cancer
-
I feel there is little doubt that a low methionine diet can help stop cancer progression.
I would use high dose THC and a mostly plant based diet if I had cancer.
-
You’re welcome, @Ecstatic_Hamster.
-
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac, I didn’t think you thought it foolish. I was talking about people like my dad. I’m not discounting the importance of diet. I just disagree that plant-based is the best option. The diet you quoted is the standard plant-based diet I see recommended not just by alternative practitioners, but by mainstream, as well. What were the patients’ diets like prior to the treatment with pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, "detoxification" procedures, and an organic diet? Were they of equal quality, i.e., consisting of organic and pastured foods or were they more like a standard western diet? What I typically see is a person develops a disease, in this case cancer, on a standard western diet and then follows a plant-based diet consisting of real food and improves, at least in the short-term. This is not proof to me that a plant-based diet is more healing than a diet equally abundant in both organic and pastured plant and animal foods, especially when I know far more people who have had long-term success with the latter than the former.
I shared to reinforce how recurrent this pattern is between cancer therapists who consider diet an important and manipulable factor.
Intuition was likely a determinant to what people were eating before treatment, although some might have added a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato on occasion to make meals healthy. To not intervene with their core choices, we'd be left with those changes in the quality of ingredients. Take someone who eats a lot of meat and some bread by preference, do you expect that improving the quality of each would be superior to what has been proposed by the mentioned experimenters?
The experimenters may arrive on these therapeutic diets under mainstream influence, but they refine it over time based on results. For a guy like Gerson, who advocated raw liver juice, there would be no problem to incorporate more animal products in the diet had they worked, until they prevailed. Example:
"In Paris, I tried seven cases and I had three results. One of the cases was an older man. He had a cancer of the cecum where the colon starts, 70 years old. Another case was a lady from Armenia. This was a very interesting case. I had to work against the whole family. There were many physicians in the family, and I had plenty of trouble. But, anyway, I came through in that case. She had cancer of the breast which regrew. Every time the family insisted that she was "so much down." She weighed only 78 pounds. She was skin and bones and they wanted me to give her egg yolks. I gave her small amounts of egg yolks—the cancer regrew. Then they insisted that I give her meat, raw chopped meat. I gave her this and the cancer regrew. The third time, they wanted me to give her some oil. I gave her the oil and the third time the cancer regrew. But, anyway, three times I could eliminate the cancer again and cure. And still I had no idea what cancer was. If somebody asked me about the theory, just what it was I was doing, I had to answer, "I don't really know myself."
And imagine the degree of simplification of protocols in not having to go through the hassle of elaborate plant preparation.
I find it unlikely that they would complicate their approaches with something that leads to worse outcomes in spite of being open to trying alternatives.
Nevertheless, how often do we read observations of positive effects associated with animal products consumption in cancer? Most of them are either neutral or negative, perhaps with a few exceptions (such as some dairy products). But when it comes to plant foods, we start to find neutral to positive effects far more often.
I can only congratulate you for going from Prismacolor to Applegate.
I can’t answer that with confidence because I can’t say I agree that intuition was likely a determinant—and a fear and guilt free one at that, since that’s a key point to unburdening ourselves and healing—given we are regularly bombarded with health and dietary propaganda. What I can say is I don’t believe meat and wheat are inherently disease promoting.
I don’t doubt Gerson’s findings, but I know plenty that contradict them. For instance, Dr. Morse found that any plant other than fruit would make his patients’ tumors grow, and Anita Moorjani’s cancer went into remission on an Ayurvedic protocol abundant in dairy and again on a Chinese medicine protocol abundant in meat, then while following a plant-based protocol she developed lemon-sized tumors down her spine and died, then came back to life and had a spontaneous healing while consuming ice cream. Then there’s my mum’s positive experience with a dairy-based diet, and I had another family member whose tumor grew to the size of a soft-ball on a Gerson diet and shrunk when he was put on a beef and rice diet temporarily to stop the chronic diarrhea the Gerson diet was causing. There’s also the positive accounts I’ve read from people following the Milk Cure and the Carnivore diet. There are a series of laboratory and animal studies showing that trans-vaccenic acid, a long-chain fatty acid found in the meat and dairy of grazing ruminants, promoted the destruction of certain types of cancer cells so perhaps that’s a factor?
By Applegate, are you referring to my hot dog bender back in February? If so, plot twist—my diet has been plant-based/vegetarian since March. These days, Chiquita would be a more fitting sponsor.
Jennifer,
People tend to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume the desired foods in one way or another, in special in parts of the world where nutritional campaigns are not as forceful as in the US. The two foods used as example don't inherently promote disease, but we can't count on their consumption to do much in helping to revert the situation of someone with cancer.
Fruits à la Robert Morse would be plant-based eating. The stories that you shared might have been to contrast Gerson's account. I quoted him not to rely on isolated cases, but to point out that he was willing to yield and would probably incorporate more animals products if he perceived benefit, and it wouldn't conflict with a diet that already included them. But again, he's only one of the many that agree on this aspect.
It doesn't apply to your examples, but part of the cases that don't do well on plant foods could do worse if they made their diets rich in animal products.
As a side note, I occasionally come across critics of Gerson—whose approach shouldn't work for everyone—but try to ask them what they propose instead. It's often very disappointing. And they're not constantly confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal.
Milk or carnivore diets would be extreme interventions, just like fasting and the positive stories from it. Sometimes drastic changes are capable of turning things around, but they're not reliable or founded enough to model.
Animal-based diets are typically richer in protein, fat, and growth factors.
Exceeding on protein is easy with such diets, leading to an undesirable exposure to extra glutamine and glutamate, arginine, tryptophan, methionine, cysteine, serine, aspartate, asparagine, BCAAs, methylcobalamin, phospholipids, nucleotides, and more.
With fats, it's complicated..
- The Modulatory Effects of Fatty Acids on Cancer Progression
- Dietary Fat and Cancer—Which Is Good, Which Is Bad, and the Body of Evidence
..but in an optimistic scenario, they're still poor in micronutrients and would be displacing other foods.
I don't know about trans-vaccenic acid, but if someone meets a great deal of energy needs through animal products, the person is reducing the exposure to a combination of anti-cancer compounds that occur primarily in plants. We could list 10 substances derived from plants for each protective animal-sourced substance that's brought to the table. Caffeine, salicylic acid, emodin, baicalein, curcumin, apigenin, quercetin, narigenin, fisetin, kaempferol.. They're not found in pharmacological amounts, but can cooperate. They can also be present in either diet, but plants as staples will be additional.
Depending on where a public is sampled, there can be more of the undernourished cases with a past of dietary restrictions that tend to benefit the most from anabolic foods, but this may not reflect the general state of the population macronutrient-wise. The therapeutic gap that you have with animal products for most people is narrower than apparent because animal foods are already consumed and sometimes in excess.
This gets further complicated when direct manipulation of the diet is not an option for treating it as a consequence. Yet, cravings can be driven by a single nutrient in a food, making us neglect the problematic components and consume what's already adequate in surplus to get the right amount of the sought factor. If this missing factor occurs in something like orange juice, it's no big deal, but it's more concerning if it's in a steak or eggs and someone with a tumor.
As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases. The sponsorship is there independent of what you're eating (you were eating dogs?), it's a matter of figuring out which company is making use of your online influence.
I'm not suggesting that people should stick to plant-based diets if they don't work, but I am suggesting that they're the preferable starting place, more so when we don't know the history of the person too well and the cancer is advanced.
Hi Gustavo,
The fact that people have to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume their desired foods shows it’s not without fear and/or guilt. Again, the goal is to unburden ourselves.
I knew why you quoted Gerson, and I mentioned Dr. Morse’s diet because it’s plant-based. I was comparing apples to apples, and all the foods besides fruit that Gerson found conducive to healing exacerbated the cancer in Dr. Morse’s patients so if outcomes can be that different on the same type of diet, I don’t think it unreasonable of me to believe animal foods also conducive to healing.
I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with animal-based diets, just like I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with plant-based diets—as you said, they aren’t infallible—and yet, that doesn’t prevent me from seeing the potential healing on predominantly animal and plant diets.
“As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases.”
When I treated 4 of my loved ones who had cancer, none were given the exact same protocol—3 were plant-based, 1 being Gerson. My mum was the only one whose diet was rich in animal products, and for a specific reason. After developing chronic diarrhea that led to rectal surgery while vegan, she no longer tolerated a plant heavy diet, even juice triggered diarrhea. We emphasized particular animal foods based on her and our family’s history, tissue weaknesses, stats and symptoms, which is why she was on a dairy-based diet and not a meat-based one so no, I don’t defend diets rich in animal products rather than deemphasizing them for particular cases, however, I will give credit where credit is due.
My mum was the only one out of the 4 who survived cancer, but she ultimately succumbed to the pulmonary embolism from the clots she developed after her hysterectomy so I know all too well what it’s like to treat people on the brink of death, and that’s exactly why I apply more than just plant-based and don’t just relying solely on it because I take the time to know people’s history before treating someone where one slip under my care could be fatal. My life for well over a decade now has revolved around trying to help people overcome disease and watching the ones closest to me die so I say what I say not without careful consideration, but with an understanding that I’ve tried to impart on others in hopes that they don’t have to experience it firsthand to “get” it, while knowing the sad reality that some do.
Take care.
Jennifer,
The negotiation is to show that it's difficult to prevent people from seeking the desired foods, they tend to eventually find a way around a restriction.
Regarding Robert Morse, it's another imperfect therapist that agrees on plant predomination. It also shows how easy it was to flexibilize between plants in their cases, but the same degree of limitation could be a hassle in an animal-based diet. For example, an extreme aversion or intolerance to dairy could result in a meat-based (be it with plenty of mollusks) or a something like a high-tallow diet.
It takes defense to bring what's being disfavored (not rejected) to neutrality.
You'll find counterexamples every time, but I've been trying to go by generalizations, whose value is of particular importance when a thorough investigation is not possible, there isn't much time for experimentation, and not many mistakes can be afforded.
I know that you can handle critical health situations well, but only a few people have you around to help interpret the history, question treatments, and propose alternatives while aware of what does and doesn't work. For many, their first contact with discussions on nutrition to reconsider their habits can be after an advanced cancer diagnosis.
The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.
I understand you’ve been trying to go by generalizations, I simply don’t agree that the go-to diet be plant-based (or animal-based). Plant aversions and intolerances also exist so I still think a diet abundant in both plant and animal foods is the best starting point. Finding suitable substitutions is far easier when there is variety to begin with, and then adjustments can be made to suit the individual. Time is of the essence, especially with advanced cases, but even with plant-based, fine-tuning will still likely be needed.
“The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.”
I guess I’ll have to get to finishing my book and opening a retreat center then.
A person under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route is just one more reason why I don’t think the go-to be extreme or else it risks discouraging them just as much as vagueness, and protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based do exist for guidance. And if extremes and vagueness aren’t discouraging enough, there’s the cost of expensive appliances like $2,000+ two-stage juicers, and then the energy it takes for all the juicing, food prep, cleanup etc., energy that the sick often lack.Then there’s food palatability. As you pointed out, it’s difficult to prevent people from seeking desired foods and finding a way around a restriction. A diet is only as effective as one’s adherence to it and even disease is not enough motivation for some to stick to one. Take, for example, Kempner who openly admitted to whipping his patients to adhere to what he described as a “monotonous and tasteless diet which would never become popular” because he thought “the risk to their life was so great that it warranted harshness.”
What it all boils down to is you strongly believe in plant-based and I don’t. I understand why you do, but I’m not as convinced for reasons that are beyond the scope of this conversation, however, it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what the patient believes and if they believe a plant-based protocol is the best option for them, great! Like I said, I wouldn’t pick the treatment my dad chose, but I support his decision.
I’m not adding anything of real value to this discussion so I’ll stop now. Thank you for taking the time to share information and your opinion with me. I appreciate your concern for my dad.
In my recovery, I’m a soldier at war, I have broken down walls
I defined, I designed, my recovery
In the sound of the sea, in the oceans of me
I defined, I designed, my recovery ~ James Arthur -
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac, I didn’t think you thought it foolish. I was talking about people like my dad. I’m not discounting the importance of diet. I just disagree that plant-based is the best option. The diet you quoted is the standard plant-based diet I see recommended not just by alternative practitioners, but by mainstream, as well. What were the patients’ diets like prior to the treatment with pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, "detoxification" procedures, and an organic diet? Were they of equal quality, i.e., consisting of organic and pastured foods or were they more like a standard western diet? What I typically see is a person develops a disease, in this case cancer, on a standard western diet and then follows a plant-based diet consisting of real food and improves, at least in the short-term. This is not proof to me that a plant-based diet is more healing than a diet equally abundant in both organic and pastured plant and animal foods, especially when I know far more people who have had long-term success with the latter than the former.
I shared to reinforce how recurrent this pattern is between cancer therapists who consider diet an important and manipulable factor.
Intuition was likely a determinant to what people were eating before treatment, although some might have added a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato on occasion to make meals healthy. To not intervene with their core choices, we'd be left with those changes in the quality of ingredients. Take someone who eats a lot of meat and some bread by preference, do you expect that improving the quality of each would be superior to what has been proposed by the mentioned experimenters?
The experimenters may arrive on these therapeutic diets under mainstream influence, but they refine it over time based on results. For a guy like Gerson, who advocated raw liver juice, there would be no problem to incorporate more animal products in the diet had they worked, until they prevailed. Example:
"In Paris, I tried seven cases and I had three results. One of the cases was an older man. He had a cancer of the cecum where the colon starts, 70 years old. Another case was a lady from Armenia. This was a very interesting case. I had to work against the whole family. There were many physicians in the family, and I had plenty of trouble. But, anyway, I came through in that case. She had cancer of the breast which regrew. Every time the family insisted that she was "so much down." She weighed only 78 pounds. She was skin and bones and they wanted me to give her egg yolks. I gave her small amounts of egg yolks—the cancer regrew. Then they insisted that I give her meat, raw chopped meat. I gave her this and the cancer regrew. The third time, they wanted me to give her some oil. I gave her the oil and the third time the cancer regrew. But, anyway, three times I could eliminate the cancer again and cure. And still I had no idea what cancer was. If somebody asked me about the theory, just what it was I was doing, I had to answer, "I don't really know myself."
And imagine the degree of simplification of protocols in not having to go through the hassle of elaborate plant preparation.
I find it unlikely that they would complicate their approaches with something that leads to worse outcomes in spite of being open to trying alternatives.
Nevertheless, how often do we read observations of positive effects associated with animal products consumption in cancer? Most of them are either neutral or negative, perhaps with a few exceptions (such as some dairy products). But when it comes to plant foods, we start to find neutral to positive effects far more often.
I can only congratulate you for going from Prismacolor to Applegate.
I can’t answer that with confidence because I can’t say I agree that intuition was likely a determinant—and a fear and guilt free one at that, since that’s a key point to unburdening ourselves and healing—given we are regularly bombarded with health and dietary propaganda. What I can say is I don’t believe meat and wheat are inherently disease promoting.
I don’t doubt Gerson’s findings, but I know plenty that contradict them. For instance, Dr. Morse found that any plant other than fruit would make his patients’ tumors grow, and Anita Moorjani’s cancer went into remission on an Ayurvedic protocol abundant in dairy and again on a Chinese medicine protocol abundant in meat, then while following a plant-based protocol she developed lemon-sized tumors down her spine and died, then came back to life and had a spontaneous healing while consuming ice cream. Then there’s my mum’s positive experience with a dairy-based diet, and I had another family member whose tumor grew to the size of a soft-ball on a Gerson diet and shrunk when he was put on a beef and rice diet temporarily to stop the chronic diarrhea the Gerson diet was causing. There’s also the positive accounts I’ve read from people following the Milk Cure and the Carnivore diet. There are a series of laboratory and animal studies showing that trans-vaccenic acid, a long-chain fatty acid found in the meat and dairy of grazing ruminants, promoted the destruction of certain types of cancer cells so perhaps that’s a factor?
By Applegate, are you referring to my hot dog bender back in February? If so, plot twist—my diet has been plant-based/vegetarian since March. These days, Chiquita would be a more fitting sponsor.
Jennifer,
People tend to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume the desired foods in one way or another, in special in parts of the world where nutritional campaigns are not as forceful as in the US. The two foods used as example don't inherently promote disease, but we can't count on their consumption to do much in helping to revert the situation of someone with cancer.
Fruits à la Robert Morse would be plant-based eating. The stories that you shared might have been to contrast Gerson's account. I quoted him not to rely on isolated cases, but to point out that he was willing to yield and would probably incorporate more animals products if he perceived benefit, and it wouldn't conflict with a diet that already included them. But again, he's only one of the many that agree on this aspect.
It doesn't apply to your examples, but part of the cases that don't do well on plant foods could do worse if they made their diets rich in animal products.
As a side note, I occasionally come across critics of Gerson—whose approach shouldn't work for everyone—but try to ask them what they propose instead. It's often very disappointing. And they're not constantly confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal.
Milk or carnivore diets would be extreme interventions, just like fasting and the positive stories from it. Sometimes drastic changes are capable of turning things around, but they're not reliable or founded enough to model.
Animal-based diets are typically richer in protein, fat, and growth factors.
Exceeding on protein is easy with such diets, leading to an undesirable exposure to extra glutamine and glutamate, arginine, tryptophan, methionine, cysteine, serine, aspartate, asparagine, BCAAs, methylcobalamin, phospholipids, nucleotides, and more.
With fats, it's complicated..
- The Modulatory Effects of Fatty Acids on Cancer Progression
- Dietary Fat and Cancer—Which Is Good, Which Is Bad, and the Body of Evidence
..but in an optimistic scenario, they're still poor in micronutrients and would be displacing other foods.
I don't know about trans-vaccenic acid, but if someone meets a great deal of energy needs through animal products, the person is reducing the exposure to a combination of anti-cancer compounds that occur primarily in plants. We could list 10 substances derived from plants for each protective animal-sourced substance that's brought to the table. Caffeine, salicylic acid, emodin, baicalein, curcumin, apigenin, quercetin, narigenin, fisetin, kaempferol.. They're not found in pharmacological amounts, but can cooperate. They can also be present in either diet, but plants as staples will be additional.
Depending on where a public is sampled, there can be more of the undernourished cases with a past of dietary restrictions that tend to benefit the most from anabolic foods, but this may not reflect the general state of the population macronutrient-wise. The therapeutic gap that you have with animal products for most people is narrower than apparent because animal foods are already consumed and sometimes in excess.
This gets further complicated when direct manipulation of the diet is not an option for treating it as a consequence. Yet, cravings can be driven by a single nutrient in a food, making us neglect the problematic components and consume what's already adequate in surplus to get the right amount of the sought factor. If this missing factor occurs in something like orange juice, it's no big deal, but it's more concerning if it's in a steak or eggs and someone with a tumor.
As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases. The sponsorship is there independent of what you're eating (you were eating dogs?), it's a matter of figuring out which company is making use of your online influence.
I'm not suggesting that people should stick to plant-based diets if they don't work, but I am suggesting that they're the preferable starting place, more so when we don't know the history of the person too well and the cancer is advanced.
Hi Gustavo,
The fact that people have to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume their desired foods shows it’s not without fear and/or guilt. Again, the goal is to unburden ourselves.
I knew why you quoted Gerson, and I mentioned Dr. Morse’s diet because it’s plant-based. I was comparing apples to apples, and all the foods besides fruit that Gerson found conducive to healing exacerbated the cancer in Dr. Morse’s patients so if outcomes can be that different on the same type of diet, I don’t think it unreasonable of me to believe animal foods also conducive to healing.
I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with animal-based diets, just like I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with plant-based diets—as you said, they aren’t infallible—and yet, that doesn’t prevent me from seeing the potential healing on predominantly animal and plant diets.
“As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases.”
When I treated 4 of my loved ones who had cancer, none were given the exact same protocol—3 were plant-based, 1 being Gerson. My mum was the only one whose diet was rich in animal products, and for a specific reason. After developing chronic diarrhea that led to rectal surgery while vegan, she no longer tolerated a plant heavy diet, even juice triggered diarrhea. We emphasized particular animal foods based on her and our family’s history, tissue weaknesses, stats and symptoms, which is why she was on a dairy-based diet and not a meat-based one so no, I don’t defend diets rich in animal products rather than deemphasizing them for particular cases, however, I will give credit where credit is due.
My mum was the only one out of the 4 who survived cancer, but she ultimately succumbed to the pulmonary embolism from the clots she developed after her hysterectomy so I know all too well what it’s like to treat people on the brink of death, and that’s exactly why I apply more than just plant-based and don’t just relying solely on it because I take the time to know people’s history before treating someone where one slip under my care could be fatal. My life for well over a decade now has revolved around trying to help people overcome disease and watching the ones closest to me die so I say what I say not without careful consideration, but with an understanding that I’ve tried to impart on others in hopes that they don’t have to experience it firsthand to “get” it, while knowing the sad reality that some do.
Take care.
Jennifer,
The negotiation is to show that it's difficult to prevent people from seeking the desired foods, they tend to eventually find a way around a restriction.
