low manganese diet - further serious effect of Mn has been confirmed

[percyval577]

In february I´ve started a thread that is actually a blog. It starts out: If NO is an issue, than Mn is (shown two times, 2005 and 2006, #16), if nitric oxide is involved, then manganese is of importance.

Later on I did some wider speculation and its well known momentums fit into each other very well,
including a speculation on one single momentum (therefore written very small in #30)

Now I recognized that its implicated danger of "non-toxic" Mn has been found seemingly in reality, but please notice also the inverse relationship, it might be not all clear.

The follwing study found for a second time that manganese is correlated with cancer.​

5. Conclusion
The mean concentration of Mn in drinking water in Huai’an city was much higher than the concentration according to the national standards for drinking water quality. And the ratio of superscale is very high. Mn concentration is carcinogenic to people, which correlates with cancer incidence and mortality. Measures for mental pollution prevention and control must be taken immediately.

4. Disscussion, ...
Another important finding was that Mn concentration in drinking water in Huai’an city correlated with cancer incidence and mortality. In our city, for a 1 μg/L increase in Mn concentration, there was a corresponding increase of 0.45/105 cancer cases and 0.35/105 cancer deaths. At first glance, this finding appears to be unbelievable. A large ecological study was carried out in North Carolina, and they also found manganese concentration in groundwater correlate with cancer mortality [12]. There are also some other studies showed the relationship between Mn and cancer. Mn is a component of the important antioxidant enzyme, manganese peroxide dismutase (MnSOD) which mitigates the oxidative damage from reactive oxygen species, one pathway thought to participate in carcinogenesis, such as lung cancer and breast cancer [13, 14]. An inverse relationship between breast cancer and hair manganese was documented [15, 16].

Though World Health Organization (WHO) found among the general population, the average estimated Mn intake from drinking water is substantially lower than the intake of Mn from the diet, typically 20 μg/d [17], our findings point out that mental pollution should be taken into account. Factors such as age, chemical species, dose, route of exposure, and dietary components influence both the absorption and bioavailability of manganese in human [18–21]. Thus the measures for mental pollution prevention and control should be of diversity.

Zhang, Pan et al. 2014: "Study on the Relationship between Manganese Concentrations in Rural Drinking Water and Incidence and Mortality Caused by Cancer in Huai’an City"
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/645056/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: I changed the titel from "proven" to "confirmed" (originally I had "shown").
I put the thread because this famous and serious issue fits in my Mn theory of ME/CFS which I tried to explain in http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/my-low-manganese-diet-my-success-so-far.57677/

 

[keenly]

Dig deeper

Round up is the real issue.

 

[ChrisD]

Crikey, I have been drinking Argentinian Mate for it's manganese and 'fatigue' helping properties.

 

[Wishful]

I agree with keenly about the suspicious statistics. I have this image of fractionally cancerous people.

Given that cancer typically takes years to develop, how can they claim that they can tell what season it started?

Researchers are under pressure to publish. Publish anything. Publishing something scary or controversial is better than publishing 'no link found', even if they have to be creative with the experiment (bias) or the statistics. There are probably tips on how to publish nonsense in a way that the authors can get away with without harm.

 

[percyval577]

Given that cancer typically takes years to develop, how can they claim that they can tell what season it started?

This is not the question. It´s enough that manganese apperently supports the cancer.

Its averaged over a huge amount of people, some of them might have come and gone or whatever, its hugly averaged.

 

[Wishful]

The report claims that the rate of incidence and mortality of cancer varies seasonally with the manganese level. I'd give that study more credibility if cancer started and killed within days or weeks. I just don't think that something that varies so widely in time (cancer) can correlate to a seasonal change with much confidence. I'd want an unbiased statistician to judge the confidence level.

