Many of these foods are high in antioxidants, which help mop up free radicals and other nasties that your body uses to kill cancer. Granted, the same nasties can cause cancer too.:smack:
I have to commend brooklynn at how calm and reasonable he’s being in the face of so many hostile comments and derision.
Nutrition truly is both obviously crucial to health (no shit sherlock. anyone arguing against that is a fucking idiot) and understudied. Moreover, it is a very difficult thing to study with modern methods, since there are so many variables. We know as much about nutrition as about 10-way drug interactions.
Some people’s health problems really are caused or affected by nutrition, but without a science behind the practice we really can’t tell who can be cured by what. Success is often an accident, and not necessarily a frequent one. So a reasonable person who accepts brooklynn’s premise can easily point out that the experience is unique to him. But anyone calling him a liar or claiming that medical science is all-knowing or that modern research methods are all-seeing is a stubborn fart.
That’s very true. But the human capacity for stubbornness or even ignorance is an all-encompassing element of human nature. The stubbornness need not even be high-level and immediate, but founded in the most base axioms, such as the faith in the scientific method.
In fact, what we call the scientific method is only one way of gathering and interpreting data, and a pretty limited one at that. Your conviction will probably keep you from even considering my argument, but the so-called “scientific method”'s reliance on controls and analyzing a single variable at a time precludes it from being applicable to complex phenomena. It is responsible for our modern-day ignorance on many topics. In the future we will use sophisticated data mining of raw, un-controlled data to see things which we yet simply cannot, and laugh at how primitive we were in the early 21st century.
The scientific method is not applicable to complex phenomena? How many counter examples would you need to be convinced otherwise?
And I have to commend all of the folks who are actually trying to cure cancer in the face of all the hostile comments and derision they get from people like brooklynn.
Seriously, I find it hard to commend someone who, even unwittingly, is bragging about committing suicide and publicly urging others to do the same.
That’s absurd, and here’s why:
If there was an alternative treatment that had proven efficacy that could be bought at Whole Foods (or any other natural food store), you’d better believe that the major insurance companies would REQUIRE it as a first-line treatment, instead of all the radiation, chemotherapy, etc…
After all, it is all about profit, and insurance companies make their money by paying out as little as they can, while staying within the law and providing adequate care.
And, at the risk of provoking the ire of the “no sugar, no carbs” set, I don’t see what’s so bad about the lunch box at Sloan-Kettering? It’s not an absurd amount of food, it’s about the right proportion of carbohydrates, it has one of your fruit servings, it’s about the right amount of protein, and it’s not hugely high-fat. With the exception of a coke, I can’t see how that’s such a terrible lunch, from either a gustatory or a nutritional standpoint.
The checkout guy at the local grocery store told me that Vitamin B cured cancer, but “they” didn’t want us to know because “they can’t make any money from it.” I pointed out that his store sells Vitamin B capsules, and asked him if it was done so for no profit. He just rolled his eyes.
Your description of your medical history in your OP is somewhat deceptive:
> I’m a 27 year old male dealing with cancer since I’m 21. After diligently listening
> to my doctors; I’ve had three surgeries, lost 2 organs, been radiated with 207
> millicuries of radioactive iodine, and had liters (literally) of toxic drugs pumped
> into me – only to see it return and spread to other parts of my body.
>
> A few months ago, after watching my uncle die from the same treatments for
> the same cancer, I left all my doctors, spent a few weeks reading about
> alternative treatments and put my cancer in 100% remission (blood markers
> and CT scans) in 9 weeks – all with simple things I bought online and at a local
> Whole Foods.
Here’s what you say later:
> I had thyroid cancer (stage IIb I believe) first, for which I received:
>
> - A radical thyroidectomy and removal of 14 lymph nodes
> - Radioactive Iodine
>
> With my 95% ‘cure’ rate in hand, I continued to lead my life normally thinking it
> was over, then after 4 years, a tumor had re-grown in the bed of the thyroid so
> I had another surgery to remove that.
>
> A few months ago, I was diagnosed with testicular cancer (stage IIc) for which I
> had an orchiectomy and was perscribed 4 rounds of EP followed by an RPLND (a
> surgery so gruesome you wouldn’t wish it on your worst enemy) followed
> possibly by more chemo as needed.