Regarding Robert Morse, it's another imperfect therapist that agrees on plant predomination. It also shows how easy it was to flexibilize between plants in their cases, but the same degree of limitation could be a hassle in an animal-based diet. For example, an extreme aversion or intolerance to dairy could result in a meat-based (be it with plenty of mollusks) or a something like a high-tallow diet.
It takes defense to bring what's being disfavored (not rejected) to neutrality.
You'll find counterexamples every time, but I've been trying to go by generalizations, whose value is of particular importance when a thorough investigation is not possible, there isn't much time for experimentation, and not many mistakes can be afforded.
I know that you can handle critical health situations well, but only a few people have you around to help interpret the history, question treatments, and propose alternatives while aware of what does and doesn't work. For many, their first contact with discussions on nutrition to reconsider their habits can be after an advanced cancer diagnosis.
The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.
I understand you’ve been trying to go by generalizations, I simply don’t agree that the go-to diet be plant-based (or animal-based). Plant aversions and intolerances also exist so I still think a diet abundant in both plant and animal foods is the best starting point. Finding suitable substitutions is far easier when there is variety to begin with, and then adjustments can be made to suit the individual. Time is of the essence, especially with advanced cases, but even with plant-based, fine-tuning will still likely be needed.
“The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.”
I guess I’ll have to get to finishing my book and opening a retreat center then.
A person under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route is just one more reason why I don’t think the go-to be extreme or else it risks discouraging them just as much as vagueness, and protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based do exist for guidance. And if extremes and vagueness aren’t discouraging enough, there’s the cost of expensive appliances like $2,000+ two-stage juicers, and then the energy it takes for all the juicing, food prep, cleanup etc., energy that the sick often lack.Then there’s food palatability. As you pointed out, it’s difficult to prevent people from seeking desired foods and finding a way around a restriction. A diet is only as effective as one’s adherence to it and even disease is not enough motivation for some to stick to one. Take, for example, Kempner who openly admitted to whipping his patients to adhere to what he described as a “monotonous and tasteless diet which would never become popular” because he thought “the risk to their life was so great that it warranted harshness.”
What it all boils down to is you strongly believe in plant-based and I don’t. I understand why you do, but I’m not as convinced for reasons that are beyond the scope of this conversation, however, it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what the patient believes and if they believe a plant-based protocol is the best option for them, great! Like I said, I wouldn’t pick the treatment my dad chose, but I support his decision.
I’m not adding anything of real value to this discussion so I’ll stop now. Thank you for taking the time to share information and your opinion with me. I appreciate your concern for my dad.
All true, but strictly speaking if you can avoid methionine you can stop cancer tumor growth and improve many health biomarkers.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac, I didn’t think you thought it foolish. I was talking about people like my dad. I’m not discounting the importance of diet. I just disagree that plant-based is the best option. The diet you quoted is the standard plant-based diet I see recommended not just by alternative practitioners, but by mainstream, as well. What were the patients’ diets like prior to the treatment with pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, "detoxification" procedures, and an organic diet? Were they of equal quality, i.e., consisting of organic and pastured foods or were they more like a standard western diet? What I typically see is a person develops a disease, in this case cancer, on a standard western diet and then follows a plant-based diet consisting of real food and improves, at least in the short-term. This is not proof to me that a plant-based diet is more healing than a diet equally abundant in both organic and pastured plant and animal foods, especially when I know far more people who have had long-term success with the latter than the former.
I shared to reinforce how recurrent this pattern is between cancer therapists who consider diet an important and manipulable factor.
Intuition was likely a determinant to what people were eating before treatment, although some might have added a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato on occasion to make meals healthy. To not intervene with their core choices, we'd be left with those changes in the quality of ingredients. Take someone who eats a lot of meat and some bread by preference, do you expect that improving the quality of each would be superior to what has been proposed by the mentioned experimenters?
The experimenters may arrive on these therapeutic diets under mainstream influence, but they refine it over time based on results. For a guy like Gerson, who advocated raw liver juice, there would be no problem to incorporate more animal products in the diet had they worked, until they prevailed. Example:
"In Paris, I tried seven cases and I had three results. One of the cases was an older man. He had a cancer of the cecum where the colon starts, 70 years old. Another case was a lady from Armenia. This was a very interesting case. I had to work against the whole family. There were many physicians in the family, and I had plenty of trouble. But, anyway, I came through in that case. She had cancer of the breast which regrew. Every time the family insisted that she was "so much down." She weighed only 78 pounds. She was skin and bones and they wanted me to give her egg yolks. I gave her small amounts of egg yolks—the cancer regrew. Then they insisted that I give her meat, raw chopped meat. I gave her this and the cancer regrew. The third time, they wanted me to give her some oil. I gave her the oil and the third time the cancer regrew. But, anyway, three times I could eliminate the cancer again and cure. And still I had no idea what cancer was. If somebody asked me about the theory, just what it was I was doing, I had to answer, "I don't really know myself."
And imagine the degree of simplification of protocols in not having to go through the hassle of elaborate plant preparation.
I find it unlikely that they would complicate their approaches with something that leads to worse outcomes in spite of being open to trying alternatives.
Nevertheless, how often do we read observations of positive effects associated with animal products consumption in cancer? Most of them are either neutral or negative, perhaps with a few exceptions (such as some dairy products). But when it comes to plant foods, we start to find neutral to positive effects far more often.
I can only congratulate you for going from Prismacolor to Applegate.
I can’t answer that with confidence because I can’t say I agree that intuition was likely a determinant—and a fear and guilt free one at that, since that’s a key point to unburdening ourselves and healing—given we are regularly bombarded with health and dietary propaganda. What I can say is I don’t believe meat and wheat are inherently disease promoting.
I don’t doubt Gerson’s findings, but I know plenty that contradict them. For instance, Dr. Morse found that any plant other than fruit would make his patients’ tumors grow, and Anita Moorjani’s cancer went into remission on an Ayurvedic protocol abundant in dairy and again on a Chinese medicine protocol abundant in meat, then while following a plant-based protocol she developed lemon-sized tumors down her spine and died, then came back to life and had a spontaneous healing while consuming ice cream. Then there’s my mum’s positive experience with a dairy-based diet, and I had another family member whose tumor grew to the size of a soft-ball on a Gerson diet and shrunk when he was put on a beef and rice diet temporarily to stop the chronic diarrhea the Gerson diet was causing. There’s also the positive accounts I’ve read from people following the Milk Cure and the Carnivore diet. There are a series of laboratory and animal studies showing that trans-vaccenic acid, a long-chain fatty acid found in the meat and dairy of grazing ruminants, promoted the destruction of certain types of cancer cells so perhaps that’s a factor?
By Applegate, are you referring to my hot dog bender back in February? If so, plot twist—my diet has been plant-based/vegetarian since March. These days, Chiquita would be a more fitting sponsor.
Jennifer,
People tend to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume the desired foods in one way or another, in special in parts of the world where nutritional campaigns are not as forceful as in the US. The two foods used as example don't inherently promote disease, but we can't count on their consumption to do much in helping to revert the situation of someone with cancer.
Fruits à la Robert Morse would be plant-based eating. The stories that you shared might have been to contrast Gerson's account. I quoted him not to rely on isolated cases, but to point out that he was willing to yield and would probably incorporate more animals products if he perceived benefit, and it wouldn't conflict with a diet that already included them. But again, he's only one of the many that agree on this aspect.
It doesn't apply to your examples, but part of the cases that don't do well on plant foods could do worse if they made their diets rich in animal products.
As a side note, I occasionally come across critics of Gerson—whose approach shouldn't work for everyone—but try to ask them what they propose instead. It's often very disappointing. And they're not constantly confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal.
Milk or carnivore diets would be extreme interventions, just like fasting and the positive stories from it. Sometimes drastic changes are capable of turning things around, but they're not reliable or founded enough to model.
Animal-based diets are typically richer in protein, fat, and growth factors.
Exceeding on protein is easy with such diets, leading to an undesirable exposure to extra glutamine and glutamate, arginine, tryptophan, methionine, cysteine, serine, aspartate, asparagine, BCAAs, methylcobalamin, phospholipids, nucleotides, and more.
With fats, it's complicated..
- The Modulatory Effects of Fatty Acids on Cancer Progression
- Dietary Fat and Cancer—Which Is Good, Which Is Bad, and the Body of Evidence
..but in an optimistic scenario, they're still poor in micronutrients and would be displacing other foods.
I don't know about trans-vaccenic acid, but if someone meets a great deal of energy needs through animal products, the person is reducing the exposure to a combination of anti-cancer compounds that occur primarily in plants. We could list 10 substances derived from plants for each protective animal-sourced substance that's brought to the table. Caffeine, salicylic acid, emodin, baicalein, curcumin, apigenin, quercetin, narigenin, fisetin, kaempferol.. They're not found in pharmacological amounts, but can cooperate. They can also be present in either diet, but plants as staples will be additional.
Depending on where a public is sampled, there can be more of the undernourished cases with a past of dietary restrictions that tend to benefit the most from anabolic foods, but this may not reflect the general state of the population macronutrient-wise. The therapeutic gap that you have with animal products for most people is narrower than apparent because animal foods are already consumed and sometimes in excess.
This gets further complicated when direct manipulation of the diet is not an option for treating it as a consequence. Yet, cravings can be driven by a single nutrient in a food, making us neglect the problematic components and consume what's already adequate in surplus to get the right amount of the sought factor. If this missing factor occurs in something like orange juice, it's no big deal, but it's more concerning if it's in a steak or eggs and someone with a tumor.
As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases. The sponsorship is there independent of what you're eating (you were eating dogs?), it's a matter of figuring out which company is making use of your online influence.
I'm not suggesting that people should stick to plant-based diets if they don't work, but I am suggesting that they're the preferable starting place, more so when we don't know the history of the person too well and the cancer is advanced.
Hi Gustavo,
The fact that people have to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume their desired foods shows it’s not without fear and/or guilt. Again, the goal is to unburden ourselves.
I knew why you quoted Gerson, and I mentioned Dr. Morse’s diet because it’s plant-based. I was comparing apples to apples, and all the foods besides fruit that Gerson found conducive to healing exacerbated the cancer in Dr. Morse’s patients so if outcomes can be that different on the same type of diet, I don’t think it unreasonable of me to believe animal foods also conducive to healing.
I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with animal-based diets, just like I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with plant-based diets—as you said, they aren’t infallible—and yet, that doesn’t prevent me from seeing the potential healing on predominantly animal and plant diets.
“As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases.”
When I treated 4 of my loved ones who had cancer, none were given the exact same protocol—3 were plant-based, 1 being Gerson. My mum was the only one whose diet was rich in animal products, and for a specific reason. After developing chronic diarrhea that led to rectal surgery while vegan, she no longer tolerated a plant heavy diet, even juice triggered diarrhea. We emphasized particular animal foods based on her and our family’s history, tissue weaknesses, stats and symptoms, which is why she was on a dairy-based diet and not a meat-based one so no, I don’t defend diets rich in animal products rather than deemphasizing them for particular cases, however, I will give credit where credit is due.
My mum was the only one out of the 4 who survived cancer, but she ultimately succumbed to the pulmonary embolism from the clots she developed after her hysterectomy so I know all too well what it’s like to treat people on the brink of death, and that’s exactly why I apply more than just plant-based and don’t just relying solely on it because I take the time to know people’s history before treating someone where one slip under my care could be fatal. My life for well over a decade now has revolved around trying to help people overcome disease and watching the ones closest to me die so I say what I say not without careful consideration, but with an understanding that I’ve tried to impart on others in hopes that they don’t have to experience it firsthand to “get” it, while knowing the sad reality that some do.
Take care.
Jennifer,
The negotiation is to show that it's difficult to prevent people from seeking the desired foods, they tend to eventually find a way around a restriction.
Regarding Robert Morse, it's another imperfect therapist that agrees on plant predomination. It also shows how easy it was to flexibilize between plants in their cases, but the same degree of limitation could be a hassle in an animal-based diet. For example, an extreme aversion or intolerance to dairy could result in a meat-based (be it with plenty of mollusks) or a something like a high-tallow diet.
It takes defense to bring what's being disfavored (not rejected) to neutrality.
You'll find counterexamples every time, but I've been trying to go by generalizations, whose value is of particular importance when a thorough investigation is not possible, there isn't much time for experimentation, and not many mistakes can be afforded.
I know that you can handle critical health situations well, but only a few people have you around to help interpret the history, question treatments, and propose alternatives while aware of what does and doesn't work. For many, their first contact with discussions on nutrition to reconsider their habits can be after an advanced cancer diagnosis.
The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.
I understand you’ve been trying to go by generalizations, I simply don’t agree that the go-to diet be plant-based (or animal-based). Plant aversions and intolerances also exist so I still think a diet abundant in both plant and animal foods is the best starting point. Finding suitable substitutions is far easier when there is variety to begin with, and then adjustments can be made to suit the individual. Time is of the essence, especially with advanced cases, but even with plant-based, fine-tuning will still likely be needed.
“The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.”
I guess I’ll have to get to finishing my book and opening a retreat center then.
A person under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route is just one more reason why I don’t think the go-to be extreme or else it risks discouraging them just as much as vagueness, and protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based do exist for guidance. And if extremes and vagueness aren’t discouraging enough, there’s the cost of expensive appliances like $2,000+ two-stage juicers, and then the energy it takes for all the juicing, food prep, cleanup etc., energy that the sick often lack.Then there’s food palatability. As you pointed out, it’s difficult to prevent people from seeking desired foods and finding a way around a restriction. A diet is only as effective as one’s adherence to it and even disease is not enough motivation for some to stick to one. Take, for example, Kempner who openly admitted to whipping his patients to adhere to what he described as a “monotonous and tasteless diet which would never become popular” because he thought “the risk to their life was so great that it warranted harshness.”
What it all boils down to is you strongly believe in plant-based and I don’t. I understand why you do, but I’m not as convinced for reasons that are beyond the scope of this conversation, however, it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what the patient believes and if they believe a plant-based protocol is the best option for them, great! Like I said, I wouldn’t pick the treatment my dad chose, but I support his decision.
I’m not adding anything of real value to this discussion so I’ll stop now. Thank you for taking the time to share information and your opinion with me. I appreciate your concern for my dad.
All true, but strictly speaking if you can avoid methionine you can stop cancer tumor growth and improve many health biomarkers.
Sure, I can see that being possible, especially if one believes it. I can also see the opposite being possible. My mum was technically on a high methionine diet when her cancer regressed.
-
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac, I didn’t think you thought it foolish. I was talking about people like my dad. I’m not discounting the importance of diet. I just disagree that plant-based is the best option. The diet you quoted is the standard plant-based diet I see recommended not just by alternative practitioners, but by mainstream, as well. What were the patients’ diets like prior to the treatment with pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, "detoxification" procedures, and an organic diet? Were they of equal quality, i.e., consisting of organic and pastured foods or were they more like a standard western diet? What I typically see is a person develops a disease, in this case cancer, on a standard western diet and then follows a plant-based diet consisting of real food and improves, at least in the short-term. This is not proof to me that a plant-based diet is more healing than a diet equally abundant in both organic and pastured plant and animal foods, especially when I know far more people who have had long-term success with the latter than the former.
I shared to reinforce how recurrent this pattern is between cancer therapists who consider diet an important and manipulable factor.
Intuition was likely a determinant to what people were eating before treatment, although some might have added a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato on occasion to make meals healthy. To not intervene with their core choices, we'd be left with those changes in the quality of ingredients. Take someone who eats a lot of meat and some bread by preference, do you expect that improving the quality of each would be superior to what has been proposed by the mentioned experimenters?
The experimenters may arrive on these therapeutic diets under mainstream influence, but they refine it over time based on results. For a guy like Gerson, who advocated raw liver juice, there would be no problem to incorporate more animal products in the diet had they worked, until they prevailed. Example:
"In Paris, I tried seven cases and I had three results. One of the cases was an older man. He had a cancer of the cecum where the colon starts, 70 years old. Another case was a lady from Armenia. This was a very interesting case. I had to work against the whole family. There were many physicians in the family, and I had plenty of trouble. But, anyway, I came through in that case. She had cancer of the breast which regrew. Every time the family insisted that she was "so much down." She weighed only 78 pounds. She was skin and bones and they wanted me to give her egg yolks. I gave her small amounts of egg yolks—the cancer regrew. Then they insisted that I give her meat, raw chopped meat. I gave her this and the cancer regrew. The third time, they wanted me to give her some oil. I gave her the oil and the third time the cancer regrew. But, anyway, three times I could eliminate the cancer again and cure. And still I had no idea what cancer was. If somebody asked me about the theory, just what it was I was doing, I had to answer, "I don't really know myself."
And imagine the degree of simplification of protocols in not having to go through the hassle of elaborate plant preparation.
I find it unlikely that they would complicate their approaches with something that leads to worse outcomes in spite of being open to trying alternatives.
Nevertheless, how often do we read observations of positive effects associated with animal products consumption in cancer? Most of them are either neutral or negative, perhaps with a few exceptions (such as some dairy products). But when it comes to plant foods, we start to find neutral to positive effects far more often.
I can only congratulate you for going from Prismacolor to Applegate.
I can’t answer that with confidence because I can’t say I agree that intuition was likely a determinant—and a fear and guilt free one at that, since that’s a key point to unburdening ourselves and healing—given we are regularly bombarded with health and dietary propaganda. What I can say is I don’t believe meat and wheat are inherently disease promoting.
I don’t doubt Gerson’s findings, but I know plenty that contradict them. For instance, Dr. Morse found that any plant other than fruit would make his patients’ tumors grow, and Anita Moorjani’s cancer went into remission on an Ayurvedic protocol abundant in dairy and again on a Chinese medicine protocol abundant in meat, then while following a plant-based protocol she developed lemon-sized tumors down her spine and died, then came back to life and had a spontaneous healing while consuming ice cream. Then there’s my mum’s positive experience with a dairy-based diet, and I had another family member whose tumor grew to the size of a soft-ball on a Gerson diet and shrunk when he was put on a beef and rice diet temporarily to stop the chronic diarrhea the Gerson diet was causing. There’s also the positive accounts I’ve read from people following the Milk Cure and the Carnivore diet. There are a series of laboratory and animal studies showing that trans-vaccenic acid, a long-chain fatty acid found in the meat and dairy of grazing ruminants, promoted the destruction of certain types of cancer cells so perhaps that’s a factor?
By Applegate, are you referring to my hot dog bender back in February? If so, plot twist—my diet has been plant-based/vegetarian since March. These days, Chiquita would be a more fitting sponsor.
Jennifer,
People tend to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume the desired foods in one way or another, in special in parts of the world where nutritional campaigns are not as forceful as in the US. The two foods used as example don't inherently promote disease, but we can't count on their consumption to do much in helping to revert the situation of someone with cancer.
Fruits à la Robert Morse would be plant-based eating. The stories that you shared might have been to contrast Gerson's account. I quoted him not to rely on isolated cases, but to point out that he was willing to yield and would probably incorporate more animals products if he perceived benefit, and it wouldn't conflict with a diet that already included them. But again, he's only one of the many that agree on this aspect.
It doesn't apply to your examples, but part of the cases that don't do well on plant foods could do worse if they made their diets rich in animal products.
As a side note, I occasionally come across critics of Gerson—whose approach shouldn't work for everyone—but try to ask them what they propose instead. It's often very disappointing. And they're not constantly confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal.
Milk or carnivore diets would be extreme interventions, just like fasting and the positive stories from it. Sometimes drastic changes are capable of turning things around, but they're not reliable or founded enough to model.
Animal-based diets are typically richer in protein, fat, and growth factors.
Exceeding on protein is easy with such diets, leading to an undesirable exposure to extra glutamine and glutamate, arginine, tryptophan, methionine, cysteine, serine, aspartate, asparagine, BCAAs, methylcobalamin, phospholipids, nucleotides, and more.
With fats, it's complicated..
- The Modulatory Effects of Fatty Acids on Cancer Progression
- Dietary Fat and Cancer—Which Is Good, Which Is Bad, and the Body of Evidence
..but in an optimistic scenario, they're still poor in micronutrients and would be displacing other foods.
I don't know about trans-vaccenic acid, but if someone meets a great deal of energy needs through animal products, the person is reducing the exposure to a combination of anti-cancer compounds that occur primarily in plants. We could list 10 substances derived from plants for each protective animal-sourced substance that's brought to the table. Caffeine, salicylic acid, emodin, baicalein, curcumin, apigenin, quercetin, narigenin, fisetin, kaempferol.. They're not found in pharmacological amounts, but can cooperate. They can also be present in either diet, but plants as staples will be additional.
Depending on where a public is sampled, there can be more of the undernourished cases with a past of dietary restrictions that tend to benefit the most from anabolic foods, but this may not reflect the general state of the population macronutrient-wise. The therapeutic gap that you have with animal products for most people is narrower than apparent because animal foods are already consumed and sometimes in excess.
