Very good read!
Of course, she also had standard surgery and chemo. But I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the no sugar diet slowed the cancer down enough for the chemo/surgery to be more effective.
If not eating sugar could slow (all) cancers, then not eating at all would clearly cover that case, and should have slowed the lung cancer.
At the very least, his anecdote is convincing to me that it "starving the cancer" doesn't work with lung cancer.
In the more general sense though my first impression of the phrase "route energy through metabolic pathways that cancer is disadvantaged for" is that it sounds like random word salad.
Can you elaborate on whether his diet excluded rice, refined grains and any other sort of simple carbs?
I was rather shocked to see in the documentary 'Fed Up' that all these carb rich foods get broken down to simple sugar molecules pretty darn quick and as far as the body is concerned are identical to sugar.
As reflected in the article, the key is keeping the insulin levels at bay.
In all honesty, I'm pretty touchy about alternative cancer treatments. Probably too touchy. :) I watched Dad choke down blended flaxseed and cottage cheese. I had to talk him out of handing over what little money he and Mom had to some charlatan who claimed to be able to cure cancer with sound waves. And he was also pitched this "cancer lives on sugar, starve the cancer" horsecrap. It was all complete bullshit and he fucking died right when the doctor told me he would after Dad was diagnosed.
There are vampires and leaches out there selling fraudulent hope to the desperate. It's amazing to watch them crawl out of the woodwork.
Cancer is a bunch of different diseases. I think we get into a lot of trouble when we talk about it in simplified terms.
There are stories about certain kinds of cancers having a metabolic component. I have a friend who had a very, very serious cancer which appears to have responded to metabolic therapy. It may not all be "horsecrap". But it's surely not a cure-all, either.
It's probably not. Bitterness creeps in far too easily and my words became caustic.
Can completely understand, a lot of prats out there who take advantage of desperate folk struggling with an awful, awful disease.
"Eat food that cancer/tumors don't like as much as sugar."
Umm.. This sounds to me to be very simplistic thinking. What about the effects of complete starving on the immune system for example?. Or for that matter, the proposed no sugar diet triggers some mechanisms from here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_immunology)
I do agree, it's not yet accepted through experiments via the scientific method though.
Of course, my mechanic also replaced the engine, but I wouldn't be surprised if my process helped.
BTW: Is that sugar as in all sugars or refined sugars? Not eating 'sweets' is not a bad idea anyway no matter if it helps against cancer or not. Just like not eating massive amounts of meat and exercising. It might not help you achieve immortality but it can't hurt. And no it does not 'remove all fun from life'.
strong conclusion. What is your basis for it, if any? Do you have any related experience, education? May be you happened at least to read something on the subject?
>if the results were so positive, surely we would know about them.
we do know about them. At least when you are not too lazy to use Google.
"Although the full mechanism by which ketogenic diets improve oncological and neurological conditions still remains to be elucidated, their clinical efficacy has attracted many new followers, and ketogenic diets can be a good option as a co-adjuvant therapy, depending on the situation and the extent of the disease."
It's perhaps better to tell patients to "eat balanced and enjoy yourself with a treat from time to time like anyone else" and stamp some medical authority behind it rather than have them obsess over diet to the point where they become hooked by all the predators selling fad diet cures.
These shakes are also low on lactase because depending on the chemo patients can become intollerant to lactase (either through the chemo or antibiotics that are given). They are also low on fibre so its easier to digest.
Good luck eating your veg and protein when you immediately vomit it back up.
Now I enjoy them just fine and cook with them, but every time I see one I still remember throwing up as a child.
I couldn't drink tequila for years after getting so drunk, and so sick from it.
I could never eat that again. My brain tied it directly to bad feelings.
On the other hand, I've read recently that fasting improved chemo tolerance because it puts healthy cells at rest while the cancerous ones are oblivious to the reduced calories intake... Not sure if it is universal. Such an early study was likely targeted a specific kind of cancer.
Also, seem to me the basic complication of dealing with cancers is that anything that will kill a cancer cell is likely to also kill healthy cells. So inversely, whatever you do to keep the patient alive is likely to also exasperate the cancer problem.
