Convict on 5/5/2006 at 17:21

---

That's not actually a study though. In fact that is rather poor quality journalism if it may even be called that. I went to the EWG website and...

Anyway:

Ok sure NY may well have a (significantly) higher cancer rate than elsewhere but this is such a logical fallacy they try to present. NYC might well be sleazier than say Jesus country and hence they get more STD related cancers (and might drink more alcohol???), NYC may have a higher smoking rate (I dunno about that one), there might be many more very poor people in NYC who have habits that increase their risk of cancer compared to other states where people might be poor but not so very poor, NYC might have a more processed diet causing more colo-rectal cancers (IIRC), maybe people live longer in NY (???) and therefore get more age related cancers (e.g. prostate). There are factors I could see going the other way - e.g. more sunlight down south, etc.

This (toilet)paper tries to link higher rates of cancer in NY with more chemicals and pollutants in NY.

Therefore I still have to ask what evidence is there that this (e.g. pollution) causes anything more than a neglible amount of cancers? I ask like this because you seem to be convinced of industrial pollutants causing cancers and yet you didn't find out the facts before you made up your mind. IMO it seems like rabid fundamentalism and blind faith.

But of course, you're not religious.

Sap'em on 5/5/2006 at 19:03

---

Bastard, I just polished off 1/2 a bag of Lays salt and vinegar chips.. mmm tummy happy. :o

demagogue on 5/5/2006 at 20:15

---

Well lemon juice isn't a cure. It's just a topical countermeasure that reduces the odds you'll get infected in the first place. It was thought good for developing countries where there's not a good condom supply, e.g., for prostitutes. Of course, once HIV starts attacking your T-cells you're screwed. But for short term/countermeasure use, it's not so bad, though not as good as condoms of course. So it's not useless if you're a third world whore. But as it turns out it isn't very good for long term use because it actually increases the odds over time (because it erodes the top layer of skin).

-----------------------------------

As for soil humus ... there was a group in San Antonio that was using it, and they were claiming it already *is* a cure, with their T-cell counts going way up, sparking something of a rabid following. But it's largely anecdotal, although a lot of studies support the idea.* It works as a chemical inhibitor of HIV, preventing the virus from latching on to T cells so it can't spread once it starts going ... better prophelactic, but not bad as a post-infection "cure" either (at least, in vitro). But anyway, you're not going to get serious funding into it as a mainstream cure because it's a natural product and it's chemical inhibition, that is, it can't be pateneted and it isn't a traditional anti-virus technique. No group of investors is going to invest much money in a non-traditional field that cannot even be patented.

I used to get this product out to AIDS patients here in NYC (my dad distributes the stuff for agricultural purposes), desparate to get the kind of results the San Antonio group was getting. I finally had to stop and I had to tell them to their faces: "Sorry, we have to stop giving you this because the FDA might crack down. You'll just have to die." (I didn't literally say that last part, but that's what it sounds like from their perspective.)

Needless to say, everyone was pretty bitter. But whatever, right? Maybe you're right in what you're suggesting and it will end up being just a flash in the pan, and the San Antonio results are a lucky fluke, and it will be much better if we just wait for pharmaceutical companies to take their sweet time while millions die. But I'd like to see you have to tell that to a desparate, dying crowd of AIDS patients to their faces. It's not like they have the luxuary to be so picky.

But I guess the "system" is there for everybody's good in the long run ... it just sucks that expectations, and emotions, and basic dignity have to be toyed with so flippantly in the meantime. That's what really sucks about the system.


* As for the studies done so far, in vitro it's already working better than AZT on wild HIV strains, and unlike AZT it isn't toxic, and a twelve week supply is only about $10, (AZT is $9 a week/5 capsules, so it's about 1/10 the price). It's already passed the in vitro stage in the FDA approval process. Right now the animal epidemological studies are going on, and then humans ... but it's taking bloody forever. I just hate it that it can't really be marketed as a drug until the end of the process, which could be years, and a synthetic version made which can be patented, bumping up the price, etc... And maybe it will be a flash in the pan in the end, who's to say until the whole process is over. It'd just be nice to be able to take a chance and start marketing it now on the off chance... For what it's worth, some cites ((http://www.accessnutra.com/members/mainz/science.html) 1, (http://www.enviromateinc.com/effectsha.asp) 2).

Convict on 6/5/2006 at 01:06

---

Pyrian when BR first wrote industrial living I thought he meant pollution rather than diet, cigarettes, etc. The reason I say this is because it seems that greens groups are trying to cancer scare us into stopping industrialisation (I like a nice environment and Europe is cool but I think in Europe environmentalism is replacing the Christian God IMHO).

Pyrian when I was talking about the causes of cancer in NY I was making the point that what was said implied that pollution is causing this increased cancer risk associated with living in NY as opposed to living in other states. I was refuting this shoddy conclusion.

TheGreatGodPan on 6/5/2006 at 01:39

---

I'm not Catholic, but I hate how people try to lay AIDS at their feet. The Catholic Church has little enough influence on whether people use condoms in places that have been Catholic for centuries. The fact is that condoms aren't very popular in Africa, even among Protestants and animists. "Dry sex", which leads to tearing and bleeding, is. That could be why (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda#AIDS-prevention) Uganda, which focused on trying to change behavior, seems to have had more success than places that are just indundated with rubbers that won't be used. Some articles on AIDS in Africa:
(http://www.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html) Why is AIDS So Prevalent in Africa?
(http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/04/aids_in_africa.html) AIDS in Africa: Too Bad to Be True

Regarding cancer and carcinogens, there was in interesting bit about that in this (http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1898820&page=1) excerpt from John Stossel's new book. I suspect one major reason for the increase in cancer in industrialized countries is that we live long enough to get cancer. People got it before industrialization, but they tended to die from other stuff before they lived long enough to get it.