A Cure for Cancer-- Eating a Plant Based Diet

[ginkgo]

This article, Kathy Freston: A Cure For Cancer? Eating A Plant-Based Diet, is a week old so it is new article but an old story about the China study.

If you do a Google search for cancer cure, it comes up in the top 10 out of 37 million websites. Also in the top 10 of that search is the news about the leaves of the graviola tree on curing cancer. When it comes to eating leaves, I can take it or leave it.

So this Huffington article is getting a lot of attention. As of now, I have the 2nd and 4th comment on it. The last comment is first and the first comment is last just like Jesus prophesied. My 4th comment has a link back to this website so this should bring in some more readers to this forum.

It is funny that an old story is new article. Since then you can find better things to show this like the study done with half a billion people that was all over the TV news (see 2nd comment). This is an old story but Face (Faceman) and Lieutenant Starbuck cured his cancer with a plant based diet.

They are fictional characters on The A-Team and Battlestar Galactica (1978). But both were played by Dirk Benedict who cured his cancer with a plant based diet that included seaweed, before getting parts in the above TV shows. Wikipedia says "Benedict was diagnosed with prostate cancer and was told that the cure would be castration." That was right before 1975 since that is when he wrote his book about it called Confessions of a Kamikaze Cowboy. May he rest in peace. Just kidding! He is 64 now.

[Barcs]

Interesting. It seems like there are plenty of ways to cure cancer, but the catch is that you have to KNOW in your mind that it will work and you will get better. I never knew Dirk was a cancer survivor! Cool stuff.

[scorpio1980]

Not getting disease is easy, just eat whole foods. Animal foods don't cause cancer. Man made stuff causes disease, as well as over cooking your food. A natural balanced diet is all that is needed. I believe stress to be more of a factor when it comes to health than anything, that and sleep.

[Coffeesmurf]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Not getting disease is easy, just eat whole foods. Animal foods don't cause cancer. Man made stuff causes disease, as well as over cooking your food. A natural balanced diet is all that is needed. I believe stress to be more of a factor when it comes to health than anything, that and sleep.

I'm a testicular cancer survivor and have worked giving advice to newly diagnosed patients.. and I've seen people die from this cancer - which has a 99,9% cure rate using modern medicine - because they wanted to try more "natural" methods. I've also seen quacks making quite large sums of money selling "natural cures" to desperate patients - so this is a pretty sensitive topic for me.

I don't have time to go into the specifics - other than to just ask the obvious question: If you can avoid cancer by eating natural/whole foods then why do wild animals get cancer?

Besides - just talking about "cancer" as a whole makes no sense. There's a LOT of cancer types out there, each with it's own risk factors. Being born with an undescended testicle is a risk factor for getting testicular cancer at some point (regardless of your diet) and many types of breast cancer is mainly affected by your genes.. which you can't really do anything about.

Also, I might add, people claiming to have cured cancer using this or that method proves nothing in itself. Besides, a lot of scientists don't think it's possible to use The China Study to make any substantiated claims in regards to which diet is the healthiest.

[Barcs]

You are correct. There are tons of different types of cancer. You can't just generalize them all together. My uncle beat prostate cancer by going macrobiotic.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by Coffeesmurf

I don't have time to go into the specifics - other than to just ask the obvious question: If you can avoid cancer by eating natural/whole foods then why do wild animals get cancer?

The chance of a wild animal getting cancer would be very low. The chance of getting cancer on a standard American diet is high, while if you eat natural whole plant foods, you are at a very low risk.

[ginkgo]

So with testicular cancer only 1 out of 1,000 who get it die. Animals in the wild rarely get cancer or the other problems that plague Americans. But pets do get the same problems that we get. A veterinarian told me that 75% of pets get cancer.

Then there are people who live in tribes in the Amazon rainforest and they rarely get cancer, heart attacks or strokes. They die from snake bites, tree limbs falling on them and other dangers in the rainforest. If you look at a list of cancer causing agents (carcinogens), you see that they are man-made. Animals do not smoke but pets can get a lot of 2nd hand smoke.

I have also heard that there is a mental aspect of cancer like of people holding on to anger and not being able to forgive people. Also I know of people who got cancer, cured it and then got it again. But this time they do not do what cured them before and they die.

Then there is the unwritten law that you can insult anyone including Obama but cannot insult someone with cancer. Here are some cancer causing things: bees, ants, dandelions, dogwood trees, poison ivy, limestone.... Just kidding! Did you think that I was serious? Note that the pesticide DDT (in red below) was heralded as the best thing for providing food for mankind.

