Join the conversation

1. Permalink

   

   CH Soames

   Cytogeneticist (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

   There are a lot of people inordinately attached to this particular myth. The interesting thing is how fired up they get in defence of it. I believe the reason for this is multidimensional, with the psychological and the philosophical bolstering each other in a positive feedback loop, driven by a contentious premise and a personal need. The need is for a sense of agency, the feeling that one's mind, rather than the body, is the ruler of destiny. The premise is that there is free will and that the individual can change the course of events using this facility.
   So the individual, rather than being a helpless victim of cause and effect, becomes a magical transformer of bodily processes and ultimate controller of fate.
   Unfortunately the converse position is that the victim is to blame if things don't go well, as the writer points out here.
   Those with the need for a belief in mind over matter should read Susan Sontag's "Illness As Metaphor".

2. Permalink

   

   Bruce Moon

   Bystander! (logged in via email @imap.cc)

   Ian

   I suggest you are splitting hairs.

   What you say is scientifically appropriate - there is no evidence that stress ON ITS OWN causes cancer.

   But, your quest to be scientifically correct also misleads.

   My understanding is that where a person has been exposed to a carcinogen, two other factors appear necessary in the development of cancer. These are a genetic disposition to tumour development (and not all people have this disposition), and a stressor.

   So, the process is:

   1/. exposure to a carcinogen in sufficient quantities (for the target person) to engender a cellular mutation, AND

   2/. a genetic disposition that enables tumour development, AND

   3/. a personal/lifestyle stressor that enables a weakening of the persons' defence system.

   The stressor is said to typically be an outlier event, not one that is adapted into one's lifestyle.

   Cheers

   1. Permalink

      

      Grendels

      (logged in via Twitter)

      Bruce - I am fairly sure that a "stressor" in the context of cancer.is a very different thing to a stressor when talking about "feeling stress". I think it more likely that when discussing cancer we would be looking for a genetic, biological or chemical stressor that is causing some form of physiological stress that weakens the immune system to the point where a cancer can form. Defining it as a "personal/lifestyle stressor" is probably innacurate - which I think is the point of the article. Feeling stressed and having an stressed immune system are not the same thing.

      1. Permalink

         

         Bruce Moon

         Bystander! (logged in via email @imap.cc)

         Grendels

         My understanding is that the 'stressor' is the 'thing' that causes stress.

         And, the term stress relates to how an entity (here a person) relates to some form of pressure.

         So, getting a severe bout of influenza, or diarrhoea, or being hospitalised, or getting married, or, or, or are all 'stressors' which can have a destabilising impact on one's body.

         Whether one feels stressed by these is another matter.

         I take the tenor and meaning of Ian's article to be 'stress' as perceived by a person. This may be an innate tiredness from being unable to cope with something. Or, it may be a reaction to too much activity (ie work, sport, etc.).

         My understanding is that if any of these 'stressors' exist at the same time as the body experiences a carcinogen AND... then anything one perceives &/or experiences something as stressful is sufficient.

         Cheers

3. Permalink

   

   David Leigh

   (logged in via Facebook)

   Stress, as a singular factor, is not a cause of cancer. It is however one of several factors that need to occur in order to reach the state called cancer.

   The body's cell walls become clogged with modern manufactured fats and oils, replacing the Omega 3 fatty acids that negatively charge the cells exterior. This in turn lowers both the frequency and the potential difference between the mitochondria and the wall, allowing bacteriological invasion.

   The cell becomes depleted of oxygen, due to…

   show full comment

   Stress, as a singular factor, is not a cause of cancer. It is however one of several factors that need to occur in order to reach the state called cancer.

   The body's cell walls become clogged with modern manufactured fats and oils, replacing the Omega 3 fatty acids that negatively charge the cells exterior. This in turn lowers both the frequency and the potential difference between the mitochondria and the wall, allowing bacteriological invasion.

   The cell becomes depleted of oxygen, due to a poor exercise regime, pollution and lower oxygen in the atmosphere. This affects the cells energy production by lowering the manufacture of positively charged ATP molecules. Again this lowers the cell frequency and voltage.

   The gut and system generally, excluding the stomach, becomes more acidic, due to poor diet and stress. This allows bacteria like helicobacter-pylori to become aggressive and multiply. This bacterium moves around the body looking for sugar on which to feed. The compromised cell, with lower ATP movement, creates an opportunity for the microbes to invade and consume the glucose formed pyruvate.

