ShalomPlace.com    Shalom Place Community    Shalom Place Discussion Groups  Hop To Forum Categories  General Discussion Forums  Hop To Forums  Health and Wellness Issues    Cancer can be Cured by Live Food Nutrition
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Cancer can be Cured by Live Food Nutrition Login/Join
 
posted
I (Jim Tibbetts)wrote a book, Starving Cancer to Death, coauthoring it with a medical doctor, an Oncologists who worked for ten years at the world famous Hippocrates Institute in Florida.

The basis for the book is in the title. Cancer consumes sugar and has a big appetite, the cells eat a lot of sugar broken down from foods. There are two types of sugar, that from most foods and then fruit and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and other Live-Foods. Sugars from these Live Foods, cancer will not eat because they have too much oxygen and nutrients in them which is toxic to cancer cells. But Cancer cells love meats, dairy, breads, candy, cookies,and the standard American diet foods.

When a person with cancer takes away all of these Standard American diet foods and only eats Live-Foods which cancer cells will not eat, the cancer cells starve and slowly die. Along with starving cancer giving it fresh carrot juice and green drinks like wheatgrass also destroys the cancer.

Dr. Max Gerson was the first one to systematically do this approach in the 1950's and his Gerson Institute in Santa Fe, CA., carries on this therapy. They give a raw vegan diet and give six glasses of carrot juice and six glasses of green drink juices a day. They have healed thousands of people with this approach and published a major study in a journal proving that this therapy works.

Cancer can be cured through a plant-based nutrition therapy but it is a lot of work and a person needs to be strict about it, or it will not work! What do you think? Have any experiences to share?
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
Jim, that all might be true for some, but I know of a couple of people who were strict vegans who died of cancer during the past year. One was a man who was close to the staff at the retreat center where I work. After he discovered his cancer, he went on a strict, raw-vegetable diet, juicing much as you describe above. It probably helped prolong his life, but in the end he died of the cancer. I suppose some might say he didn't do it right, but that introduces a circular argument into the mix.

Don't you think cancer is a little more complicated than a consequence of diet? And why wouldn't the cure you're so confidently recommending have become first-line intervention by now if it's such a sure thing? There are many doctors open to alternative approaches who would happily recommend a raw vegan diet over chemotherapy and other drastic interventions if the research could support its efficacy. What do you think is going on, here?
 
Posts: 3628 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Cancer cab be prevented with natural herb olive leaf extract to a great extent.New Studies support the use of it in cancer.
_______________________________________
olive leaf extract
 
Posts: 1 | Location: 2300 Riddle Ave, Wilmington, DE 19806 | Registered: 02 January 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Phil, most people don't understand it is not really about diet it is all about biochemistry that takes place in the body. Cancer has a huge appetite but it is selective in what the cancer cells consume in the body. They don't consume food stuff that is high in oxygen or nutrient value like fruits and vegetables. They eat mostly sugars that are processed, live foods like fruits and vegetables have sugar but cancer cells will not consume these for different reasons (such as too much oxygen).
Cancer cells are anarobic (they do not need oxygen and in fact it will kill the cells). A strict raw vegan diet or 100% Live-Foods is all raw fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds. Cancer cells will not/ can not eat/consume these foods and so they starve to death. This is a well known by practictioners like those in the Gerson Institute. If your friend of the retreat center was eating breads, or other starches or cooked foods these are things that cancer can consume, thus he kept the cancer alive. If he had been strict 100% raw vegan and fresh juices (Gerson Institue recommends 6 glasses of carrot juice a day and 6 glasses of green juice a day.) The person's cancer cells would have starved to death after a few months and in a year he would have been cancer free. This is not a circular arguement, it is process that is used and I outline in my book. Peace.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Phil, As to your second part of your questions.
Cancer is a degenerative disease and like all types of degenerative diseases, it is all about the biochemistry, not about the diet. This is what pharmaceutical drugs are all about; what happens in the biochemistry. The foods, like drugs only give certain biochemical properties that have effects in the physiology. Yes cancer is complicated but the Gerson diet recommends 6 glasses of carrot juice a day because there are three nutrients that are anti-cancer fighting. Then the six galsses of carrot juice also has similar properties in the biochemistry which defeats cancer.

All degenerative diseases are effected by the biochemical changes, whether it is by nutrition or by medicine, it has to do with how these affect the internal enviroment of the body through the blood.

As to the first-line intervention, medicine especially cancer is all about money, oncologists make hundreds of thousands of dollars from using chemo-therapy and insurance companies. They make little to nothing using fruits and vegetables! The Gerson diet does have a major study done with the University of San Diego, but there are very little studies done on this approach because the pharmaceutical industry pays for most studies and makes no money promoting this approach. They actually loose billions of dollars on alternative approaches like this that work. Most doctors open to alternative approaches just are not familiar with this approach in depth, the research or medical doctors behind it.

My book is co-authored with an oncologists who was head of the department at John Hopkins. These approaches work if they are done strictly and correctly. Keep in mind pharmaceutical drugs do not work if they are not done strictly and correctly (such as the dosage). As I said it is all about the biochemistry in the body and the blood, it is not about the food. Nutrition like medicine needs to be strictly done correctly! Peace.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
quote:
. . . The person's cancer cells would have starved to death after a few months and in a year he would have been cancer free. This is not a circular arguement, it is process that is used and I outline in my book. Peace.


Jim, he did the Alleluia diet for months and he died. The circular argument is that that if he had done it right he would have lived, but since he died he must not have done it right. Sometimes cancer kills people, no matter what the intervention.

What about something like the Atkins Diet and cancer? No sugar involved with Atkins. There have been some studies that show benefits from the South Beach Diet, which is similar to Atkins.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...in-die_n_876645.html

- - -

I take your point about "big pharma" wanting to push their drugs and all the other dynamics you mention as well. A few sound studies demonstrating conclusively the efficacy of dietary interventions would be sufficient to topple the system, however. Where are they? There are plenty of doctors and families willing to give it a try.
 
Posts: 3628 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hi Phil,
Whether it is nutrition or pharmaceutical drugs they involved biochemistry which is scientific and in a way physics, which is about math. The circular argument may work in philosophy but not in math or science.

I don't think he did the Alleluia diet (he never contacted me, which is my diet) but probably the Halleluiah diet which is based on the Gerson diet which is well known. The Halleluiah diet is loosely based on the Gerson diet but it doesn't have the medical expertise applied to it. Even though it has cured a lot of people it doesn't have a solid foundation because it lacks professional medical intervention alongside it. Thus there are few controls or parameters or medical tests for it; you are on your own. It is easy to die of cancer doing the Halleluiah diet or similar raw vegan diets they are just not strict enough, or don't explain the implications that can arise and need specific interventions. It is diet therapy that is needed not just a diet.