By making sporadic (eg. once a month) fasting periods of 12h to 24h, they expect to starve cancer cells in their very early stages (basically using the underlying principle of the article).
I would be extremely interested in seeing a study of the incidence of cancer in people doing Intermittent fasting vs general population.
"Bi-monthly FMD cycles started at middle age extended longevity, lowered visceral fat, reduced cancer incidence and skin lesions, rejuvenated the immune system, and retarded bone mineral density loss."
This study shows not so promising results:
Points to "Overall, there was no difference in mouse survival (P=0.37) or tumor volumes (P ≥ 0.10)" (mice that already had prostate cancer)
tl;dr: There might be some potential benefits of fasting in the prevention of cancer, might not be the case for treatment of cancer...
Uh, any adverse effects if you increase that frequency? Because I reach a fasting period of 12h almost every day...
Can't be patent protected, hence clinical trials are very difficult (to fund) but are under way for limited applications:
The mechanism of action targets the unique cancer cells energy metabolism.
BTW, in developing world with traditional simple, not processed foods and setting in a tribal culture eating habits rates of cancers are way lower (and no, it is not because lack of diagnostic tests).
The causes and treatments for lymphatic cancers are different from lung cancers are different from breast cancers are different from prostate cancers are different from brain cancers are different from liver cancers, ad infinitum.
That is clearly something that can be targeted in principle (and not the only thing). Whether the "causes" are different is irrelevant. Whether the treatments are different is a choice made by people, and also irrelevant.
Anyway, this whole "cancer isn't one disease" meme is best depicted by the bottom right panel of the second section of this comic:
It looks just like the "string theory landscape", next you will be told that we need to stop worrying about comparing predictions to evidence when it comes to cancer research. Just wait a few years/decades.
Just because there's a shared behavior there's no guarantee there's a shared cause or mechanism. And even when there are, the environment can make any given solution unusable.
Then there are even more "fun" special cases of simultaneously occurring diseases where the cure for one makes the other disease more dangerous.
But the point regarding cancer is that it just really ISN'T a single disease. That's like calling rockets, hot-air balloons, airplanes and helicopters the same thing. Sure, they all fly, but the mechanisms for them all are drastically different.
Cancers are the collection of diseases which causes cells to replicate uncontrollably.
No, this is just a recent meme people started repeating because it said in a documentary or something. It is just as much "one disease" as many other medical issues grouped together as "one disease".
It is an awful meme too, because it discourages looking at commonalities and gives poorly performing researchers an excuse for not figuring anything out. Both of which slow the process of understanding cancer.
I mean, here's Harold Varmus, former head of the NIH and a Nobel Prize winner for his work on cancer research:
"What we've learned can be grouped into three categories. First, we've learned that cancer is not simply a single disease that affects many parts of the body. It is not, for example, a "war on cancer" as a single enemy. It is many different diseases with common themes that can cause different kinds of disorders in many of our organs. These include mutations in many different genes, changes in essential cell functions, and unusual interactions with the cellular environment in which tumors grow. We need to study each of these areas separately."
He has to say stuff like that as head of NCI. The slow progress is even noted on wikipedia, everyone knows it. This "cancer is so complicated" idea is being used as an "excuse" (not that it is definitely false):
"Though there has been significant progress in the understanding of cancer biology, risk factors, treatments, and prognosis of some types of cancer (such as childhood leukemia) since the inception of the National Cancer Act of 1971, progress in reducing the overall cancer mortality rate has been disappointing. Many types of cancer remain largely incurable (such as pancreatic cancer) and the overall death rate from cancer has not decreased appreciably since the 1970s. The death rate for cancer in the U.S., adjusted for population size and age, dropped only 5 percent from 1950 to 2005."
Before accepting that reason for the slow progress, we should consider that some are reporting only 10% of what gets published can be reproduced:
"Although we in the cancer field hoped that this would lead to more effective drugs, historically, our ability to translate cancer research to clinical success has been remarkably low1. Sadly, clinical trials in oncology have the highest failure rate compared with other therapeutic areas."
Also, people are quitting cancer reproducibility projects out of disgust for the low quality of the research:
"Early on, Begley, who had raised some of the initial objections about irreproducible papers, became disenchanted. He says some of the papers chosen have such serious flaws, such as a lack of appropriate controls, that attempting to replicate them is “a complete waste of time.” He stepped down from the project's advisory board last year.
