Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
11 Jul 14
10:29
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Apr 12
Just seen the Macmillan TV cancer support advertisement which encourages people to support Cancer support by having coffee mornings in which they suggest in the ad' you eat lots of cakes, buns and heavily sugar laden goods. Given that for many people cancer is a food borne illness and many cancers thrive on a high sugar diet, are they drumming up business or simply being irresponsible ?.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 122
|
By:
Macmillan nurses do a wonderful job, I will leave it at that.
|
|
By:
I am not talking or referring to the nurses Pumphol I am talking about the misguided management or advertising team behind Macmillan
|
|
By:
Cannot comment on that as I have not seen it OOS
|
|
By:
A very good point Olias, there is also a campaign on at the moment by cancer research all about hosting a barbecue as a fundraiser. I remember back in the 80s a link was established between barbecues and some cancers because of the carcinogens in charred meat, due to carbonisation, and also the chemicals (such as benzine) used in liquid accelerants. I don't know whether or not that theory has been disproved now, but if not it does seem strange at the very least.
 http://tiny.cc/qdxtix |
|
By:
macmillan nurses do a truelly fantastic job they are always there to help
|
|
By:
Two very good posts OP
|
|
By:
I lost my mum to bowel cancer when I was 18,I recently lost my sister to the same illness,her brother has been diagnosed with it also.My mum and sister were both clean living people in that they did not drink alcohol,they tended to cook and bake ( old school) they were on the go all the time caring for people,I do not believe that diet is the main factor in cancer,at the moment it just seems the thing to blame.
Mac McMillan nurses were a great help at the time,I think it is sad that they have to raise money when this country/lottery funding give away millions to totally useless causes. |
|
By:
Agreed. We have a tax system that should create the funds to look after the sick and vulnerable. It shouldn't be left to charities to bail out the government and let them spunk tax revenues on pointless wars, daft foreign aid stupid 'high' speed rail projects.
|
|
By:
I do not believe that diet is the main factor in cancer,at the moment it just seems the thing to blame.
It is an important factor for sure. Perhaps in getting it, perhaps not. But the Warburg Effect shows where cancer derives the bulk of its energy from and that is glucose. Pet scanners rely on the effect to detect tumours. Obviously you can't stop producing glucose but you can stop spiking it all day long the way we do with our constant carbohydrate-based diets. The inflammation caused by seesawing insulin all the time throughout our lives and the constant onslaught of insulin-like growth factor -1 from eating too much protein day in and day out is what damages cells and leaves them unrepaired and vulnerable to cancer -that's diet in action. If more effort were made not to send subliminally bad messages, like this ad the OP is talking about, people might begin to make better food choices that would help them avoid some of the risks in the first place. Even if cancer is sometimes/often genetic in origin, why fuel it so enthusiastically when you have alternatives? I lost both my parents to different cancers, as well as other family members. |
|
By:
A piece of cake and a cup of coffee. How dreadful! Look they are raising money the way
it has been done in England for hundreds of years. They are doing something positive unlike those on here moaning. Makes me mad the lot of you. |
|
By:
I agree with Flower (above). There are populations to whom cancer is pretty much unheard of but as soon as they migrate to a western civilisation and diet cancer appears within one generation. Advocating barbecues and sugar laden coffee mornings is simply irresponsible, you would think they were trying to drum up business. We have to stop this 'hands off' the cancer practicioners, they are dong a great job. The truth is they are not, cancer is on the increase and the current treatment paradigm is flawed. Until we address the root causes and not the symptons things will get worse.
|
|
By:
Those of us who are not chucking any old crap down our throats in the first place. Rather than taking no responsibility for our health and then expecting everyone else to get out of our way when things go wrong.