I met with Charolette Gerson, the daughter of the famous Max Gerson, MD of the Gerson Institute in San Diego, California. In her newsletter she wrote that the number one reason people fail with the diet is that they do not comply. You have to comply exactly or you feed the cancer. She gave me two examples of people who had cancer.

The first was a woman who had cancer and her cancer was almost totally gone and she was in remission and her husband wanted to eat soy products. So this woman started eating soy products, which are a processed food and usually toxic. Soy is not allowed on the Gerson diet for cancer. So this woman died! Second there was a man who also had cancer and he was also in remission, but then it came back. He called Charolette Gerson and she said lets go through everything your eating. She found he added sprouts, and said sprouts are not allowed on the Gerson diet! He got off the sprouts and the cancer died off again and he ended up living.

Dr. Scott had a fasting clinic in Cleveland and someone came to him with cancer and said he had gone to the Gerson clinic and was doing their diet and the cancer went down but was continuing, please help! Dr. Scott helped him and they got rid of the cancer. Professional help is often needed and usually not found. Why didn't this person go back to the Gerson clinic? Probably because this small hospital costs about $1,000 a week.

There was a man who had brain cancer and was given a month or two to live. He went to the Gerson Clinic over the boarder in Mexico, when I visited there years ago. He had been there for over 6 months and was cancer free in his brain, he walked 5 miles a day on the seashore down the road from the clinic. Of course he was wealthy so he could afford it.

As for meat and the Atkins diet, all meat and dairy biochemically converts to a form of sugar in the body and cancer loves this kind of sugar. If you have cancer and eat meat, your feeding your cancer. Also Atkins and the South Beach diet like most of these popular diets involve a lot of cooking and once you cook the vegetables, like potatoes, you break most of them down into a sugar, and this can also feed cancer. Raw foods do not involve cooking. And as I just noted some raw foods like sprouts break down to a sugar that cancer eats.

Yes there may by some minor benefits on a South Beach diet, but definitely not curing cancer or other major degenerative disease, that I know of, meat based diets are usually one of the causes of degenerative diseases.

Sometimes it is not just the foods when killing cancer. The co-author of my book Dr. Joseph Spaziani an oncologist, who worked at the famous Hippocrates Institute for 10 years uses oxygen therapy to cure cancer, as well as the diet. I asked him why pressurized oxygen starts the cancer again and gave him two examples. He replied that these pressurized tanks force the oxygen in and cause it to grow, giving an explanation for it. This is why professional help in this area is essential, than scientific intervention does work.

Cancer can be killed before it kills a person when the intervention is done correctly. But this is difficult and usually a professional in the field is needed to guide a person to success.

Dr. Scott told me that sometimes you can't kill the cancer but it remains in remission the rest of the person's life and they need to stay on a strict diet their whole life. The Gerson Institute says it takes 2 years for all the cancer cells to die before stopping the diet.

Finally most people with cancer also have other complications like diabetes or heart disease or arthritis. This is why professional intervention is best. My book on cancer can give the history and treatment that has worked for many: and I cite several hundred that have been cured this way. But Live-Food dietary intervention may not be enough with other complications and professional guidance is best. O.K.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hi Phil

Now for the last point you made which was good. "I take your point about 'big pharma' wanting to push their drugs and all the other dynamics you mention as well. A few sound studies demonstrating conclusively the efficacy of dietary interventions would be sufficient to topple the system, however. Where are they? There are plenty of doctors and families willing to give it a try.

To put it simply it is all about money. I once asked Dr. Joseph Spaziani why the medical industry doesn't turn to nutritional therapy for cancer. He replied, I can answer that question in one word, Money!"

Back in 1982, Dean Ornish, MD published in a peer review journal that he had reversed heart disease with a plant-based diet, exercise and meditation. Then he wrote a book on it and became famous and has published several studies since then. His material if found in most books on the subject and others have published since then with better results. Yet very few people or doctors do this approach. There is little to no money in it for medical doctors and second people don't want to change their diets and give up meat and dairy!

A heart surgeon from the famous Cleveland Clinic said that heart disease is a 25 billion dollar a year industry. Do you really think that the medical industry wants to give up 25 billion dollars a year, so that people can eat a vegetarian diet! Of course not!

Dr. Dean Ornish's diet to reverse heart disease is well known and any doctor can recommend it to the patients, but most do not want to do it and would rather have heart surgery then give up meat and be on a vegetarian diet! Can you believe that!!
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
quote:
To put it simply it is all about money. I once asked Dr. Joseph Spaziani why the medical industry doesn't turn to nutritional therapy for cancer. He replied, I can answer that question in one word, Money!"

Jim, my son is a 4th year med student, and as I myself have seen a physician regularly for year, I can tell you that doctors do recommend that diet be part of a plan to prevent heart disease, blood pressure, and other degenerative diseases. I am not so cynical as to believe that the medical profession, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc. would actually like people to become diseased so that they can make money off of us. But the fact is that we are all mortal, we have accidents, get sick, and at some point will die from something -- and they're there to help. One could just as cynically state that the "alternative medicine" gang is out to make big bucks by selling their books, supplements, "special diets," etc.

I mistakenly noted that my friend did the Alleluia diet when, as you noted, it was probably the Hallelujah diet. The two words do sound alike. Wink But you continue to advance the notion that he must not have done a raw vegan diet correctly, or he surely would not have died. You see how you can't possibly be wrong, here? No one could possibly disprove your thread topic, that cancer can be cured by live food nutrition. If they aren't, you'll just say they didn't do it right. So, where do we go with that? It's much like what some faith healers tell people: if they aren't cured, then they must not have had faith.

I'm not meaning to knock your main point about the health and even curative benefits of a raw vegan diet, nor that the American diet is literally killing us and costing untold billions in health expenses each year. If people changed their diet, the food producers would change what they offer. Simple economics. Getting people to change dietary habits is not easy, however.

I think you are mistaken about sugar and Atkins diet, however. When carb levels are kept very low, the body does not convert protein to glucose, but to ketones.
- http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/.../f/whatisketosis.htm
The body can use ketones as an an energy source just as surely as it can use. There are many health benefits to ketonic empowerment as well.
- http://evolutionarypsychiatry....rain-on-ketones.html

Raw vegetable/fruit diets do result in glucose generation, even if the plant chemicals are complex. If they did not, then then body would have no energy to run on, or would switch over to burning its own fat -- ketosis. Raw vegetable/fruit diets are not ketonic diets, however.
- see http://foodnsport.com/faq.php for raw food diet and glucose generation.