Here is the list of what causes cancer:
Acetaldehyde
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
4-Aminodiphenyl
Amitrole
Aniline and homologs
o-Anisidine
p-Anisidine
Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds
Arsine
Asbestos
Asphalt fumes

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
B

Benzene
Benzidine
Benzidine-based dyes
Beryllium
Butadiene
tert-Butyl chromate; class, chromium hexavalent

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
C

Cadmium dust and fume
Captafol
Captan
Carbon black (exceeding 0.1% PAHs)
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorinated camphene
Chlorodiphenyl (42% chlorine); class polychlorinated biphenyls
Chlorodiphenyl (54% chlorine); class polychlorinated biphenyls
Chloroform
Chloromethyl methyl ether
bis(Chloromethyl) ether
B-Chloroprene
Chromium, hexavalent [Cr(VI)]
Chromyl chloride; class, chromium hexavalent
Chrysene
Coal tar pitch volatiles; class, coal tar products
Coke oven emissions

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
D

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)
2,4-Diaminoanisoleo
o-Dianisidine-based dyes
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
Dichloroacetylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethyl ether
1,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
Diesel exhaust
Diglycidyl ether (DGE); class, glycidyl ethers
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Dimethyl carbomoyl chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine; class, hydrazines
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitrotoluene
Dioxane

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
E-G

Environmental tobacco smoke
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylene dibromide
Ehtylene dichloride
Ethylene oxide
Ethyleneimine
Ethylene thiourea
Formaldehyde
Gallium arsenide
Gasoline

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
H-K

Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexamethyl phosphoric triamide (HMPA)
Hydrazine
Kepone

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
M

Malonaldehyde
Methoxychlor
Methyl bromide; class, monohalomethanes
Methyl chloride
Methyl iodide; class, monohalomethanes
Methyl hydrazine; class, hydrazines
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA)
Methylene chloride
4,4-Methylenedianiline (MDA)

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
N

a-Naphylamine
B-Naphylamine
Nickel, metal, soluble, insoluble, and inorganic; class, nickel, inorganic
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel sulfide roasting
4-Nitrobiphenyl
p-Nitrochlorobenzene
2-Nitronaphthalene
2-Nitropropane
N-Nitrosodimethylamine

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
P

Pentachloroethane; class, chloroethanes
N-Phenyl-b-naphthylamine; class, b-naphthalene
Phenyl glycidyl ether; class, glycidyl ethers
Phenylhydrazine; class, hydrazines
Propane Sultone
B-Propiolactone
Propylene dichloride
Proplyene imine
Propylene oxide

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
R-S

Radon
Rosin core solder, pyrolysis products (containing formaldehyde)
Silica, crystalline cristobalite
Silica, crystalline quartz
Silica, crystalline tripoli
Silica, crystalline tridymite
silica, fused
Soapstone, total dust silicates

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
T

Tremolite silicates
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) (dioxin)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Titanium dioxide
o-Tolidine-based dyes
o-Tolidine
Toluene diisocyanate (TDI)
Toluene diamine (TDA)
o-Toluidine
p-Toluidine
1,1,2-Trichloroethane; class, chloroethanes
Trichloroethylene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
U-Z

Uranium, insoluble compounds Uranium, soluble compounds
Vinyl bromide; class, vinyl halides
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl cyclohexene dioxide
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-dichloroethylene); class, vinyl halides)
Welding fumes, total particulates
Wood dust
Zinc chromate; class, chromium hexavalent

[thebestlife]

The real cure of cancer is SELF LOVE. We beet up on our selves constantly and if we dont do it,others do it to us (until we understand the law of attraction and we change our believes and expectations for on selves and others ) . Diet helps as life food is energy too, but can hardly make up for
unhealthy energetic body.
These are my beliefs. Many people have very poor connection with their body and then they go to the doctor to find out what to do while they have the answer. Pain and illness is our body crying out for attention. OUR attention.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

So with testicular cancer only 1 out of 1,000 who get it die. Animals in the wild rarely get cancer or the other problems that plague Americans. But pets do get the same problems that we get. A veterinarian told me that 75% of pets get cancer.

Then there are people who live in tribes in the Amazon rainforest and they rarely get cancer, heart attacks or strokes. They die from snake bites, tree limbs falling on them and other dangers in the rainforest. If you look at a list of cancer causing agents (carcinogens), you see that they are man-made. Animals do not smoke but pets can get a lot of 2nd hand smoke.

I have also heard that there is a mental aspect of cancer like of people holding on to anger and not being able to forgive people. Also I know of people who got cancer, cured it and then got it again. But this time they do not do what cured them before and they die.

Then there is the unwritten law that you can insult anyone including Obama but cannot put insult someone with cancer. Here are some cancer causing things: bees, ants, dandelions, dogwood trees, poison ivy, limestone.... Just kidding! Did you think that I was serious? Note that the pesticide DDT (in red below) was heralded as the best thing for providing food for mankind.

Here is the list of what causes cancer:
Acetaldehyde
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
4-Aminodiphenyl
Amitrole
Aniline and homologs
o-Anisidine
p-Anisidine
Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds
Arsine
Asbestos
Asphalt fumes

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
B

Benzene
Benzidine
Benzidine-based dyes
Beryllium
Butadiene
tert-Butyl chromate; class, chromium hexavalent

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
C

Cadmium dust and fume
Captafol
Captan
Carbon black (exceeding 0.1% PAHs)
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorinated camphene
Chlorodiphenyl (42% chlorine); class polychlorinated biphenyls
Chlorodiphenyl (54% chlorine); class polychlorinated biphenyls
Chloroform
Chloromethyl methyl ether
bis(Chloromethyl) ether
B-Chloroprene
Chromium, hexavalent [Cr(VI)]
Chromyl chloride; class, chromium hexavalent
Chrysene
Coal tar pitch volatiles; class, coal tar products
Coke oven emissions

