Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 606 (818855)
09-03-2017 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Granny Magda
09-03-2017 1:49 PM


Re: Alternative Medicine Kills Cancer Patients
And why was Wark told after the surgery that he had a 60% chance of living another five years on the standard treatment? (Which he found out applied to all cancer patients, while his colon cancer in reality had a 28% chance.)
Simple; he's talking bollocks. I have no idea where he got the 28% figure for all cancers from. I can't find it anywhere. It sounds wrong to me. On his website Wark cites completely different numbers. He was probably told that he had about a 60% chance because that was the doctor's estimate of his chance! Note that this is not far off what Gorski estimates.
Of course you would know a lot better than he would, of course.
As NN pointed out, he did not say 28% for all cancers but only for his own stage 3 colon cancer.
It is unclear whether any of this is meant to be with or without chemo since you haven't really given me a precise citation. Where is this quote exactly?
It was said to him before he decided against doing chemo so it was meant to be with chemo.
Anyway, he said it on the video in Message 1 from 11:10 to 12:00
Josh Axe is another who promotes roughly the same stuff, I don't follow him either or know the range of his advice, but his name comes up as does Mercola's on some google questions. Also a bunch of vegan sites
And I don't appreciate your silly parody about people doing absurd things and living long lives. I mentioned people who had cancer and beat it with vegetable juices. abe: Is that really a sufficient answer to the observation I made of five people diagnosed with cancer who all died within a few years on standard treatment, versus two I know of who were diagnosed with cancer and lived long lives after treatment with carrot and other vegetable juices. Really?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Granny Magda, posted 09-03-2017 1:49 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2017 6:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 53 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 6:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 606 (818860)
09-03-2017 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
09-03-2017 6:06 PM


Re: Alternative Medicine Kills Cancer Patients
You said "stage III cancer," Wark said "stage III COLON cancer" so did you just leave out that word?
Also he got diagnosed in 2003. Is your statistic recent?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2017 6:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2017 6:38 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 606 (818862)
09-03-2017 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by NoNukes
09-03-2017 6:38 PM


Re: Alternative Medicine Kills Cancer Patients
I'm not researching this, true, I'm reporting on what people are saying. So far I haven't seen any serious debunkery but who knows, maybe I will yet.
However, the point of my asking about how recent your statistic is, is that I would expect some improvement in chemo treatments since then.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2017 6:38 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2017 6:59 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 606 (818865)
09-03-2017 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by NoNukes
09-03-2017 6:59 PM


Re: Alternative Medicine Kills Cancer Patients
If it worked it worked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2017 6:59 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2017 8:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2017 8:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 606 (818886)
09-04-2017 12:20 AM


Diet for inhibiting blood supply to tumors
Is this guy nuts too? William Li, TED talk on Antiangiogenesis, methods of preventing the formation of blood vessels to cancer tumors to stop their growth. He dovers drugs and then gets into diet, saying that some foods are known to inhibit the growth of these blood vessels. He includes studies.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 6:59 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 606 (818888)
09-04-2017 12:39 AM


You think he should have been happy with 60% chance of living five years?:
It seems logical that Chris Wark perhaps just doesn't give enough credit to the surgery he had when his cancer was first diagnosed, and makes too much of his rejection of chemotherapy which was preventative more than curative, as if he could have survived without bothering to change his lifestyle.
But why then was he told after the surgery that he had only a 60% chance of surviving five years even assuming he would continue on the treatment plan prescribed for him? He says it was really 28% for his kind of cancer but even 60% doesn't promise much, does it? He may or may not be one of the 60% but even if he is the statistic is only for five years, then what? After that people die of course: your five years are up! That's all we could promise you. IF you're in the favored 60% rather than the 40%, that is.
The point is that if he was cured after the surgery there would have been no need to compute the odds of his living for only five years. Somehow this issue isn't being addressed although I've raised it a number of times. It sounds to me like he couldn't even count on living those five years with the standard treatment. So he's alive fourteen years later having opted out of it for a major diet focus solution and yet you all refuse to recognize that he did indeed cure himself with diet?.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 09-04-2017 12:54 AM Faith has replied
 Message 64 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 7:37 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 09-04-2017 8:07 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 50 of 606 (818891)
09-04-2017 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rrhain
09-04-2017 1:37 AM


Re: To RAZD on Cannabis Oil
It was RAZD who originally made thst claim. I had merely finally found someone who agreed with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rrhain, posted 09-04-2017 1:37 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 52 of 606 (818901)
09-04-2017 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
09-04-2017 12:54 AM


Re: You think he should have been happy with 60% chance of living five years?:
Do you think he should have preferred a lower chance ? Because that is what he really chose.
The five year statistic is given because it is an actual measured value.
It's needed because if the danger of cancer recurring - which is the point of the chemotherapy after surgery.
You don't know that his diet made any difference to his chance of survival. We do know that refusing chemotherapy reduced it.
That is really an excellent statement of the opposing viewpoint. And within that context it is of course true.
But I DO believe his diet is what made the difference to his chance of survival; I believe it is the reason he is alive today fourteen years later after having been given a mere 60% chance of living five more years on the standard treatment. I also believe it was the Gerson juicing regime that cured Jay Kordich's bladder cancer, and carrot juice the local man's prostate cancer, adding decades to both their lives. I find all three of these people credible.
I'm sure there are people it wouldn't work for, or cancers it wouldn't work for, but in these instances, and others I'm learning about I think diet made all the difference. There are other kinds of treatment they get into as well, some don't sound very convincing to me but I haven't yet spent enough time reading up on them.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 09-04-2017 12:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-04-2017 6:55 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 54 of 606 (818903)
09-04-2017 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Granny Magda
09-04-2017 6:35 AM