   How does this happen?

   The immune system is compromised by lower enzyme action, caused by poor diet and stress… Yes stress interferes with the immune system and can be devastating to the body’s defence mechanisms because, according to Dr. William B. Malarkey, Ohio State University, stress triggers the interface between the endocrine system and the immune system, creating a range of physiological events. If the stress is a short-term occurrence the system reverts back to normal. If however, this condition continues and is severe, stress will cause the immune system to fail in its duty to protect our cells against infection and therefore disease.

   http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/7398.php

   The biggest myth, I believe, is cancer. It is touted as a chronic, virtually incurable disease and many people are given daily death sentences when the condition is too advanced and conventional treatments fail to cure. The reality is that treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy do not cure this condition. Instead of helping the patient to restore a defective immune system, replacing the Omega fatty acids in the cell walls and restoring oxygen to the mitochondria, they are sent home. Instead of helping a victim to make the body alkaline and allowing the body to repair the invaded cells, the patient is told to get their affairs in order.

   The so-called conventional treatments are actually newer than the many alternative treatments that have been around and even practiced by the medical profession in the past. Treatments such as the Budwig Protocol have been around for about 80 years, as have oxygen therapy and alkaline diets. The Rife Machine uses combined electrical frequencies to cleanse the body of harmful bacteria. These treatments, when used together, combine to allow the body to mend its self.

   Cancer is caused by prolonged stress, along with other events: http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/Cancer_Stress.html

   1. Permalink

      

      Paul White

      Senior lecturer, Pharmaceutical Biology, Monash (logged in via email @monash.edu)

      David, that's a pretty strange story you're pedaling there. Mammalian cells don't have cell walls - perhaps you're thinking of plants? And the extracellular surface of cell membranes is already negatively charged due to heparin sulfate gags etc. "cell frequency" as a cause of cancer is just silly.
      The treatments you suggest have no evidence base or any kind of sensible justification. Stress may contribute to cancer; perhaps cancer research is just not able to pick that link out of the noise, as Russell suggests. But your pseudo-science helps no-one.

      1. Permalink

         

         David Leigh

         (logged in via Facebook)

         Paul, I can assure you I pedal nothing, all cells have walls, otherwise the pyruvate would spill and the cell would not stay together. I don't know of any plant that gets cancer but then I am not a botanist. Professor Johanna Budwig spent most of her life studying the affects of different fats on cell wall construction and came to the conclusion that our modern diet (artificially processed foods, with manufactured fats and oils) was the cause of most illness, at a cellular level. As a senior lecturer…

         show full comment

         Paul, I can assure you I pedal nothing, all cells have walls, otherwise the pyruvate would spill and the cell would not stay together. I don't know of any plant that gets cancer but then I am not a botanist. Professor Johanna Budwig spent most of her life studying the affects of different fats on cell wall construction and came to the conclusion that our modern diet (artificially processed foods, with manufactured fats and oils) was the cause of most illness, at a cellular level. As a senior lecturer, I should not be telling you that cells work on the potential difference between positively charged Mitochondria and subsequent ATP production and the negatively-charged cell wall. Any cell with a frequency (silly or not) below 58 Megacycles, will result in chronic illness, especially cancer. Actually, I don’t like the term cancer because it is designed to scare people. I prefer to say cell invasion by bacteria. There are at least 4 events that need to take place before this condition arises. A) Lack of cell oxygen, B) compromised immune system, C) corrupted cell walls and C) acidity. When these events align the body gets sick. If we fix these problems the condition reverses. Of course there is no evidence for this research because the peer review system, as laid down by the medical profession and directed by the pharmaceutical industry, will not allow publication of these research projects. There are many reports, showing amazing results and very high cure rates that never see the light of day because they contain dietary cures to chronic illnesses. The pharmaceutical industry (of which you are part) cannot make money from such cures. Chemo and radiation treatments do not cure cancer. They do however, set up the body to metastasis and secondary cancers within 3 – 5 years. I suppose this allows ongoing treatments for these poor souls until, eventually, they die. I also know that cancer is worth a trillion dollars per year and employs a bucket load of oncologists, radiologists, not to mention the billions in drug sales. Of course nobody in this industry (and that is what it is) wants these treatments known; it will cause a massive loss to profits. The fact that people's lives are destroyed does not seem to matter. I am not a doctor; I am a journalist and filmmaker. I am trained not to accept what is laid out before me without research and interrogation of the facts. When my partner was diagnosed with an aggressive and life-threatening cancer I started to research. When she became so incredibly sick, due to chemo and radiation treatment and almost gave up her will to live, I asked her oncologist if the treatment she was receiving would cure her. He said no and then said surgery to remove part of her bowel and replacing it with a plastic bag would extend her life. Since making the change to holistic medicine (the stuff that has no proof) She has made a recovery. Her energy levels have returned to better than before diagnosis. She is now positive about her future and has a renewed desire to live. I too have put myself on an alkaline diet and feel fantastic as a result. I am heartened by the many thousands of people that have lived on after being told to “go home and put their affairs in order”. These are people the medical profession had given up on and were expected to die within months. There are many testimonies showing longevity and normal, healthy lives. The cancer industry cannot claim the same results, as most cancer treatments are deemed successful if a patient lives for 3 years. If you think I am angry at your comments, you’re damned right. These are human lives we are talking about, real people, not lab specimens.