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
D

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)
2,4-Diaminoanisoleo
o-Dianisidine-based dyes
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
Dichloroacetylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethyl ether
1,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
Diesel exhaust
Diglycidyl ether (DGE); class, glycidyl ethers
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Dimethyl carbomoyl chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine; class, hydrazines
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitrotoluene
Dioxane

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
E-G

Environmental tobacco smoke
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylene dibromide
Ehtylene dichloride
Ethylene oxide
Ethyleneimine
Ethylene thiourea
Formaldehyde
Gallium arsenide
Gasoline

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
H-K

Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexamethyl phosphoric triamide (HMPA)
Hydrazine
Kepone

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
M

Malonaldehyde
Methoxychlor
Methyl bromide; class, monohalomethanes
Methyl chloride
Methyl iodide; class, monohalomethanes
Methyl hydrazine; class, hydrazines
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA)
Methylene chloride
4,4-Methylenedianiline (MDA)

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
N

a-Naphylamine
B-Naphylamine
Nickel, metal, soluble, insoluble, and inorganic; class, nickel, inorganic
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel sulfide roasting
4-Nitrobiphenyl
p-Nitrochlorobenzene
2-Nitronaphthalene
2-Nitropropane
N-Nitrosodimethylamine

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
P

Pentachloroethane; class, chloroethanes
N-Phenyl-b-naphthylamine; class, b-naphthalene
Phenyl glycidyl ether; class, glycidyl ethers
Phenylhydrazine; class, hydrazines
Propane Sultone
B-Propiolactone
Propylene dichloride
Proplyene imine
Propylene oxide

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
R-S

Radon
Rosin core solder, pyrolysis products (containing formaldehyde)
Silica, crystalline cristobalite
Silica, crystalline quartz
Silica, crystalline tripoli
Silica, crystalline tridymite
silica, fused
Soapstone, total dust silicates

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
T

Tremolite silicates
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) (dioxin)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Titanium dioxide
o-Tolidine-based dyes
o-Tolidine
Toluene diisocyanate (TDI)
Toluene diamine (TDA)
o-Toluidine
p-Toluidine
1,1,2-Trichloroethane; class, chloroethanes
Trichloroethylene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane

Return to top of page
Return to Occupational Cancer Topic Page
U-Z

Uranium, insoluble compounds Uranium, soluble compounds
Vinyl bromide; class, vinyl halides
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl cyclohexene dioxide
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-dichloroethylene); class, vinyl halides)
Welding fumes, total particulates
Wood dust
Zinc chromate; class, chromium hexavalent

I am sorry but return to the top of the page does NOT cause cancer
What I really meant to say is that all that may in fact lead to cancer, but the number one cause is not dealing with emotional trauma.....Its just that it is not widely believed yet....

[Coffeesmurf]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

So with testicular cancer only 1 out of 1,000 who get it die.

Yes, but this is after the currently used chemotherapy treatment was developed. Just 20 years ago, just about 100% of all testicular cancer patients whose cancer has spread died, so the tables have turned completely since the chemotherapy protocol (bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin) was developed.

Animals in the wild rarely get cancer or the other problems that plague Americans. But pets do get the same problems that we get. A veterinarian told me that 75% of pets get cancer.

There's very few larger studies on wild animals and cancer, so it hard to say something definitive on the subject. But that fact remains that wild animals do get cancer.

Then there are people who live in tribes in the Amazon rainforest and they rarely get cancer, heart attacks or strokes. They die from snake bites, tree limbs falling on them and other dangers in the rainforest.

I'm not saying environmental pollution, bad diets (high sugar, red meat and trans fatty acids for instance like many americans consume) isn't a cause of cancer. I'm just opposing the claim that you can cure various forms of cancer through your diet only.

If you look at a list of cancer causing agents (carcinogens), you see that they are man-made. Animals do not smoke but pets can get a lot of 2nd hand smoke.

I don't see how a lot of chemicals that are mostly used in various jobs, which cause cancer is relevant, to be honest.. and I never said second hand doesn't cause cancer.

I have also heard that there is a mental aspect of cancer like of people holding on to anger and not being able to forgive people. Also I know of people who got cancer, cured it and then got it again. But this time they do not do what cured them before and they die.

Dr. Craig Nichols, who's one of the top experts when it comes to testicular cancer (he treated Lance Armstrong, for instance) who has treated thousands of patients, says he believes the mental aspect has nothing to say in regards to who lives and dies. I think his quote was something like this: "I've seen absolutely miserable people survive and go on to live their miserable lives - and I've seen very positive people with great attitudes die".

Me claiming that my grandfather beat lung cancer by standing on his head for 20 minutes every day is every bit as valid as any singular claims of people beating cancer by eating a macrobiotic diet, for instance. By the way.. of lot of completely natural things cause cancer or are lethal.

Then there is the unwritten law that you can insult anyone including Obama but cannot put insult someone with cancer. Here are some cancer causing things: bees, ants, dandelions, dogwood trees, poison ivy, limestone.... Just kidding! Did you think that I was serious? Note that the pesticide DDT (in red below) was heralded as the best thing for providing food for mankind.