This gets further complicated when direct manipulation of the diet is not an option for treating it as a consequence. Yet, cravings can be driven by a single nutrient in a food, making us neglect the problematic components and consume what's already adequate in surplus to get the right amount of the sought factor. If this missing factor occurs in something like orange juice, it's no big deal, but it's more concerning if it's in a steak or eggs and someone with a tumor.
As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases. The sponsorship is there independent of what you're eating (you were eating dogs?), it's a matter of figuring out which company is making use of your online influence.
I'm not suggesting that people should stick to plant-based diets if they don't work, but I am suggesting that they're the preferable starting place, more so when we don't know the history of the person too well and the cancer is advanced.
Hi Gustavo,
The fact that people have to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume their desired foods shows it’s not without fear and/or guilt. Again, the goal is to unburden ourselves.
I knew why you quoted Gerson, and I mentioned Dr. Morse’s diet because it’s plant-based. I was comparing apples to apples, and all the foods besides fruit that Gerson found conducive to healing exacerbated the cancer in Dr. Morse’s patients so if outcomes can be that different on the same type of diet, I don’t think it unreasonable of me to believe animal foods also conducive to healing.
I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with animal-based diets, just like I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with plant-based diets—as you said, they aren’t infallible—and yet, that doesn’t prevent me from seeing the potential healing on predominantly animal and plant diets.
“As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases.”
When I treated 4 of my loved ones who had cancer, none were given the exact same protocol—3 were plant-based, 1 being Gerson. My mum was the only one whose diet was rich in animal products, and for a specific reason. After developing chronic diarrhea that led to rectal surgery while vegan, she no longer tolerated a plant heavy diet, even juice triggered diarrhea. We emphasized particular animal foods based on her and our family’s history, tissue weaknesses, stats and symptoms, which is why she was on a dairy-based diet and not a meat-based one so no, I don’t defend diets rich in animal products rather than deemphasizing them for particular cases, however, I will give credit where credit is due.
My mum was the only one out of the 4 who survived cancer, but she ultimately succumbed to the pulmonary embolism from the clots she developed after her hysterectomy so I know all too well what it’s like to treat people on the brink of death, and that’s exactly why I apply more than just plant-based and don’t just relying solely on it because I take the time to know people’s history before treating someone where one slip under my care could be fatal. My life for well over a decade now has revolved around trying to help people overcome disease and watching the ones closest to me die so I say what I say not without careful consideration, but with an understanding that I’ve tried to impart on others in hopes that they don’t have to experience it firsthand to “get” it, while knowing the sad reality that some do.
Take care.
Jennifer,
The negotiation is to show that it's difficult to prevent people from seeking the desired foods, they tend to eventually find a way around a restriction.
Regarding Robert Morse, it's another imperfect therapist that agrees on plant predomination. It also shows how easy it was to flexibilize between plants in their cases, but the same degree of limitation could be a hassle in an animal-based diet. For example, an extreme aversion or intolerance to dairy could result in a meat-based (be it with plenty of mollusks) or a something like a high-tallow diet.
It takes defense to bring what's being disfavored (not rejected) to neutrality.
You'll find counterexamples every time, but I've been trying to go by generalizations, whose value is of particular importance when a thorough investigation is not possible, there isn't much time for experimentation, and not many mistakes can be afforded.
I know that you can handle critical health situations well, but only a few people have you around to help interpret the history, question treatments, and propose alternatives while aware of what does and doesn't work. For many, their first contact with discussions on nutrition to reconsider their habits can be after an advanced cancer diagnosis.
The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.
I understand you’ve been trying to go by generalizations, I simply don’t agree that the go-to diet be plant-based (or animal-based). Plant aversions and intolerances also exist so I still think a diet abundant in both plant and animal foods is the best starting point. Finding suitable substitutions is far easier when there is variety to begin with, and then adjustments can be made to suit the individual. Time is of the essence, especially with advanced cases, but even with plant-based, fine-tuning will still likely be needed.
“The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.”
I guess I’ll have to get to finishing my book and opening a retreat center then.
A person under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route is just one more reason why I don’t think the go-to be extreme or else it risks discouraging them just as much as vagueness, and protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based do exist for guidance. And if extremes and vagueness aren’t discouraging enough, there’s the cost of expensive appliances like $2,000+ two-stage juicers, and then the energy it takes for all the juicing, food prep, cleanup etc., energy that the sick often lack.Then there’s food palatability. As you pointed out, it’s difficult to prevent people from seeking desired foods and finding a way around a restriction. A diet is only as effective as one’s adherence to it and even disease is not enough motivation for some to stick to one. Take, for example, Kempner who openly admitted to whipping his patients to adhere to what he described as a “monotonous and tasteless diet which would never become popular” because he thought “the risk to their life was so great that it warranted harshness.”
What it all boils down to is you strongly believe in plant-based and I don’t. I understand why you do, but I’m not as convinced for reasons that are beyond the scope of this conversation, however, it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what the patient believes and if they believe a plant-based protocol is the best option for them, great! Like I said, I wouldn’t pick the treatment my dad chose, but I support his decision.
I’m not adding anything of real value to this discussion so I’ll stop now. Thank you for taking the time to share information and your opinion with me. I appreciate your concern for my dad.
Jennifer,
I'm with you in favoring less structure and more impartiality, but when there is no urgency. Otherwise, the benefit of being resolute with a concrete program based on probability outweighs the risk of malefits from lack of proper individualization.
We could just as well be on the fence with aspirin because of complications from its use, but we take side in recommend it in cancer, and we do so without being overly judicious due to the general positive effect. Someone who doesn't tolerate aspirin well may intuit to shy away from ingesting it again, but we have accounts of people who regain tolerance after minor unintuitive adjustments. The same can apply to a diet with therapeutic potential. It's only after trying and attempting to make it work that I find justified to change the course, unless we're sure in advance that it won't help.
Aspirin was a single example, imagine being impartial to the majority of what's consumed in the name of individuality. The philosophy extends to almost every aspect of the diet, and soon the person is overwhelmed with decisions to make. After all, why would this line of thought stop on one variable?
That same person who is sick, lost and under intense pressure would have to consider hundreds of factors, without much experience, and in a short period because little is defined. Low or high fat? With or without dairy? More or less frequent meals? Minimal or a lot of spices? Normal or high iodine? Nicotinic acid or nicotinamide? To include leaves or not? Cooked or raw? Boiled or steamed? High or low fructose? With or without collagen? Plenty or little carotenoids? To use baking soda or not? Normal or low sodium? Hypo- or isocaloric? Force the metabolic rate up or not? Solids or liquids? Generous or small quantities of fiber? It goes on and it's daunting. Each of these will have someone to argue in support of a neutral stance and nothing concrete ever comes out of it.
The sick can get assistance on protocol tasks, but it's much harder to find in time someone qualified to help to navigate through uncertainty and controversy. We can expect the person to default to convention when no clear alternative is offered.
The copayment of a month of one conventional procedure alone might surpass the value that you mentioned, which can be lowered further if the person adopts an economical version of the program and improvises the tools.
Nevertheless, as Lejeboca pointed out earlier, the person can opt for the standard treatment and still benefit from the sensitizing effect of such diet. People can adhere to a program temporarily, what's tough is to sustain restrictions for decades.
I recall a testimony of a guy who had given up on life, decided to discontinue therapies, but the partner insisted for him to stick to the program despite the lack of motivation. The guy recovered, was doing well next to his family and admitted that he was glad that the partner compensated for his apathy. In a sense, the wife forced him to do it, it was against his will, when his intuition could've led him to bad outcomes. Yes, we also have problems from persistence, but it's another example of how unreliable intuition can be.
You have reasons to be hesitant, but I don't believe in plant-based diets any more than I believe that in cancer we're better off positioning on what's preferable. Until I come across programs based on animal foods appearing more promising than those where plants predominate, I will continue to prioritize the latter.
I've tried to contact the authors without success, but it was concluded in 2016 and it would be interesting to know what they have found.
-
@Amazoniac another study by Campbell (which was misinterpreted) suggested that a high protein diet appeared to be protective against cancer in healthy individuals; however, the same diet seemed to accelerate cancer growth in individuals already diagnosed with cancer. Recently, Haidut conducted an experiment where vitamin B1, B3, biotin, and aspirin were administered to mice with tumors, resulting in a reduction in tumor size. He also recommended following a high carbohydrate, low-fat diet.
-
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac, I didn’t think you thought it foolish. I was talking about people like my dad. I’m not discounting the importance of diet. I just disagree that plant-based is the best option. The diet you quoted is the standard plant-based diet I see recommended not just by alternative practitioners, but by mainstream, as well. What were the patients’ diets like prior to the treatment with pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, "detoxification" procedures, and an organic diet? Were they of equal quality, i.e., consisting of organic and pastured foods or were they more like a standard western diet? What I typically see is a person develops a disease, in this case cancer, on a standard western diet and then follows a plant-based diet consisting of real food and improves, at least in the short-term. This is not proof to me that a plant-based diet is more healing than a diet equally abundant in both organic and pastured plant and animal foods, especially when I know far more people who have had long-term success with the latter than the former.
I shared to reinforce how recurrent this pattern is between cancer therapists who consider diet an important and manipulable factor.
Intuition was likely a determinant to what people were eating before treatment, although some might have added a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato on occasion to make meals healthy. To not intervene with their core choices, we'd be left with those changes in the quality of ingredients. Take someone who eats a lot of meat and some bread by preference, do you expect that improving the quality of each would be superior to what has been proposed by the mentioned experimenters?
The experimenters may arrive on these therapeutic diets under mainstream influence, but they refine it over time based on results. For a guy like Gerson, who advocated raw liver juice, there would be no problem to incorporate more animal products in the diet had they worked, until they prevailed. Example:
"In Paris, I tried seven cases and I had three results. One of the cases was an older man. He had a cancer of the cecum where the colon starts, 70 years old. Another case was a lady from Armenia. This was a very interesting case. I had to work against the whole family. There were many physicians in the family, and I had plenty of trouble. But, anyway, I came through in that case. She had cancer of the breast which regrew. Every time the family insisted that she was "so much down." She weighed only 78 pounds. She was skin and bones and they wanted me to give her egg yolks. I gave her small amounts of egg yolks—the cancer regrew. Then they insisted that I give her meat, raw chopped meat. I gave her this and the cancer regrew. The third time, they wanted me to give her some oil. I gave her the oil and the third time the cancer regrew. But, anyway, three times I could eliminate the cancer again and cure. And still I had no idea what cancer was. If somebody asked me about the theory, just what it was I was doing, I had to answer, "I don't really know myself."
And imagine the degree of simplification of protocols in not having to go through the hassle of elaborate plant preparation.
I find it unlikely that they would complicate their approaches with something that leads to worse outcomes in spite of being open to trying alternatives.
Nevertheless, how often do we read observations of positive effects associated with animal products consumption in cancer? Most of them are either neutral or negative, perhaps with a few exceptions (such as some dairy products). But when it comes to plant foods, we start to find neutral to positive effects far more often.
I can only congratulate you for going from Prismacolor to Applegate.
I can’t answer that with confidence because I can’t say I agree that intuition was likely a determinant—and a fear and guilt free one at that, since that’s a key point to unburdening ourselves and healing—given we are regularly bombarded with health and dietary propaganda. What I can say is I don’t believe meat and wheat are inherently disease promoting.
I don’t doubt Gerson’s findings, but I know plenty that contradict them. For instance, Dr. Morse found that any plant other than fruit would make his patients’ tumors grow, and Anita Moorjani’s cancer went into remission on an Ayurvedic protocol abundant in dairy and again on a Chinese medicine protocol abundant in meat, then while following a plant-based protocol she developed lemon-sized tumors down her spine and died, then came back to life and had a spontaneous healing while consuming ice cream. Then there’s my mum’s positive experience with a dairy-based diet, and I had another family member whose tumor grew to the size of a soft-ball on a Gerson diet and shrunk when he was put on a beef and rice diet temporarily to stop the chronic diarrhea the Gerson diet was causing. There’s also the positive accounts I’ve read from people following the Milk Cure and the Carnivore diet. There are a series of laboratory and animal studies showing that trans-vaccenic acid, a long-chain fatty acid found in the meat and dairy of grazing ruminants, promoted the destruction of certain types of cancer cells so perhaps that’s a factor?
By Applegate, are you referring to my hot dog bender back in February? If so, plot twist—my diet has been plant-based/vegetarian since March. These days, Chiquita would be a more fitting sponsor.
Jennifer,
People tend to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume the desired foods in one way or another, in special in parts of the world where nutritional campaigns are not as forceful as in the US. The two foods used as example don't inherently promote disease, but we can't count on their consumption to do much in helping to revert the situation of someone with cancer.
Fruits à la Robert Morse would be plant-based eating. The stories that you shared might have been to contrast Gerson's account. I quoted him not to rely on isolated cases, but to point out that he was willing to yield and would probably incorporate more animals products if he perceived benefit, and it wouldn't conflict with a diet that already included them. But again, he's only one of the many that agree on this aspect.
It doesn't apply to your examples, but part of the cases that don't do well on plant foods could do worse if they made their diets rich in animal products.
As a side note, I occasionally come across critics of Gerson—whose approach shouldn't work for everyone—but try to ask them what they propose instead. It's often very disappointing. And they're not constantly confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal.
Milk or carnivore diets would be extreme interventions, just like fasting and the positive stories from it. Sometimes drastic changes are capable of turning things around, but they're not reliable or founded enough to model.
Animal-based diets are typically richer in protein, fat, and growth factors.
Exceeding on protein is easy with such diets, leading to an undesirable exposure to extra glutamine and glutamate, arginine, tryptophan, methionine, cysteine, serine, aspartate, asparagine, BCAAs, methylcobalamin, phospholipids, nucleotides, and more.
With fats, it's complicated..
- The Modulatory Effects of Fatty Acids on Cancer Progression
- Dietary Fat and Cancer—Which Is Good, Which Is Bad, and the Body of Evidence
..but in an optimistic scenario, they're still poor in micronutrients and would be displacing other foods.
I don't know about trans-vaccenic acid, but if someone meets a great deal of energy needs through animal products, the person is reducing the exposure to a combination of anti-cancer compounds that occur primarily in plants. We could list 10 substances derived from plants for each protective animal-sourced substance that's brought to the table. Caffeine, salicylic acid, emodin, baicalein, curcumin, apigenin, quercetin, narigenin, fisetin, kaempferol.. They're not found in pharmacological amounts, but can cooperate. They can also be present in either diet, but plants as staples will be additional.
Depending on where a public is sampled, there can be more of the undernourished cases with a past of dietary restrictions that tend to benefit the most from anabolic foods, but this may not reflect the general state of the population macronutrient-wise. The therapeutic gap that you have with animal products for most people is narrower than apparent because animal foods are already consumed and sometimes in excess.
This gets further complicated when direct manipulation of the diet is not an option for treating it as a consequence. Yet, cravings can be driven by a single nutrient in a food, making us neglect the problematic components and consume what's already adequate in surplus to get the right amount of the sought factor. If this missing factor occurs in something like orange juice, it's no big deal, but it's more concerning if it's in a steak or eggs and someone with a tumor.
As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases. The sponsorship is there independent of what you're eating (you were eating dogs?), it's a matter of figuring out which company is making use of your online influence.
I'm not suggesting that people should stick to plant-based diets if they don't work, but I am suggesting that they're the preferable starting place, more so when we don't know the history of the person too well and the cancer is advanced.
Hi Gustavo,
The fact that people have to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume their desired foods shows it’s not without fear and/or guilt. Again, the goal is to unburden ourselves.
I knew why you quoted Gerson, and I mentioned Dr. Morse’s diet because it’s plant-based. I was comparing apples to apples, and all the foods besides fruit that Gerson found conducive to healing exacerbated the cancer in Dr. Morse’s patients so if outcomes can be that different on the same type of diet, I don’t think it unreasonable of me to believe animal foods also conducive to healing.
I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with animal-based diets, just like I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with plant-based diets—as you said, they aren’t infallible—and yet, that doesn’t prevent me from seeing the potential healing on predominantly animal and plant diets.
“As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases.”
When I treated 4 of my loved ones who had cancer, none were given the exact same protocol—3 were plant-based, 1 being Gerson. My mum was the only one whose diet was rich in animal products, and for a specific reason. After developing chronic diarrhea that led to rectal surgery while vegan, she no longer tolerated a plant heavy diet, even juice triggered diarrhea. We emphasized particular animal foods based on her and our family’s history, tissue weaknesses, stats and symptoms, which is why she was on a dairy-based diet and not a meat-based one so no, I don’t defend diets rich in animal products rather than deemphasizing them for particular cases, however, I will give credit where credit is due.
My mum was the only one out of the 4 who survived cancer, but she ultimately succumbed to the pulmonary embolism from the clots she developed after her hysterectomy so I know all too well what it’s like to treat people on the brink of death, and that’s exactly why I apply more than just plant-based and don’t just relying solely on it because I take the time to know people’s history before treating someone where one slip under my care could be fatal. My life for well over a decade now has revolved around trying to help people overcome disease and watching the ones closest to me die so I say what I say not without careful consideration, but with an understanding that I’ve tried to impart on others in hopes that they don’t have to experience it firsthand to “get” it, while knowing the sad reality that some do.
Take care.
Jennifer,
The negotiation is to show that it's difficult to prevent people from seeking the desired foods, they tend to eventually find a way around a restriction.
Regarding Robert Morse, it's another imperfect therapist that agrees on plant predomination. It also shows how easy it was to flexibilize between plants in their cases, but the same degree of limitation could be a hassle in an animal-based diet. For example, an extreme aversion or intolerance to dairy could result in a meat-based (be it with plenty of mollusks) or a something like a high-tallow diet.
It takes defense to bring what's being disfavored (not rejected) to neutrality.
You'll find counterexamples every time, but I've been trying to go by generalizations, whose value is of particular importance when a thorough investigation is not possible, there isn't much time for experimentation, and not many mistakes can be afforded.
I know that you can handle critical health situations well, but only a few people have you around to help interpret the history, question treatments, and propose alternatives while aware of what does and doesn't work. For many, their first contact with discussions on nutrition to reconsider their habits can be after an advanced cancer diagnosis.
The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.
I understand you’ve been trying to go by generalizations, I simply don’t agree that the go-to diet be plant-based (or animal-based). Plant aversions and intolerances also exist so I still think a diet abundant in both plant and animal foods is the best starting point. Finding suitable substitutions is far easier when there is variety to begin with, and then adjustments can be made to suit the individual. Time is of the essence, especially with advanced cases, but even with plant-based, fine-tuning will still likely be needed.
“The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.”
I guess I’ll have to get to finishing my book and opening a retreat center then.
A person under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route is just one more reason why I don’t think the go-to be extreme or else it risks discouraging them just as much as vagueness, and protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based do exist for guidance. And if extremes and vagueness aren’t discouraging enough, there’s the cost of expensive appliances like $2,000+ two-stage juicers, and then the energy it takes for all the juicing, food prep, cleanup etc., energy that the sick often lack.Then there’s food palatability. As you pointed out, it’s difficult to prevent people from seeking desired foods and finding a way around a restriction. A diet is only as effective as one’s adherence to it and even disease is not enough motivation for some to stick to one. Take, for example, Kempner who openly admitted to whipping his patients to adhere to what he described as a “monotonous and tasteless diet which would never become popular” because he thought “the risk to their life was so great that it warranted harshness.”
What it all boils down to is you strongly believe in plant-based and I don’t. I understand why you do, but I’m not as convinced for reasons that are beyond the scope of this conversation, however, it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what the patient believes and if they believe a plant-based protocol is the best option for them, great! Like I said, I wouldn’t pick the treatment my dad chose, but I support his decision.
I’m not adding anything of real value to this discussion so I’ll stop now. Thank you for taking the time to share information and your opinion with me. I appreciate your concern for my dad.
Jennifer,
I'm with you in favoring less structure and more impartiality, but when there is no urgency. Otherwise, the benefit of being resolute with a concrete program based on probability outweighs the risk of malefits from lack of proper individualization.
We could just as well be on the fence with aspirin because of complications from its use, but we take side in recommend it in cancer, and we do so without being overly judicious due to the general positive effect. Someone who doesn't tolerate aspirin well may intuit to shy away from ingesting it again, but we have accounts of people who regain tolerance after minor unintuitive adjustments. The same can apply to a diet with therapeutic potential. It's only after trying and attempting to make it work that I find justified to change the course, unless we're sure in advance that it won't help.
Aspirin was a single example, imagine being impartial to the majority of what's consumed in the name of individuality. The philosophy extends to almost every aspect of the diet, and soon the person is overwhelmed with decisions to make. After all, why would this line of thought stop on one variable?
That same person who is sick, lost and under intense pressure would have to consider hundreds of factors, without much experience, and in a short period because little is defined. Low or high fat? With or without dairy? More or less frequent meals? Minimal or a lot of spices? Normal or high iodine? Nicotinic acid or nicotinamide? To include leaves or not? Cooked or raw? Boiled or steamed? High or low fructose? With or without collagen? Plenty or little carotenoids? To use baking soda or not? Normal or low sodium? Hypo- or isocaloric? Force the metabolic rate up or not? Solids or liquids? Generous or small quantities of fiber? It goes on and it's daunting. Each of these will have someone to argue in support of a neutral stance and nothing concrete ever comes out of it.