The body uses glucose or ketones for energy. Only a high protein, high fat, low carb diet switches the body into ketone mode, so if the idea is to starve glucose-loving cancer, it would seem a diet like Atkins, South Beach or Paleo would be preferable to one of raw foods and vegetables, which does generate glucose. Of course there are other beneifts of a raw food diet, such as its anti-oxident properties.

Finally, there are dangers/risks of a raw food diet, not to mention its stark reduction of food choices.
- http://30bananasadaysucks.com/tag/raw-vegan/
- http://www.independent.co.uk/l...e-us-ill-848322.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...oodism#Controversies (note how it was meat, not nuts, that probably contributed to our larger brain size)
- http://paleozonenutrition.com/...-fat-raw-vegan-diet/
- http://www.sparkpeople.com/com...the_experts.asp?q=72

You continue to site anecdotal cases to support your claims, and that's fine. That's not really science, however. I hope you also know that hundreds of thousands of people have had their cancer destroyed by chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and other interventions by the medical industry. Allopathic medicine has its place in our society and it does help to save lives. If I had cancer, I would most surely pursue such interventions along with alternative approaches. I would never, ever consider using Live Food Nutrition as the only intervention for healing from cancer; I don't think it would be wise for anyone to do so.

But, hey, we each have to make our own decisions, and, in the end, we all die.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil,
 
Posts: 3628 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Jim

Perhaps i can word my question differently.
As a secondary consideration to your
main focus on diets affect on cancer
did you notice if patients mentioned
a change in their thinking process or
emotions ect.

Thank you[/QUOTE]
 
Posts: 389 | Registered: 01 April 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Phil, I broke out laughing when I saw your reply, you put a lot of work into that with all the additions, Praise God! Thanks for the effort, I guess I’ll have to look at all these sites and reply to the first half of your questions here. The second half will be in my next post. First lets deal with this discussion on ketones.

Concerning the Atkins diet and ketones, volumes have been written against the Atkins diet and his emphasis on ketones. Yes, the body can use ketones as an energy source but … I have not reviewed the literature on “ketones as energy through fat,” there’s always two sides so let’s briefly look at the side you noted. In the Low Carb diets site you note: it does discuss the excreted waste in urine and elsewhere. This is one indication that cancer will feed on this type of diet. It notes, Ketoacidosis is dangerous for Type 1 diabetes and other diseases including cancer. This whole discussion on ketones is really a side issue but let us proceed forward.

The site on Evolutionary Psychiatry, True a well monitored nonketogenic “low-carb diet has been found helpful for a few diseses, such as those with with seizures, but it doesn’t cure these diseases only helps to regulate them. The blog was very educational but it was mostly a debate back and forth: carbs vs. fat (in relation to ketones). On the one hand it had a lot of depth but it was primarily in one direction, that of the lead blogger Emily Deans, MD. As an MD she has a lot of knowledge about physiology but it was all a bit narrow repeating the same thing and not tying it into the larger understanding; such as pH values. Not one mention of pH values or their influence in this process, the acid vs. alkaline discussion is key here, especially if one is talking about cancer. I read through her whole blog since her topic really related to neurological diseases which I have two books on and agree with a lot of what she says she makes some good points but in the end she misses the boat since her whole discussion is about ketones and that by itself if not going to cure neurological disease.

At the end of her blog a doctor Ostric came along and said in a long paragraph, shorten here: “It does require us to take a systems view to figure this out rather than either-or. Perhaps the debate is not all about ketones and sugar. It may be bacteria. That is one of thing we miss as low-carbers. It may be other things, it seems. Taking that wide view is great, and it is important so we don’t fall into the trap of either-or, eat this-not that, theory of everything.” Finally someone who sees the bigger picture, a larger systems viewpoint! I just mentioned above that this Emily Deans, MD lacked any mention of pH levels an indication of a narrower viewpoint.

This is exactly what I’m talking about on a Live-foods diet, it is more than just these narrow debates on biochemical theory. I used to spend many hours debating these narrow issues. The real evidence comes from the healings of Live-foods! There’s a lot of theory out their but is this theory helpful in healing someone with cancer? This ketone theory will not, so let me go to the next post to answer this, your next question. Peace Jim.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Phil, concerning you next question on glucose and cancer, and meat-based diets, in your post above.

When I was reading and saw the reference site: foodsport.com I laughed. I know Doug Graham, D.C. the author of that site and am very familiar with book and work. We have met at conferences and discussed this on the internet. He is a leading raw fooder who promotes basically a fruitarian diet, eating a lot of fruits and his view is extreme. I think he’s great but his 80/10/10 diet has been rejected by most of the major raw fooders for his promotion of a very high fruit diet. I’ve written on and sent him my review of the carb-fat-protein ratio’s including his and we went back and forth on it, but he’s adamant. He would definitely not agree with the blogger Emily Deans, MD above. These are two different microcosms in a larger macrocosm as Dr. Ostric would say using System’s theory.

Does this mean they are both correct? No, Dr. Graham is curing all these diseases that Emily Deans is discussing trying to find an answer too! I cite Doug Graham’s email to me on his cures for mental diseases in my book on curing Parkinson’s and MS. To put it simply the 80/10/10 diet he promotes is superior to the ketonic diet Emily Deans is trying to understand, because he and those in association with him (Natural Hygiene doctors around the world) are curing these neurological and cancer diseases, not just helping them, like she is trying to do.

Dr. Graham is not a good example for the raw food movement, since most follow a much higher fat concentration and use nuts and seeds and sprouted grains. The psychiatrist Gabriel Cousens, M.D. one of the leading experts on raw foods promotes a 40% fat, 30% protein and 30% carb usage while Dr. Graham is 80% carbs, 10% fat and 10% protein and he’s adamant about it. Most raw fooders don’t agree with that because it cuts out the use of nuts, seeds and sprouted grains. Obviously Dr. Graham and Dr. Cousens strongly disagree with each other. Dr. Cousens site is: www.treeoflife.nu

Diets like Atkins, South Beach or Paleo all feed cancer cells, meat breaks down into sugar. All these diets are partly, if not the total cause for cancer in patients like this. All foods metabolize or break down into sugars (the general category of sugar which would include most molecules, probably even ketones)! I was talking with an expert on insulin and sugar about cancer; he told me that all foods break down into a forms of sugars. I replied, yes but there are two major categories of sugars: simple and complex; he agreed. Cancer feeds on simple sugars and some complex ones (probably like ketone molecules). All meats and dairy breaks down to simple sugars that feed cancers. Fruits and vegetables are complex sugars.