Hmm, who says you can't insult someone with cancer? Hell, I joke about my cancer often - as does my friends. Most of the cancer survivors I've met have a great sense of humour - and they are amongst the most inspiring people I've ever come across.

What exactly is the point about DDT supposed to prove?

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by garentee

I am sorry but return to the top of the page does NOT cause cancer
What I really meant to say is that all that may in fact lead to cancer, but the number one cause is not dealing with emotional trauma.....Its just that it is not widely believed yet....

I do not know if that is the main cause of cancer but John Hopkins says that cancer is a disease of many different factors. I agree with that! I think earlier I mentioned that I have seen strange things with cancer where people cure it with something and then got it again but did not use what cured them before. So then they die.

One woman got cancer and changed her lifestyle (incl. smoking) and cured it. Then she went back to her old lifestyle, got it again and died.

I forgot to say that all those cancer causing things are created by man, not nature. Also 90% of people with lung cancer smoke. That does not sound like it is mostly mental. Then there is the cancer (mesothelioma) that comes only from being around asbestos. On second thought, in the book, Conversations with God, God says that anyone who smokes or drinks alcohol hates themselves.

I have helped many to cure their cancer with the graviola herb from all over the country. At least that is what people tell me on the phone. See site below.

[garentee]

Exposure to carcinogens is a fact of life in todays society. That said though, our body when given a good diet and other alternative healing techniques can fight any disease and live. The point is to believe that you can. Also just because you are exposed to carcinogens does not mean you will definitely get cancer. Not all smokers get cancer. It increases the risk, but the underlying reason is there is something thatis going on in the emotional life of a smoker. If you love yourself you will not smoke...If you love yourself chances are fairly good that your immune function is operating at a high level and can be kept at a high level by eating high quality vegetables and taking herbal substances. I am not necessarily of the belief that meat causes cancer. I believe that eating meat from good sources of production and eating a well balanced diet are important in curing disease. I am not a doctor...I have no formal training I just happen to be a person with a belief.

[ginkgo]

"By the way.. of lot of completely natural things cause cancer or are lethal."

Can you name one that causes cancer? You could have said the above and then said "for example this, this and this." But you did not. I have already mentioned natural things that are lethal or cause death like snake bites, a branch falling on you and there are sharks or tigers that eat you, there are army ants that can make you a skeleton in minutes, eating all your tissue and you can trip on a rock and die. A bee sting can kill some people but it does not cause cancer. I have a large article backed by lots of prestigious people showing that sunlight does not cause cancer, but prevents it and the exact reason for this lie. As far as that statement, I can do that also. For example: I can tell you lots of places where people have monkeys flying out of their butts or places where people have pets.

Also besides chemicals at jobs there is the teflon no-stick pans, chemicals in the paint and carpets in your house and the cancer causing chemicals in your personal care products-- just do the search that I did to get the above list.

Can you name any herbs or natural foods (not made by man like saccharine) that cause cancer? I understand that you did not know the point of me mentioning DDT. So let me ask you this. Pretend or imagine that you did know. Tell me what would that point be.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by garentee

What I really meant to say is that all that may in fact lead to cancer, but the number one cause is not dealing with emotional trauma.....Its just that it is not widely believed yet....

Ah, thank you. Nuff said.

[garentee]

Can you name any herbs or natural foods (not made by man like saccharine) that cause cancer?


Sassafrass. It has been listed as a carcinogen since 1976. It can be used if it is safrole free...Sassafrass is used in Gumbo file powder and as a tea.Safrole is basically sassafrass oil.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by garentee

Can you name any herbs or natural foods (not made by man like saccharine) that cause cancer?


Sassafrass. It has been listed as a carcinogen since 1976. It can be used if it is safrole free...Sassafrass is used in Gumbo file powder and as a tea.Safrole is basically sassafrass oil.

As far as smoking cigarettes see the second thought that I added to that post. Apparently God says that you are right and who am I to argue with God. Also someone with the cancer from asbestos could probably do things to get rid of it.

I thought of sassafras when writing the above. But how many on this site are going to know that. So you are very knowledgeable. Of course that is according to the FDA that approved of Vioxx. It appears that this has been reversed according to Wikipedia though. Sassafras - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The premier health food store in Philadelphia, Essene, has root beer made with sassafras. With that long list that I gave maybe they are wrong about some of them and they do not cause cancer. But what are the odds of them being wrong on all of them? So the sassafras info may be wrong.

[James Reno]

I've come across a cool site that addresses this issue. It is called cancertutor.com.

I excerpted some of what they were about on my site here Raw Food Diet For Cancer! but if you want more in depth check out cancertutor.com

[Coffeesmurf]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

"[COLOR="Red"]Can you name one that causes cancer? You could have said the above and then said "for example this, this and this." But you did not.

You know - I really don't want to get into a long discussion about this.. especially since it seems you're exactly like the people selling fake "natural" cancer cures to desperate patients.

I'll just quickly list some natural things from your own posted list of cancer causing substances:

Wood dust
Nickel
Radon
Uranium
The various forms of silica listed (which is the most abundant mineral on earth - commonly in the form of sand)

Can you name any herbs or natural foods (not made by man like saccharine) that cause cancer?