4. Permalink

   

   Pera Lozac

   Heat management assistant (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   Stress influences a particular endocrinological body response. That change of body chemistry can cause a change in cell functioning and therefore it could, potentially lead to promoting cell mutation and hence cancer. Myth is something that can be proven - a statement "stress cannot cause cancer" is therefore scientifically irresponsible. Lack of knowledge is a source of ignorance not a space where one searches for definitive answers to complex questions.

5. Permalink

   

   Clifford Chapman

   Retired English Teacher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

   I do not mean this disrespectfully but, really, where is the academic rigour this site mentions ?

   I am sorry but no points people raise are responded or replied to, let alone addressed.

   I wonder if the author even bothers reading them.

   When the issue is presented in this way, it almost comes across as a 'fait accompli'.

   This so-called 'myth' is a Straw Man argument, if it can even be called an argument, or in my thinking, this interesting Latin term, which I have only just heard of…

   show full comment

   I do not mean this disrespectfully but, really, where is the academic rigour this site mentions ?

   I am sorry but no points people raise are responded or replied to, let alone addressed.

   I wonder if the author even bothers reading them.

   When the issue is presented in this way, it almost comes across as a 'fait accompli'.

   This so-called 'myth' is a Straw Man argument, if it can even be called an argument, or in my thinking, this interesting Latin term, which I have only just heard of and will check up on to get a real grasp of what it means, 'Ignotum per ignotius'.

   I will ask here a couple of questions of Professor Olver, not that he will bother reading and/or replying to them:

   1. If you know that stress does not cause cancer, ipso facto, you must know what does, so what does cause cancer? The onus is on you here, and,

   2. If you know what causes cancer, you must know what will cure it, so what is the cure, even if it hasn't been completely discovered and/or finalised yet?

   If smoking was banned and tobacco manufacturers made to shut down, as would happen in a civilised and intelligent world, would people still contract cancer?

   If the answer is 'Yes', surely that means smoking could never directly, per se, have been, or be, the cause of cancer.

   Maybe the smoking only masks the underlying stress?

6. Permalink

   

   Clifford Chapman

   Retired English Teacher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

   Why is this issue always presented in this feeble and unintelligent way?

   Three things are obvious from the outset:

   1. If stress per se caused cancer, virtually everyone would have to contract it, and
   2. A cure for cancer would be based, like a snake-bite, for example, on knowing what causes it, therefore if there is no clear cure for cancer, then stress could well be a factor, and
   3. Stress emanates from the mind and is therefore unable to be measured in the same way that a body's physical…

   show full comment

   Why is this issue always presented in this feeble and unintelligent way?

   Three things are obvious from the outset:

   1. If stress per se caused cancer, virtually everyone would have to contract it, and
   2. A cure for cancer would be based, like a snake-bite, for example, on knowing what causes it, therefore if there is no clear cure for cancer, then stress could well be a factor, and
   3. Stress emanates from the mind and is therefore unable to be measured in the same way that a body's physical make-up can be. I'd argue this area of uncertainty does not sit well with the scientific mind.

   I've even heard it said by medical practitioners, in trying to deny stress as a major factor, that once a person knows they have cancer, that in itself can cause the stress that leads to the 'myth', a view that seems superficially valid yet that ironically implicitly seems also to confirm the hypothesis.

   Far more valid, in my view, is to argue that stress triggers and/or can be a catalyst that manifests itself in cancer, in the way certain people react to deal with the stresses that come their way in life.