You made it sound as if you had been continuously fighting cancer for the past six years. It appears that what happened is the following: You had thyroid cancer. You were cured of it for four years by surgery and other treatments. It returned after four years. You were cured of it again by surgery. A year or so later, you had testicular cancer. The testicle was removed. Please note that these are three different cases of cancer. Some people are more susceptible to cancer, and you appear to be one of them.
At that point, it would have been better on average if you had had the treatments the doctors recommended. However, “on average” doesn’t mean that every time it’s better. In your case, you got better on your own. Once the testicle is removed, sometimes the lymph nodes get better on their own, but sometimes they don’t. The doctors looked at the statistics from all the cases ever studied and decided that the treatments that they recommended after your orchiectomy would most likely be better.
Cancer is not completely understood. Although there are things that have to be done, like removing the tumor, there are post-operative treatments that it is not completely clear if they are for the best. All the doctors can do is look at the statistics for past cases and find the treatments that seem to have the best chances of recovery. By luck, you happened to ignore the best treatment and recover anyway.
Anecdotes are not data. If you want to show that your treatment is better on average than the one presently recommended by doctors, you have to test it on a large group of cancer sufferers. One case proves nothing.
Brooklynn, your diet might be helping a little, but if you just ignore the cancer it’s going to kill you. You already said that your doctors are the ones who have helped every time. We have many stories of people who have stopped normal treatment for cancer and pursued alternative ‘medicine’ who have died as a result, but we don’t seem to have a single story that confirms alternative ‘medicine’ curing cancer. Your doctors are helping you, don’t ignore them.
Could you please give an example of how we’re supposed to get meaningful, usable information from raw, uncontrolled data?
Yes, I can easily see that Sloan-Kettering has a policy of actively discouraging alternative treatments.
[The Sloan-Kettering Integrative Medical Service] provides unique access to otherwise unavailable information about over-the-counter products and unproven cancer treatments and their impact in the context of cancer care via our About Herbs database (hyperlinked in original). The Integrative Medicine Service has become an internationally known model program, with over 1,000 patient visits each month and a roster of funded laboratory research and clinical trials.
Does that include the prize money for the Nobel Prize?
It seems that some of the posters in this thread (plus, unfortunately, many people in the real world too) would have us believe that medical doctors and scientists, in addition to not making a fortune despite it being there for the taking, would also forego both the chance to be held in the highest esteem by humanity as well as being recognized as having a great mind. Can they really be serious?
Wrong thread. slinks out
Not only that, but the “Giant Drug multi-national conspiracy” (you see, all the doctors, insurance companies and drug companies have to be in on it. ALL of them. Riiiiiight) would love to find a cheap otc cure for cancer. See, cancer *kills *dudes. What the drug companies want is for you to live longer so that you have to stay on a large handful of their veryexpensive long term treatment drugs for decades. If there was a cheap effective cancer cure, they’d jump on it like Sgt Rock on a nazi grenade. It’d make them billions in the long term. Maybe trillions. Dead people rarely take drugs (and this is where you should believe Doktor Deth!:p), thus dead people are poor markets for the drug companies.
They want you alive and on long term therapies for your other conditions.
I know you’re just being snarky, but what you say is actually the truth. Look at AIDS, for example. Remember when the disease first broke out, people were focusing on how soon a vaccine would be invented? But no, they created a “cocktail” instead – thereby transforming an acute, fatal illness into a mere chronic condition…as long as you don’t live in Africa, of course. :mad:
Why do you say that? One case absolutely proves that it’s possible in at least ONE case. Or are you claiming that such anecdotes are always made up?
This is so fucking stupid. What, you think they just shrugged and said, “ah, screw that vaccine, let’s squeeze some CASH out o’ these bastards!”? The reason there’s no vaccine is because HIV is an absolute tricky asshole of a virus. Untold manhours and millions of dollars have been spent trying to come up with a vaccine. Several have been created and tested, with varying amounts of success. Quit making shit up.
No, it doesn’t. Correlation does not imply causation; just because the cancer disappeared following the new diet and herbs does not conclusively prove that one caused the other. Many things cause remission of cancer, and to attribute it to diet and herbs is foolish.
I am unable to relate my reaction to this drivel here but I did reply to this in the Pit thread.
Hm, let’s see. What’s going to make me more money: selling a cocktail of drugs to 0.6% of the population, or selling a vaccine to 100% of the population?