The question was whether you could cure cancer by eating in a certain way - not whether you could cause it. The fact that a high sugar intake (without adequate exercise), trans fatty acids and being overweight is a big cause of cancer is pretty well established.

I understand that you did not know the point of me mentioning DDT. So let me ask you this. Pretend or imagine that you did know. Tell me what would that point be.

The original discussion was about the effect of diet on cancer - I really don't see why this is relevant. I know it was used for crop dusting etc, but it's use in the US and pretty much everywhere else has been banned now.. and you're likely to find the same amount of DDT in organic vegetables as in "normal" vegetables, for instance.

What I hate most about the claims that you can easily cure cancer by using "natural" cures and diets and that this is somehow withheld from the public deliberately is this: It implies that there are millions of cancer researchers and doctors out there, that are willing to let patients die while possessing knowledge that could save them.

I know some of those scientists and doctors - and they are some of the most compassionate and hard working people I know.

[Jthorn]

Those scientists and doctors may be truly compassionate and hard working, but lost in their own little world and thus as ignorant as anyone else.

You too, who comes into contact with so many diagnosed patients, would not hear of someone who never went to the docs, would you?

You say that you 've seen people turning to natural remedies fail, but that's too vague. There's no denying there is quackery around and I 'm not fond of some people around this forum myself. You can't expect to lead a toxic lifestyle and then a magic herb to heal you. Actually, once cancer has progressed, you can't expect lifestyle changes to do miracles, although there are stories for these.
But a healthy diet and good exercise most definetely do work in preventing it.

Oh and modern medicine may be faring well in treating testicular cancer but that's because they can chop your balls off. Concerning other forms, even if treated succesfully, it will come back again. And again. And again. I 've seen this first-hand with several people I know.

[SmartAlx]

I think you are more at risk of getting cancer when you don't give your body what it needs. This means that if you are an animal and you don't get an adequate diet you are more at risk of getting cancer. If give your body what it needs and you don't pollute it with chemicals and food that it's not designed to deal with (like meat for humans), then you are less likely to get cancer in the first place.

Most natives die before they would get cancer. Natives don't get cancer because cancer is an older age disease, not because they eat a healthier diet. In fact their diets usually include meat and sometimes some pretty nasty and possibly harmful things.

Another early example of curing cancer is given in the book Back to Eden (a fantastic book - highly recommended - find it at Whole Foods), where Jethro Koss cured many forms of cancer (colon, stomach, liver, breast) in the early 20th century with a vegan diet, herbs, enemas, and something he calls "the water cure." His letters to the Cancer Research Institute were effectively ignored.

[Coffeesmurf]

Originally Posted by Jthorn

Those scientists and doctors may be truly compassionate and hard working, but lost in their own little world and thus as ignorant as anyone else.

I don't agree that they are ignorant - scientists openly admit to not having all the answers, unlike the quacks selling "natural" cancer cures. Trying to blindly offer cures to (often desperate terminally ill) cancer patients without any scientific evidence to back up the claims is downright atrocious in my book.. no matter what the intent is.

And saying your uncle, coworker, neighbor or some guy you heard of beat cancer by eating a special diet is purely anecdotal evidence and therefore entirely worthless.

You too, who comes into contact with so many diagnosed patients, would not hear of someone who never went to the docs, would you?

Actually, I met quite a few patients who - mainly out of fear of the standard treatment, which involves removing the cancerous testicle surgically - have tried changing their diets, eating chinese herbs and a very large number of other unproven "treatments" until they finally give in and seek assistance. Usually, because they waited - their cancer has now spread.. and instead of needing only the surgery, they now need to go through the surgery and chemotherapy - and sometimes even RPLND-surgery after chemo. In really bad cases, brain surgery is needed.

You say that you 've seen people turning to natural remedies fail, but that's too vague. There's no denying there is quackery around and I 'm not fond of some people around this forum myself. You can't expect to lead a toxic lifestyle and then a magic herb to heal you. Actually, once cancer has progressed, you can't expect lifestyle changes to do miracles, although there are stories for these.

I'm not saying diet doesn't have a huge impact on the risk of getting cancer.. it certainly does. However, if you have a gene defect that puts you at immense risk of developing breast cancer, for instance.. then eating the best diet possible won't guarantee a thing.

But a healthy diet and good exercise most definetely do work in preventing it.

I don't think any scientists or doctors are saying otherwise. The fact that a good diet and exercise has a great effect on preventing cancer - and a host of other diseases - is well established.

Oh and modern medicine may be faring well in treating testicular cancer but that's because they can chop your balls off. Concerning other forms, even if treated succesfully, it will come back again. And again. And again. I 've seen this first-hand with several people I know.

The first line treatment for testicular cancer has been surgery for a very long time and 20 years ago where the surgical options were the same, about 100% of testicular cancer patients with spread died. Not until coming up with the chemotherapy treatment did the tables turn and the cure rate rise to nearly 100%.

The problem with you last sentence is this: What happened to several people is not a very large group to base any conclusions on. Besides, they may have gene-defects that put them at risk for developing several cancers.

Treatment for cancer in itself often increases your risk of getting cancer again. The follow-up checkups themselves can increase your risk too. The likelyhood of dying from a single CT-scan of your abdomen is 1 in 1000, because of the risk of getting cancer from the radiation.