|
|
By:
I meant "Those of us ... are doing something in the first place" - to lfc1971
|
|
By:
Total nonsense, cancer is in every country of the world, the fittest and most
abstemious person can get it. It is not on the rise and they are doing the best. Getting sick of the modern moral nazis looking over peoples shoulders tut-tutting if you so much as have a glass of wine. |
|
By:
lfc1971 I do not consider their fund raising idea positive at all. The most positive thing they could do is persuade the population of the country to change their eating and lifestyle habits. If we did this then a whole host of cancer hospices and cardiologists would be out of business and work
|
|
By:
lfc Cancer incidents vary by huge amounts according to geography, I am afraid you are wrong. If not try telling the Inuit population or the Okinawa's
|
|
By:
That is not how life works, nobody knows anything but certainly a cup of coffee
and slice of cake is one of lifes small pleasures, and if you can raise money at the same time..that can only be a beautiful thing. |
|
By:
Cancer is common and does not vary in any way in different countries anywhere on this
earth. |
|
By:
The problem is they are not just raising money, they are endorsing a food stuff that is cancer promoting. When a powerful organisation like Macmillan effectivley says sugar is OK it is a huge setback to our public health.
|
|
By:
Sugar is a poison, man has developed a certain resistence to it over thousands
of years. I and i am sure most people know this and will make our own decisions accordingly. |
|
By:
The following shows the variation and this is only for the top 50 so their will be greater variation amongst other countries and sub populations
http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_statistics/cancer_frequency.php |
|
By:
lfc Our increase in erfined sugar consumption is much more recent. I am sorry you are wrong again
|
|
By:
Decisions are based on information. If information is incorrect or withheld then it becomes difficult to expect positive changes
|
|
By:
.
http://www.sellafieldsites.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Cake%20Sale%20010-1024x682.jpg Macmillan coffee morning, wall to wall shoite. |
|
By:
Thanks for posting that Flower, a very sad picture indeed
|
|
By:
Good point OOS. Poor advertisement for a very worthy cause.
|
|
By:
You have no understanding of how statistics work, if someone was to find a larger
than normal percentage of cancer in people in certain parts of a country and finding these people lived close to a nuclear reactor the link might be made between the two. This would be wrong..there have to be certain statistical clusters, if there were not then the maths would be wrong. Certain parts of the world must have pockets of cancer higher than expected. But this can mean something or nothing but this is how it must be mathematically. |
|
By:
Breast cancer rates in Japan used to be significantly lower than the western world (I mean statistically significant). This is changing but the change is due to the westernistaion of such coutries and the adoption of the low grade western diet. I do understand how stats work lfc, actually its closely related to what I do for a living.
|
|
By:
Are the Japanese living longer?
|
|
By:
Is their medicine,now westernised now able to detect and record cancer...
and so it goes on. |
|
By:
The Okinawa's (**** island) certainly do or at least those that have stayed true to traditional diet and values. They have one of the greatest incidence of longevity in the world
|
|
By:
The very low incidence of cancer are recorded in many cases by missionary doctors working in populations such as the African continent. It is not a simple case of diagnostics being absent lfc
|
|
By:
I'm off for some sushi right now.
|
|
By:
Look certain ares, including possibly small islands must by the very nature of
statistics have a lower than normal, and in some cases almost amounting to zero levels of cancer. This is simply how it must be mathematically. There may be a connection to eating sushi and maybe a liking for red wine but the fact of these clusters prove nothing. You must remember that the numbers must not and cannot be uniform. |
|
By:
"This is simply how it must be mathematically"
I am not sure what laws of mathematics or probability you are working to lfc but they are not any that I am familiar with. You seem to thin that small islands means lower incidence of cancer compared to large countries. That kind of thinking clearly has no statistical foundation at all |
|
By:
That is not what i meant, its quite clear if you want to read without bias.
|
|
By:
I said certain areas..including small islands, didn`d think i had to add large islands
or any particular part of the world. The point is numbers cannot be uniform and so with the thousands of small and large islands some must tend towards zero cases. |
|
By:
Especially if there are no inhabitants
 |
|
By:
Yes you have caught me there lfc, I was in fact referring to islands with zero inhabitants when I referred to low cancer rates. There is no pulling the wool over your eyes
|