The sick can get assistance on protocol tasks, but it's much harder to find in time someone qualified to help to navigate through uncertainty and controversy. We can expect the person to default to convention when no clear alternative is offered.
The copayment of a month of one conventional procedure alone might surpass the value that you mentioned, which can be lowered further if the person adopts an economical version of the program and improvises the tools.
Nevertheless, as Lejeboca pointed out earlier, the person can opt for the standard treatment and still benefit from the sensitizing effect of such diet. People can adhere to a program temporarily, what's tough is to sustain restrictions for decades.
I recall a testimony of a guy who had given up on life, decided to discontinue therapies, but the partner insisted for him to stick to the program despite the lack of motivation. The guy recovered, was doing well next to his family and admitted that he was glad that the partner compensated for his apathy. In a sense, the wife forced him to do it, it was against his will, when his intuition could've led him to bad outcomes. Yes, we also have problems from persistence, but it's another example of how unreliable intuition can be.
You have reasons to be hesitant, but I don't believe in plant-based diets any more than I believe that in cancer we're better off positioning on what's preferable. Until I come across programs based on animal foods appearing more promising than those where plants predominate, I will continue to prioritize the latter.
I've tried to contact the authors without success, but it was concluded in 2016 and it would be interesting to know what they have found.
Hi Gustavo,
Like I said, protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based exist so those who are sick, lost and under intense pressure have guidance or “structure” available to them. Just because they aren’t plant-based, doesn’t mean they aren’t structured, and the factors you listed are factors that still need to be considered with plant-based protocols.
“Until I come across programs based on animal foods appearing more promising than those where plants predominate, I will continue to prioritize the latter.”
I didn’t think otherwise. Your stance on plant-based vs animal-based has been clear to me right along and as I’ve said, I don’t think either should be the go-to diet so I’m not sure why you continue to dispute animal-based as if I’m in favor of it. I acknowledge that it works for some, just like I acknowledge plant-based works for some but again, neither would be my go-to intervention diet.
In my recovery, I’m a soldier at war, I have broken down walls
I defined, I designed, my recovery
In the sound of the sea, in the oceans of me
I defined, I designed, my recovery ~ James Arthur -
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac, I didn’t think you thought it foolish. I was talking about people like my dad. I’m not discounting the importance of diet. I just disagree that plant-based is the best option. The diet you quoted is the standard plant-based diet I see recommended not just by alternative practitioners, but by mainstream, as well. What were the patients’ diets like prior to the treatment with pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, "detoxification" procedures, and an organic diet? Were they of equal quality, i.e., consisting of organic and pastured foods or were they more like a standard western diet? What I typically see is a person develops a disease, in this case cancer, on a standard western diet and then follows a plant-based diet consisting of real food and improves, at least in the short-term. This is not proof to me that a plant-based diet is more healing than a diet equally abundant in both organic and pastured plant and animal foods, especially when I know far more people who have had long-term success with the latter than the former.
I shared to reinforce how recurrent this pattern is between cancer therapists who consider diet an important and manipulable factor.
Intuition was likely a determinant to what people were eating before treatment, although some might have added a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato on occasion to make meals healthy. To not intervene with their core choices, we'd be left with those changes in the quality of ingredients. Take someone who eats a lot of meat and some bread by preference, do you expect that improving the quality of each would be superior to what has been proposed by the mentioned experimenters?
The experimenters may arrive on these therapeutic diets under mainstream influence, but they refine it over time based on results. For a guy like Gerson, who advocated raw liver juice, there would be no problem to incorporate more animal products in the diet had they worked, until they prevailed. Example:
"In Paris, I tried seven cases and I had three results. One of the cases was an older man. He had a cancer of the cecum where the colon starts, 70 years old. Another case was a lady from Armenia. This was a very interesting case. I had to work against the whole family. There were many physicians in the family, and I had plenty of trouble. But, anyway, I came through in that case. She had cancer of the breast which regrew. Every time the family insisted that she was "so much down." She weighed only 78 pounds. She was skin and bones and they wanted me to give her egg yolks. I gave her small amounts of egg yolks—the cancer regrew. Then they insisted that I give her meat, raw chopped meat. I gave her this and the cancer regrew. The third time, they wanted me to give her some oil. I gave her the oil and the third time the cancer regrew. But, anyway, three times I could eliminate the cancer again and cure. And still I had no idea what cancer was. If somebody asked me about the theory, just what it was I was doing, I had to answer, "I don't really know myself."
And imagine the degree of simplification of protocols in not having to go through the hassle of elaborate plant preparation.
I find it unlikely that they would complicate their approaches with something that leads to worse outcomes in spite of being open to trying alternatives.
Nevertheless, how often do we read observations of positive effects associated with animal products consumption in cancer? Most of them are either neutral or negative, perhaps with a few exceptions (such as some dairy products). But when it comes to plant foods, we start to find neutral to positive effects far more often.
I can only congratulate you for going from Prismacolor to Applegate.
I can’t answer that with confidence because I can’t say I agree that intuition was likely a determinant—and a fear and guilt free one at that, since that’s a key point to unburdening ourselves and healing—given we are regularly bombarded with health and dietary propaganda. What I can say is I don’t believe meat and wheat are inherently disease promoting.
I don’t doubt Gerson’s findings, but I know plenty that contradict them. For instance, Dr. Morse found that any plant other than fruit would make his patients’ tumors grow, and Anita Moorjani’s cancer went into remission on an Ayurvedic protocol abundant in dairy and again on a Chinese medicine protocol abundant in meat, then while following a plant-based protocol she developed lemon-sized tumors down her spine and died, then came back to life and had a spontaneous healing while consuming ice cream. Then there’s my mum’s positive experience with a dairy-based diet, and I had another family member whose tumor grew to the size of a soft-ball on a Gerson diet and shrunk when he was put on a beef and rice diet temporarily to stop the chronic diarrhea the Gerson diet was causing. There’s also the positive accounts I’ve read from people following the Milk Cure and the Carnivore diet. There are a series of laboratory and animal studies showing that trans-vaccenic acid, a long-chain fatty acid found in the meat and dairy of grazing ruminants, promoted the destruction of certain types of cancer cells so perhaps that’s a factor?
By Applegate, are you referring to my hot dog bender back in February? If so, plot twist—my diet has been plant-based/vegetarian since March. These days, Chiquita would be a more fitting sponsor.
Jennifer,
People tend to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume the desired foods in one way or another, in special in parts of the world where nutritional campaigns are not as forceful as in the US. The two foods used as example don't inherently promote disease, but we can't count on their consumption to do much in helping to revert the situation of someone with cancer.
Fruits à la Robert Morse would be plant-based eating. The stories that you shared might have been to contrast Gerson's account. I quoted him not to rely on isolated cases, but to point out that he was willing to yield and would probably incorporate more animals products if he perceived benefit, and it wouldn't conflict with a diet that already included them. But again, he's only one of the many that agree on this aspect.
It doesn't apply to your examples, but part of the cases that don't do well on plant foods could do worse if they made their diets rich in animal products.
As a side note, I occasionally come across critics of Gerson—whose approach shouldn't work for everyone—but try to ask them what they propose instead. It's often very disappointing. And they're not constantly confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal.
Milk or carnivore diets would be extreme interventions, just like fasting and the positive stories from it. Sometimes drastic changes are capable of turning things around, but they're not reliable or founded enough to model.
Animal-based diets are typically richer in protein, fat, and growth factors.
Exceeding on protein is easy with such diets, leading to an undesirable exposure to extra glutamine and glutamate, arginine, tryptophan, methionine, cysteine, serine, aspartate, asparagine, BCAAs, methylcobalamin, phospholipids, nucleotides, and more.
With fats, it's complicated..
- The Modulatory Effects of Fatty Acids on Cancer Progression
- Dietary Fat and Cancer—Which Is Good, Which Is Bad, and the Body of Evidence
..but in an optimistic scenario, they're still poor in micronutrients and would be displacing other foods.
I don't know about trans-vaccenic acid, but if someone meets a great deal of energy needs through animal products, the person is reducing the exposure to a combination of anti-cancer compounds that occur primarily in plants. We could list 10 substances derived from plants for each protective animal-sourced substance that's brought to the table. Caffeine, salicylic acid, emodin, baicalein, curcumin, apigenin, quercetin, narigenin, fisetin, kaempferol.. They're not found in pharmacological amounts, but can cooperate. They can also be present in either diet, but plants as staples will be additional.
Depending on where a public is sampled, there can be more of the undernourished cases with a past of dietary restrictions that tend to benefit the most from anabolic foods, but this may not reflect the general state of the population macronutrient-wise. The therapeutic gap that you have with animal products for most people is narrower than apparent because animal foods are already consumed and sometimes in excess.
This gets further complicated when direct manipulation of the diet is not an option for treating it as a consequence. Yet, cravings can be driven by a single nutrient in a food, making us neglect the problematic components and consume what's already adequate in surplus to get the right amount of the sought factor. If this missing factor occurs in something like orange juice, it's no big deal, but it's more concerning if it's in a steak or eggs and someone with a tumor.
As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases. The sponsorship is there independent of what you're eating (you were eating dogs?), it's a matter of figuring out which company is making use of your online influence.
I'm not suggesting that people should stick to plant-based diets if they don't work, but I am suggesting that they're the preferable starting place, more so when we don't know the history of the person too well and the cancer is advanced.
Hi Gustavo,
The fact that people have to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume their desired foods shows it’s not without fear and/or guilt. Again, the goal is to unburden ourselves.
I knew why you quoted Gerson, and I mentioned Dr. Morse’s diet because it’s plant-based. I was comparing apples to apples, and all the foods besides fruit that Gerson found conducive to healing exacerbated the cancer in Dr. Morse’s patients so if outcomes can be that different on the same type of diet, I don’t think it unreasonable of me to believe animal foods also conducive to healing.
I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with animal-based diets, just like I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with plant-based diets—as you said, they aren’t infallible—and yet, that doesn’t prevent me from seeing the potential healing on predominantly animal and plant diets.
“As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases.”
When I treated 4 of my loved ones who had cancer, none were given the exact same protocol—3 were plant-based, 1 being Gerson. My mum was the only one whose diet was rich in animal products, and for a specific reason. After developing chronic diarrhea that led to rectal surgery while vegan, she no longer tolerated a plant heavy diet, even juice triggered diarrhea. We emphasized particular animal foods based on her and our family’s history, tissue weaknesses, stats and symptoms, which is why she was on a dairy-based diet and not a meat-based one so no, I don’t defend diets rich in animal products rather than deemphasizing them for particular cases, however, I will give credit where credit is due.
My mum was the only one out of the 4 who survived cancer, but she ultimately succumbed to the pulmonary embolism from the clots she developed after her hysterectomy so I know all too well what it’s like to treat people on the brink of death, and that’s exactly why I apply more than just plant-based and don’t just relying solely on it because I take the time to know people’s history before treating someone where one slip under my care could be fatal. My life for well over a decade now has revolved around trying to help people overcome disease and watching the ones closest to me die so I say what I say not without careful consideration, but with an understanding that I’ve tried to impart on others in hopes that they don’t have to experience it firsthand to “get” it, while knowing the sad reality that some do.
Take care.
Jennifer,
The negotiation is to show that it's difficult to prevent people from seeking the desired foods, they tend to eventually find a way around a restriction.
Regarding Robert Morse, it's another imperfect therapist that agrees on plant predomination. It also shows how easy it was to flexibilize between plants in their cases, but the same degree of limitation could be a hassle in an animal-based diet. For example, an extreme aversion or intolerance to dairy could result in a meat-based (be it with plenty of mollusks) or a something like a high-tallow diet.
It takes defense to bring what's being disfavored (not rejected) to neutrality.
You'll find counterexamples every time, but I've been trying to go by generalizations, whose value is of particular importance when a thorough investigation is not possible, there isn't much time for experimentation, and not many mistakes can be afforded.
I know that you can handle critical health situations well, but only a few people have you around to help interpret the history, question treatments, and propose alternatives while aware of what does and doesn't work. For many, their first contact with discussions on nutrition to reconsider their habits can be after an advanced cancer diagnosis.
The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.
I understand you’ve been trying to go by generalizations, I simply don’t agree that the go-to diet be plant-based (or animal-based). Plant aversions and intolerances also exist so I still think a diet abundant in both plant and animal foods is the best starting point. Finding suitable substitutions is far easier when there is variety to begin with, and then adjustments can be made to suit the individual. Time is of the essence, especially with advanced cases, but even with plant-based, fine-tuning will still likely be needed.
“The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.”
I guess I’ll have to get to finishing my book and opening a retreat center then.
A person under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route is just one more reason why I don’t think the go-to be extreme or else it risks discouraging them just as much as vagueness, and protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based do exist for guidance. And if extremes and vagueness aren’t discouraging enough, there’s the cost of expensive appliances like $2,000+ two-stage juicers, and then the energy it takes for all the juicing, food prep, cleanup etc., energy that the sick often lack.Then there’s food palatability. As you pointed out, it’s difficult to prevent people from seeking desired foods and finding a way around a restriction. A diet is only as effective as one’s adherence to it and even disease is not enough motivation for some to stick to one. Take, for example, Kempner who openly admitted to whipping his patients to adhere to what he described as a “monotonous and tasteless diet which would never become popular” because he thought “the risk to their life was so great that it warranted harshness.”
What it all boils down to is you strongly believe in plant-based and I don’t. I understand why you do, but I’m not as convinced for reasons that are beyond the scope of this conversation, however, it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what the patient believes and if they believe a plant-based protocol is the best option for them, great! Like I said, I wouldn’t pick the treatment my dad chose, but I support his decision.
I’m not adding anything of real value to this discussion so I’ll stop now. Thank you for taking the time to share information and your opinion with me. I appreciate your concern for my dad.
Jennifer,
I'm with you in favoring less structure and more impartiality, but when there is no urgency. Otherwise, the benefit of being resolute with a concrete program based on probability outweighs the risk of malefits from lack of proper individualization.
We could just as well be on the fence with aspirin because of complications from its use, but we take side in recommend it in cancer, and we do so without being overly judicious due to the general positive effect. Someone who doesn't tolerate aspirin well may intuit to shy away from ingesting it again, but we have accounts of people who regain tolerance after minor unintuitive adjustments. The same can apply to a diet with therapeutic potential. It's only after trying and attempting to make it work that I find justified to change the course, unless we're sure in advance that it won't help.
Aspirin was a single example, imagine being impartial to the majority of what's consumed in the name of individuality. The philosophy extends to almost every aspect of the diet, and soon the person is overwhelmed with decisions to make. After all, why would this line of thought stop on one variable?
That same person who is sick, lost and under intense pressure would have to consider hundreds of factors, without much experience, and in a short period because little is defined. Low or high fat? With or without dairy? More or less frequent meals? Minimal or a lot of spices? Normal or high iodine? Nicotinic acid or nicotinamide? To include leaves or not? Cooked or raw? Boiled or steamed? High or low fructose? With or without collagen? Plenty or little carotenoids? To use baking soda or not? Normal or low sodium? Hypo- or isocaloric? Force the metabolic rate up or not? Solids or liquids? Generous or small quantities of fiber? It goes on and it's daunting. Each of these will have someone to argue in support of a neutral stance and nothing concrete ever comes out of it.
The sick can get assistance on protocol tasks, but it's much harder to find in time someone qualified to help to navigate through uncertainty and controversy. We can expect the person to default to convention when no clear alternative is offered.
The copayment of a month of one conventional procedure alone might surpass the value that you mentioned, which can be lowered further if the person adopts an economical version of the program and improvises the tools.
Nevertheless, as Lejeboca pointed out earlier, the person can opt for the standard treatment and still benefit from the sensitizing effect of such diet. People can adhere to a program temporarily, what's tough is to sustain restrictions for decades.
I recall a testimony of a guy who had given up on life, decided to discontinue therapies, but the partner insisted for him to stick to the program despite the lack of motivation. The guy recovered, was doing well next to his family and admitted that he was glad that the partner compensated for his apathy. In a sense, the wife forced him to do it, it was against his will, when his intuition could've led him to bad outcomes. Yes, we also have problems from persistence, but it's another example of how unreliable intuition can be.
You have reasons to be hesitant, but I don't believe in plant-based diets any more than I believe that in cancer we're better off positioning on what's preferable. Until I come across programs based on animal foods appearing more promising than those where plants predominate, I will continue to prioritize the latter.
I've tried to contact the authors without success, but it was concluded in 2016 and it would be interesting to know what they have found.
Hi Gustavo,
Like I said, protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based exist so those who are sick, lost and under intense pressure have guidance or “structure” available to them. Just because they aren’t plant-based, doesn’t mean they aren’t structured, and the factors you listed are factors that still need to be considered with plant-based protocols.
“Until I come across programs based on animal foods appearing more promising than those where plants predominate, I will continue to prioritize the latter.”
I didn’t think otherwise. Your stance on plant-based vs animal-based has been clear to me right along and as I’ve said, I don’t think either should be the go-to diet so I’m not sure why you continue to dispute animal-based as if I’m in favor of it. I acknowledge that it works for some, just like I acknowledge plant-based works for some but again, neither would be my go-to intervention diet.
Jennifer,
I acknowledge your neutral stance, but it's difficult to devise a clear protocol if we're consistent to apply this neutrality to the majority of aspects. And why wouldn't we? Each time someone can jump in with the same counterarguments, compelling us to leave it open to include everyone.
- "Low or normal protein?"
- "To supplement acetate or limit to gut-sourced?"
- "Thiamin in high or moderate doses?"
- "Oral or topical supplementation?"
- "Modest or abundant sunlight exposure?"
- "To exercise or seek rest?"
- "Synthetic or only natural vitamin C?
- "Whole-body or local hyperthermia?"
- "Excise the tumor or not?"
- "Probiotics use or avoidance?"
Answering 'do what suits you' to a pile of dilemmas is impractical. We would need an intimidating algorithm for someone to go through it with marked dependence on intuition and expecting extensive experimentation to resolve everything that's undefined.
For one factor to spark so much debate reinforces the point that hundreds on them would overwhelm the person. To have a new protocol for every change is not feasible.
It seems better to position in each branch as well as possible and let experience dictate the instances where it's worth doing otherwise.
We're not arguing on extremes, but you find that it's more problematic for the approach to be partial than impartial, whereas I think the opposite. But if I couldn't convince you yet, I don't believe that I will. Never mind, Jennifer.
-
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac, I didn’t think you thought it foolish. I was talking about people like my dad. I’m not discounting the importance of diet. I just disagree that plant-based is the best option. The diet you quoted is the standard plant-based diet I see recommended not just by alternative practitioners, but by mainstream, as well. What were the patients’ diets like prior to the treatment with pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, "detoxification" procedures, and an organic diet? Were they of equal quality, i.e., consisting of organic and pastured foods or were they more like a standard western diet? What I typically see is a person develops a disease, in this case cancer, on a standard western diet and then follows a plant-based diet consisting of real food and improves, at least in the short-term. This is not proof to me that a plant-based diet is more healing than a diet equally abundant in both organic and pastured plant and animal foods, especially when I know far more people who have had long-term success with the latter than the former.
I shared to reinforce how recurrent this pattern is between cancer therapists who consider diet an important and manipulable factor.
Intuition was likely a determinant to what people were eating before treatment, although some might have added a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato on occasion to make meals healthy. To not intervene with their core choices, we'd be left with those changes in the quality of ingredients. Take someone who eats a lot of meat and some bread by preference, do you expect that improving the quality of each would be superior to what has been proposed by the mentioned experimenters?
The experimenters may arrive on these therapeutic diets under mainstream influence, but they refine it over time based on results. For a guy like Gerson, who advocated raw liver juice, there would be no problem to incorporate more animal products in the diet had they worked, until they prevailed. Example:
"In Paris, I tried seven cases and I had three results. One of the cases was an older man. He had a cancer of the cecum where the colon starts, 70 years old. Another case was a lady from Armenia. This was a very interesting case. I had to work against the whole family. There were many physicians in the family, and I had plenty of trouble. But, anyway, I came through in that case. She had cancer of the breast which regrew. Every time the family insisted that she was "so much down." She weighed only 78 pounds. She was skin and bones and they wanted me to give her egg yolks. I gave her small amounts of egg yolks—the cancer regrew. Then they insisted that I give her meat, raw chopped meat. I gave her this and the cancer regrew. The third time, they wanted me to give her some oil. I gave her the oil and the third time the cancer regrew. But, anyway, three times I could eliminate the cancer again and cure. And still I had no idea what cancer was. If somebody asked me about the theory, just what it was I was doing, I had to answer, "I don't really know myself."
And imagine the degree of simplification of protocols in not having to go through the hassle of elaborate plant preparation.
I find it unlikely that they would complicate their approaches with something that leads to worse outcomes in spite of being open to trying alternatives.