[Gene]

[QUOTE=ginkgo;421438]
Then there are people who live in tribes in the Amazon rainforest and they rarely get cancer, heart attacks or strokes. They die from snake bites, tree limbs falling on them and other dangers in the rainforest. If you look at a list of cancer causing agents (carcinogens), you see that they are man-made. Animals do not smoke but pets can get a lot of 2nd hand smoke.

I suspect that the natives of the rain forest tend to die much younger than people who live in developed countries. I think it possible that if the rain forest residents lived to 80 years old they also might have a higher prevalence of cancer than with the shorter life spans they almost certainly live at this time. YMMV.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Jthorn

Those scientists and doctors may be truly compassionate and hard working, but lost in their own little world and thus as ignorant as anyone else.

In Suzanne Somers' new book Breakthrough, she interviews several alternative health practitioners. I just read the one with William Faloon, one of the founders of the Life Extension Foundation, which also has a website and magazine.

He says they tried to set up a medical center in 2000 to treat cancer, and tried to recruit qualified oncologists for it.

LEF couldn't find anyone they liked, because apparently

"These doctors were looking to treat high-volume cases and administer lots of chemotherapy. In fact, the first thing they asked us was about their chemotherapy "bonuses" [which sounds much like the ones pediatricians get if they inject lots of babies and kids with vaccines]. It turns out that a big part of these doctors' salaries comes in the form of how much chemotherapy they administer. Chemo is big profit.

[...]

we had all these doctors telling us how much money we could make if we just set up the assembly line [to administer chemo in a quick and efficient manner to as many people as possible]."

During the interview he mentions cheap and effective conventional drugs like Cimetidine (Tagamet) for colon cancer and Provenge for prostate cancer.

Don't be surprised (LOL), but the FDA has yet to approve these meds for any other use despite studies.

Faloon also mentions tests that can be done on cancerous tumors that can determine which chemotherapy agent has the most affect on them, or blood tests that show the prevalence of circulating tumor cells that can help doctors decide if chemo would even be effective (they're currently used in Germany), but these aren't done in the U.S. Probably because they take time away from the chemo assembly line.

You can't expect to lead a toxic lifestyle and then a magic herb to heal you. Actually, once cancer has progressed, you can't expect lifestyle changes to do miracles, although there are stories for these.
But a healthy diet and good exercise most definetely do work in preventing it.

Thanks for mentioning that.

Many desperate people, after being poisoned through and through with chemo and other drugs, finally turn to natural remedies and diet after being left to die by their doctors. Sadly, it's "too little too late."

Oh and modern medicine may be faring well in treating testicular cancer but that's because they can chop your balls off. Concerning other forms, even if treated succesfully, it will come back again. And again. And again. I 've seen this first-hand with several people I know.

Me too. Someone near and dear to me suffered with metastatic breast cancer and Big Pharma "therapies."

First it was tiny tumors in her breast and arm pit, then it came back in the other breast, then it went to her liver, and finally spread to her lungs and brain, which killed her.

I'll bet if they could've figured out a way to chop her head off and lungs out, they'd have done it. Kept her alive and call it "success."

BTW, I found it extremely sad that she got cancer after years of low-fat dieting. Basically trying to do what's recommended (eat more veggies, reduce meat and fat, yadda yadda), yet getting cancer and dying from it anyway.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Most natives die before they would get cancer. Natives don't get cancer because cancer is an older age disease, not because they eat a healthier diet. In fact their diets usually include meat and sometimes some pretty nasty and possibly harmful things.

They tend to die from accidents, fighting wars, and other problems that come with living in primitive conditions. I wrote a post about the Inuit that bears repeating in this thread:

Up until around the 1930s, it was well-known in the scientific community that carnivorous groups of people had excellent health as long as they stuck with their traditional diet.

Arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson was so amazed by Inuit health he documented it in a book called Cancer, Disease of Civilization. Unfortunately it's out of print, but there was a good post about it on the Whole Health Source blog:

"Field physicians in the arctic noted that the Inuit were a remarkably healthy people. While they suffered from a tragic susceptibility to European communicable diseases, they did not develop the chronic diseases we now view as part of being human: tooth decay, overweight, heart attacks, appendicitis, constipation, diabetes and cancer. When word reached American and European physicians that the Inuit did not develop cancer, a number of them decided to mount an active search for it. This search began in the 1850s and tapered off in the 1920s, as traditionally-living Inuit became difficult to find.

One of these physicians was captain George B. Leavitt. He actively searched for cancer among the traditionally-living Inuit from 1885 to 1907. Along with his staff, he performed 50,000 examinations a year for the first 15 years, and 25,000 a year thereafter. He did not find a single case of cancer. At the same time, he was regularly diagnosing cancers among the crews of whaling ships and other Westernized populations. It's important to note two relevant facts about Inuit culture: first, their habit of going shirtless indoors. This would make visual inspection for external cancers very easy. Second, the Inuit generally had great faith in Western doctors and would consult them even for minor problems. Therefore, doctors in the arctic had ample opportunity to inspect them for cancer."

