Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Video: Are CSIcop fellows wise to dismiss anti-cancer diets?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I'm not sure about the cancer angle but I am with you on the evils of carbs including the granddaddy of evil processed sugar! And yes this is an area where I do believe that the mainstream consensus just got it wrong. I think things are changing though. When I went low carb a few months ago I expected ridicule from my family. I was shocked at the reaction of not just encouragement and acceptance but also how many members of my family were already on one version or another of a lower carb way of eating!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Interesting Ian View Post
      Not in the slightest! I try to limit my intake of refined carbs and sugars and don't take too much notice of mainstream advice.
      Alright. I'm ill prepared to argue about dietary advice. I'll just assume that I misunderstood at first.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Open Mind View Post
        The unknown 82 outcomes, is not ideal for sure.
        It is very problematic that the outcome for 35% of the study population is unknown. Because this creates significant uncertainty about the correctness of the reported surivival data.

        All remained free from melanoma for up to 17 years that is interesting enough for further study, surely?
        No - Because melanom in situ is not melanoma. They are accordingly stage 0, not stage 1 or 2. How many of the 82 untraceable belonged in this group and died? You really don't need to exclude many of the 14 and include many of these 82 to arrive at a completely different result. And if you take the small number of patients into account, I think we can intuitively agree, that this study really doesn't tell us if the Gerson regime added anything benefical to the surgery they already had.
        Last edited by JLI; November 7th, 2011, 09:26 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JLI View Post
          It is very problematic that the outcome for 35% of the study population is unknown. Because this creates significant uncertainty about the correctness of the reported surivival data.
          Yes ... but quackwatch is quoting a worse study to dismiss the Gerson diet because nearly 55% of the study population was missing when making their argument all but one died. As those known to have died, all died within 9 months, they must have been terminally ill, they would have lived longer doing nothing (if not already terminally ill)

          So there is uncertainity, agreed ... but why after hundreds of billions of money given to cancer research organizations has so little research been done into whether dietary changes could not just prevent cancer (and it does) but actually help reverse cancer?


          I think we can intuitively agree, that this study really don't tell us if the Gerson regime added anything benefical to the surgery they already had.
          I think we should also agree, there needs to be further research into the effect of diet, particularly low sugar, low red meat, increased raw plant food not on preventing cancer but reversing it.

          Incidentally, in the other topic you quoted a study showing breast cancer patients who did vaguely defined diets (as part of 'alternative therapy') did worse than chemotherapy .... On checking up, I found a video where apparently there is another study where breast cancer patients lived 11 months longer on avoiding chemotherapy (doing nothing I think) , I will check up to see if the paper actually exists. ... later...
          Last edited by Open Mind; November 7th, 2011, 07:16 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Open Mind View Post
            Yes ... but quackwatch is quoting a worse study to dismiss the Gerson diet because nearly 55% of the study population was missing when making their argument all but one died. As those known to have died, all died within 9 months, they must have been terminally ill, they would have lived longer doing nothing (if not already terminally ill)
            I haven't read that study, so I can't really comment on the details. I'll see if I can find it. But at the face of it, it doesn't support the idea that the Gerson regimen is effective. And that is what we are looking for.
            .....but why after hundreds of billions of money given to cancer research organizations has so little research been done into whether dietary changes could not just prevent cancer (and it does) but actually help reverse cancer?

            I think we should also agree, there needs to be further research into the effect of diet, particularly low sugar, low red meat, increased raw plant food not on preventing cancer but reversing it.
            Those who make the claim should provide the evidence. Long time vegetarians/vegans get cancer necessitating conventional treatment too, so it is definitely not going to be a cure of all cancers (and you haven't said it would - I know).
            Anecdotes are not evidence. We looked at the "anecdotal evidence" presented in the Burzynski movie in the antineoplaston thread, and I think we established that the anecdotal evidence fell completely apart upon scrutiny.

            Incidentally, in the other topic you quoted a study showing breast cancer patients who did vaguely defined diets (as part of 'alternative therapy') did worse than chemotherapy ....
            Breast cancer is primarily treated by surgery. Only some of the patients are offered additional chemo-/radiotherapy. What was seen was stage progression (or stable disease). No stage regression.

            I will check up to see if the paper actually exists. ... later...
            Hope it does. I will read it if you can find it.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JLI View Post
              Those who make the claim should provide the evidence. Long time vegetarians/vegans get cancer necessitating conventional treatment too, so it is definitely not going to be a cure of all cancers (and you haven't said it would - I know).
              Yes but vegetarians/vegans do have lower cancer rates .... that doesn't mean they are eating an optimum diet, they have just cut out meat, the diet could be high in sugar, it for example may contain only convenience foods, no raw leafy salads, etc.

              What needs to be looked into is the synergistic effects ... not any specific food in isolation, not any specific vitamin .... but the combination of all mulitple factors at once ..... sadly the conventional approach isn't good at this, it tends to have a reductionistic, test things in isolation approach, which has great value too but the bigger picture has possibly been comparitively neglected.

              Hope it does. I will read it if you can find it.
              I have the name of the doctor on video who made the claim, I will e-mail them.
              Last edited by Open Mind; November 7th, 2011, 10:19 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Open Mind View Post
                What needs to be looked into is the synergistic effects ... not any specific food in isolation, not any specific vitamin .... but the combination of all mulitple factors at once ..... sadly the conventional approach isn't good at this, it tends to have a reductionistic, test things in isolation approach, which has great value too but the bigger picture has possibly been comparitively neglected.
                I think the EPIC study will give us some interesting information. I also think that this study: Pancreatic Proteolytic Enzyme Therapy Compared With Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer did look into the effect of the full Gonzalez regime, not just an element of it.
                Last edited by JLI; November 8th, 2011, 10:36 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X