   Even smoking itself is not a direct cause of cancer because if it was, every smoker would contract it. Thus, again, far from smoking causing cancer, its role is far more in masking the stress that eventually will manifest itself in cancer in many smokers, since the causes of the underlying stresses are not really dealt with. They, in fact, still remain, deep and often subconscious, which is also why smokers need the constant 'fix'. .

   There is that thing said about a body, when faced with great stress, to either respond with fight or flight. This, more accurately, should be seen as to release or suppress.

7. Permalink

   

   Russell Hamilton

   Librarian (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   "But three decades of study have found no direct association between stress and cancer, not even when stress is high enough to cause an anxiety disorder or depression"

   Which doesn't mean that stress isn't associated with cancer. Imagine how much more will be known in 100 years time.

8. Permalink

   

   Alison Moore

   Senior Lecturer in Modern European History, University of Western Sydney (logged in via email @uws.edu.au)

   This article makes some valuable distinctions about what psychological stress has been directly clinically shown to effect, and what it has not. It does not prove that "stress does not cause cancer" but rather that no one has yet established a direct causation in spite of a considerable body of research that might be expected to reveal such a causation if it existed. It also ackowledges some of the possible indirect circuits of causation between psychological stress, physiological stressors and immune…

   show full comment

   This article makes some valuable distinctions about what psychological stress has been directly clinically shown to effect, and what it has not. It does not prove that "stress does not cause cancer" but rather that no one has yet established a direct causation in spite of a considerable body of research that might be expected to reveal such a causation if it existed. It also ackowledges some of the possible indirect circuits of causation between psychological stress, physiological stressors and immune impairment.

   The tone of this aricle (debunking a presumed 'myth'), and the reaction to it in the comments, tother reflect a typical stand-off that tends to occur when biomedical researchers attempt to intervene in public understandings of health.

   We have no evidence here that the popular 'myth' of stress causing cancer actually exists, except as an angry response to the assertion by the author that stress is NOT causative of cancer.

   Biodmedical science has entered into a new and bizarre era since the late twentieth century since new media has caused a proliferation of information of varying qualities, enabling non-medically trained individuals to develop knowledge about processes of disease. Some of that knowledge is very problematic, but attacking it as 'silly' or characterising it crudely as 'myth' will not help anyone.

   Scientists need to respond seriously to the claims that their research is corrupted by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. In some cases this may be true, and needs to be publicly discussed. In other cases, it is an unfair claim that is gaining currency rather indiscriminately (the 'Big Pharma' thesis).

   The tendency for culture wars around these sorts of questions is already becoming pronounced, but it could get a lot worse still. To avoid that, scientists will need to consider developing their capacities for critical thinking and non-specialist communication, and others will need to increase their scientific understanding based on actual clinical data, not only anecdotal here-say, relevant though it may be. Sadly, there are also people who attempt to treat their cancers through diet and alternative health practices and who die doing so.

   Perhaps a useful solution for establishing what works, without potential for profit-based corruption, would be if a public institution, using public funds, were to establish a database that could be used by certified cancer-sufferers and their loved-ones who could create profiles detailing what treatments were used for specific cancers, at what stage and with what result.....?

9. Permalink

   

   Clifford Chapman

   Retired English Teacher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

   I'd like to continue this debate, if debate it is, because I do not feel the issues this article raises and purports to address, are in any real and meaningful way examined here.

   A couple of months ago, we, that is, my wife and I, were at the funeral of someone we knew who had been quite a heavy smoker and who had died through contracting lung cancer. His tumour did not respond to treatment.

   He was a decent person, very quiet and softly spoken, and at his funeral, one of his friends in his…

   show full comment

   I'd like to continue this debate, if debate it is, because I do not feel the issues this article raises and purports to address, are in any real and meaningful way examined here.

   A couple of months ago, we, that is, my wife and I, were at the funeral of someone we knew who had been quite a heavy smoker and who had died through contracting lung cancer. His tumour did not respond to treatment.

   He was a decent person, very quiet and softly spoken, and at his funeral, one of his friends in his eulogy, spoke of how he virtually never uttered a swear word and especially abhorred any one swearing in front of a woman.

   I thought about this for some time, and in mentioning it to my wife, said it might have been a good idea if he had sworn more often.