I was talking with Dr. Cousens and Dr. Clement at a meeting at the Hippocrates Institute in Florida. I asked them the question of cancer and meat; and Dr. Cousens told me meat breaks down into sugar which feeds cancer. I know that the oncologists Joseph Spanizi, MD who coauthored my cancer book would agree with that and so would the other cancer doctor, a partial author in my book, Dana Flavin, MD would agree with that. German journal studies also prove this point, that cancer feeds on simple sugars (not fruits and vegetables). I specifically asked Dr. Flavin, an internationally known expert on cancer, if fruits feed cancer and she replied, “No they do not feed cancer, I know this as an expert in molecular microbiology.”
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
Jim, every cell needs an energy source, and the usual one is glucose. Cancers are cells, and so they need sugar. If you deprive cancer of sugar, you are depriving your body's cells of their energy source as well.

The body can use ketones as an energy source, and some tissues function better this way. When glucose is deficient in the blood, the body resorts to ketones. Ketone energizing is common when one is fasting or eating a low carbohydrate diet.
- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies (quote follows)
quote:
Ketone bodies can be used for energy. Ketone bodies are transported from the liver to other tissues, where acetoacetate and beta-hydroxybutyrate can be reconverted to acetyl-CoA to produce energy, via the citric acid cycle.

The heart preferentially utilizes fatty acids for energy under normal physiologic conditions. However, under ketotic conditions, the heart can effectively utilize ketone bodies for energy.[3]

The brain gets a portion of its energy from ketone bodies when glucose is less available (e.g., during fasting, strenuous exercise, low carbohydrate, ketogenic diet and in neonates). In the event of low blood glucose, most other tissues have additional energy sources besides ketone bodies (such as fatty acids), but the brain does not. After the diet has been changed to lower blood glucose for 3 days, the brain gets 25% of its energy from ketone bodies.[4] After about 4 days, this goes up to 70% (during the initial stages the brain does not burn ketones, since they are an important substrate for lipid synthesis in the brain). Furthermore, ketones produced from omega-3 fatty acids may reduce cognitive deterioration in old age.[5]

quote:
Individuals who follow a low-carbohydrate diet will also develop ketosis, sometimes called nutritional ketosis, but the level of ketone body concentrations are on the order of 0.5-5 mM whereas the pathological ketoacidosis is 15-25 mM.

As the mainstream diet is so high in carbohydrate that ketosis is rarely seen without starvation or ketoacidosis, many practitioners mistake well regulated nutritional ketosis for pathological ketoacidosis

I know you have your sources, but from what I read, the research doesn't caution against eating sugar to prevent cancer, nor to counter its growth in cancer patients.
- https://www.caring4cancer.com/...ere-a-connection.htm
quote:
The most important point is that sugar itself is not bad. However, too much sugar, without enough protein, fat, and fiber to balance it out, can cause our bodies to make too much insulin. It is not the sugar, but rather the insulin that may be a problem for spurring cancer cell growth (18-33). To prevent this, you should limit the simple sugar in your diet. There is no need to follow a stringent diet and swear off every single dessert. The key is moderation.

Low-carb diets reduce insulin production and help to normalize blood sugar.

You'll be happy, no doubt, to see that their dietary recommendations say to:
quote:
Focus on whole, healthy, unprocessed food, including vegetables, fruit, whole grains, legumes (beans, lentils, and peas), nuts, and seeds.

- though you might not agree with "whole grains."

There are 33 references to scientific studies at the bottom of this article.
 
Posts: 3628 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Phil, On the websites you posted above on raw foods, a reply is needed, very interesting but very problematic for people who don’t know the field, like every single site you cited. The main problem is that this first blog: 30 bananas a day; is a lot of rhetoric about diet from beginners, or people who tried a raw vegan diet for a few months. They all had some good experience and some bad ones and most ended up eating some animal protein, which is good for beginners who don’t have their acts together. The site: sparkpeople is a waste of time to read or comment on, nothing there except misleading facts and mistakes!

First the scientific fact from two studies I’ve seen is that it takes between one to four months for the nitrogen balance to change when going from a meat-based diet to a plant-based diet. These and other physiological changes are taking place evolving the body in a positive direction placing a plant-based diet as superior over a meat-based diet. This is why I always recommend a vegan protein power for the first year or two. Most of these bloggers never lasted more than six months. Leaders in the field such as Victoria Boutenko or the Gerson diet say it takes 2 years to full adapt to a raw vegan diet.

Second fact: If you are going to talk about plant-based diets: vegetarian, vegans and raw vegans you can’t give examples of unhealthy people on a plant-based diet as the norm. All the sites you mention do the same thing, they talk about the abuses, misuse, misunderstanding, mismanagement of the diet, of nutrition in people eating plant-based diet as the norm! This is not the norm; this is an abnormality which some people with plant-based diets fall into. If you look at what these people are saying; they all show the problems with a vegan diet and then say see, a plant-based diet is unhealthy and not normal. They never discuss the normal healthy people or all the thousands of people that have been cured of major degenerative diseases!

The whole discussion on B12, brain energy and sizes and carnivore’s gut is off base, it is full of errors, many of them I cover in my books and other books. It looks convincing with the charts and references but as an expert in this field, this (Second Opinion) site and its data is off base and wrong. It is deceiving to those who do not know the literature, the citations are clearly one-sided, but it did have some good comments.

Third fact: There are discussions on the B12 deficiency and these are well covered in the literature by vegetarian writers, who are professionals such as: Brenda Davis, RD & Vasanto Melina, MS, RD and their scholarly nutrition triology: Becoming Vegetarian; Becoming Vegan and Becoming Raw. Or Gabriel Cousens, MD books such as Conscious Eating. Another excellent academic book by CRC a leading academic book publisher on nutrition is: Vegetarian Nutrition edited by Joan Sabate, M.D., Dr.P.H. of the Department of Nutrition School of Public Health, Loma Linda University, CA., one of the leading universities on vegetarian nutrition (founded by the 7th Day Adventists). This 550 page book has 22 contributing authors who have doctorates, giving the real academic facts on vegetarians. These are professional books that cited not this beginners stuff in the websites listed.

The article on, “How our vegan diet made us ill” of how people go off base when not educated properly. A British dietician says that it is possible to bring up a healthy vegan child but “you have to make sure you know what you are doing. . . . you need to get proper professional advice.” Yet the woman still eats a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet, and runs an online magazine raw food shop! The problem wasn’t the raw vegan diet, but she emphasizes she did not do it properly for her children. Then why is she still living the lifestyle?

