Choose the correct one word One who is specialised in cancer related diseases ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Choose the correct one word One who is specialised in cancer related diseases

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Choose the correct preposition for the sentence:The thief hid all his loot————————–a stone....

QA->Choose the correct alternative:A lunatic lives in an ………..whereas monks live in a……......

QA->Choose the word that is closest in meaning to the word immunity:....

QA->Malayalam film actor, screenwriter and director who has acted in around 50 films and directed a dozen of Malayalam movies, passed away recently due to kidney-related diseases?....

QA->ONE WORD TERM FOR " CURE FOR ALL DISEASES "....

MCQ-> In the following questions, you have two passages with 5 questions in each passage. Read the passages carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives. The World Health Organisation is briefly called W.H.O. It is a specialised agency of the United Nations and was established in 1948. International health workers can be seen working in all kinds of surroundings: in deserts, jungles, mountains, coconut groves, and rice fields. They help the sick to attain health and the healthy to maintain their health. This global health team assists the local health workers in stopping the spread of what are called communicable diseases, like cholera. These diseases can spread from one country to another and so can be a threat to world health. W.H.O. assists different national health authorities not only in controlling diseases but also in preventing them altogether. Total prevention of diseases is possible in a number of ways. Everyone knows how people, particularly children, are vaccinated against one disease or another. Similarly, most people are familiar with the spraying of houses with poisonous substances which kill disease-carrying insects.“It is a specialised agency of the United Nations and was established in 1948.” Here specialised means :
....

MCQ-> In the following questions, read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.Half a century ago, a person was far More likely to die from heart disease. Now, cancer is the No. 1 cause of death. Troubling as this sounds, the comparison is unfair. Cancer is, ,by far the harder problem a condition deeply ingrained in the nature of multicellular life. Given these obstacles, cancer researchers are fighting and even winning smaller battles : reducing the death toll from childhood cancers and preventing and sometimes even curing cancers that strike people in their prime. But when it comes to diseases of the elderly, there can be no decisive victory. The diseases that one killed earlier in life bubonic plague, smallpox, influenza, tuberculosis were easier obstacles. Each had a precise cause that could be confronted. The toll of heart diseases has been pushed into the future, with diet, exercise and medicine that help control blood pressure and cholesterol. Because of these interventions people between 55 and 84 are increasingly more likely to die from cancer than from heart disease.The author believes that heart disease is no longer a leading killer disease because
....

MCQ-> Throughout human history the leading causes of death have been infection and trauma, Modem medicine has scored significant victories against both, and the major causes of ill health and death are now the chronic degenerative diseases, such as coronary artery disease, arthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s, macular degeneration, cataract and cancer. These have a long latency period before symptoms appear and a diagnosis is made. It follows that the majority of apparently healthy people are pre-ill.But are these conditions inevitably degenerative? A truly preventive medicine that focused on the pre-ill, analyzing the metabolic errors which lead to clinical illness, might be able to correct them before the first symptom. Genetic risk factors are known for all the chronic degenerative diseases, and are important to the individuals who possess them. At the population level, however, migration studies confirm that these illnesses are linked for the most part to lifestyle factors — exercise, smoking and nutrition. Nutrition is the easiest of these to change, and the most versatile tool for affecting the metabolic changes needed to tilt the balance away from disease.Many national surveys reveal that malnutrition is common in developed countries. This is not the calorie and/or micronutrient deficiency associated with developing nations (type A malnutrition); but multiple micronutrient depletion, usually combined with calorific balance or excess (Type B malnutrition). The incidence and severity of Type B malnutrition will be shown to be worse if newer micronutrient groups such as the essential fatty acids, xanthophylls and falconoid are included in the surveys. Commonly ingested levels of these micronutrients seem to be far too low in many developed countries.There is now considerable evidence that Type B malnutrition is a major cause of chronic degenerative diseases. If this is the case, then t is logical to treat such diseases not with drugs but with multiple micronutrient repletion, or pharmaco-nutrition’. This can take the form of pills and capsules — ‘nutraceuticals’, or food formats known as ‘functional foods’, This approach has been neglected hitherto because it is relatively unprofitable for drug companies — the products are hard to patent — and it is a strategy which does not sit easily with modem medical interventionism. Over the last 100 years, the drug industry has invested huge sums in developing a range of subtle and powerful drugs to treat the many diseases we are subject to. Medical training is couched in pharmaceutical terms and this approach has provided us with an exceptional range of therapeutic tools in the treatment of disease and in acute medical emergencies. However, the pharmaceutical model has also created an unhealthy dependency culture, in which relatively few of us accept responsibility for maintaining our own health. Instead, we have handed over this responsibility to health professionals who know very little about health maintenance, or disease prevention.One problem for supporters of this argument is lack of the right kind of hard evidence. We have a wealth of epidemiological data linking dietary factors to health profiles/ disease risks, and a great deal of information on mechanism: how food factors interact with our biochemistry. But almost all intervention studies with micronutrients, with the notable exception of the omega 3 fatty acids, have so far produced conflicting or negative results. In other words, our science appears to have no predictive value. Does this invalidate the science? Or are we simply asking the wrong questions?Based on pharmaceutical thinking, most intervention studies have attempted to measure the impact of a single micronutrient on the incidence of disease. The classical approach says that if you give a compound formula to test subjects and obtain positive results, you cannot know which ingredient is exerting the benefit, so you must test each ingredient individually. But in the field of nutrition, this does not work. Each intervention on its own will hardly make enough difference to be measured. The best therapeutic response must therefore combine micronutrients to normalise our internal physiology. So do we need to analyse each individual’s nutritional status and then tailor a formula specifically for him or her? While we do not have the resources to analyze millions of individual cases, there is no need to do so. The vast majority of people are consuming suboptimal amounts of most micronutrients, and most of the micronutrients concerned are very safe. Accordingly, a comprehensive and universal program of micronutrient support is probably the most cost-effective and safest way of improving the general health of the nation.The author recommends micronutrient-repletion for large-scale treatment of chronic degenerative diseases because
....

MCQ->Statements: In Japan, the incidence of stomach cancer is very high, while that of bowel cancer is very low. But Japanese immigrate to Hawaii, this is reversed - the rate of bowel cancer increases but the rate of stomach cancer is reduced in the next generation. All this is related to nutrition - the diets of Japanese in Hawaii are different than those in Japan. Conclusions: The same diet as in Hawaii should be propagated in Japan also. Bowel cancer is less severe than stomach cancer.

....

MCQ->Choose the correct one word :One who is specialised in cancer related diseases....