Nevertheless, how often do we read observations of positive effects associated with animal products consumption in cancer? Most of them are either neutral or negative, perhaps with a few exceptions (such as some dairy products). But when it comes to plant foods, we start to find neutral to positive effects far more often.
I can only congratulate you for going from Prismacolor to Applegate.
I can’t answer that with confidence because I can’t say I agree that intuition was likely a determinant—and a fear and guilt free one at that, since that’s a key point to unburdening ourselves and healing—given we are regularly bombarded with health and dietary propaganda. What I can say is I don’t believe meat and wheat are inherently disease promoting.
I don’t doubt Gerson’s findings, but I know plenty that contradict them. For instance, Dr. Morse found that any plant other than fruit would make his patients’ tumors grow, and Anita Moorjani’s cancer went into remission on an Ayurvedic protocol abundant in dairy and again on a Chinese medicine protocol abundant in meat, then while following a plant-based protocol she developed lemon-sized tumors down her spine and died, then came back to life and had a spontaneous healing while consuming ice cream. Then there’s my mum’s positive experience with a dairy-based diet, and I had another family member whose tumor grew to the size of a soft-ball on a Gerson diet and shrunk when he was put on a beef and rice diet temporarily to stop the chronic diarrhea the Gerson diet was causing. There’s also the positive accounts I’ve read from people following the Milk Cure and the Carnivore diet. There are a series of laboratory and animal studies showing that trans-vaccenic acid, a long-chain fatty acid found in the meat and dairy of grazing ruminants, promoted the destruction of certain types of cancer cells so perhaps that’s a factor?
By Applegate, are you referring to my hot dog bender back in February? If so, plot twist—my diet has been plant-based/vegetarian since March. These days, Chiquita would be a more fitting sponsor.
Jennifer,
People tend to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume the desired foods in one way or another, in special in parts of the world where nutritional campaigns are not as forceful as in the US. The two foods used as example don't inherently promote disease, but we can't count on their consumption to do much in helping to revert the situation of someone with cancer.
Fruits à la Robert Morse would be plant-based eating. The stories that you shared might have been to contrast Gerson's account. I quoted him not to rely on isolated cases, but to point out that he was willing to yield and would probably incorporate more animals products if he perceived benefit, and it wouldn't conflict with a diet that already included them. But again, he's only one of the many that agree on this aspect.
It doesn't apply to your examples, but part of the cases that don't do well on plant foods could do worse if they made their diets rich in animal products.
As a side note, I occasionally come across critics of Gerson—whose approach shouldn't work for everyone—but try to ask them what they propose instead. It's often very disappointing. And they're not constantly confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal.
Milk or carnivore diets would be extreme interventions, just like fasting and the positive stories from it. Sometimes drastic changes are capable of turning things around, but they're not reliable or founded enough to model.
Animal-based diets are typically richer in protein, fat, and growth factors.
Exceeding on protein is easy with such diets, leading to an undesirable exposure to extra glutamine and glutamate, arginine, tryptophan, methionine, cysteine, serine, aspartate, asparagine, BCAAs, methylcobalamin, phospholipids, nucleotides, and more.
With fats, it's complicated..
- The Modulatory Effects of Fatty Acids on Cancer Progression
- Dietary Fat and Cancer—Which Is Good, Which Is Bad, and the Body of Evidence
..but in an optimistic scenario, they're still poor in micronutrients and would be displacing other foods.
I don't know about trans-vaccenic acid, but if someone meets a great deal of energy needs through animal products, the person is reducing the exposure to a combination of anti-cancer compounds that occur primarily in plants. We could list 10 substances derived from plants for each protective animal-sourced substance that's brought to the table. Caffeine, salicylic acid, emodin, baicalein, curcumin, apigenin, quercetin, narigenin, fisetin, kaempferol.. They're not found in pharmacological amounts, but can cooperate. They can also be present in either diet, but plants as staples will be additional.
Depending on where a public is sampled, there can be more of the undernourished cases with a past of dietary restrictions that tend to benefit the most from anabolic foods, but this may not reflect the general state of the population macronutrient-wise. The therapeutic gap that you have with animal products for most people is narrower than apparent because animal foods are already consumed and sometimes in excess.
This gets further complicated when direct manipulation of the diet is not an option for treating it as a consequence. Yet, cravings can be driven by a single nutrient in a food, making us neglect the problematic components and consume what's already adequate in surplus to get the right amount of the sought factor. If this missing factor occurs in something like orange juice, it's no big deal, but it's more concerning if it's in a steak or eggs and someone with a tumor.
As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases. The sponsorship is there independent of what you're eating (you were eating dogs?), it's a matter of figuring out which company is making use of your online influence.
I'm not suggesting that people should stick to plant-based diets if they don't work, but I am suggesting that they're the preferable starting place, more so when we don't know the history of the person too well and the cancer is advanced.
Hi Gustavo,
The fact that people have to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume their desired foods shows it’s not without fear and/or guilt. Again, the goal is to unburden ourselves.
I knew why you quoted Gerson, and I mentioned Dr. Morse’s diet because it’s plant-based. I was comparing apples to apples, and all the foods besides fruit that Gerson found conducive to healing exacerbated the cancer in Dr. Morse’s patients so if outcomes can be that different on the same type of diet, I don’t think it unreasonable of me to believe animal foods also conducive to healing.
I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with animal-based diets, just like I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with plant-based diets—as you said, they aren’t infallible—and yet, that doesn’t prevent me from seeing the potential healing on predominantly animal and plant diets.
“As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases.”
When I treated 4 of my loved ones who had cancer, none were given the exact same protocol—3 were plant-based, 1 being Gerson. My mum was the only one whose diet was rich in animal products, and for a specific reason. After developing chronic diarrhea that led to rectal surgery while vegan, she no longer tolerated a plant heavy diet, even juice triggered diarrhea. We emphasized particular animal foods based on her and our family’s history, tissue weaknesses, stats and symptoms, which is why she was on a dairy-based diet and not a meat-based one so no, I don’t defend diets rich in animal products rather than deemphasizing them for particular cases, however, I will give credit where credit is due.
My mum was the only one out of the 4 who survived cancer, but she ultimately succumbed to the pulmonary embolism from the clots she developed after her hysterectomy so I know all too well what it’s like to treat people on the brink of death, and that’s exactly why I apply more than just plant-based and don’t just relying solely on it because I take the time to know people’s history before treating someone where one slip under my care could be fatal. My life for well over a decade now has revolved around trying to help people overcome disease and watching the ones closest to me die so I say what I say not without careful consideration, but with an understanding that I’ve tried to impart on others in hopes that they don’t have to experience it firsthand to “get” it, while knowing the sad reality that some do.
Take care.
Jennifer,
The negotiation is to show that it's difficult to prevent people from seeking the desired foods, they tend to eventually find a way around a restriction.
Regarding Robert Morse, it's another imperfect therapist that agrees on plant predomination. It also shows how easy it was to flexibilize between plants in their cases, but the same degree of limitation could be a hassle in an animal-based diet. For example, an extreme aversion or intolerance to dairy could result in a meat-based (be it with plenty of mollusks) or a something like a high-tallow diet.
It takes defense to bring what's being disfavored (not rejected) to neutrality.
You'll find counterexamples every time, but I've been trying to go by generalizations, whose value is of particular importance when a thorough investigation is not possible, there isn't much time for experimentation, and not many mistakes can be afforded.
I know that you can handle critical health situations well, but only a few people have you around to help interpret the history, question treatments, and propose alternatives while aware of what does and doesn't work. For many, their first contact with discussions on nutrition to reconsider their habits can be after an advanced cancer diagnosis.
The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.
I understand you’ve been trying to go by generalizations, I simply don’t agree that the go-to diet be plant-based (or animal-based). Plant aversions and intolerances also exist so I still think a diet abundant in both plant and animal foods is the best starting point. Finding suitable substitutions is far easier when there is variety to begin with, and then adjustments can be made to suit the individual. Time is of the essence, especially with advanced cases, but even with plant-based, fine-tuning will still likely be needed.
“The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.”
I guess I’ll have to get to finishing my book and opening a retreat center then.
A person under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route is just one more reason why I don’t think the go-to be extreme or else it risks discouraging them just as much as vagueness, and protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based do exist for guidance. And if extremes and vagueness aren’t discouraging enough, there’s the cost of expensive appliances like $2,000+ two-stage juicers, and then the energy it takes for all the juicing, food prep, cleanup etc., energy that the sick often lack.Then there’s food palatability. As you pointed out, it’s difficult to prevent people from seeking desired foods and finding a way around a restriction. A diet is only as effective as one’s adherence to it and even disease is not enough motivation for some to stick to one. Take, for example, Kempner who openly admitted to whipping his patients to adhere to what he described as a “monotonous and tasteless diet which would never become popular” because he thought “the risk to their life was so great that it warranted harshness.”
What it all boils down to is you strongly believe in plant-based and I don’t. I understand why you do, but I’m not as convinced for reasons that are beyond the scope of this conversation, however, it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what the patient believes and if they believe a plant-based protocol is the best option for them, great! Like I said, I wouldn’t pick the treatment my dad chose, but I support his decision.
I’m not adding anything of real value to this discussion so I’ll stop now. Thank you for taking the time to share information and your opinion with me. I appreciate your concern for my dad.
Jennifer,
I'm with you in favoring less structure and more impartiality, but when there is no urgency. Otherwise, the benefit of being resolute with a concrete program based on probability outweighs the risk of malefits from lack of proper individualization.
We could just as well be on the fence with aspirin because of complications from its use, but we take side in recommend it in cancer, and we do so without being overly judicious due to the general positive effect. Someone who doesn't tolerate aspirin well may intuit to shy away from ingesting it again, but we have accounts of people who regain tolerance after minor unintuitive adjustments. The same can apply to a diet with therapeutic potential. It's only after trying and attempting to make it work that I find justified to change the course, unless we're sure in advance that it won't help.
Aspirin was a single example, imagine being impartial to the majority of what's consumed in the name of individuality. The philosophy extends to almost every aspect of the diet, and soon the person is overwhelmed with decisions to make. After all, why would this line of thought stop on one variable?
That same person who is sick, lost and under intense pressure would have to consider hundreds of factors, without much experience, and in a short period because little is defined. Low or high fat? With or without dairy? More or less frequent meals? Minimal or a lot of spices? Normal or high iodine? Nicotinic acid or nicotinamide? To include leaves or not? Cooked or raw? Boiled or steamed? High or low fructose? With or without collagen? Plenty or little carotenoids? To use baking soda or not? Normal or low sodium? Hypo- or isocaloric? Force the metabolic rate up or not? Solids or liquids? Generous or small quantities of fiber? It goes on and it's daunting. Each of these will have someone to argue in support of a neutral stance and nothing concrete ever comes out of it.
The sick can get assistance on protocol tasks, but it's much harder to find in time someone qualified to help to navigate through uncertainty and controversy. We can expect the person to default to convention when no clear alternative is offered.
The copayment of a month of one conventional procedure alone might surpass the value that you mentioned, which can be lowered further if the person adopts an economical version of the program and improvises the tools.
Nevertheless, as Lejeboca pointed out earlier, the person can opt for the standard treatment and still benefit from the sensitizing effect of such diet. People can adhere to a program temporarily, what's tough is to sustain restrictions for decades.
I recall a testimony of a guy who had given up on life, decided to discontinue therapies, but the partner insisted for him to stick to the program despite the lack of motivation. The guy recovered, was doing well next to his family and admitted that he was glad that the partner compensated for his apathy. In a sense, the wife forced him to do it, it was against his will, when his intuition could've led him to bad outcomes. Yes, we also have problems from persistence, but it's another example of how unreliable intuition can be.
You have reasons to be hesitant, but I don't believe in plant-based diets any more than I believe that in cancer we're better off positioning on what's preferable. Until I come across programs based on animal foods appearing more promising than those where plants predominate, I will continue to prioritize the latter.
I've tried to contact the authors without success, but it was concluded in 2016 and it would be interesting to know what they have found.
Hi Gustavo,
Like I said, protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based exist so those who are sick, lost and under intense pressure have guidance or “structure” available to them. Just because they aren’t plant-based, doesn’t mean they aren’t structured, and the factors you listed are factors that still need to be considered with plant-based protocols.
“Until I come across programs based on animal foods appearing more promising than those where plants predominate, I will continue to prioritize the latter.”
I didn’t think otherwise. Your stance on plant-based vs animal-based has been clear to me right along and as I’ve said, I don’t think either should be the go-to diet so I’m not sure why you continue to dispute animal-based as if I’m in favor of it. I acknowledge that it works for some, just like I acknowledge plant-based works for some but again, neither would be my go-to intervention diet.
Jennifer,
I acknowledge your neutral stance, but it's difficult to devise a clear protocol if we're consistent to apply this neutrality to the majority of aspects. And why wouldn't we? Each time someone can jump in with the same counterarguments, compelling us to leave it open to include everyone.
- "Low or normal protein?"
- "To supplement acetate or limit to gut-sourced?"
- "Thiamin in high or moderate doses?"
- "Oral or topical supplementation?"
- "Modest or abundant sunlight exposure?"
- "To exercise or seek rest?"
- "Synthetic or only natural vitamin C?
- "Whole-body or local hyperthermia?"
- "Excise the tumor or not?"
- "Probiotics use or avoidance?"
Answering 'do what suits you' to a pile of dilemmas is impractical. We would need an intimidating algorithm for someone to go through it with marked dependence on intuition and expecting extensive experimentation to resolve everything that's undefined.
For one factor to spark so much debate reinforces the point that hundreds on them would overwhelm the person. To have a new protocol for every change is not feasible.
It seems better to position in each branch as well as possible and let experience dictate the instances where it's worth doing otherwise.
We're not arguing on extremes, but you find that it's more problematic for the approach to be partial than impartial, whereas I think the opposite. But if I couldn't convince you yet, I don't believe that I will. Never mind, Jennifer.
Gustavo, my “neutral stance,” whatever that means, is irrelevant to what I wrote. Protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based have already been devised so as difficult as you think it is to do, it has been done. The same level of experimentation, customization and structure that applies to plant-based and animal-based protocols also applies to protocols abundant in both plant and animal foods. They have their own set of guidelines based on experience working with patients, just like Gerson, Budwig, Morse, Esselstyn, Reams etc. each have their own findings and thus their own guidelines.
In my recovery, I’m a soldier at war, I have broken down walls
I defined, I designed, my recovery
In the sound of the sea, in the oceans of me
I defined, I designed, my recovery ~ James Arthur -
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac, I didn’t think you thought it foolish. I was talking about people like my dad. I’m not discounting the importance of diet. I just disagree that plant-based is the best option. The diet you quoted is the standard plant-based diet I see recommended not just by alternative practitioners, but by mainstream, as well. What were the patients’ diets like prior to the treatment with pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, "detoxification" procedures, and an organic diet? Were they of equal quality, i.e., consisting of organic and pastured foods or were they more like a standard western diet? What I typically see is a person develops a disease, in this case cancer, on a standard western diet and then follows a plant-based diet consisting of real food and improves, at least in the short-term. This is not proof to me that a plant-based diet is more healing than a diet equally abundant in both organic and pastured plant and animal foods, especially when I know far more people who have had long-term success with the latter than the former.
I shared to reinforce how recurrent this pattern is between cancer therapists who consider diet an important and manipulable factor.
Intuition was likely a determinant to what people were eating before treatment, although some might have added a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato on occasion to make meals healthy. To not intervene with their core choices, we'd be left with those changes in the quality of ingredients. Take someone who eats a lot of meat and some bread by preference, do you expect that improving the quality of each would be superior to what has been proposed by the mentioned experimenters?
The experimenters may arrive on these therapeutic diets under mainstream influence, but they refine it over time based on results. For a guy like Gerson, who advocated raw liver juice, there would be no problem to incorporate more animal products in the diet had they worked, until they prevailed. Example:
"In Paris, I tried seven cases and I had three results. One of the cases was an older man. He had a cancer of the cecum where the colon starts, 70 years old. Another case was a lady from Armenia. This was a very interesting case. I had to work against the whole family. There were many physicians in the family, and I had plenty of trouble. But, anyway, I came through in that case. She had cancer of the breast which regrew. Every time the family insisted that she was "so much down." She weighed only 78 pounds. She was skin and bones and they wanted me to give her egg yolks. I gave her small amounts of egg yolks—the cancer regrew. Then they insisted that I give her meat, raw chopped meat. I gave her this and the cancer regrew. The third time, they wanted me to give her some oil. I gave her the oil and the third time the cancer regrew. But, anyway, three times I could eliminate the cancer again and cure. And still I had no idea what cancer was. If somebody asked me about the theory, just what it was I was doing, I had to answer, "I don't really know myself."
And imagine the degree of simplification of protocols in not having to go through the hassle of elaborate plant preparation.
I find it unlikely that they would complicate their approaches with something that leads to worse outcomes in spite of being open to trying alternatives.
Nevertheless, how often do we read observations of positive effects associated with animal products consumption in cancer? Most of them are either neutral or negative, perhaps with a few exceptions (such as some dairy products). But when it comes to plant foods, we start to find neutral to positive effects far more often.
I can only congratulate you for going from Prismacolor to Applegate.
I can’t answer that with confidence because I can’t say I agree that intuition was likely a determinant—and a fear and guilt free one at that, since that’s a key point to unburdening ourselves and healing—given we are regularly bombarded with health and dietary propaganda. What I can say is I don’t believe meat and wheat are inherently disease promoting.
I don’t doubt Gerson’s findings, but I know plenty that contradict them. For instance, Dr. Morse found that any plant other than fruit would make his patients’ tumors grow, and Anita Moorjani’s cancer went into remission on an Ayurvedic protocol abundant in dairy and again on a Chinese medicine protocol abundant in meat, then while following a plant-based protocol she developed lemon-sized tumors down her spine and died, then came back to life and had a spontaneous healing while consuming ice cream. Then there’s my mum’s positive experience with a dairy-based diet, and I had another family member whose tumor grew to the size of a soft-ball on a Gerson diet and shrunk when he was put on a beef and rice diet temporarily to stop the chronic diarrhea the Gerson diet was causing. There’s also the positive accounts I’ve read from people following the Milk Cure and the Carnivore diet. There are a series of laboratory and animal studies showing that trans-vaccenic acid, a long-chain fatty acid found in the meat and dairy of grazing ruminants, promoted the destruction of certain types of cancer cells so perhaps that’s a factor?
By Applegate, are you referring to my hot dog bender back in February? If so, plot twist—my diet has been plant-based/vegetarian since March. These days, Chiquita would be a more fitting sponsor.
Jennifer,
People tend to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume the desired foods in one way or another, in special in parts of the world where nutritional campaigns are not as forceful as in the US. The two foods used as example don't inherently promote disease, but we can't count on their consumption to do much in helping to revert the situation of someone with cancer.
Fruits à la Robert Morse would be plant-based eating. The stories that you shared might have been to contrast Gerson's account. I quoted him not to rely on isolated cases, but to point out that he was willing to yield and would probably incorporate more animals products if he perceived benefit, and it wouldn't conflict with a diet that already included them. But again, he's only one of the many that agree on this aspect.
It doesn't apply to your examples, but part of the cases that don't do well on plant foods could do worse if they made their diets rich in animal products.
As a side note, I occasionally come across critics of Gerson—whose approach shouldn't work for everyone—but try to ask them what they propose instead. It's often very disappointing. And they're not constantly confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal.
Milk or carnivore diets would be extreme interventions, just like fasting and the positive stories from it. Sometimes drastic changes are capable of turning things around, but they're not reliable or founded enough to model.
Animal-based diets are typically richer in protein, fat, and growth factors.
Exceeding on protein is easy with such diets, leading to an undesirable exposure to extra glutamine and glutamate, arginine, tryptophan, methionine, cysteine, serine, aspartate, asparagine, BCAAs, methylcobalamin, phospholipids, nucleotides, and more.
With fats, it's complicated..
- The Modulatory Effects of Fatty Acids on Cancer Progression
- Dietary Fat and Cancer—Which Is Good, Which Is Bad, and the Body of Evidence
..but in an optimistic scenario, they're still poor in micronutrients and would be displacing other foods.
I don't know about trans-vaccenic acid, but if someone meets a great deal of energy needs through animal products, the person is reducing the exposure to a combination of anti-cancer compounds that occur primarily in plants. We could list 10 substances derived from plants for each protective animal-sourced substance that's brought to the table. Caffeine, salicylic acid, emodin, baicalein, curcumin, apigenin, quercetin, narigenin, fisetin, kaempferol.. They're not found in pharmacological amounts, but can cooperate. They can also be present in either diet, but plants as staples will be additional.
Depending on where a public is sampled, there can be more of the undernourished cases with a past of dietary restrictions that tend to benefit the most from anabolic foods, but this may not reflect the general state of the population macronutrient-wise. The therapeutic gap that you have with animal products for most people is narrower than apparent because animal foods are already consumed and sometimes in excess.