As for the site in Wikipedia; Raw Foodism, it is problematic and not a good definition for U.S. raw fooders. Whoever wrote all that is definitely not a main line U.S. raw fooder since he doesn’t cite the real experts in the U.S., except once mentioning their names. He is big into raw meats and food poisoning and toxins created by cooking, which none of the mainliners go into this kind of depth or even mention it. He only mentions a few of the well known people and includes others that are not part of the raw food movement. His mention of Controversies is very one-sided and opposed by going off on a tangent. On the one hand it has a lot of references but the primary author is not from the U.S., it looks like Germany or Japan. The raw meat is not a category usage any serious raw vegan in the U.S. would put side by side with raw, Germany is big on eating raw meats, I think the article comes from Germany from someone who eats raw meats!

Thus all these articles and sites really are uninformed or on a beginner’s level or extremely bias. No wonder people have a hard time with raw foods eating this amateur stuff. The books I cited have their own websites and are professional. To have a professional discussion we need to focus on professional material not this other half-baked stuff which the internet is full of. God bless.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Finally I needed to post your reference on Julianne’s site separately because of the length.
Julianne’s website is the most professional of all the site’s you posted, then of course she’s a nurse and nutritionist. She also unknowingly promotes a vegan/raw vegan diet by her citations! First she mentions, 30 Bananas a day which was the trademark by Timothy Trader, ND (who I have met at a convention), he used to eat 30 bananas every day, healing himself of a major degenerative disease! Then she talks about the Durianrider diet (from the David Wolfe crowd). This is really a recommendation for raw foods by her to cite him, he been raw for around 20 years or so! Both of these are fruitarian diets and Dr. Trader is best friends with Dr. Graham who I cited in the previous post. Then she states: “For me to condone such a diet would be negligent and even downright dangerous!”

Obviously Julianne doesn’t know much about this raw vegan field because as I mentioned in the previous posts she avoids the key people and Institutes like Dr. Cousens or Dr. Clement. She’s a bit confused and thinks fruitatarism is what raw foods is all about. It is only to a small population which is dying out.

Dr. Graham and Dr. Trader and other medical doctors who are Natural Hygiene doctors like: Dr. Greg Haag, MD and his wife another MD have been healing major degenerative diseases with this diet routine, long before she ever became nutritionists! So if this approach is dangerous Julianne, then why are these Natural Hygiene doctors (DO’s and ND’s and MD’s) healing diseses that she can’t on the Paleo and Zone diets?

I knew a priest who had a PhD in biochemistry from Harvard who had arthritis. He promoted the Zone diet (a Harvard diet; Barry Sears). But Fr. George complained that he couldn’t be healed by this Zone diet! Hey, arthritis is very easy to heal on a plant-based diet, once the person gets off all meat and dairy!

Then she goes on to cite Kevin Gianni, his testimonial about having a goat’s milk product, goat’s kefir is accepted in the raw vegan world and standard in the vegetarian world. She obviously doesn’t know this! Then she promotes Jack Norris and his Raw Food Vegan Diet, he has an excellent vegan site! Then she mentions Frederic Patenaude (I purchased and owned his magazine, Just Eat and Apple, a raw vegan magazine years ago, then I sold it.) comments on the problems of raw and vegans. So what, Frederic is still a passionate raw vegan, with a large following, he wrote that article to help others, he never left the field!

The problem is that most people, even experts on veganism are wrong or mistaken with the research data. For instant an expert in veganism Jack Norris, RD cited a 1999 study found that raw foodists had significantly more dental erosions than did a control group. Did this have to do with diet, probably not. Raw fooders, especially fruitarians tend to eat often in little bits, a fruit here or some nuts there, throughout the day. The mouth takes at least 20 minutes to go from the acid state, created by eating back to an alkaline state. So people who eat constantly always have acid in their mouth and it decays the teeth. This was found to be big time among fruitarians.

Thus Julianne is unknowningly promoting a vegan/raw vegan approach in her article; Health problems on a low fat raw vegan and vegan diets. Everyone in the field knows there are some health problems, so what! There are 10 to 50 times more problems on meat-based diets! A heavy meat-based diet, like the standard American diet, causes degenerative disease. As I just noted all the raw fooders she mentioned are still vegan or partially raw, this is a great testimonial for the plant-based field! Praise God!
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Would the live food diet affect cancer that originates from a genetic predisposition? Does the live food diet starve all types of cancer equally? Is there a relationship between the cause of cancer and the effectiveness of the live food diet?
 
Posts: 36 | Registered: 26 December 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
Jim, after awhile I begin to wonder how much of this discussion is driven by science, and how much by ideology. I'm starting to feel that the latter predominates.

My post of Jan. 25 at 11:21 a.m. pretty much expresses where I am, and where it seems the science comes out. And there I stand! Wink

This thread title, "Cancer can be Cured by Live Food Nutrition," is way too overly confident, IMO. Good nutrition is always a good thing, for anyone, and there's no doubting the destructiveness of processed carbs, in particular.

Peace, Phil
 
Posts: 3628 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hi Phil, Perhaps you misunderstood, as stated in previous posts, I don’t promote a low carb diet like the fruit raw vegan diets of people like Doug Graham,DO (80/10/10). I work with Gabriel Cousens, MD who promotes a 40/30/30 diet fat/protein/carb. The ketones you keep mentioning as I’ve noted in past posts are good for neurological diseases. The body’s cells operate on both simple and complex sugars while cancer eats mostly simple sugars. Starving cancer to death means focusing on fruits and vegetables which cancer cells avoid since they are toxic to cancer.

This site you referred me to, “About Caring4Cancer,” it is a pharmaceutical site, designed and developed to sell pharmaceutical drugs! There are many, many sites like this that pharmaceutical companies put up to deceive the public. It looked suspicious when I first went on and so I looked to see where it was from or who was behind it. Not one mention, except P4 LLC Company. Who is P4, not one mention? Even in the About Us section there is not one mention of an address or who they are or where they are from. Even under Web resources not one mention of them but a list of standard resources, they want you to log-on so they can send information on their drugs and sell you their magazine which sells their drugs.

It is a very expensive site that licenses third party health information. The medical advisory board is from their pharmaceutical company paid contacts, and advertising as they state is clearly distinguished. Then a medical doctor reviews this site, probably on their staff, a Japanese name! These companies make billions of dollars on drugs so putting up an expensive site and programs to go with it is what they are all about. You can never trust these sites.