Lots of other cancer-affecting variables will also change with seasons. Mn level might correlate with some other variable that is an issue. The report might--or might not--be worth more study. At this point, I don't accept it as proof that Mn level in water is a major factor in cancer. I'm not saying that it isn't, just that it would need more evidence, such as experiments that vary only the Mn level.

 

[percyval577]

Lots of cancer-affecting variables will also change with seasons

It´s espiecially the city, too
You would look for more variables that would applie to all that people, but not for these ones who have left and would live in other areas. You need to look at North Carolina as well.

Edit: Everytime it´s the same correlation:
1. The one city in china in comparison to other areas
2. The seasonal differences (high and low flood)
3. The different areas in North Carolina

You would like to find a variable that matches all three observed rooms to replace Mn.

 

[Snowdrop]

An example of correlation does not equal causation. The study in no way shows definitively that Mn is a causative agent.

 

[percyval577]

An example of correlation does not equal causation.

[Edit: I got it completly wrong. It didn´t matter how detailed any correlation had been investigated.]

This is right, both studies are asking for further investigation.
But it would be negligent to ignore these two findings, wouldn´t it?
These are not weak facts. [Edit: They just compared two given numbers. And: "How is it possible?" ->

#7 ... What would we expect if the high water-manganese in these areas would turn low? It´s apperently an influence, #5]

 

[Wishful]

I can accept that Mn could support cancer development. I can accept that it also could be a factor in ME/CFS. I just don't see any reason at this time to believe that it is a likely factor.

 

[Wishful]

I can't call them strong facts at this point. It doesn't look like a really strong study to me. Too many variables ignored. My impression is that it looks like a study where they decided on a result and then designed the experiment to support it. I'm not an expert in this area, so it's just my personal impression, based on other studies I've read.

 

[Snowdrop]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenn...-understand-a-scientific-paper_b_5501628.html

ETA: People often tend to think things are more likely and make emotional investments in thinking certain things are true. In other words we are often not sceptical enough. I don't think there's anything there particularly compelling.

There's also this:

https://www.economist.com/news/lead...it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

and this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

 

[percyval577]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenn...-understand-a-scientific-paper_b_5501628.html

You may do what you want, you are a free man.
I will not take once more a journey on propter hoc and post hoc and all that David Hume stuff and Karl Popper stuff.

 

[Wayne]

In february I´ve started a thread that is actually a blog (and that still is awaiting about five messages to be completed). It starts out rather with a proof: If NO is an issue, than Mn is (#16, shown two times). ...... I did some wider speculation and its known moments fit together into each other very well, including a speculation on one single moment (therefore written very small in #30)

I don't know if it's my CFS brain or not, but I couldn't understand any of the above. Except that perhaps NO stands for nitric oxide. And that Mn stands for manganese, which may cause cancer(???. So I stopped reading. If somebody would like to give a broad overview or gist of what this is about, I'd take another look.​

 

[percyval577]

https://www.economist.com/news/lead...it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

These articles seem to be nice, Will read them,
but there doesn´t exist any method for power of judgement anyway -


- There is no other proof than the coherence of facts. You can never be sure.
- Every doing is a trial, you can never be sure that you will succeed.


A lot of people tell this and that, in science with some small reasons, or in alldays life even without a reason.
Would I get something out of this Mn issue for my symptoms? I do, therefore I am telling it.
looking for more coherence as well (this thread for example), it might apply to anyone else or not.

 

[percyval577]

ETA:

I will "soon" be able to do things (hopefully within half a year), my missfeelings already have lessend remarkably, I sleep well now. This autumn I could read al lot, I could play scales on a musicinstrument. All this is nice and a success. Therefore I will not stay for long on this wonderful place.
I had an idea though. I know, its a dark profile (me) that has written in a complicate manner. But things appear that complicate oftentimes. And are strange sometimes, be aware of them as well -

 

[Snowdrop]

If you wish to be scientific about it you should try taking time off from any supplement (perhaps a month) and see how things are. Perhaps you are recovering anyway regardless.

