular issue. > And under what conditions does the retinoid X > receptor express insufficiently? Is it due to genetic or > environmental factors? I'm not sure that we even know it has any in vivo relevance. These studies are generally in vitro, and I'm not sure you can always compare doses when incubating a cell line in a vitamin or hormone to the dose it experiences in vivo. In any case, it might not be " insufficiently. " The fact that there is a mechanism for D and A to antagonize each other could indicate a need for that antagonistic effect rather than a malfunction, and if the total amounts of the activated vitamins exceed the needs of the cell, then the limiting of RXR supply could be a mechanism to protect the cell from excess effects of the activated vitamins. > >One of the studies > >even used vitamin D2 as the form of vitamin D > > Really? Odd that he'd cite it, then. Not particularly. D2 quite clearly protects against rickets and possesses D3's property of increasing calcium absorption, even if it doesn't possess effects mediated by the VDR. So it is relevant to the fact that A and D antagonize each other with respect to calcium absorption (and apparently phosphorus absorption, since one study found combining A with D decreased D-induced serum calcium increase but increased phosphorus levels), which was the point of the other two studies too, all likely to be independent of the VDR. > >, which in the very same > >newsletter Cannel says competitively inhibits D3 from reachign the VDR > >and doesn't carry out the effect of vitamin D, which makes me yet more > >curious as to why he connects those studies with the Vitamin D > >receptor. > > I've definitely got to catch up with his newsletters, starting with > the one forwarded me. Unfortunately he doesn't offer a citation for this like he does for virtually everything else in the newsletter. I need to ask him for a citation. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 >-----Original Message----- >From: >[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn > >Not particularly. D2 quite clearly protects against rickets and >possesses D3's property of increasing calcium absorption, even if it >doesn't possess effects mediated by the VDR. So it is relevant to the >fact that A and D antagonize each other with respect to calcium >absorption (and apparently phosphorus absorption, since one study >found combining A with D decreased D-induced serum calcium increase >but increased phosphorus levels), which was the point of the other two >studies too, all likely to be independent of the VDR. do you recall what the ratio of A to D was? I'm currently reading research on kidney disease because Mokie might have chronic kidney disease. Phosphorus needs to be limited in kidney disease apparently, and so I have to decide how much A and D to give in what ratio with this in mind. I'm currently giving her Blue Ice CLO but wonder if the 10:1 ratio of A to D is too high. Or even if her total amounts are healthful considering her condition. Any thoughts? Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 On 1/8/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote: > >Not particularly. D2 quite clearly protects against rickets and > >possesses D3's property of increasing calcium absorption, even if it > >doesn't possess effects mediated by the VDR. So it is relevant to the > >fact that A and D antagonize each other with respect to calcium > >absorption (and apparently phosphorus absorption, since one study > >found combining A with D decreased D-induced serum calcium increase > >but increased phosphorus levels), which was the point of the other two > >studies too, all likely to be independent of the VDR. > > do you recall what the ratio of A to D was? I'm currently reading > research on kidney disease because Mokie might have chronic kidney disease. > Phosphorus needs to be limited in kidney disease apparently, and so I have > to decide how much A and D to give in what ratio with this in mind. I'm > currently giving her Blue Ice CLO but wonder if the 10:1 ratio of A to D is > too high. Or even if her total amounts are healthful considering her > condition. In the study that used D2? There were many ratios. The one that detected a rise in serum phosphorus coinciding with a decrease in D3-induced rise in serum calcium had to use high doses of A and doses of D3 so small that their serum levels of calcitriol were below the level of detection in order for the effect of A to be activated. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 >-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Masterjohn >In the study that used D2? There were many ratios. The one that >detected a rise in serum phosphorus coinciding with a decrease in >D3-induced rise in serum calcium had to use high doses of A and doses >of D3 so small that their serum levels of calcitriol were below the >level of detection in order for the effect of A to be activated. Do you have a copy of the study? And if so, would you mind sending it to me? I just want to get a sense of the amount of A used to raise phosphorus levels in ratio to D, and would like to see the absolute amounts used as well. The other two studies DIDN'T raise phosphorus levels by increasing A though right? It wasn't clear to me what the purpose of the studies was... Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 On 1/8/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote: > Do you have a copy of the study? And if so, would you mind sending it to me? > I just want to get a sense of the amount of A used to raise phosphorus > levels in ratio to D, and would like to see the absolute amounts used as > well. > > The other two studies DIDN'T raise phosphorus levels by increasing A though > right? It wasn't clear to me what the purpose of the studies was... The other two studies didn't measure it I don't think. They are with chickens, rats, and humans respectively and none with dogs, and it is the rat one that measured serum phosphorus levels, which may or may not have to do with intestinal absorption of phosphorus. The minimum dose of A that they tested raised phosphorus levels, which was 759.24 IU/kg bodyweight every three days, or 253.08 IU/kg bodyweight per day. Vitamin D lowers this response substantially, but the highest dose they report of vitamin D is 61.92 IU/kg/3 days or 20.64 IU/kg/day. They said they had to use very low levels of D to see the effect take place, so that's what they report on. It's not particularly useful, I don't think, for your purposes. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.