Obviously it is easy to figure out what pharmaceutical company promotes this site just look at the product line: Velcade for cancer! Aloxi to help prevent vomiting. These two are on every single page, this pharmaceutical web site is designed to sell these products, not give honest information! Click on either of these two drugs and they take you to their pharmaceutical website for that drug, by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, the Takeda Oncology Company yet still no mention of where or who they are (so as not to scare away Americans), and upon going to that site, it is a Japanese company.

When I was writing my cancer book I went onto PubMed to look up cancer and nutrition and found many references. Then I went onto a site like this one on cancer on exactly the same topic and it had some of the references to drugs but nothing on nutrition, zero on the many references on PubMed! Obviously this site wanted to avoid nutrition as an intervention. All these sites are built to sell drugs and keep you away from correct nutrition information, it is very clever and deceptive and most people just get sucked in. This is not an educational site but one designed to bend the truth to sell their drugs!

Look at the citations, they group the citations so that they can make general statements and avoid being specific, which is exactly what they do in the discussion on sugar, citing 10 citations. Even if they were sincere the statements they are making are so broad they are useless to guide someone in the area of nutrition. Even some of the statements they are making are wrong on sugar.

Always keep in mind that pharmaceutical companies deal with billions of dollars in selling drugs, people being cured on nutrition makes them loose hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to nutritional remedies. As previously posted, Heart disease is a 25 billion dollar a year industry and can be cured with a vegetarian diet; this is an established fact in journals. Now the cancer industry is probably 50 to 100 billion dollars (I’m not sure of the exact figure).

Finally, in my book on cancer and many other books establish that cancer has been cured thousands of times through plant-based nutrition, and they even cite a journal study on this fact. Cancer feeds on simple sugars like carbs, meat and dairy. It doesn’t feed on complex carbs in fruits and vegetables for several reasons. One is the structure of complex sugars, another is the high oxygen content, another is the high nutrient content, another is the pH and potassium pump.

Phil the people I'm citing are top notch professionals in the field and the my cancer book is not based on ideology but on facts and historical data including people being healed of cancer, over and over on this approach. Dr. Joseph Spanizi, MD is an Oncologist who used to be the head oncologists at John Hopkins and worked at the Hippocrates Instutitue in Florida, which has a 40 years history of healing cancer and many other diseases this way. Dana Flavin, MD is an internationally known expert on cancer and the first one to publish in a journal, curing brain cancer on a plant-based diet with a certain nutrients. Can you call these cancer cures and professionals (like Dr. Spanizi) be mere ideology? Of course not!

Let me summarize this in a nutshell for the others that might be interested in this post like the person just posting, I have the data in my book for proofs but in summary:
What happens to cancer cells on a plant-based diet, especially with lots of fruits and vegetables in it is:
First, they get put in a hostile environment (alkaline pH).
Second, they get isolated (potassium pump).
Third, they get starved to death (no processed sugar or animal fat in a vegan diet).
Fourth, they get choked (too much oxygen).
Fifth, they get stabbed, the high nutrient content directly kills cancer. For instance in carrots there are three specific nutrients that attack and kill cancer cells as reported in peer review journal studies. That’s why the Gerson diet has its cancer patients drink 6 glasses of carrot juice a day!

Hey Starving Cancer to Death works! This is the bottom line, is that these strict plant-based diets are working to cure people of cancer. Praise God.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
He there, B. Joyfull
As to your questions:
quote:
Would the live food diet affect cancer that originates from a genetic predisposition?
Yes nutrition can and does effect genetic predisposition, it used to be thought that genetic predisposition was set in stone but but in the last 15 years, new research has been coming out that it can change genetics. But it takes years to change genetics with foods. There is a big movement out on this now, it is called Functional Medicine, the founder of this was one of the first to show that genetics can be changed through nutrition.


Does the live food diet starve all types of cancer equally?
Yes, to my knowlege, all types of cancer have been starved to death through Living Foods, but I'm not sure of the rates, they may not be equal but some like breast cancer may starve faster, while liver or brain cancer (the two most difficult) may take more time. In general it takes a good six months, two years to be sure you have all the cancer.

Is there a relationship between the cause of cancer and the effectiveness of the live food diet?


I'm not sure what you mean, cancer is cancer. If heavy metal toxicity is the cause of the cancer then it still needs to be eliminated. Give me more information on your question.
Thanks, Jim
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
not trying to argumentative here.. but.....

i have had two friends who were in excellent shape.. ate raw food diets for years , never smoked or drank or used drugs and were very much into working out and physical fitness.

both died around 58 years old of cancer.

the one woman as soon as she found out she had cancer began the gershon diet..she was faithful to this diet until her death.. which by the way , was far from pretty, i was with her when she died.

For 18 months she took enemas once an hour all day long for 18 months during her illness. she juiced organic carrots and apples and nothing else... she was absolutely certain she would beat the cancer.. she did not beat it , it metastasized to her brain.

toward the very end of her life she told me the worst part of her illness was the cleansing from the diet... she felt weak and sick and miserable attempting to beat the cancer. She refused to see a regular physician until it was way to late....so certain was she that she would lick the cancer thru raw food diet.

i live in a spiritual community where everyone is fanatical about their diet. everybody here perceives themselves as quite spiritual... food is a BIG spiritual topic in this community.. you would think it was their religion as much attention as they give it. they would rather gag on a spoon than eat a piece of chocolate..meat and dairy are absolutely out of the question..most have eaten raw food diet since they were in their 20's.. now most are in their 60's... i see a fanaticism here.. it is almost like they are afraid to eat any food other than what they were taught in their spiritual teachings ( church universal triumphant)

Everyone eats raw food diet here and to be honest i have never seen , for the most part people with such serious health issues....... i get a prayer list to pray for many within this community and the list is filled with those who suffer from many serious ailments... mostly gastro intestinal.

on the other hand.............

my grandmother never excersized in her entire life. she laid around, ate candy, meat and dairy. she was overweight all her life.. she died at 97 with no serious illness until one week before her death...