This gets further complicated when direct manipulation of the diet is not an option for treating it as a consequence. Yet, cravings can be driven by a single nutrient in a food, making us neglect the problematic components and consume what's already adequate in surplus to get the right amount of the sought factor. If this missing factor occurs in something like orange juice, it's no big deal, but it's more concerning if it's in a steak or eggs and someone with a tumor.
As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases. The sponsorship is there independent of what you're eating (you were eating dogs?), it's a matter of figuring out which company is making use of your online influence.
I'm not suggesting that people should stick to plant-based diets if they don't work, but I am suggesting that they're the preferable starting place, more so when we don't know the history of the person too well and the cancer is advanced.
Hi Gustavo,
The fact that people have to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume their desired foods shows it’s not without fear and/or guilt. Again, the goal is to unburden ourselves.
I knew why you quoted Gerson, and I mentioned Dr. Morse’s diet because it’s plant-based. I was comparing apples to apples, and all the foods besides fruit that Gerson found conducive to healing exacerbated the cancer in Dr. Morse’s patients so if outcomes can be that different on the same type of diet, I don’t think it unreasonable of me to believe animal foods also conducive to healing.
I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with animal-based diets, just like I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with plant-based diets—as you said, they aren’t infallible—and yet, that doesn’t prevent me from seeing the potential healing on predominantly animal and plant diets.
“As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases.”
When I treated 4 of my loved ones who had cancer, none were given the exact same protocol—3 were plant-based, 1 being Gerson. My mum was the only one whose diet was rich in animal products, and for a specific reason. After developing chronic diarrhea that led to rectal surgery while vegan, she no longer tolerated a plant heavy diet, even juice triggered diarrhea. We emphasized particular animal foods based on her and our family’s history, tissue weaknesses, stats and symptoms, which is why she was on a dairy-based diet and not a meat-based one so no, I don’t defend diets rich in animal products rather than deemphasizing them for particular cases, however, I will give credit where credit is due.
My mum was the only one out of the 4 who survived cancer, but she ultimately succumbed to the pulmonary embolism from the clots she developed after her hysterectomy so I know all too well what it’s like to treat people on the brink of death, and that’s exactly why I apply more than just plant-based and don’t just relying solely on it because I take the time to know people’s history before treating someone where one slip under my care could be fatal. My life for well over a decade now has revolved around trying to help people overcome disease and watching the ones closest to me die so I say what I say not without careful consideration, but with an understanding that I’ve tried to impart on others in hopes that they don’t have to experience it firsthand to “get” it, while knowing the sad reality that some do.
Take care.
Jennifer,
The negotiation is to show that it's difficult to prevent people from seeking the desired foods, they tend to eventually find a way around a restriction.
Regarding Robert Morse, it's another imperfect therapist that agrees on plant predomination. It also shows how easy it was to flexibilize between plants in their cases, but the same degree of limitation could be a hassle in an animal-based diet. For example, an extreme aversion or intolerance to dairy could result in a meat-based (be it with plenty of mollusks) or a something like a high-tallow diet.
It takes defense to bring what's being disfavored (not rejected) to neutrality.
You'll find counterexamples every time, but I've been trying to go by generalizations, whose value is of particular importance when a thorough investigation is not possible, there isn't much time for experimentation, and not many mistakes can be afforded.
I know that you can handle critical health situations well, but only a few people have you around to help interpret the history, question treatments, and propose alternatives while aware of what does and doesn't work. For many, their first contact with discussions on nutrition to reconsider their habits can be after an advanced cancer diagnosis.
The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.
I understand you’ve been trying to go by generalizations, I simply don’t agree that the go-to diet be plant-based (or animal-based). Plant aversions and intolerances also exist so I still think a diet abundant in both plant and animal foods is the best starting point. Finding suitable substitutions is far easier when there is variety to begin with, and then adjustments can be made to suit the individual. Time is of the essence, especially with advanced cases, but even with plant-based, fine-tuning will still likely be needed.
“The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.”
I guess I’ll have to get to finishing my book and opening a retreat center then.
A person under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route is just one more reason why I don’t think the go-to be extreme or else it risks discouraging them just as much as vagueness, and protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based do exist for guidance. And if extremes and vagueness aren’t discouraging enough, there’s the cost of expensive appliances like $2,000+ two-stage juicers, and then the energy it takes for all the juicing, food prep, cleanup etc., energy that the sick often lack.Then there’s food palatability. As you pointed out, it’s difficult to prevent people from seeking desired foods and finding a way around a restriction. A diet is only as effective as one’s adherence to it and even disease is not enough motivation for some to stick to one. Take, for example, Kempner who openly admitted to whipping his patients to adhere to what he described as a “monotonous and tasteless diet which would never become popular” because he thought “the risk to their life was so great that it warranted harshness.”
What it all boils down to is you strongly believe in plant-based and I don’t. I understand why you do, but I’m not as convinced for reasons that are beyond the scope of this conversation, however, it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what the patient believes and if they believe a plant-based protocol is the best option for them, great! Like I said, I wouldn’t pick the treatment my dad chose, but I support his decision.
I’m not adding anything of real value to this discussion so I’ll stop now. Thank you for taking the time to share information and your opinion with me. I appreciate your concern for my dad.
Jennifer,
I'm with you in favoring less structure and more impartiality, but when there is no urgency. Otherwise, the benefit of being resolute with a concrete program based on probability outweighs the risk of malefits from lack of proper individualization.
We could just as well be on the fence with aspirin because of complications from its use, but we take side in recommend it in cancer, and we do so without being overly judicious due to the general positive effect. Someone who doesn't tolerate aspirin well may intuit to shy away from ingesting it again, but we have accounts of people who regain tolerance after minor unintuitive adjustments. The same can apply to a diet with therapeutic potential. It's only after trying and attempting to make it work that I find justified to change the course, unless we're sure in advance that it won't help.
Aspirin was a single example, imagine being impartial to the majority of what's consumed in the name of individuality. The philosophy extends to almost every aspect of the diet, and soon the person is overwhelmed with decisions to make. After all, why would this line of thought stop on one variable?
That same person who is sick, lost and under intense pressure would have to consider hundreds of factors, without much experience, and in a short period because little is defined. Low or high fat? With or without dairy? More or less frequent meals? Minimal or a lot of spices? Normal or high iodine? Nicotinic acid or nicotinamide? To include leaves or not? Cooked or raw? Boiled or steamed? High or low fructose? With or without collagen? Plenty or little carotenoids? To use baking soda or not? Normal or low sodium? Hypo- or isocaloric? Force the metabolic rate up or not? Solids or liquids? Generous or small quantities of fiber? It goes on and it's daunting. Each of these will have someone to argue in support of a neutral stance and nothing concrete ever comes out of it.
The sick can get assistance on protocol tasks, but it's much harder to find in time someone qualified to help to navigate through uncertainty and controversy. We can expect the person to default to convention when no clear alternative is offered.
The copayment of a month of one conventional procedure alone might surpass the value that you mentioned, which can be lowered further if the person adopts an economical version of the program and improvises the tools.
Nevertheless, as Lejeboca pointed out earlier, the person can opt for the standard treatment and still benefit from the sensitizing effect of such diet. People can adhere to a program temporarily, what's tough is to sustain restrictions for decades.
I recall a testimony of a guy who had given up on life, decided to discontinue therapies, but the partner insisted for him to stick to the program despite the lack of motivation. The guy recovered, was doing well next to his family and admitted that he was glad that the partner compensated for his apathy. In a sense, the wife forced him to do it, it was against his will, when his intuition could've led him to bad outcomes. Yes, we also have problems from persistence, but it's another example of how unreliable intuition can be.
You have reasons to be hesitant, but I don't believe in plant-based diets any more than I believe that in cancer we're better off positioning on what's preferable. Until I come across programs based on animal foods appearing more promising than those where plants predominate, I will continue to prioritize the latter.
I've tried to contact the authors without success, but it was concluded in 2016 and it would be interesting to know what they have found.
Hi Gustavo,
Like I said, protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based exist so those who are sick, lost and under intense pressure have guidance or “structure” available to them. Just because they aren’t plant-based, doesn’t mean they aren’t structured, and the factors you listed are factors that still need to be considered with plant-based protocols.
“Until I come across programs based on animal foods appearing more promising than those where plants predominate, I will continue to prioritize the latter.”
I didn’t think otherwise. Your stance on plant-based vs animal-based has been clear to me right along and as I’ve said, I don’t think either should be the go-to diet so I’m not sure why you continue to dispute animal-based as if I’m in favor of it. I acknowledge that it works for some, just like I acknowledge plant-based works for some but again, neither would be my go-to intervention diet.
Jennifer,
I acknowledge your neutral stance, but it's difficult to devise a clear protocol if we're consistent to apply this neutrality to the majority of aspects. And why wouldn't we? Each time someone can jump in with the same counterarguments, compelling us to leave it open to include everyone.
- "Low or normal protein?"
- "To supplement acetate or limit to gut-sourced?"
- "Thiamin in high or moderate doses?"
- "Oral or topical supplementation?"
- "Modest or abundant sunlight exposure?"
- "To exercise or seek rest?"
- "Synthetic or only natural vitamin C?
- "Whole-body or local hyperthermia?"
- "Excise the tumor or not?"
- "Probiotics use or avoidance?"
Answering 'do what suits you' to a pile of dilemmas is impractical. We would need an intimidating algorithm for someone to go through it with marked dependence on intuition and expecting extensive experimentation to resolve everything that's undefined.
For one factor to spark so much debate reinforces the point that hundreds on them would overwhelm the person. To have a new protocol for every change is not feasible.
It seems better to position in each branch as well as possible and let experience dictate the instances where it's worth doing otherwise.
We're not arguing on extremes, but you find that it's more problematic for the approach to be partial than impartial, whereas I think the opposite. But if I couldn't convince you yet, I don't believe that I will. Never mind, Jennifer.
Gustavo, my “neutral stance,” whatever that means, is irrelevant to what I wrote. Protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based have already been devised so as difficult as you think it is to do, it has been done. The same level of experimentation, customization and structure that applies to plant-based and animal-based protocols also applies to protocols abundant in both plant and animal foods. They have their own set of guidelines based on experience working with patients, just like Gerson, Budwig, Morse, Esselstyn, Reams etc. each have their own findings and thus their own guidelines.
Jennifer,
The difficulty indicated is not in creating a different program for one variable, but in arriving on comprehensive yet practical guidelines while remaining neutral.
Protocols inevitably come with compromises and it's thanks to being partial that they exist to provide an advantage to figuring things out from scratch.
If the way out of a dilemma is to pick another program with an alternative approach, as soon as you do it, you'll find a series of other incompatibilities that could serve to justify the same solution: seek a new protocol.
At some point you'll have to compromise something, and this something will always have a contestant presenting the same arguments and endorsing neutrality. With a full commitment to individual needs, you'll eventually end up with nothing defined.
Nevertheless, let's say that you met someone in an elevator asking for directions to a grocery store, commenting that he or she has a home-bound relative dealing with advanced cancer, who eats a poor version of a typical American diet out of convenience. What would you suggest? The person is in a hurry, a bit paranoid (won't exchange contacts or visit strange websites), and needs something more specific than 'eating to keep the metabolic rate up.'
Rodent's "a plant-based diet and high-dose THC is what I would try" serves as an example of a practical message. What would you offer in brief to impact?
By the way, what cancer protocols abundant in animals products would you consider exemplary? In particular those with minimal plants, aside from a milk diet. I ask because the mentioned names so far have been advocates of plant foods, with the exception of Jojo's (but check out how a group adjusted it).
-
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
@Amazoniac, I didn’t think you thought it foolish. I was talking about people like my dad. I’m not discounting the importance of diet. I just disagree that plant-based is the best option. The diet you quoted is the standard plant-based diet I see recommended not just by alternative practitioners, but by mainstream, as well. What were the patients’ diets like prior to the treatment with pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, "detoxification" procedures, and an organic diet? Were they of equal quality, i.e., consisting of organic and pastured foods or were they more like a standard western diet? What I typically see is a person develops a disease, in this case cancer, on a standard western diet and then follows a plant-based diet consisting of real food and improves, at least in the short-term. This is not proof to me that a plant-based diet is more healing than a diet equally abundant in both organic and pastured plant and animal foods, especially when I know far more people who have had long-term success with the latter than the former.
I shared to reinforce how recurrent this pattern is between cancer therapists who consider diet an important and manipulable factor.
Intuition was likely a determinant to what people were eating before treatment, although some might have added a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato on occasion to make meals healthy. To not intervene with their core choices, we'd be left with those changes in the quality of ingredients. Take someone who eats a lot of meat and some bread by preference, do you expect that improving the quality of each would be superior to what has been proposed by the mentioned experimenters?
The experimenters may arrive on these therapeutic diets under mainstream influence, but they refine it over time based on results. For a guy like Gerson, who advocated raw liver juice, there would be no problem to incorporate more animal products in the diet had they worked, until they prevailed. Example:
"In Paris, I tried seven cases and I had three results. One of the cases was an older man. He had a cancer of the cecum where the colon starts, 70 years old. Another case was a lady from Armenia. This was a very interesting case. I had to work against the whole family. There were many physicians in the family, and I had plenty of trouble. But, anyway, I came through in that case. She had cancer of the breast which regrew. Every time the family insisted that she was "so much down." She weighed only 78 pounds. She was skin and bones and they wanted me to give her egg yolks. I gave her small amounts of egg yolks—the cancer regrew. Then they insisted that I give her meat, raw chopped meat. I gave her this and the cancer regrew. The third time, they wanted me to give her some oil. I gave her the oil and the third time the cancer regrew. But, anyway, three times I could eliminate the cancer again and cure. And still I had no idea what cancer was. If somebody asked me about the theory, just what it was I was doing, I had to answer, "I don't really know myself."
And imagine the degree of simplification of protocols in not having to go through the hassle of elaborate plant preparation.
I find it unlikely that they would complicate their approaches with something that leads to worse outcomes in spite of being open to trying alternatives.
Nevertheless, how often do we read observations of positive effects associated with animal products consumption in cancer? Most of them are either neutral or negative, perhaps with a few exceptions (such as some dairy products). But when it comes to plant foods, we start to find neutral to positive effects far more often.
I can only congratulate you for going from Prismacolor to Applegate.
I can’t answer that with confidence because I can’t say I agree that intuition was likely a determinant—and a fear and guilt free one at that, since that’s a key point to unburdening ourselves and healing—given we are regularly bombarded with health and dietary propaganda. What I can say is I don’t believe meat and wheat are inherently disease promoting.
I don’t doubt Gerson’s findings, but I know plenty that contradict them. For instance, Dr. Morse found that any plant other than fruit would make his patients’ tumors grow, and Anita Moorjani’s cancer went into remission on an Ayurvedic protocol abundant in dairy and again on a Chinese medicine protocol abundant in meat, then while following a plant-based protocol she developed lemon-sized tumors down her spine and died, then came back to life and had a spontaneous healing while consuming ice cream. Then there’s my mum’s positive experience with a dairy-based diet, and I had another family member whose tumor grew to the size of a soft-ball on a Gerson diet and shrunk when he was put on a beef and rice diet temporarily to stop the chronic diarrhea the Gerson diet was causing. There’s also the positive accounts I’ve read from people following the Milk Cure and the Carnivore diet. There are a series of laboratory and animal studies showing that trans-vaccenic acid, a long-chain fatty acid found in the meat and dairy of grazing ruminants, promoted the destruction of certain types of cancer cells so perhaps that’s a factor?
By Applegate, are you referring to my hot dog bender back in February? If so, plot twist—my diet has been plant-based/vegetarian since March. These days, Chiquita would be a more fitting sponsor.
Jennifer,
People tend to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume the desired foods in one way or another, in special in parts of the world where nutritional campaigns are not as forceful as in the US. The two foods used as example don't inherently promote disease, but we can't count on their consumption to do much in helping to revert the situation of someone with cancer.
Fruits à la Robert Morse would be plant-based eating. The stories that you shared might have been to contrast Gerson's account. I quoted him not to rely on isolated cases, but to point out that he was willing to yield and would probably incorporate more animals products if he perceived benefit, and it wouldn't conflict with a diet that already included them. But again, he's only one of the many that agree on this aspect.
It doesn't apply to your examples, but part of the cases that don't do well on plant foods could do worse if they made their diets rich in animal products.
As a side note, I occasionally come across critics of Gerson—whose approach shouldn't work for everyone—but try to ask them what they propose instead. It's often very disappointing. And they're not constantly confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal.
Milk or carnivore diets would be extreme interventions, just like fasting and the positive stories from it. Sometimes drastic changes are capable of turning things around, but they're not reliable or founded enough to model.
Animal-based diets are typically richer in protein, fat, and growth factors.
Exceeding on protein is easy with such diets, leading to an undesirable exposure to extra glutamine and glutamate, arginine, tryptophan, methionine, cysteine, serine, aspartate, asparagine, BCAAs, methylcobalamin, phospholipids, nucleotides, and more.
With fats, it's complicated..
- The Modulatory Effects of Fatty Acids on Cancer Progression
- Dietary Fat and Cancer—Which Is Good, Which Is Bad, and the Body of Evidence
..but in an optimistic scenario, they're still poor in micronutrients and would be displacing other foods.
I don't know about trans-vaccenic acid, but if someone meets a great deal of energy needs through animal products, the person is reducing the exposure to a combination of anti-cancer compounds that occur primarily in plants. We could list 10 substances derived from plants for each protective animal-sourced substance that's brought to the table. Caffeine, salicylic acid, emodin, baicalein, curcumin, apigenin, quercetin, narigenin, fisetin, kaempferol.. They're not found in pharmacological amounts, but can cooperate. They can also be present in either diet, but plants as staples will be additional.
Depending on where a public is sampled, there can be more of the undernourished cases with a past of dietary restrictions that tend to benefit the most from anabolic foods, but this may not reflect the general state of the population macronutrient-wise. The therapeutic gap that you have with animal products for most people is narrower than apparent because animal foods are already consumed and sometimes in excess.
This gets further complicated when direct manipulation of the diet is not an option for treating it as a consequence. Yet, cravings can be driven by a single nutrient in a food, making us neglect the problematic components and consume what's already adequate in surplus to get the right amount of the sought factor. If this missing factor occurs in something like orange juice, it's no big deal, but it's more concerning if it's in a steak or eggs and someone with a tumor.
As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases. The sponsorship is there independent of what you're eating (you were eating dogs?), it's a matter of figuring out which company is making use of your online influence.
I'm not suggesting that people should stick to plant-based diets if they don't work, but I am suggesting that they're the preferable starting place, more so when we don't know the history of the person too well and the cancer is advanced.
Hi Gustavo,
The fact that people have to negotiate with themselves to eventually consume their desired foods shows it’s not without fear and/or guilt. Again, the goal is to unburden ourselves.
I knew why you quoted Gerson, and I mentioned Dr. Morse’s diet because it’s plant-based. I was comparing apples to apples, and all the foods besides fruit that Gerson found conducive to healing exacerbated the cancer in Dr. Morse’s patients so if outcomes can be that different on the same type of diet, I don’t think it unreasonable of me to believe animal foods also conducive to healing.
I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with animal-based diets, just like I acknowledge that undesirable exposure to certain potentially problematic compounds can happen with plant-based diets—as you said, they aren’t infallible—and yet, that doesn’t prevent me from seeing the potential healing on predominantly animal and plant diets.
“As for the last comment, it had nothing to do with your food habits, but your defense of diets rich in animal products as part of a cancer therapy rather than deprioritizing them for particular cases.”
When I treated 4 of my loved ones who had cancer, none were given the exact same protocol—3 were plant-based, 1 being Gerson. My mum was the only one whose diet was rich in animal products, and for a specific reason. After developing chronic diarrhea that led to rectal surgery while vegan, she no longer tolerated a plant heavy diet, even juice triggered diarrhea. We emphasized particular animal foods based on her and our family’s history, tissue weaknesses, stats and symptoms, which is why she was on a dairy-based diet and not a meat-based one so no, I don’t defend diets rich in animal products rather than deemphasizing them for particular cases, however, I will give credit where credit is due.
My mum was the only one out of the 4 who survived cancer, but she ultimately succumbed to the pulmonary embolism from the clots she developed after her hysterectomy so I know all too well what it’s like to treat people on the brink of death, and that’s exactly why I apply more than just plant-based and don’t just relying solely on it because I take the time to know people’s history before treating someone where one slip under my care could be fatal. My life for well over a decade now has revolved around trying to help people overcome disease and watching the ones closest to me die so I say what I say not without careful consideration, but with an understanding that I’ve tried to impart on others in hopes that they don’t have to experience it firsthand to “get” it, while knowing the sad reality that some do.
Take care.
Jennifer,
The negotiation is to show that it's difficult to prevent people from seeking the desired foods, they tend to eventually find a way around a restriction.
Regarding Robert Morse, it's another imperfect therapist that agrees on plant predomination. It also shows how easy it was to flexibilize between plants in their cases, but the same degree of limitation could be a hassle in an animal-based diet. For example, an extreme aversion or intolerance to dairy could result in a meat-based (be it with plenty of mollusks) or a something like a high-tallow diet.
It takes defense to bring what's being disfavored (not rejected) to neutrality.