If you are in recovery that is a very good thing and to be thankful for.

For me the problem is in suggesting publicly that something has worked when there is no certainty at all that is the case. It can be false hope.
There are a subgroup of people who come down with disabling fatigue and recover within 5 years spontaneously. There are also people who recover for a time (sometimes years) and fall ill again even without the initial trigger.

It's best (In my opinion) to be cautious. Many people have said many different things have helped them improve.

It's normal for people to come at the problem from their unique perspective and want to share and help.

There is a lot to know when it comes to ME. I think from the ongoing bio research into this illness that we will find that supplements, while they might give us a small assist in quality of life for most of us that will be inadequate to the underlying physical pathology that keeps us ill.

In other words -- this illness is primarily not about tweeking our nutritional status. Just as supplements will not cure cancer.

 

[percyval577]

Round up

I might be allowed to give in short a manganese interpretation of cancer, probably this is how I should have started this thread, I apologize for being timid, enthusiastic, stupid and complicate. The link to our disease will pop up.


If you look at the few tasks of manganese, you will realize that they all can be associated with wound healing, even the arginase in the liver (because it resolves proteins for own ones which are needed in a wound), or making sperms (because the linked attempts may lead to a fight), and of course the iNOS (against bacteria, eg in a wound) and other obvious ones.
Wound healing then. New cells needed to be produced. What now is cancer in essence other than producing new cells?

From out this big picture the strange finding of the two studies is pretty understandable. Manganese supports cell production. Of course I can´t say anything more detailed according to several contrary and difficult lab studys (I don´t have detailed knowledge, with a pattern though lab studies might become designed more adroitly).

But the story carries on. Milk enhances the resorbtion of manganese ... why? The answere should be pretty easy. Because the baby needs to make new cells.
As manganese in seawater is already half the amount of the related most used iron, and as both metals are using the same carrier in the blood, it´s pretty obvious that manganese has become used very early in the process of evolution for very important tasks - growing. And then strangly this main task must have restricted the usage of manganese.


Now our disease. If there is a wound the animal must behave in a special manner, "sickness behaviour". So our disease in a manganese interpreation would be: It´s sickness behaviour without any special sickness.

 

[percyval577]

If you wish to be scientific about it you should try taking time off from any supplement (perhaps a month) and see how things are. Perhaps you are recovering anyway regardless. ....
For me the problem is in suggesting publicly that something has worked when there is no certainty at all that is the case. It can be false hope. ... There are also people who recover for a time (sometimes years) and fall ill again even without the initial trigger. ... It's best (In my opinion) to be cautious. Many people have said many different things have helped them improve. .... It's normal for people to come at the problem from their unique perspective and want to share and help. ...

In other words -- this illness is primarily not about tweeking our nutritional status. Just as supplements will not cure cancer.

True words.
I am cautious as I talk not much about my - difficult! - recovering, that matches now a period (lasting about about three years then) with a first almost recovering. I will not give any advice as well (as I am not trained and not at all officially, forum rules reasonably) - only two warnings from my experience I have given. The reader might be interested and think on it. If it would turn out that it would work - which is not clear of course - then they themself must develop a feeling for this long subject.

With the last sentence I disagree.
It would be easily thinkable that an explanation of recoveries or almost recoveries and relapses matches some alldays conditions.
In my case it turned out clearly to be nutrition:
No more regularly beans and the likes - very slow improvement over years.
Al lot of chick-peas (instead of meat) - sudden strong relapse after three and a half months.
Lower and sometimes even very low manganese diet -

(coming from a situtation without much sense left, I couldn´t think anymore, couldn´t answere properly, felt like in a cocoon of four meters diameter, legs heavy as a millstone) - this slowly, an very very difficult recovery with the paradox: feeling is progredient better but thinking (not progredient) even worse. Maybe I shouldn´t have worked in the years 2011-2015.