All my family is long lived.. into their late 90's on both sides of my family tree. No one in my family has been particularly concerned with diet. My mom and dad are in their 80's and still live very active lives, they still eat wonder bread toast and eggs and bacon for breakfast...... in all fairness we also grew up on veggies and fruit. there is nothing old about them .. they are not feeble in body or mind.. my dad did have some health issues a few years back and needed surgery.. but he was back actively into his life in a few weeks.. no one in my family pay much attention to illness. they just get back up and live as though they had a time out and nothing to it! no big deal.. if we die we go to be with God.. if not, we live here and continue continuing on!



honestly i think it is all in the genes.. a good diet does not hurt, nor does a great attitude in life as well.. Smiler but ultimate i think we are a product of our genes. Being wise is a good thing in diet.. over doing or under doing in one's diet is not healthy....

another thing i found interesting with my one friend who died at 58 of cancer.. all along she went to the very best natural doctors.. they did extensive blood work.. sending it to Germany i think it was.. they had the money they could pay for it, and pay for it they did..... ALL blood work reports that came back said her 'blood ' was looking extremely good..... right up to the day she died .........

her husband grieved for months , feeling he had let his wife down and that she could have been saved if she had followed thru on traditional treatment for cancer...he holds himself accountable as he was as much into the gershon diet as she was..during those 18 months he was right by her side, encouraging her, juicing for her..literally that is all they did those 18 months.. they were 100& INTO IT.. they never ever let themselves go to her even possibly dying..so much so when she collapsed on the floor a month before she passed he was totally shaken because they had not even written up a will! that is how sure they were that the gershon diet would work.
 
Posts: 281 | Registered: 19 October 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Jim,

To clarify: If the cause of cancer is asbestos or genetic or heavy metal toxicity or whatever, is the live food diet equally effective in all these situations?

I am thinking a great deal about your hypotheses because I recently read an article about a 5 year old boy with anaplastic epemdymoma, a disease which causes tumors in the brain and/or spinal cord,as I understand it. The regional physicians
said there was nothing else they could do for him so the parents took the child by car to meet with a physician in CA and planned to, then, take the child to Mexico for alternative treatments. I don't know how it all is working out for them.
However, it seems to me that if anything is touted as a cure-all for not only cancer but Parkinson's and more, it should be thoroughly investigated and tested. Otherwise, it is utterly cruel to give people false hopes when they could be preparing for the inevitable.

Like faustina, I also know many instances of people who ate whatever they pleased and lived well into their 90's. I agree good nutrition is important but to tout anything as almost a 'cure-all' raises red flags for me.

Thanks.

bj
 
Posts: 36 | Registered: 26 December 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
quote:
The body’s cells operate on both simple and complex sugars while cancer eats mostly simple sugars. Starving cancer to death means focusing on fruits and vegetables which cancer cells avoid since they are toxic to cancer.

Jim, complex sugars are broken down into glucose, which is a simple sugar. The sugar used by the cells for energy is glucose. Cells do not consume complex sugars; they consume glucose. Complex sugars are broken down at a slower rate than dextrose and other simple sugars, so one doesn't have sugar spikes with complex sugars. The glucose is released more gradually into the bloodstream, and that's the difference. The only difference!

quote:
This site you referred me to, “About Caring4Cancer,” it is a pharmaceutical site, designed and developed to sell pharmaceutical drugs! There are many, many sites like this that pharmaceutical companies put up to deceive the public. . .

Meet their advisory board:
- https://www.caring4cancer.com/...s/advisory-board.htm
So . . . what's wrong with these guys? They don't seem like drug pushers to me. The site was developed for people with cancer, who can't go out and buy prescription drugs. I don't get your points about this at all. If you read the advice they give, it's very well-balanced, and includes encouragements for sound nutrition.
quote:
When I was writing my cancer book I went onto PubMed to look up cancer and nutrition and found many references. Then I went onto a site like this one on cancer on exactly the same topic and it had some of the references to drugs but nothing on nutrition, zero on the many references on PubMed! Obviously this site wanted to avoid nutrition as an intervention. All these sites are built to sell drugs and keep you away from correct nutrition information, it is very clever and deceptive and most people just get sucked in. This is not an educational site but one designed to bend the truth to sell their drugs!

And that, my friend, is why I mentioned above that your points seem driven as much (or more) by ideology as science. You also make use of a number of logical fallacies in your reasoning:
poisoning the well
guilt by association
If cancer could be killed so easily as by starving it of sugar in such manner as to allow healthy cells to thrive, don't you think that "big pharm" would have developed a drug (if they could) to maximize this dynamic. You reason as though they and the doctors actually want people to be sick so they can make money off of them. That's too cynical! One could just as easily say that you and the others who write about nutritional medicine want to sell their books. That wouldn't be fair, would it?

Look, I'm not at all adverse to nutrition or any other strategies being used to deal with cancer. I've lost several friends to the disease through the years -- most recently two very close ones. They tried everything, including nutritional interventions. I know you will say that they didn't do it right, or didn't have the proper diet, etc. That really begs the question, however, which is another type of fallacious reasoning.
- http://www.nizkor.org/features...ng-the-question.html

People die of cancer.

Allopathic medicine does, in fact, cure cancer in many cases. It also helps alleviate painful symptoms.

Nutritional medicine has a long way to go before making the claims you make on the thread title.
 
Posts: 3628 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hi Phil; (and Hi Faustina; and Hi B Joyfull)
Let’s look at the data from my cancer book which will answer some of your questions.

The grandfather of healing cancer with a plant-based nutrition therapy is Max Gerson, MD, who has published numerous journal articles and several books. Dr. Max Gerson wrote a book in1948 on, “50 Cancer Patients”. It is a classic of 50 cancer patients that he healed through his Gerson Therapy Approach. Since then thousands have been healed using the Gerson Diet Therapy.

Raw Vegan diet therapy has a much higher rate of healing cancer as shown by the Gerson study by the University of California at San Diego’s Cancer Prevention and Control Program 1995. They compared 5-year melanoma survival rates of Gerson therapy patients to rates found in comparable, conventionally treated groups in the medical literature. The study examined 153 white adult cancer patients, 25- 72 years old, in various stages of melanoma. The study found the following:
- Of patients with Stages I and II melanoma (localized), 100% of Gerson therapy patients survived for 5 years, compared with 79% of patients receiving conventional treatment.
- Of patients with Stages IIIa melanoma (regionally metastasized), 82% of Gerson therapy patients were still alive at 5 years, compared with 39% of those conventionally treated.
- Of patients with Stages IIIa and IIIb melanoma (regionally metastasized), 70% of Gerson therapy patients were still alive at 5 years, compared with 41% of the conventionally treated patients.
- Of patients with Stage IVa melanoma, 39% of Gerson therapy patients survived for 5 years, compared with 6% of patients treated by conventional medicine.