Others are estimating pretty much 50% of all biomed can't be reproduced:
"The deeper problem is that much of cancer research in the lab—maybe even most of it—simply can’t be trusted. The data are corrupt. The findings are unstable. The science doesn’t work.
The resulting waste amounts to more than $28 billion: That’s two dozen Cancer Moonshots misfired in every single year."
Even Robert Wienberg refers to cancer research as an example of "Augean Stables":
"'It’s a naÏveté that by simply embracing this ethic, which sounds eminently reasonable, that one can clean out the Augean stables of science,' says Robert Weinberg, a cancer biologist at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts."
Of note is that that is in addition to (not instead of) standard care.
It's also interesting to see many people taking Metformin (which inhibits glucose production in the liver) preventatively.
my (armchair) analysis on cancer treatment - i) chemotherapy, in vacuum, most likely does considerably more harm than good, ii) sugar feeds cancer cells, iii) essential to feed body nutrients from a variety of sources (all must be plant based and non-processed), iv) it is likely a prudent investment to engage in holistic treatments such as being immersed in positivity and fulfilled environment and ingesting plant products with powerful healing properties known to locals across the world.
Having said all this, it is difficult to say no to conventional treatment and to MDs working at prestigious hospitals when the life of your loved one is at stake.
I have multiple cancer patients in my extended family, and this is in a family that lives on a south Asian diet (with all kinds of spices and turmeric, lots of vegetables). the cancer epidemic is extremely scary, and makes me feel vulnerable with my life - regardless of how knowledgeable I try to be on the subject.
My belief is that we must approach cancer as we have approached infectious diseases such as measles and whooping cough. We must identify carcinogens in our environment (this may be physical and spiritual), and take serious steps to remove them from our social construct.
plus recycling of pyruvate/lactate/some-such
p.s. the reference to a black cat crossing was intriguing from the perspective of a psychoanalyst studying the HN mind.
I would really like to see the citations that "body needs certain kinds of sugars to function" connotes that we must perforce consume sugar in some form (which I interpret "not the greatest thing in the world for our bodies" implies while we might not have to eat table sugar, we need to at least eat carbs that can be readily converted to glucose), at least in modest amounts. People who start out as epileptic children put on strict ketogenic diets able to carry out successful lifestyles for decades without any other restrictions are prima facie empirical evidence that we most assuredly can synthesize what little sugars our bodies do require beyond very small amounts of daily net carbohydrates (20g per day or less, equivalent to 5 teaspoons table sugar), and do not have to include sugars in our diets.
In Peru, Lucy met some sort of a shaman. He wrote down her a list of things she must eat and things to avoid. This list also contained some herb, that she had to eat during the 2-3 months she was there.
After a few months, she got back home. 6 months after - no cancer. Year after this all happened she was dancing at my sister's wedding, healthy and happy.
Now as for the Peru guy and the friend of my friend who been there :) He had a brother. They both got cancer. One of the brothers decided to go with traditional treatment (radiation and all that). The other one went to Peru.
Long story short: the one who picked traditional methods died many years ago. The other one (who convinced Lucy to go) - completely recovered.
As far as I know, overall treatment was less than $5,000. If I'm not wrong, this was including rent + air flight.
I must add, that Lucy lost 45 pounds within a year. During my sister's wedding, she was only eating some oceanic fish and rice.
This is just a short story from people I know in person. All of them are scientists working at university, doing researches on molecular genetics & microbiology.
I'm not even sure the guy in Peru was a shaman. That's just how I called him here. I just don't believe he was a real doctor. The gist of the whole treatment was fasting, not a herb.
If you or someone you know has cancer, go see an oncologist, not a freaking shaman.
Also, if the essence is fasting, why did they need to go see a shaman in Peru?
The scientists would ignore all the diagnosis and individual examination the shaman did, and the study would probably have the participants take a specific amount of a single specific herb on a single specific schedule. Basically, they'd take all the complexities of the alternative medical system and tried to distill it down to a one-size-fits-all regimen.