   I do not mean this facetiously or nor do I wish to trivialise the seriousness and awfulness of his death - the hospital basically sent him home to die - but in no way can such repression of human experiences be good or beneficial to one's health. Of course, I am not saying he would still be alive if he'd gone round effing and blinding every five minutes - it's not an either/or thing - but if you really examine linguistics and the development of our lexicon and language, you'd have to acknowledge that the words we have created serve a purpose on the conscious, subconscious and unconscious levels, that is, to communicate, both to others and ourselves, at given moments in time, our responses relating to and reflecting the experiences we have and are having.

   I might not know on what levels inside my mind using the 'F' or 'C' word emanates from and expresses but I do know that there are times when certain experiences make my character need emotionally to use either of those words.

   I do not see how it could be anything but harmful to oneself to suppress their use, particularly given the possibility that while the annuciating of the actual word is obviously on the conscious level, the need being expressed is deeper.

10. Permalink

    

    Agatha Fedrizzi

    Teacher (logged in via email @ringwoodsc.vic.edu.au)

    As a lay and aavid reader of research on cancer, the one thing I can say with certainty is that cancer is a condition caused by the interaction of many factors some genetic, some environmental and it is the result of many factors going wrong never just one single factor. The search to find the silver bullet is perhaps laudable but it's clearly misplaced: cancer is a complex response of the whole organism. Happily, much of the research centres on looking at the interactions between identified factors…

    show full comment

    As a lay and aavid reader of research on cancer, the one thing I can say with certainty is that cancer is a condition caused by the interaction of many factors some genetic, some environmental and it is the result of many factors going wrong never just one single factor. The search to find the silver bullet is perhaps laudable but it's clearly misplaced: cancer is a complex response of the whole organism. Happily, much of the research centres on looking at the interactions between identified factors. Being a person in remission, who lived (and lives) a 'cancer smart' lifestyle, I have often found it difficult to deal with many comments that suggested that I somehow, subconsciously caused my cancer. In the early period of my diagnosis I was given books by well meaning friends and acquaintances on how I could cure my cancer by adopting a calmer stress free life. Most disturbing were the ones that suggested that women caused their own cancers by their martyr like approach to life: I certainly have never passively or quietly accepted events in my life and found it intriguing that people felt so strongly about this and thought that it could be helpful for me.

    Clearly the issue of stress and how it interacts with the immune system is an important area of research and I look forward to seeing a more informed debate on what is good and bad stress.

    1. Permalink

       

       Clifford Chapman

       Retired English Teacher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

       Agatha, I do hope you both read this and don't mind me commenting on it - I should say, 'my' there, by the way, and not 'me'.

       Do you not think that the 'interaction of many factors', which I do agree with, is bascially because we do lack certainty as to its inherent and underlying cause(s)?

       I do take seriously your comments on stress but do see the advice you were given, however well meaning, too simplistic. It's much more deeply based in an individual, in my view, which is why I do not think…

       show full comment

       Agatha, I do hope you both read this and don't mind me commenting on it - I should say, 'my' there, by the way, and not 'me'.

       Do you not think that the 'interaction of many factors', which I do agree with, is bascially because we do lack certainty as to its inherent and underlying cause(s)?

       I do take seriously your comments on stress but do see the advice you were given, however well meaning, too simplistic. It's much more deeply based in an individual, in my view, which is why I do not think all smokers develop cancer. However, I sure do think the smoking masks the deeper and more entrenched stress, and because the stress stills ferments under the surface, smoking only offers a temporary, if that, solution. Smoking does not alleivate stress at all, it merely makes the person think so, for an hour, maybe.

       As a man, I would strongly deny the idea that women caused their own cancers - this is most offensive and would lead to a broken nose if voiced by someone in my presence. I also support you strongly in rejecting any idiot suggestion that you 'subconsciously caused' your cancer.

       You say you look forward to seeing a more informed debate on what is good and bas stress. I'm not sure you'll find it in the article in question here but I hope my belief that good stress is stress relieved and bad stress is stress suppressed would offer some grounds for further research.

       If not, in my view, serious advancements and developments in areas such as this, will only occur when we can combine the divergent and convergent.

       And although it is a sort of generalisation, such a combination does not sit well with scientific and medical research since physical data always seems required. Maybe, for example, the cause of cancer can not be observed or scientifically researched to produce data, only its effects?

       Professor Ian Olver won't respond - he's too busy working on next Monday's Medical Myth : Why Sausages Are Only Good For You When Combined With Onions.