By 1934, the Inuit were becoming increasingly Westernized. But according to a U.S Treasury Public Health Report study that year called "Mortality in the Native Races of the Territory of Alaska, With Special Reference to Tuberculosis," the cancer death rate was still less than 5%:



From: Whole Health Source: Cancer Among the Inuit

[/QUOTE]

[ginkgo]

[QUOTE=Gene;422267]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

Then there are people who live in tribes in the Amazon rainforest and they rarely get cancer, heart attacks or strokes. They die from snake bites, tree limbs falling on them and other dangers in the rainforest. If you look at a list of cancer causing agents (carcinogens), you see that they are man-made. Animals do not smoke but pets can get a lot of 2nd hand smoke.

I suspect that the natives of the rain forest tend to die much younger than people who live in developed countries. I think it possible that if the rain forest residents lived to 80 years old they also might have a higher prevalence of cancer than with the shorter life spans they almost certainly live at this time. YMMV.

I have listened to tapes from Amazon John. He is married to Olivia Newton-John and has over a dozen tribes there that pick herbs for his company, Amazon Herb Co. I have been a distributor of it for over 10 years.

Many live to an extremely old age. They know about herbs for helping many health problems including gashes and internal bleeding that need surgery. They do not get cancer so no need to know about graviola so they would ignore it until the NCI studied it.

Maybe Amazon John is lying? I have also read Amazon.com: Witch-Doctor's Apprentice: Hunting for Medicinal Plants in the Amazon (Library of the Mystic Arts) (9780806511740): Nicole Maxwell: Books (over 400 pages). The author of that got Amazon John into herbs instead of other Amazon treasures like gemstones and monkey bones.

A drug company paid her to go there and research herbs. Also I read a book about a Harvard trained scientist going to the Amazon for the same reason. Amazon.com: Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice: An Ethnobotanist Searches for New Medicines in the Amazon Rain Forest (9780140129915): Mark J. Plotkin: Books An ethnobotanist studies the plants of a specific culture (ethnic group).

"A century ago, malaria was killing Washingtonians, Londoners, Parisians. Today HIV, along with various cancers, has taken its place among worldwide epidemics. Quinine, extracted from the cinchona tree of the Amazonian rainforest, quelled malaria; alkaloids taken from trees in the West African rainforest may well yield a cure for AIDS. Yet those woods, Mark Plotkin tells us, are fast disappearing, along with the native peoples who know the powers of the plants that dwell there. His account of wandering through the Amazonian jungles focuses on local knowledge about plants, whose uses range from the mundane to the magical. The rainforests of the world, Plotkin notes, are our greatest natural resource, an intercultural pharmacy that can cure woes both known and yet unvisited."

The above is from the 2nd site. This is from the first site: "This memoir of travels in the Amazon has an agreeable twist: Nicole Maxwell was hunting for medicinal plants with the triple goal of conserving the jungle, improving the lot of humanity and having a great deal of fun. Her tales span countries and decades, as we watch her mature from an enthusiastic if somewhat naive idealist to a true trouper. Despite setbacks and disillusionment, she never lost sight of her goal, and lived to see others [Amazon John Easterling and now Olivia Newton-John] pick up the task of cultivating important medicinal plants and knowledge, and further her cause of preserving the jungle through wiser use."

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by Coffeesmurf

You know - I really don't want to get into a long discussion about this.. especially since it seems you're exactly like the people selling fake "natural" cancer cures to desperate patients.

I'll just quickly list some natural things from your own posted list of cancer causing substances:

Wood dust
Nickel
Radon
Uranium
The various forms of silica listed (which is the most abundant mineral on earth - commonly in the form of sand)



The question was whether you could cure cancer by eating in a certain way - not whether you could cause it. The fact that a high sugar intake (without adequate exercise), trans fatty acids and being overweight is a big cause of cancer is pretty well established.



The original discussion was about the effect of diet on cancer - I really don't see why this is relevant. I know it was used for crop dusting etc, but it's use in the US and pretty much everywhere else has been banned now.. and you're likely to find the same amount of DDT in organic vegetables as in "normal" vegetables, for instance.

What I hate most about the claims that you can easily cure cancer by using "natural" cures and diets and that this is somehow withheld from the public deliberately is this: It implies that there are millions of cancer researchers and doctors out there, that are willing to let patients die while possessing knowledge that could save them.

I know some of those scientists and doctors - and they are some of the most compassionate and hard working people I know.

Besides existing in nature would mean also having enough close contact to cause cancer since cancer is more rare with wild animals. We have close contact with our skin care products. DDT is now in all the foods grown in the U.S. 99% of human's mother milk now contains it in the U.S.A. DDT was banned long ago, but is in the ground now almost everywhere in the U.S.A.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by liamona

They tend to die from accidents, fighting wars, and other problems that come with living in primitive conditions. I wrote a post about the Inuit that bears repeating in this thread:

Thanks a lot. That proves what I was saying!

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Coffeesmurf

I'm a testicular cancer survivor and have worked giving advice to newly diagnosed patients.. and I've seen people die from this cancer - which has a 99,9% cure rate using modern medicine - because they wanted to try more "natural" methods. I've also seen quacks making quite large sums of money selling "natural cures" to desperate patients - so this is a pretty sensitive topic for me.