A second study showed even higher rates for those with surgery and Gerson Diet Therapy for a five-year survival rate, since about a third of Gerson-treated patients had surgeries as well. (stage IIIa 39% versus 92%; stage IVa 6% versus 57%)

Charlotte Gerson states: “In view of this, critics of the Gerson Therapy should perhaps demand the application of randomized double-blind clinical trials of chemotherapy before attacking a method which they are totally unfamiliar.”

Charlotte Gerson is honest and notes some kinds of cancer that they have had little success with including: brain cancer, bone metastases, open breast cancer lesions, leukemia’s, multiple myeloma, long-term prednisone treatment and/or Chemotherapy. She notes: “We have seen total, long-term recoveries of brain cancer cases and failures. The problem is not the cancer itself but the location of the tumor.”
Peace.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hi Phil; (and Hi Faustina; and Hi B Joyfull)

Grace and peace let me continue with this discussion on cancer and answer the three of you together since Phil’s questions are similar to both Faustina and Be Joyful’s questions.

I think our discussion of glucose is overdone. The medical professionals in the field that I have talked with and read; believe that there is a difference in the macromolecules of types of glucose, there is more than one kind. For instance for proteins most experts say ‘protein is protein,’ but that is not true; meat-based proteins have a double helix bond and plant-based proteins have a single helix bond in their molecular structure. These are two different types of proteins just like there are different types of glucose.

I know, Dana Flavin, MD, MS (PhD cand.), who has a photographic memory and has memorized over 5,000 journal articles, she’s brilliant. When I was collaborating with her on my cancer book I asked her if cancer would eat fruit sugars like some believe, she replied, “No I can tell you that for a fact they don’t, I am a molecular biologists on cancer and genetics. But cancer will eat the other types of sugars.”

In talking about starving or killing cancer there are five things that I mention in the previous post: alkaline pH, potassium pump, processed sugar (simple or unnatural glucose), too much oxygen and high levels of nutrient content that kills cancer cells (such as carrot juice has three anti-cancer nutrients the studies show; that is why the Gerson diet give six glasses of carrot juice of day.) So it involves all five not just glucose.

Yes, I looked at their advisory board and know from reading a lot of other literature when I wrote my cancer book that these doctors are paid: $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 or whatever to sit on these boards and come to an all expense paid meeting twice a year at a luxury hotel. This is a standard practice in the pharmaceutical industry. Look many of these drugs make over a billion dollars a year so they can afford to shell out half a million to get a good looking board of advisors! But then they go back to Japan and with their own board of directors make the decisions that they want to make, including the web site. I’m not trying to be cynical here just realistic. Some medical doctors object to this practice and refuse to be on these boards and put their names on products, selling themselves. This is a legal practice but it is considered unethical by others in the medical field. My book on the, Bioethics of Drug Intervention has a lot of these kinds of practices done by the medical profession, by some, rejected by others. I hope I’m not being cynical but trying to explain the historical reality, which is my intention.

Phil, there are many books out on the serious ideology of medical science written by top medical doctors, PhD’s and scholars in the field. My book on; Bioethics of Drug Intervention, summarizes, about 18 of these experts’ books, what I just noted above and in these posts, is just the tip of the iceberg, it’s not cynicism it’s a shocking medical reality, one that most people don’t really know. Even the peer review journals write on and are opposed to what the pharmaceutical industry is doing to make money. If you read some of these books or my book, which is a summary you would not call it cynicism but hard cold reality!

Concerning your comment: “You reason as though they and the doctors actually want people to be sick so they can make money off of them. That's too cynical!” I never said that and don’t mean that, of course doctors don’t want people to be sick, that’s why they took an oath. Medical doctors have great limitations as to what they can practice and what they can and can’t do, or they can lose their license. But they also have limitations in terms of what they know, especially about the kinds of therapy I’m discussing with you, and I have discussed with medical doctors. They are always interested in listening, usually have reservations and sometimes don’t agree, and usually won’t try it because of the fear that they could get sued or lose their license. So they practice what they know and what is within their legal limits of their Allopathic practice.

Yes, I agree what you said that, “Allopathic medicine does cure cancer in many cases.” One woman oncologists told me that she has a lot of older people coming to her and they all die, it is sad. Of course elderly people don’t have a strong enough immune system to handle the harshness of chemotherapy; surely the gentler approach of Living Nutrition Therapy would give them a better chance.

Finally let me comment on your comment: “Nutritional medicine has a long way to go before making the claims you make on the thread title.” My Thread Title of “Cancer can be Cured by Live Food Nutrition” is accurate because it can, I did not say it can be cured 100% of the time by Live Food Nutrition.

In the Gerson study cited above the Gerson diet only cures 100% of the time for stage 1 melanoma cancer. Stage 2 is 100%; stage 3a is 82%; stage 3b is 70% and stage 4 is 39%. But for all four of these stages Allopathic medicine rate, cures melanoma cancer is: Stage 1 % 79%, Stage 2 is 70%; stage 3 is 39% and 41%; and stage 4 is 6%. Obviously the Living Nutritional Medical approach, as a medical tool, is more successful for all four stages, then Allopathic medicine. This is the first part of what I’m saying; there is data for Living Nutrition Medicine has a success rate.

The second part of what I’m saying is that Allopathic is sometimes better then Nutritional Therapy. Dr. Joseph Spaziani uses both methods and gives low level doses of chemo. He told me once the Hippocrates Institute, he had a patient with a spot of melanoma cancer and wanted to go to the hospital to use a laser to get rid of it, at first his boss at Hippocrates didn’t want that since they only do alternative but gave in and Dr. Spaziani went used the laser and got rid of the melanoma. He is not longer at Hippocrates, but he believes in using both and this is my belief too. The problem is very few people know how to use both. In my books I write them mostly for the medical community so that they can learn to use the Living Nutrition side, but I only focus on the Living Nutrition side and not the medicine side, which they already have.

In this blog Thread Line two of the main premise are: First is the higher % rate is often better with Live Food Nutrition Therapy. Second is that both Allopathic and Living Nutritional Therapy can be used to cure cancer, and oftentimes Living Nutritional Therapy is a better approach.
Peace.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hi Faustina,
Your post is interesting, what country are you from? To my knowledge there is no raw food community like this in the U.S. It sounds like you’re from Germany?

You say it’s a spiritual community, what kind of spiritual community? Is it a Christian community, is it a commune or yoga or what?

You say that food is a big spiritual topic, that is kind of radical. What do you mean by this?

Thanks for your reply.
Peace.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

ShalomPlace.com    Shalom Place Community    Shalom Place Discussion Groups  Hop To Forum Categories  General Discussion Forums  Hop To Forums  Health and Wellness Issues    Cancer can be Cured by Live Food Nutrition