Then, after it undoubtedly showed no effect, they'd proclaim the shaman is a fraud and that nothing he does really works.
I mean, really, are you going to sit there and tell me that its more logical that all the alternative medical systems developed over thousands of years are bullshit, than the possibility that modern medicine has gaps covered by these other medical systems, that can't/won't be filled using the scientific method, wrapped and perverted as it is by the hubris and single-minded culture of the doctors and scientists using it?
Gee, I wonder why rational people are skeptical of that.
And to answer your question, no, I do not believe that alternative health systems "developed" over thousands of years work. If they work, then they're medicine. We only use the term alternative health to define things that are too magical to have their effects show up when studied using the scientific method. And barring the ability to collect some reliable data on their efficacy, then yes, they're bullshit by default. What other reliable framework for evaluating them could I possibly have?
I know a guy. He's a healer. He can do things that Western science has absolutely no idea about. In point of fact several people who were diagnosed with cancer have worked with him and afterwards were no longer diagnosed with cancer.
This is factual.
Yet good luck getting people in general to take this seriously. No one wants to hear it. My mom's neighbour had breast cancer, she beat it with conventional medicine, more power to her. But she refused even to think about anything outside of the established system. For her it worked.
Personally, I'm very frustrated. I come from a strongly scientific background, so when I meet a person who can fucking cure fucking cancer I would really like to see the scientific establishment take that seriously.
But whatever. I can take some consolation that at least my family and I don't have to worry about cancer, even if I can do nothing to change the zeitgeist of society.
For those of you wondering why this guy wouldn't try to spread the word, well, first of all he does! He talks to anyone he meets and is not shy about it at all. The limiting factor is the people who don't want to hear about crazy shit.
(P.S. If you have cancer and want to talk to my healer friend I can put you in touch. He's in Europe now and kind of retired, and I haven't spoken to him in a year or so, but if you truly need help and feel that this guy is "the one" you can contact me and I'll see about putting you in touch.)
Well, no, it's not. From my perspective, this is yet another random anecdote from the Internet. It's no different to me than someone saying they can turn base metals into gold, hear the voice of God directly, or travel to alternate dimensions.
And even from YOUR perspective, you have no idea what's fact and what's not. Apparently this healer is so powerful that your family need not worry about cancer. But I suspect you have little hard evidence of any actual healing, no proposed mechanisms that make any sense, and no ability to reproduce any of this.
The amazing thing about the scientific method is that it gives us a framework to separate claims from reality. If you have a better framework then please share it. But there seems to be little value to a framework built on "I know a guy, trust me." We had that for thousands of years. Health care under such a framework was pretty rough.
The shaman might tell you, I look into their eyes and if I see a slight yellowness I know X. Then I measure their pulse and that tells me Y. So based on that I prescribe medicine A at dose B.
Now if someone designed a study that first separated people into a category where both X and Y are true, and then gave only those people the medicine the shaman recommended, you'd have a real test. But this isn't done.
Humanity has produced great things before the scientific method existed, agriculture, smelting, sea travel, etc., including the scientific method, itself! How can you reconcile this fact with your proclamation that anything related to medicine, a body of knowledge produced from the same people at the same period of time is all bullshit?
"When you kick a stone the energy for its resulting movement comes from your foot. When you kick a dog..."
Complex living systems with scads of "free" energy are not susceptible to the same formal method that revealed and is still revealing Physics.
We need a new science.
I have a feeling that the _magical_ Peruvian cure is based on eating blister beetles, which is a popular treatment in Chinese medicine. Apparently, chemicals these bugs make could be beneficial in treating certain kinds of cancer. There are a few researches going on on that front.
I see you want more data, but, unfortunately, I cannot provide you with any other details. I don't like your tone and would love to close this thread. Thank you.
Or if they're currently researching it to help others not die from cancers that can be easily cured, please point us to their work.
It doesn't, actually. Getting diagnosed with cancer and then surviving it is still a terrible ordeal. Publishing their single story would do nothing to change the course of medical science, but it would open them up to abuse from skeptics all over the world.
I'm sure that even if I survived cancer (through whatever means), I would still not have the courage to allow myself to be flagellated by a horde of entitled zealots.