This cause would be epigenetic change. It took time (either way), maybe a very al lot of time. (A linked guess - not easy as well or even more "dangerous"- might be in conjugation a nickel deficiency, and nickel is seldom. But there is less literature as far as I have looked. Nickel helps me, and I hope it will speed up the process.)
All momentums stick nicely together, though nobody of course can say that high manganese (averaged over time and infections) would be the onliest (main) cause. But what if it turned out - based on some evidence to come - that it would be? I thought there wont be any problems not to eat beans and the likes (I havn´t said it), and epigenetical change would take time. So it would be not nice not to tell.

 

[pamojja]

In other words -- this illness is primarily not about tweeking our nutritional status. Just as supplements will not cure cancer.

Who knows for sure? There are many cancer patients who didn't received a cure against cancer from mainstream medicine. On their own the searched for alternative answers. One rare researcher asked them what they did:

During the course of the study, Kelly identified more than seventy-five factors that cancer survivors said they used as a part of their healing journey. Nine of these factors were used by almost every one of them. They are as follows:

1. Radically change the diet
Let your food be your medicine, and medicine your food (Hippocrates)
- avoid sugar, meat, dairy products and processed foods
- eat lots of fruits and vegetables
- limit to organic food
- drink only filtered water

2. Take control of health
Action is the basic key to success (Pablo Picasso)
- actively participate
- be prepared for change
- resolve resistance

3. Follow your own intuition
In vital matters, the decision should come from the unconscious, somewhere from within (Sigmund Freud)
- listen to body signals
- activate the intuition
- find the right change

4. Take herbs and food supplements
The art of healing comes from nature and not from the physician (Paracelsus)
- help digestion: digestive enzymes, prebiotics and probiotics
- boost the immune system: e.g. Vitamin C, other vitamins (B12, D3, K2), fish oil, trace elements, certain edible fungi, aloe vera; and hormones (melatonin)
- detoxify the body:
- antimycotics (eg olive leaf extract, celery, nettle)
- antiparasitic substances (eg wormwood, yellow root, black nut husks)
- antibacterial and antiviral (eg garlic, oregano oil, Pau d'Arco)
- liver detoxification (eg milk spotted dwarf, dandelion root, sweet tooth root)
- supplements alone is not enough

5. Release oppressed emotions
Anger is an acid which can cause much greater damage to the vessel in which it is stored than to what it pours (Mark Twain)
- disease is blockade
- what are suppressed emotions?
- stress and cancer
- anxiety and cancer
- the waterfall solution

6. Enhance positive emotions
The meaning of life is to be happy (Dalai Lama)
- what are positive emotions?
- what are the positive emotions in the body?
- happiness must be practiced daily
- but one does not have to be permanently happy

7. Allow social support
In poverty and misery, friends are the only refuge (Aristotle)
- experience love
- do not feel alone
- physical contact

8. Deepen the spiritual connection
This is the greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases: that there are doctors for the body and physicians for the soul, where both can not be separated (Plato)
- experience spirituality
- a third kind of love
- the relationship between the physical and the spiritual
- it is important to exercise regularly
- it is important to calm the mind

9. Have strong reasons for life
People say that it is the meaning of life that we all seek. I do not believe that this is what we are really looking for. I believe what we are looking for is an experience of being alive ... (Joseph Campbell)
- placing deep trust in one's inner being
- the mind directs the body
- find one's calling

http://www.radicalremission.com/

So yes, just supplementing alone may not work. However, nutrition and supplementation seem a pretty common theme together with a number of other things in cancer survival stories.

Beside cancer being the second most killer, I had a remission with the first most CVD, or rather one of it's expressions: PAD. No, the remission wasn't brought about by bypass, statin or aspirin. But mainly life-style changes and orthomolecular medicine.

But who knows? Might well be one day there will be a pharmaceutical or intervention we can't even think of today by mainstream medicine. However, that hasn't happened yet for the vast majority of cancer of CVD deaths.