Re: Alternative Medicine Kills Cancer Patients
Keep in mind the numbers he had were given him in 2003, and that the statistics may have changed since then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 6:35 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 606 (818904)
09-04-2017 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Granny Magda
09-04-2017 6:35 AM


Re: Alternative Medicine Kills Cancer Patients
Okay fine, but you must see the point I was making. You may know people who died of cancer, but no-one is disputing that people die of cancer, so that proves nothing.
No, what it proves is that people die even given the best possible treatment available. That's the point. They weren't doing nothing about their cancer. they were being treated for it, all of them by the conventional means, and they all died. The more recent cases did live a year or two longer than the others though, I think I can say that about this group I mentioned.
You say that someone drank carrot juice and survived cancer, but that does nothing to establish that they lived because of the carrot juice. The carrot juice might be the thing that saved them... or they might have survived anyway and the carrot juice did nothing.
theoretically yes, but how many people do you know who have a diagnosis of cancer and do absolutely nothing about it live for decades beyond the diagnosis? Do you have statistics on that?
I also can't claim my sample of people who died on standard treatment would have lived longer on vegetable juices either, or if they had done nothing at all, but I know they died in a few short years and were on standard treatment. Not one of them lived more than three years beyond the point of diagnosis. Let's not say this "proves" anything but it certainly suggests a trend. I'm all for research to take it out of the realm of suggestion into something more trustworthy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 6:35 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 7:11 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 58 of 606 (818907)
09-04-2017 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
09-04-2017 6:55 AM


Re: You think he should have been happy with 60% chance of living five years?:
They had a cancer diagnosis, they drank prodigious amounts of carrot juice, the cancer went away. They can't "know" the juice cured the cancer, but the situation is such that the odds are enormous that they are right. We hardly ever KNOW much of anything, but such a direct cause and effect is pretty good evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-04-2017 6:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 09-04-2017 7:05 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 09-04-2017 7:21 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 63 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 7:22 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 68 of 606 (818955)
09-04-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Pressie
09-04-2017 8:07 AM


Re: You think he should have been happy with 60% chance of living five years?:
I've said nothing about "modern medicine" in general, only chemotherapy, and I'm aware that that works too in some cases. In fact I said I wasn't objecting to surgery for cancer either. Get mad about something I've actually said for a change. My brother had a quadruple bypass ten years ago and it saved his life so I'm certainly all in favor of bypass surgery, and for that matter most of modern medicine.
Glad you've had your father for as long as you have.
However, let me risk getting you even madder by suggesting that maybe you could improve your father's strength with a nutritional upgrade in his diet. Green smoothies, protein drinks? My brother and his wife are doing those for general health.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 09-04-2017 8:07 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 69 of 606 (818956)
09-04-2017 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Granny Magda
09-04-2017 7:22 AM


Re: You think he should have been happy with 60% chance of living five years?:
60% five year survival rate means 40% could survive without chemo? What? Anything lower than 60% to me means those people wouldn't even survive the five years.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 7:22 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 5:24 PM Faith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 77 by xongsmith, posted 09-04-2017 6:13 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 606 (818957)
09-04-2017 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Granny Magda
09-04-2017 6:59 AM


Re: Diet for inhibiting blood supply to tumors
I figured Li would be accepted, as he should be. He's in a position to do the research a recently diagnosed cancer patient isn't, who has the choice of going with the available treatments or considering other options based mostly on personal intuition, with a few guides you either trust or you don't.
As Wark said toward the end of that interview in Message 1, two paths are open to the cancer patient at that point, one well-lighted and well-traveled, the standard treatments, and the other a thick jungle you have to hack your way through, the alternative treatments. There's nothing certain about the jungle route, you are on your own without much of a compass, trusting in whoever and whatever persuades you.
Wark didn't consider a 60% chance of living five years a strong enough case against trying something that might give him a longer life. That ought to be his choice, don't you think? And I still think that the fact that he's lived fourteen years when five was the best they could offer him, really is evidence that he went the right direction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 6:59 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 09-04-2017 3:56 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 72 of 606 (818959)
09-04-2017 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
09-04-2017 3:56 PM


where's the moral high ground here?
At least five years, but obviously the flat five years given means that's the best they can offer, and anyone who does live longer is beating the statistic and has to be very rare.
I don't defend rejecting surgery, as I've said. And I also am not relyinjg only on Wark's experience, but consider that Kordich's and that of the local man I've mentioned strengthen his case. The objections to this strike me as quixotic.
Y'know, all this moral highgrounding here could be turned against you, since the record of survival on conventional treatment is clearly a lot shorter than the alternative treatments in the cases I've given. I've given five who died on conventional treatment within a few short years, and three who lived decades longer on alternative treatment and you are all acting as if that is big nothing. And that makes YOU the ones enticing people to inferior chances for longer life and health.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 09-04-2017 3:56 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 09-04-2017 4:40 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 75 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 5:12 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024