I don't have time to go into the specifics - other than to just ask the obvious question: If you can avoid cancer by eating natural/whole foods then why do wild animals get cancer?

Besides - just talking about "cancer" as a whole makes no sense. There's a LOT of cancer types out there, each with it's own risk factors. Being born with an undescended testicle is a risk factor for getting testicular cancer at some point (regardless of your diet) and many types of breast cancer is mainly affected by your genes.. which you can't really do anything about.

Also, I might add, people claiming to have cured cancer using this or that method proves nothing in itself. Besides, a lot of scientists don't think it's possible to use The China Study to make any substantiated claims in regards to which diet is the healthiest.

I like this reply. I don't know what I would do if I had testicular cancer, but I don't think I would imagine it to be as simplistic as Gingko makes out. I mean, I'm vegan. So I'm immune to cancer now?

I definitely wouldn't blindly trust doctors or the medical community though. I suppose I'd give fasts, seawater, vitamins, and better nutrition in general a shot. Then I'd call three of the best psychics I could find and ask them what the lesson is in my sickness and how I can learn it before it kills me. If all three said the same thing, then I'd have something to go on.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I like this reply. I don't know what I would do if I had testicular cancer, but I don't think I would imagine it to be as simplistic as Gingko makes out. I mean, I'm vegan. So I'm immune to cancer now?

Did you only read my first post? I was bringing up the article to get things started. I never said that it was simple. I never said that what happens with Dirk Benedict will happen with anyone. But I do feel that meat vs vegan is one of the factors.

If you read other posts of mine on this thread I said "I do not know if that is the main cause of cancer but John Hopkins says that cancer is a disease of many different factors. I agree with that! I think earlier I mentioned that I have seen strange things with cancer where people cure it with something and then got it again but did not use what cured them before. So then they die. [the guy above was talking about the mental aspect of cancer]

One woman got cancer and changed her lifestyle (incl. smoking) and cured it. Then she went back to her old lifestyle, got it again and died." That is the opposite of simplistic. That is complex.

I also mentioned the cancer you get from asbestos. Also what about the long list that I gave. That was not about your diet but what is around you.

There is very little vitamin D in plant foods since it is so toxic. But vitamin D from sunlight can protect you against cancer. See this article. That is another on of the many factors.

[foxyshadis]

Ginkgo, to be honest, you sound like a wishy-washy crank who has a very hard time thinking critically and judging opposing ideas, who ignores contrary evidence instead of incorporating it into your worldview, or mishmashes it in so that you make less sense the more you explain yourself. As Steve Pavlina says, sometimes you have to let go of erroneous information to align yourself with reality. And it really helps the discussion to respond directly to someone's statements, rather than rambling.

The fact is, what causes cancer is generally having too much of things that are healthy, or just not unhealthy, in smaller doses. Too much sunlight will cause cancer, that's one of the least controversial carcinogens. Sunlight (UV specifically) is a form of strong radiation, and overexposure will break down RNA & DNA, disrupt the telomers, and basically create mutant cells that spread to steal oxygen & nutrients from healthy cells faster than the body can remove them. That's all cancer is. However, a lesser amount of sunlight is beneficial, providing the mechanism to create vitamin D and disrupting cells slowly enough that the body can remove them. The same holds true of many free radicals, whether beneficial or overtly harmful, and in the long run preventing their intake in food is a big step toward a cancer free future, but you consistently phrase it as the only step necessary.

I don't really understand how it's so hard to believe that something that helps you can also hurt you in overdoses.

Likewise, long-term reaction to high levels of stress hormones may have effects similar to free radicals, and certainly weakens the immune system and that purging process. There is also significant genetic variation in what is and isn't a carcinogen among people, as well as how fast they can purge cancerous cells, and how much any given treatment can help. That's why every available helpful treatment should be used to fight a serious disease. Modern chemo isn't even the horrible human wringer it used to be for all cancers!

Basically, there is a scientific explanation for cancer and its treatments. If you don't even try to understand that, your ideas are wishful thinking and fantasy.

Now something that I think you and liamona constantly miss: Any particular treatment can only give so much improvement in condition. If the treatments combined with your body's immune system isn't enough to overcome the disease, the disease will just continue to grow. You are completely unqualified to judge the state of cancer and what therapy is best, even for yourself, compared to a doctor who sees the outcomes of treatments on a variety of different initial states every day. Someday you may get such a benign cancer that a happy outlook and a fast may purge it. Most people who tried that would simply die far more quickly, the human immune system can't cope with cancers beyond certain thresholds.

I'm also extremely skeptical of your little one-line anecdote about a lifestyle change leading to a cancer cure, and another leading to death, especially if this is something you're repeating and have no citation for. Most cancers will go into remission without being fully cured, and the tumor can become malignant again. Often a cancer will have metastasized, which means bits of it can be hiding beyond your body's ability to purge, ready to come out, much deadlier than before. Healthier living may have given her six days or six years, but cancers that return have a lower survival rate. In fact your anecdote only highlights the fact that non-chemo therapies to cancer have a much higher recidivism rate.

Living healthy lives, well or sick, is an incredibly important need at any age. But claiming that living a healthy life is the only cure you need is no better than claiming that prayer is the only cure you need, and to me it sounds the same.