You'll find counterexamples every time, but I've been trying to go by generalizations, whose value is of particular importance when a thorough investigation is not possible, there isn't much time for experimentation, and not many mistakes can be afforded.
I know that you can handle critical health situations well, but only a few people have you around to help interpret the history, question treatments, and propose alternatives while aware of what does and doesn't work. For many, their first contact with discussions on nutrition to reconsider their habits can be after an advanced cancer diagnosis.
The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.
I understand you’ve been trying to go by generalizations, I simply don’t agree that the go-to diet be plant-based (or animal-based). Plant aversions and intolerances also exist so I still think a diet abundant in both plant and animal foods is the best starting point. Finding suitable substitutions is far easier when there is variety to begin with, and then adjustments can be made to suit the individual. Time is of the essence, especially with advanced cases, but even with plant-based, fine-tuning will still likely be needed.
“The person can be sick, lost, and under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route. If we're unable to define priorities deterred by nuances, leaving it vague and up to intuition or inner trust (both can be corrupted, needing years of an erratic journey to recover), it's discouraging for someone contemplating alternative therapies to conventional treatment.”
I guess I’ll have to get to finishing my book and opening a retreat center then.
A person under intense pressure to adopt the accepted route is just one more reason why I don’t think the go-to be extreme or else it risks discouraging them just as much as vagueness, and protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based do exist for guidance. And if extremes and vagueness aren’t discouraging enough, there’s the cost of expensive appliances like $2,000+ two-stage juicers, and then the energy it takes for all the juicing, food prep, cleanup etc., energy that the sick often lack.Then there’s food palatability. As you pointed out, it’s difficult to prevent people from seeking desired foods and finding a way around a restriction. A diet is only as effective as one’s adherence to it and even disease is not enough motivation for some to stick to one. Take, for example, Kempner who openly admitted to whipping his patients to adhere to what he described as a “monotonous and tasteless diet which would never become popular” because he thought “the risk to their life was so great that it warranted harshness.”
What it all boils down to is you strongly believe in plant-based and I don’t. I understand why you do, but I’m not as convinced for reasons that are beyond the scope of this conversation, however, it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what the patient believes and if they believe a plant-based protocol is the best option for them, great! Like I said, I wouldn’t pick the treatment my dad chose, but I support his decision.
I’m not adding anything of real value to this discussion so I’ll stop now. Thank you for taking the time to share information and your opinion with me. I appreciate your concern for my dad.
Jennifer,
I'm with you in favoring less structure and more impartiality, but when there is no urgency. Otherwise, the benefit of being resolute with a concrete program based on probability outweighs the risk of malefits from lack of proper individualization.
We could just as well be on the fence with aspirin because of complications from its use, but we take side in recommend it in cancer, and we do so without being overly judicious due to the general positive effect. Someone who doesn't tolerate aspirin well may intuit to shy away from ingesting it again, but we have accounts of people who regain tolerance after minor unintuitive adjustments. The same can apply to a diet with therapeutic potential. It's only after trying and attempting to make it work that I find justified to change the course, unless we're sure in advance that it won't help.
Aspirin was a single example, imagine being impartial to the majority of what's consumed in the name of individuality. The philosophy extends to almost every aspect of the diet, and soon the person is overwhelmed with decisions to make. After all, why would this line of thought stop on one variable?
That same person who is sick, lost and under intense pressure would have to consider hundreds of factors, without much experience, and in a short period because little is defined. Low or high fat? With or without dairy? More or less frequent meals? Minimal or a lot of spices? Normal or high iodine? Nicotinic acid or nicotinamide? To include leaves or not? Cooked or raw? Boiled or steamed? High or low fructose? With or without collagen? Plenty or little carotenoids? To use baking soda or not? Normal or low sodium? Hypo- or isocaloric? Force the metabolic rate up or not? Solids or liquids? Generous or small quantities of fiber? It goes on and it's daunting. Each of these will have someone to argue in support of a neutral stance and nothing concrete ever comes out of it.
The sick can get assistance on protocol tasks, but it's much harder to find in time someone qualified to help to navigate through uncertainty and controversy. We can expect the person to default to convention when no clear alternative is offered.
The copayment of a month of one conventional procedure alone might surpass the value that you mentioned, which can be lowered further if the person adopts an economical version of the program and improvises the tools.
Nevertheless, as Lejeboca pointed out earlier, the person can opt for the standard treatment and still benefit from the sensitizing effect of such diet. People can adhere to a program temporarily, what's tough is to sustain restrictions for decades.
I recall a testimony of a guy who had given up on life, decided to discontinue therapies, but the partner insisted for him to stick to the program despite the lack of motivation. The guy recovered, was doing well next to his family and admitted that he was glad that the partner compensated for his apathy. In a sense, the wife forced him to do it, it was against his will, when his intuition could've led him to bad outcomes. Yes, we also have problems from persistence, but it's another example of how unreliable intuition can be.
You have reasons to be hesitant, but I don't believe in plant-based diets any more than I believe that in cancer we're better off positioning on what's preferable. Until I come across programs based on animal foods appearing more promising than those where plants predominate, I will continue to prioritize the latter.
I've tried to contact the authors without success, but it was concluded in 2016 and it would be interesting to know what they have found.
Hi Gustavo,
Like I said, protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based exist so those who are sick, lost and under intense pressure have guidance or “structure” available to them. Just because they aren’t plant-based, doesn’t mean they aren’t structured, and the factors you listed are factors that still need to be considered with plant-based protocols.
“Until I come across programs based on animal foods appearing more promising than those where plants predominate, I will continue to prioritize the latter.”
I didn’t think otherwise. Your stance on plant-based vs animal-based has been clear to me right along and as I’ve said, I don’t think either should be the go-to diet so I’m not sure why you continue to dispute animal-based as if I’m in favor of it. I acknowledge that it works for some, just like I acknowledge plant-based works for some but again, neither would be my go-to intervention diet.
Jennifer,
I acknowledge your neutral stance, but it's difficult to devise a clear protocol if we're consistent to apply this neutrality to the majority of aspects. And why wouldn't we? Each time someone can jump in with the same counterarguments, compelling us to leave it open to include everyone.
- "Low or normal protein?"
- "To supplement acetate or limit to gut-sourced?"
- "Thiamin in high or moderate doses?"
- "Oral or topical supplementation?"
- "Modest or abundant sunlight exposure?"
- "To exercise or seek rest?"
- "Synthetic or only natural vitamin C?
- "Whole-body or local hyperthermia?"
- "Excise the tumor or not?"
- "Probiotics use or avoidance?"
Answering 'do what suits you' to a pile of dilemmas is impractical. We would need an intimidating algorithm for someone to go through it with marked dependence on intuition and expecting extensive experimentation to resolve everything that's undefined.
For one factor to spark so much debate reinforces the point that hundreds on them would overwhelm the person. To have a new protocol for every change is not feasible.
It seems better to position in each branch as well as possible and let experience dictate the instances where it's worth doing otherwise.
We're not arguing on extremes, but you find that it's more problematic for the approach to be partial than impartial, whereas I think the opposite. But if I couldn't convince you yet, I don't believe that I will. Never mind, Jennifer.
Gustavo, my “neutral stance,” whatever that means, is irrelevant to what I wrote. Protocols that are neither plant-based nor animal-based have already been devised so as difficult as you think it is to do, it has been done. The same level of experimentation, customization and structure that applies to plant-based and animal-based protocols also applies to protocols abundant in both plant and animal foods. They have their own set of guidelines based on experience working with patients, just like Gerson, Budwig, Morse, Esselstyn, Reams etc. each have their own findings and thus their own guidelines.
Jennifer,
The difficulty indicated is not in creating a different program for one variable, but in arriving on comprehensive yet practical guidelines while remaining neutral.
Protocols inevitably come with compromises and it's thanks to being partial that they exist to provide an advantage to figuring things out from scratch.
If the way out of a dilemma is to pick another program with an alternative approach, as soon as you do it, you'll find a series of other incompatibilities that could serve to justify the same solution: seek a new protocol.
At some point you'll have to compromise something, and this something will always have a contestant presenting the same arguments and endorsing neutrality. With a full commitment to individual needs, you'll eventually end up with nothing defined.
Nevertheless, let's say that you met someone in an elevator asking for directions to a grocery store, commenting that he or she has a home-bound relative dealing with advanced cancer, who eats a poor version of a typical American diet out of convenience. What would you suggest? The person is in a hurry, a bit paranoid (won't exchange contacts or visit strange websites), and needs something more specific than 'eating to keep the metabolic rate up.'
Rodent's "a plant-based diet and high-dose THC is what I would try" serves as an example of a practical message. What would you offer in brief to impact?
By the way, what cancer protocols abundant in animals products would you consider exemplary? In particular those with minimal plants, aside from a milk diet. I ask because the mentioned names so far have been advocates of plant foods, with the exception of Jojo's (but check out how a group adjusted it).
“Jennifer, The difficulty indicated is not in creating a different program for one variable, but in arriving on comprehensive yet practical guidelines while remaining neutral. Protocols inevitably come with compromises and it's thanks to being partial that they exist to provide an advantage to figuring things out from scratch.”
Right, but I’m not sure what that has to do with what I wrote? Protocols abundant in both plant and animal foods are comprehensive and partial just like plant-based and animal-based protocols. They don’t have to be either extreme to achieve that. Did you mean to suggest otherwise?
“Nevertheless, let's say that you met someone in an elevator asking for directions for a grocery store, commenting that he or she has a home-bound relative dealing with advanced cancer, who eats a poor version of a typical American diet out of convenience. What would you suggest? The person is in a hurry, a bit paranoid (won't exchange contacts or visit strange websites), and needs something more specific than 'eating to keep the metabolic rate up.' Rodent's "a plant-based diet and high-dose THC is what I would try" serves as an example of a practical message. What would you offer in brief to impact?”
I would give them directions and leave it at that. Gathering vital information about their relative’s medical history would require more time than the brief ride in an elevator with a paranoid person in a hurry affords. For someone with an active disease and little info shared, I risk suggesting something that is contraindicated and harms them. Even something as seemingly benign as dietary recommendations could trigger a reaction, especially in those going through cancer treatment as it often produces sensitivities or there’s your reference to Gerson’s patient whose tumor regrew when given egg yolks, meat and oil so generalizing could be devastating. For all I know, their relative has colon cancer and part of the treatment involved a colectomy so telling them that a plant-based diet is what I would try because it’s practical is the last thing I would do if I had all the facts. A lack of due diligence is more likely to kill a late-stage cancer patient than taking a couple hours of their time to review their medical history with them.
With that said, for reasons unknown to me, I frequently get asked health and dietary related questions while out shopping and I always offer info and guidance because I’m told more than just “my relative has cancer and eats a poor version of a typical American diet out of convenience.” If the relative in your scenario wasn’t on any treatment, given that there’s room for improvement with their diet, I’d recommend one of real, organic and pastured foods like the average American grandmother from 100+ years ago would have fed her family and if time allowed, I’d recommend products that are available in standard grocery stores here. Just after my spine collapsed, when I was coming off of years of restrictive plant-based eating and given a death sentence by doctors, the first meal of traditional (European) foods I had felt like I was being embraced by my grandmother and for the first time since going vegan, I felt safe and taken care of. It wasn’t just nourishing to my body, it was also nourishing to my soul and I believe a truly healing diet should induce that, or a similar, feeling.
“By the way, what cancer protocols abundant in animals products would you consider exemplary? In particular those with minimal plants, aside from a milk diet. I ask because the mentioned names so far have been advocates of plant foods, with the exception of Jojo's (but check out how a group adjusted it).”
I’ve mentioned mainly plant-based practitioners because you’re in favor of plant-based and those are the ones whose protocols I have the most experience with. The only animal-based protocols I have experience with when it comes to cancer are the ones my mum and cat were on—my cat’s protocol was based on Dr. Francis Pottenger’s work. Based on her results, I would consider the protocol my mum followed to be exemplary, but the majority of people I know have had better outcomes with protocols abundant in both animal and plant foods than animal-based or plant-based protocols so that’s why it would be my go-to.
In my recovery, I’m a soldier at war, I have broken down walls
I defined, I designed, my recovery
In the sound of the sea, in the oceans of me
I defined, I designed, my recovery ~ James Arthur -
Right, but I’m not sure what that has to do with what I wrote? Protocols abundant in both plant and animal foods are comprehensive and partial just like plant-based and animal-based protocols. They don’t have to be either extreme to achieve that. Did you mean to suggest otherwise?
Good grief, Jennifer.
Your argument is founded on counterexamples: that we should not have an inclination because of them.
I meant that if we're consistent with your logic (seek neutrality in the name of individuality), protocols would muddle because for each variable we could make the same case to not define anything, and having a new established protocol for every change is impossible. We make a concession to be impartial on this, we make another concession to be impartial on that, and on it goes until we reach complete indifference to accommodate every case.
It only took a few sentences to a chatbot and no instructions on how to respond to get:
"A thoughtful observation about the trade-offs involved in designing protocols! You're absolutely right that while modularity can provide flexibility, it's essential to prioritize clear guidelines and stances on various variables to ensure practicality and avoid overwhelming interpretation.
By leaving too many aspects open to individual interpretation, you risk creating a protocol that's too vague or ambiguous to be effectively implemented or widely adopted. This can lead to confusion, inconsistencies, and ultimately, a lack of cohesion.
Having a clear stance on each variable, on the other hand, allows for the development of concrete guidelines that can be widely understood and followed. This, in turn, enables the creation of a robust and reliable protocol that can be efficiently implemented and scaled.
Your point about the impossibility of creating a new protocol for every divergence is well-taken. Compromises are indeed an inevitable part of the protocol development process, and they require careful consideration of the trade-offs involved.
Overall, your comments highlight the importance of thoughtful protocol design and the need to take into account the complexities and nuances of real-world applications."
You may think that consensus and definitions are redundant, but try to install a software whose developers are neutral and publish it unconfigured (rather than preconfigured as usual), arguing:
'You'll be using the software anyway, so you might as well configure it to suit your individual needs from a blank interface, relying on an intuitive construction panel, past experiences and common sense. You asked for an inclusive solution, we delivered it.'
Either this or 200 different programs, each with their set of weaknesses, for someone to evaluate which is best in a reasonable time frame.. Assuming that they can be found through biased search engines in the first place, which applies to multiple conflicting and scattered therapies.
I would give them directions and leave it at that. Gathering vital information about their relative’s medical history would require more time than the brief ride in an elevator with a paranoid person in a hurry affords. For someone with an active disease and little info shared, I risk suggesting something that is contraindicated and harms them. Even something as seemingly benign as dietary recommendations could trigger a reaction, especially in those going through cancer treatment as it often produces sensitivities or there’s your reference to Gerson’s patient whose tumor regrew when given egg yolks, meat and oil so generalizing could be devastating. For all I know, their relative has colon cancer and part of the treatment involved a colectomy so telling them that a plant-based diet is what I would try because it’s practical is the last thing I would do if I had all the facts. A lack of due diligence is more likely to kill a late-stage cancer patient than taking a couple hours of their time to review their medical history with them.
With that said, for reasons unknown to me, I frequently get asked health and dietary related questions while out shopping and I always offer info and guidance because I’m told more than just “my relative has cancer and eats a poor version of a typical American diet out of convenience.” If the relative in your scenario wasn’t on any treatment, given that there’s room for improvement with their diet, I’d recommend one of real, organic and pastured foods like the average American grandmother from 100+ years ago would have fed her family and if time allowed, I’d recommend products that are available in standard grocery stores here. Just after my spine collapsed, when I was coming off of years of restrictive plant-based eating and given a death sentence by doctors, the first meal of traditional (European) foods I had felt like I was being embraced by my grandmother and for the first time since going vegan, I felt safe and taken care of. It wasn’t just nourishing to my body, it was also nourishing to my soul and I believe a truly healing diet should induce that, or a similar, feeling.
It was a scenario where you had one chance to leave the relative with something to contemplate, that could make the difference in the course of the disease, and all that you came up with was inaction or a comforting diet.
- The prudence can also be interpreted as analysis paralysis, as you wouldn't be imposing anything, but putting forward for consideration. Practical guiding principles could remedy this.
⠀ - You concluded your post commenting that you have go-to cancer diets. Why you chose a traditional grandmother diet over them? And if this hearty diet, with plenty of steak, eggs, bacon, and whatnot is one of the go-to options, where was it applied in large-scale with success, compelling you to pick it at the expense of alternatives available?
Good luck trying to find qualified people to spend hours with every person with cancer (and all the other diseases that compete for attention). We may ask those in your city to line up in front of your grocery store for a couple hours of consultation.
"For all I know, their relative has colon cancer and part of the treatment involved a colectomy so telling them that a plant-based diet is what I would try because it’s practical is the last thing I would do if I had all the facts."
The last thing, Jennifer? Come on. How do you explain the following recommendations?
I’ve mentioned mainly plant-based practitioners because you’re in favor of plant-based and those are the ones whose protocols I have the most experience with. The only animal-based protocols I have experience with when it comes to cancer are the ones my mum and cat were on—my cat’s protocol was based on Dr. Francis Pottenger’s work. Based on her results, I would consider the protocol my mum followed to be exemplary, but the majority of people I know have had better outcomes with protocols abundant in both animal and plant foods than animal-based or plant-based protocols so that’s why it would be my go-to.
I'm willing to change my mind, but you'd need to present more persuasive information. It's the grand scheme that dictates the trend.
I was expecting you to list a bunch exemplary (human) ones. It's by isolating opposite stances that we can better compare them, as the differences stand out. A relative scarcity in a camp would be a noteworthy sign and may be a hint for leaning; blaming this on mainstream influence is not convincing enough.
Out of curiosity, what are these other cancer therapists that advocate animal products in abundance (not moderation) that you keep alluding to, whose work you deem of excellence?
Perhaps it's a good idea to transfer this sequence of posts to a separate thread. Something like:
- Protocols and their trade-offs
- The prudence can also be interpreted as analysis paralysis, as you wouldn't be imposing anything, but putting forward for consideration. Practical guiding principles could remedy this.
-
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
Right, but I’m not sure what that has to do with what I wrote? Protocols abundant in both plant and animal foods are comprehensive and partial just like plant-based and animal-based protocols. They don’t have to be either extreme to achieve that. Did you mean to suggest otherwise?
Good grief, Jennifer.
Your argument is founded on counterexamples: that we should not have an inclination because of them.
I meant that if we're consistent with your logic (seek neutrality in the name of individuality), protocols would muddle because for each variable we could make the same case to not define anything, and having a new established protocol for every change is impossible. We make a concession to be impartial on this, we make another concession to be impartial on that, and on it goes until we reach complete indifference to accommodate every case.
It only took a few sentences to a chatbot and no instructions on how to respond to get:
"A thoughtful observation about the trade-offs involved in designing protocols! You're absolutely right that while modularity can provide flexibility, it's essential to prioritize clear guidelines and stances on various variables to ensure practicality and avoid overwhelming interpretation.
By leaving too many aspects open to individual interpretation, you risk creating a protocol that's too vague or ambiguous to be effectively implemented or widely adopted. This can lead to confusion, inconsistencies, and ultimately, a lack of cohesion.
Having a clear stance on each variable, on the other hand, allows for the development of concrete guidelines that can be widely understood and followed. This, in turn, enables the creation of a robust and reliable protocol that can be efficiently implemented and scaled.
Your point about the impossibility of creating a new protocol for every divergence is well-taken. Compromises are indeed an inevitable part of the protocol development process, and they require careful consideration of the trade-offs involved.
Overall, your comments highlight the importance of thoughtful protocol design and the need to take into account the complexities and nuances of real-world applications."
You may think that consensus and definitions are redundant, but try to install a software whose developers are neutral and publish it unconfigured (rather than preconfigured as usual), arguing:
'You'll be using the software anyway, so you might as well configure it to suit your individual needs from a blank interface, relying on an intuitive construction panel, past experiences and common sense. You asked for an inclusive solution, we delivered it.'
Either this or 200 different programs, each with their set of weaknesses, for someone to evaluate which is best in a reasonable time frame.. Assuming that they can be found through biased search engines in the first place, which applies to multiple conflicting and scattered therapies.
I would give them directions and leave it at that. Gathering vital information about their relative’s medical history would require more time than the brief ride in an elevator with a paranoid person in a hurry affords. For someone with an active disease and little info shared, I risk suggesting something that is contraindicated and harms them. Even something as seemingly benign as dietary recommendations could trigger a reaction, especially in those going through cancer treatment as it often produces sensitivities or there’s your reference to Gerson’s patient whose tumor regrew when given egg yolks, meat and oil so generalizing could be devastating. For all I know, their relative has colon cancer and part of the treatment involved a colectomy so telling them that a plant-based diet is what I would try because it’s practical is the last thing I would do if I had all the facts. A lack of due diligence is more likely to kill a late-stage cancer patient than taking a couple hours of their time to review their medical history with them.
