Cancer from quitting smoking?

This is stupid! All the food you eat turns into sugar called glucose. You are right about cutting out refined sugar. Please know what your talking about before you post stupid answers.

From Science Daily;

The process of glycosylation, where sugar molecules are attached to proteins, has long been of interest to scientists, particularly because certain sugar molecules are present in very high numbers in cancer cells. It now turns out that these sugar molecules are not only present but actually aid the growth of the malignant cells. In the long term this discovery is an important step towards a cure that can stop the growth of cancer cells.

In co-operation with a research group from Singapore, scientists at University of Copenhagen have shown that immature sugar molecules in the form of truncated O-glycans aid growth properties of cancer cells. Previously, scientists have not been able to decode the significance of these truncated O-glycans, and therefore, the results, which were recently published in the journal PNAS, represent an important contribution to understanding the growth of cancer cells as well as the work towards developing a cure that can limit or stop the growth.

Catharina Steentoft, PhD student at Copenhagen Center for Glycomics and one of the scientists behind the results, stresses that this is basic science and there is still a long way from the results to actually developing a treatment or using them for diagnostic purposes. The results are still a cause for optimism, though.

"This is part of how we will proceed in the battle against cancer. When you know a certain process is important for the development of cancer you can start to consider ways to affect this process in a way that stops the cancer cell from taking advantage of it," explains Catharina Steentoft.

Sugar molecules affect proteins

Sugar molecules play an important role in almost all of the processes taking place in the body. One of the ways in which sugar molecules affect us is through glycosylation, a process where sugar molecules are attached to proteins. The proteins are basically the building bricks of the body, whilst sugar molecules affect the proteins, and therefore play a significant role in the human organism. A flaw in a chain of sugar molecules can lead to protein malfunctioning and disease.

As early as 1982, scientists around the world realised the importance of sugar molecules for cancer. The American doctor and scientist Georg F. Springer discovered that a certain type of sugar molecules, the truncated O-glycans, were particularly prominent in cancer cells. The discovery of Catharina Steentoft and colleagues builds on the foundation of this knowledge.

Pinpointing ways to proceed

For 30 years, scientists all over the world have worked on using the truncated O-glycans as biomarkers for diagnostics and outcome-prediction, but now the group of researchers from Singapore and Copenhagen has finally pinpointed the significance of these sugar molecules -- that they actually cause the cancer cells to grow and the cancer to spread more aggressively.

"We have now taken the first step towards understanding how cancer cells can change their glycosylation and produce these truncated O-glycans. It is a rather big step forward since it gives us an entirely new understanding of something we have worked many years to grasp. It guides our entire field of research towards new ways to proceed in the battle against cancer," Catharina Steentoft says.

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

Last Edited by D0NTBeAfraidEVER on 12/02/2013 03:37 AM

That's one of the best kept secrets of the antismoking scientific scam -- quitting smoking causes lung cancers and damages health in many other ways, not just in humans but also in animal experiments i.e. it is a hard science, not merely the usual junk science of statistical associations on non-randomized samples. They know it, yet they are still doing their best to force people to quit (cancer is a very profitable business after all).

There is even a very quiet research by some trying to find out what component of tobacco smoke is protective against cancer so it can be included into the smoking cessation "therapy" (with "therapy" like that who needs harm). In animal experiments where animals are exposed to real carcinogens such as radon, 7 times more non-smoking dogs get lung cancer than smoking dogs (similarly for other carcinogens and other test animals).

You can find discussion and references in a thread "Smoking is good for you" starting with this post (plus followups): [link to www.longecity.org] . For the TOC of that thread check this post: [link to www.longecity.org] .

my grandpa had throat cancer 15 years after quitting pot and cigs- he died though cuz of work at 63 his bones became too brittle and broke his back which caused lung collapse overnight at home(hospital didn't keep him), and so they won't say it was cancer that killed him, but the accident at work- also he was in the navy when smoking in the Pacific during Korean War...may have contributed to his body's health more then smoking anything.

My aunt died b4 age 50- never smoked, but worked 3 jobs usually at a time ..waitressing b4 smoking bans for jobs then she quit all that for a prison job 10 years b4 she died and broke her leg...she healed, became a home health care nurse remainder of her days, working alot, lifting patients etc, not long after prison job and broken leg she got breast cancer and started treatment, then quit it..then w/in 6mos she was dead w/cancer throughout ..so was it the 2nd hand smoke and the quitting of it along w/the broken leg sending cancer through the body along w/the treatment she quit until too late...i say all of the above

my friend she died at age 32 and smoked weed and cigs..got brain cancer after broken ankle..she could nvr have kids, but tried..she worked as bartender b4 smoke bans, then got job w/one of big shipping co's and worked many hours b4 she got the brain cancer or found out..they tried everything she took chemo etc which left her too weak and boom gone.

I'm 40 have had all their situations in smoking, am type I diabetic, broke wrist when 20, only difference no navy ships w/asbestos, nvr quit smoking and im fine for now...i won't quit smoking only started at age 21 so ill just go w/it cuz i love it so much..the ecigs are dangerous and i am a nervous wreck when trying to quit and prior to starting smoking ...world sux and cigs help you deal..love it..idc if i die young or old..i lived longer then anyone dying b4 40 so screw it..not a big deal to choose what may take you...it's fun and i love it so why quit? it would take fun out of life lol for sure what lil there really is at times!

Because rats are not human and results obtained with animals are not valid for humans

Hi OP, my dad is 81, smoked from the age of 11. Like a trooper. The docs have told him many times to stop, but i say "dad, why change the habits of a lifetime?" I think the shock to the system can do more damage. I had a friend, she stopped smoking at 40. A year later, she found out she had cancer, died months later. Her dad stopped smoking, then one day, he stood up, and went down suffering a fatal heart attack.

I wonder why theres so much government intervention here in the UK with the smoking ban in pubs etc. I'm aware of the damage smoking can do, but also of the damage stopping can do to your body. I smoke pure tobacco, not the shop bought ones that are laced with harmful chemicals. They put chemicals in them to make them burn down quicker, to make you buy more. I have no intentions of stopping.

I don't have a whole lot of info available but here are some links you may find useful, or at least informative:

[link to www.ucl.ac.uk] - this is about a new scanning technology but it is based off of the fact that cancer cells utilize certain sugars.

[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] - this is a wider-range study but addresses the sugar-cancer links.

I'd suggest checking out the work of Ty Bollinger, as well. He's quite dedicated to exposing the truth about nutrition and the benefits that follow. Although he is not an MD, he is certainly knowledgeable and doesn't expect a person to through out traditional methods if they believe that is the best course for them, though in my opinion blasting yourself with radiation, or tuberculosis or some other chemicals isn't exactly a great idea... sure, it can kill cancer cells, but it kills healthy ones, too.
Alternative methods like these tend to catch a lot of flak, but the truth, if contrary to profit, often does.
Here's a link to the website his related book is available on, with excerpts: [link to cancerstepoutsidethebox.com]

Trust whoever you trust, but make sure you know what everyone has to say, so at least you can make an informed decision when these situations arise.

My thoughts are with you and yours.

Please excuse my typos. I should have logged in. As far as I can tell, it's just that I typed "through out" rather than "throw out."