With that said, for reasons unknown to me, I frequently get asked health and dietary related questions while out shopping and I always offer info and guidance because I’m told more than just “my relative has cancer and eats a poor version of a typical American diet out of convenience.” If the relative in your scenario wasn’t on any treatment, given that there’s room for improvement with their diet, I’d recommend one of real, organic and pastured foods like the average American grandmother from 100+ years ago would have fed her family and if time allowed, I’d recommend products that are available in standard grocery stores here. Just after my spine collapsed, when I was coming off of years of restrictive plant-based eating and given a death sentence by doctors, the first meal of traditional (European) foods I had felt like I was being embraced by my grandmother and for the first time since going vegan, I felt safe and taken care of. It wasn’t just nourishing to my body, it was also nourishing to my soul and I believe a truly healing diet should induce that, or a similar, feeling.
It was a scenario where you had one chance to leave the relative with something to contemplate, that could make the difference in the course of the disease, and all that you came up with was inaction or a comforting diet.
- The prudence can also be interpreted as analysis paralysis, as you wouldn't be imposing anything, but putting forward for consideration. Practical guiding principles could remedy this.
⠀ - You concluded your post commenting that you have go-to cancer diets. Why you chose a traditional grandmother diet over them? And if this hearty diet, with plenty of steak, eggs, bacon, and whatnot is one of the go-to options, where was it applied in large-scale with success, compelling you to pick it at the expense of alternatives available?
Good luck trying to find qualified people to spend hours with every person with cancer (and all the other diseases that compete for attention). We may ask those in your city to line up in front of your grocery store for a couple hours of consultation.
"For all I know, their relative has colon cancer and part of the treatment involved a colectomy so telling them that a plant-based diet is what I would try because it’s practical is the last thing I would do if I had all the facts."
The last thing, Jennifer? Come on. How do you explain the following recommendations?
I’ve mentioned mainly plant-based practitioners because you’re in favor of plant-based and those are the ones whose protocols I have the most experience with. The only animal-based protocols I have experience with when it comes to cancer are the ones my mum and cat were on—my cat’s protocol was based on Dr. Francis Pottenger’s work. Based on her results, I would consider the protocol my mum followed to be exemplary, but the majority of people I know have had better outcomes with protocols abundant in both animal and plant foods than animal-based or plant-based protocols so that’s why it would be my go-to.
I'm willing to change my mind, but you'd need to present more persuasive information. It's the grand scheme that dictates the trend.
I was expecting you to list a bunch exemplary (human) ones. It's by isolating opposite stances that we can better compare them, as the differences stand out. A relative scarcity in a camp would be a noteworthy sign and may be a hint for leaning; blaming this on mainstream influence is not convincing enough.
Out of curiosity, what are these other cancer therapists that advocate animal products in abundance (not moderation) that you keep alluding to, whose work you deem of excellence?
Perhaps it's a good idea to transfer this sequence of posts to a separate thread. Something like:
- Protocols and their trade-offs
“Your argument is founded on counterexamples: that we should not have an inclination because of them.”
My acknowledging that the opposite is also true is not me arguing that we should not have an inclination, especially when I have an inclination of my own.
“I meant that if we're consistent with your logic (seek neutrality in the name of individuality), protocols would muddle because for each variable we could make the same case to not define anything, and having a new established protocol for every change is impossible.”
I know what you meant and that is not my logic. That is your interpretation. I favor one protocol type as the go-to over others so I do not have a neutral stance.
“You concluded your post commenting that you have go-to cancer diets. Why you chose a traditional grandmother diet over them?”
If you reread my comment, you will see that I explained why.
“The last thing, Jennifer? Come on. How do you explain the following recommendations?”
I’m familiar with the recommendations and considerable amount of plants that may cause or worsen diarrhea and gas. The people I know who had a colectomy were on a plant restricted diet so given that and the brief chance I had to give practical advice for someone with cancer who I knew very little about, plant-based is the last thing I would suggest, yes.
“Good luck trying to find qualified people to spend hours with every person with cancer (and all the other diseases that compete for attention). We may ask those in your city to line up in front of your grocery store for a couple hours of consultation.”
My family members’ care team did, and not cancer specifically but also a complicated case, my doctors spent upwards of 2 hours going over my medical history and treatment plan with me, too. If not thorough, they risk complications due to contraindications and medical malpractice lawsuits. You’ve criticized critics of Gerson, arguing that they aren’t constantly being confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal, and yet you make a snarky remark because I believe in due diligence.
“I'm willing to change my mind, but you'd need to present more persuasive information.”
More like you trying to change my mind because you refuse to accept that plant-based wouldn’t be my go-to protocol.
In my recovery, I’m a soldier at war, I have broken down walls
I defined, I designed, my recovery
In the sound of the sea, in the oceans of me
I defined, I designed, my recovery ~ James Arthur - The prudence can also be interpreted as analysis paralysis, as you wouldn't be imposing anything, but putting forward for consideration. Practical guiding principles could remedy this.
-
“Your argument is founded on counterexamples: that we should not have an inclination because of them.”
My acknowledging that the opposite is also true is not me arguing that we should not have an inclination, especially when I have an inclination of my own.
“I'm willing to change my mind, but you'd need to present more persuasive information.”
More like you trying to change my mind because you refuse to accept that plant-based wouldn’t be my go-to protocol.
Jennifer,
This is not about personal preferences and inclinations, but about what we can generalize. I lost count how many times I've stressed it.
In a cancer context, you're painting animal and plant foods as equally appropriate—in abundance—and not just for you, but for most people.
I think a diet that includes an abundance of both plants and animal foods would fare better long-term for the majority than a diet of predominantly plants or predominantly animal foods.
I don't have ideological commitments and wouldn't have a problem revising towards a more effective approach, but you didn't present anything of substance to justify why it's desirable to incorporate animal products in abundance as part of a promising cancer therapy.
Even after relaxing the criteria, you didn't name reliable programs that are high in both. We had select stories with atypical responses (such as cancer healing from steak and rice, after ice cream), allusion and vague language ("it has been done"; Who has done? How?), and a mention of an exotic fatty acid. Meanwhile, deaths from aspirin didn't seem to concern you.
When we factor in that the population as a whole is already consuming animal products and often in excess, it restricts the therapeutic potential where it would have one.
“I meant that if we're consistent with your logic (seek neutrality in the name of individuality), protocols would muddle because for each variable we could make the same case to not define anything, and having a new established protocol for every change is impossible.”
I know what you meant and that is not my logic. That is your interpretation. I favor one protocol type as the go-to over others so I do not have a neutral stance.
Plant foods have the consensus in their favor, so your defense has been to vindicate the plentifulness of animal products. This is an endorsement of neutrality, regardless of your personal stance.
The implications:
For you, the defense may be to honor familiar people who responded remarkably well to more animal products, or to voice for a group that thrives on them. But for another person, the critical issue can be that he or she knows people who benefited markedly from downing flaxseed oil and were adversely affected by animal fats. Professor Garrett could argue that he spots individuals being harmed by dietary macabrotenoids all the time, and recovering through avoidance. It goes on, each calling for neutrality to embrace everyone.
Let's say that you succeed in your vindication and now protocolists are fine with an abundance of both animal and plant foods. What to do if this new program, made neutral about them, discouraged the use of flaxseed oil? Like you, the person could contest and ask for impartiality.
- "Hey, if we conceded on that, why we shouldn't concede on this too, considering that I presented the same argument?" ← Not a rhetorical question.
We can't make up our minds for a sense of direction, so must (once more) yield to another indifference. Alternatively, and more likely, come up a new protocol.
Then, there's Garrett's issue and the endless other impasses that would appear. We start to get something absurd like this:
Where users are known for finding it overwhelming and constantly wavering as a consequence, even those who are tech-savvy. In contrast, we have Mac users pleased with their standard system and tweaking it where needed.
Contrary to Linux distributions, people won't have 10 years of experimentation to figure out which option serves them well.
Lack of consensus on what to prioritize can lead to disorientation, naturally compelling people to stick to convention when strained.
To make it worse, also contrary to operational systems, valuable comparisons of alternative cancer therapies are hard to find and suppressed. In practice, the person is lucky to come across a couple therapies through popular search engines. People might only get to a minority of those available anyway, random ones with their respective drawbacks; far from the comprehensive menu of possibilities to embrace everyone that we may envision.
So, the person is either bombarded with conflicting choices to evaluate or exposed to a few biased options, carrying similar concerns as when we define orientations with compromises beforehand, making it preferable to not disperse.
“Good luck trying to find qualified people to spend hours with every person with cancer (and all the other diseases that compete for attention). We may ask those in your city to line up in front of your grocery store for a couple hours of consultation.”
My family members’ care team did, and not cancer specifically but a complicated case too, my doctors also spent upwards of 2 hours going over my medical history and treatment plan with me. If not thorough, they risk complications due to contraindications and medical malpractice lawsuits. You’ve criticized critics of Gerson, arguing that they aren’t constantly being confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal, and yet you make a snarky remark because I believe in due diligence.
Prudence stops being helpful when it turns into an excuse for unjustified inaction. If the main concern was that the person had different needs after a supposed surgery, it would've been possible to position and warn:
- "Consider ____, but if your relative underwent surgery and has special needs in the diet, you may have to find a common ground and watch out for tolerance."
For some reason, you assumed that it was colon cancer, but it's about 8% of total cases, with others being more prevalent, and in people with similar habits.
You also assumed that the person had the colon removed, which may be 60% of cases? It could be lower because in advanced cancer that has spread, surgery is ineffective. But this drops the odds to something like 5%.
The 5% chance could be clarified with 2 words to not 'leave it at that' in your preferential paragraph.
- "What cancer?" "Lung cancer." "In this case, consider ____."
As for the 2-hour detailed (and reliable) consultations for millions, this may give you an idea on how realistic it is:
Association of Primary Care Visit Length With Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing
"Time is a scarce and valuable resource in primary care, with the average visit lasting 18 minutes. By a recent estimate, primary care clinicians would require 27 hours per day to provide all guideline-recommended preventive, chronic disease, and acute care to a typical patient panel. While there is global variation in primary care visit length, recent growth in visit content (eg, diagnoses recorded and medications prescribed) has outpaced growth in visit length, suggesting that time available per health concern may be decreasing over time. In surveys, patients routinely report needing more time with their primary care physician, and visit length is one of the most prominent factors associated with patients' satisfaction with their care. Physicians also want more time with their patients and frequently report feeling rushed during visits."
"One hundred and seventy nine studies were identified from 111 publications covering 28 570 712 consultations in 67 countries. Average consultation length differed across the world, ranging from 48 s in Bangladesh to 22.5 min in Sweden. We found that 18 countries representing about 50% of the global population spend 5 min or less with their primary care physicians."
-
Please stop fighting about what cancer patients need to eat. This is about water, not food
Sorry, just joking, even if it's a sensitive topic.
-
Please stop fighting about what cancer patients need to eat. This is about water, not food
Sorry, just joking, even if it's a sensitive topic.
Clever.
LLight, is that you?
-
@ThinPicking Nope, I'm NNight 🥸
-
That settles it. Good day Mr Night.
-
@Amazoniac said in cancer:
“Your argument is founded on counterexamples: that we should not have an inclination because of them.”
My acknowledging that the opposite is also true is not me arguing that we should not have an inclination, especially when I have an inclination of my own.
“I'm willing to change my mind, but you'd need to present more persuasive information.”
More like you trying to change my mind because you refuse to accept that plant-based wouldn’t be my go-to protocol.
Jennifer,
This is not about personal preferences and inclinations, but about what we can generalize. I lost count how many times I've stressed it.
In a cancer context, you're painting animal and plant foods as equally appropriate—in abundance—and not just for you, but for most people.
I think a diet that includes an abundance of both plants and animal foods would fare better long-term for the majority than a diet of predominantly plants or predominantly animal foods.
I don't have ideological commitments and wouldn't have a problem revising towards a more effective approach, but you didn't present anything of substance to justify why it's desirable to incorporate animal products in abundance as part of a promising cancer therapy.
Even after relaxing the criteria, you didn't name reliable programs that are high in both. We had select stories with atypical responses (such as cancer healing from steak and rice, after ice cream), allusion and vague language ("it has been done"; Who has done? How?), and a mention of an exotic fatty acid. Meanwhile, deaths from aspirin didn't seem to concern you.
When we factor in that the population as a whole is already consuming animal products and often in excess, it restricts the therapeutic potential where it would have one.
“I meant that if we're consistent with your logic (seek neutrality in the name of individuality), protocols would muddle because for each variable we could make the same case to not define anything, and having a new established protocol for every change is impossible.”
I know what you meant and that is not my logic. That is your interpretation. I favor one protocol type as the go-to over others so I do not have a neutral stance.
Plant foods have the consensus in their favor, so your defense has been to vindicate the plentifulness of animal products. This is an endorsement of neutrality, regardless of your personal stance.
The implications:
For you, the defense may be to honor familiar people who responded remarkably well to more animal products, or to voice for a group that thrives on them. But for another person, the critical issue can be that he or she knows people who benefited markedly from downing flaxseed oil and were adversely affected by animal fats. Professor Garrett could argue that he spots individuals being harmed by dietary macabrotenoids all the time, and recovering through avoidance. It goes on, each calling for neutrality to embrace everyone.
Let's say that you succeed in your vindication and now protocolists are fine with an abundance of both animal and plant foods. What to do if this new program, made neutral about them, discouraged the use of flaxseed oil? Like you, the person could contest and ask for impartiality.
- "Hey, if we conceded on that, why we shouldn't concede on this too, considering that I presented the same argument?" ← Not a rhetorical question.
We can't make up our minds for a sense of direction, so must (once more) yield to another indifference. Alternatively, and more likely, come up a new protocol.
Then, there's Garrett's issue and the endless other impasses that would appear. We start to get something absurd like this:
Where users are known for finding it overwhelming and constantly wavering as a consequence, even those who are tech-savvy. In contrast, we have Mac users pleased with their standard system and tweaking it where needed.
Contrary to Linux distributions, people won't have 10 years of experimentation to figure out which option serves them well.
Lack of consensus on what to prioritize can lead to disorientation, naturally compelling people to stick to convention when strained.
To make it worse, also contrary to operational systems, valuable comparisons of alternative cancer therapies are hard to find and suppressed. In practice, the person is lucky to come across a couple therapies through popular search engines. People might only get to a minority of those available anyway, random ones with their respective drawbacks; far from the comprehensive menu of possibilities to embrace everyone that we may envision.
So, the person is either bombarded with conflicting choices to evaluate or exposed to a few biased options, carrying similar concerns as when we define orientations with compromises beforehand, making it preferable to not disperse.
“Good luck trying to find qualified people to spend hours with every person with cancer (and all the other diseases that compete for attention). We may ask those in your city to line up in front of your grocery store for a couple hours of consultation.”
My family members’ care team did, and not cancer specifically but a complicated case too, my doctors also spent upwards of 2 hours going over my medical history and treatment plan with me. If not thorough, they risk complications due to contraindications and medical malpractice lawsuits. You’ve criticized critics of Gerson, arguing that they aren’t constantly being confronted with people on the brink of death, where one slip under their responsibility can be fatal, and yet you make a snarky remark because I believe in due diligence.
Prudence stops being helpful when it turns into an excuse for unjustified inaction. If the main concern was that the person had different needs after a supposed surgery, it would've been possible to position and warn:
- "Consider ____, but if your relative underwent surgery and has special needs in the diet, you may have to find a common ground and watch out for tolerance."
For some reason, you assumed that it was colon cancer, but it's about 8% of total cases, with others being more prevalent, and in people with similar habits.
You also assumed that the person had the colon removed, which may be 60% of cases? It could be lower because in advanced cancer that has spread, surgery is ineffective. But this drops the odds to something like 5%.
The 5% chance could be clarified with 2 words to not 'leave it at that' in your preferential paragraph.
- "What cancer?" "Lung cancer." "In this case, consider ____."
As for the 2-hour detailed (and reliable) consultations for millions, this may give you an idea on how realistic it is:
Association of Primary Care Visit Length With Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing
"Time is a scarce and valuable resource in primary care, with the average visit lasting 18 minutes. By a recent estimate, primary care clinicians would require 27 hours per day to provide all guideline-recommended preventive, chronic disease, and acute care to a typical patient panel. While there is global variation in primary care visit length, recent growth in visit content (eg, diagnoses recorded and medications prescribed) has outpaced growth in visit length, suggesting that time available per health concern may be decreasing over time. In surveys, patients routinely report needing more time with their primary care physician, and visit length is one of the most prominent factors associated with patients' satisfaction with their care. Physicians also want more time with their patients and frequently report feeling rushed during visits."
"One hundred and seventy nine studies were identified from 111 publications covering 28 570 712 consultations in 67 countries. Average consultation length differed across the world, ranging from 48 s in Bangladesh to 22.5 min in Sweden. We found that 18 countries representing about 50% of the global population spend 5 min or less with their primary care physicians."
“This is not about personal preferences and inclinations, but about what we can generalize. I lost count how many times I've stressed it.”
And I’ve lost count of how many times you’ve stressed generalizing because you think I don’t understand when I do. My acknowledging that the opposite is also true is not me arguing that we shouldn’t generalize. I understand it’s about the grand scheme and agree that there’s an advantage to protocols that incorporate what generally works, we just don’t agree on what that is. You believe the plant-based consensus and I don’t.
“I don't have ideological commitments and wouldn't have a problem revising towards a more effective approach, but you didn't present anything of substance to justify why it's desirable to incorporate animal products in abundance as part of a promising cancer therapy.”
Because I didn’t join the conversation to debate protocols. You seem to forget that you quoted me here asking me about my dad’s treatment plan. I’ve continued answering your questions out of respect but like I said, it doesn’t matter what I think, it only matters what the patient believes.
“For you, the defense may be to honor familiar people who responded remarkably well to more animal products, or to voice for a group that thrives on them. But for another person, the critical issue can be that he or she knows people who benefited markedly from downing flaxseed oil and were adversely affected by animal fats. Professor Garrett could argue that he spots individuals being harmed by dietary macabrotenoids all the time, and recovering through avoidance. It goes on, each calling for neutrality to embrace everyone.”
No, for me, the defense is to honor everyone’s (in)tolerances, and above is a perfect example of my concern with plant-based and animal-based models. With either one, there is less flexibility for the kind of modifications that may be required for those who don’t fall under the general consensus that the guidelines are based on, forcing them to abandon the protocol altogether when they fail to thrive. Using the defense that the diet isn’t infallible when a patient fails to thrive on it is not a solution and certainly not a consolation to the patient and their loved ones.
“Let's say that you succeed in your vindication and now protocolists are fine with an abundance of both animal and plant foods. What to do if this new program, made neutral, discouraged the use of flaxseed oil? Like you, the person could contest and ask for impartiality.”
This issue isn’t exclusive to one type of protocol. Partial, impartial, plant-base, animal-based, plant and animal based, none of it matters. If a patient makes the decision as a grown adult with their own free will to forgo parts of a treatment, that’s their choice, just like it’s the practitioner’s choice to forgo treating the patient if they do. Just because a protocol has less flexibility, doesn’t guarantee there will be more adherence to it.
“When we factor in that the population as a whole is already consuming animal products and often in excess, it restricts the therapeutic potential where it would have one.”
What kind of animal products? What else besides animal products are people consuming? What is excess, who defines it and it’s conclusive?
“You also assumed that the person had the colon removed, which may be 60% of cases?
I didn’t assume anything. I said for all I know—a phrase used when one is uncertain or has limited details about something—as the only info I was privy to was that the relative has cancer and eats a poor version of the American diet out of convenience. You’re so concerned with what unsolicited advice I would give to some imaginary person with a relative who has cancer, but I have a real person with cancer who is my concern.
“If the main concern was that the person had different needs after a supposed surgery, it would've been possible to position and warn:
Consider ____, but if your relative underwent surgery and has special needs in the diet, you may have to find a common ground and watch out for tolerance."
This is exactly what I’ve been proposing, that you’ve continued to contest—that practitioners administering protocols take into account a patient’s tolerance to it.
"One hundred and seventy nine studies were identified from 111 publications covering 28 570 712 consultations in 67 countries. Average consultation length differed across the world, ranging from 48 s in Bangladesh to 22.5 min in Sweden. We found that 18 countries representing about 50% of the global population spend 5 min or less with their primary care physicians."
You said good luck finding qualified people to spend hours with every person with cancer and I mentioned care teams (specialists), but your referenced studies are on PCPs? I see nothing about the average consultation length for cancer (and other diseases) patients with their care team and how much time outside of the consultation the care team spends reviewing their case.
“Even after relaxing the criteria, you didn't name reliable programs that are high in both. We had select stories with atypical responses (such as cancer healing from steak and rice, after ice cream), allusion and vague language ("it has been done"; Who has done? How?), and a mention of an exotic fatty acid. Meanwhile, deaths from aspirin didn't seem to concern you.”
Why would I? I’d just be setting myself up for more mocking and being condescendingly schooled when you find my answers unsatisfactory. No thank you.
In my recovery, I’m a soldier at war, I have broken down walls
I defined, I designed, my recovery
In the sound of the sea, in the oceans of me
I defined, I designed, my recovery ~ James Arthur
