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.
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?.
On 16 July 2015, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) updated the FAQ on their web site, Cancer.gov, to include a statement about cannabis and its effect upon cancer cells:
Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory.
While the above-displayed quote does indeed appear on Cancer.gov, this does not mean that cannabis has been proved to kill cancer in humans. In fact, the NCI clarified the referenced statement by saying that insufficient evidence exists to recommend cannabis for use by cancer patients:
There is not enough evidence to recommend that patients inhale or ingest Cannabis as a treatment for cancer-related symptoms or side effects of cancer therapy.
It should also be noted that NCI’s claim that cannabis kills cancer cells is based on preclinical studies (research using animals to find out if a drug, procedure, or treatment is likely to be useful). While cannabis and cannabinoids have been studied in clinical trials (research involving human test subjects) for ways to manage the side effects of cancer, Cancer.gov reports that:
No clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans have been found in the CAM on PubMed database maintained by the National Institutes of Health. Cannabis and cannabinoids have been studied in clinical trials for ways to manage side effects of cancer and cancer therapies.
Cannabis and cannabinoids may have benefits in treating the symptoms of cancer or the side effects of cancer therapies. There is growing interest in treating children for symptoms such as nausea with Cannabis and cannabinoids, although studies are limited.
Accordingly, the FDA has not yet approved cannabis as a treatment for cancer:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved Cannabis or cannabinoids for use as a cancer treatment.
Again, Faith, you're letting your distrust in the world around you lead you astray. You can find anybody to say anything on the interwebs.
That doesn't mean there is any validity to their claim. Just because somebody is saying something you want to hear doesn't mean they are trustworthy, no matter how much they're smiling when they say it.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
Various forms of cancers are are genetic in my family. On both sides.
To me, the best dietary recommendation I ever heard was from my personal Doctor.
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Jog around the block every day, as it takes at least 15 minutes even if you are unfit. Drink at least 8 glasses of water every day. Don't ever smoke. Come for a thorough medical exam twice every year as you are over 50".
I've been cycling to work (13 km from my home) since. I moved my office to be right across from the bathroom (all that water in winter would barely touch sides before coming out).
I still love my beacon in the mornings, though.
It's worked for me so far. It's medical advice. Not from some quack who wants to make money out of desperate people.
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.
Of course you would know a lot better than he would, of course.
Please. I am no expert and Wark, despite his claims to the contrary, is clearly out of his depth on this. He gives 28% here, and makes it seem as though this is the survival rate for colon cancer. It isn't. On his website, his FAQ has the figure as 53%. He writes that;
quote:Young adult patients (under 40) also have a 28% higher risk of cancer progressing and spreading during a one-year follow-up
Not the same thing as his claim from the video. He sounds deeply confused to me.
It was said to him before he decided against doing chemo so it was meant to be with chemo.
Well he's wrong. Even if these figures are for survival rates with chemo, (which is by no means sure, the video is by no means cleqar that this is the case) the numbers he cites are wrong. Adjuvant Online estimated the chances of surviving IIIC colon cancer as 55% (as per the previously cited article by Dr Gorski). Wark can't get his figures straight. The 60% thing is flat out wrong and he is confused about the other and is misrepresenting it. He is not someone you should be taking advice from.
And I don't appreciate your silly parody about people doing absurd things and living long lives.
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.
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.
The point is that you can't tell the difference from an anecdote, not even from a dozen anecdotes. You need a more sophisticated study, a clinical study, with a larger sample group. So yes, I really am dismissive of vague detail-free anecdotes. They have no worth here. And if you look at clinical studies on alt-med techniques, they usually disappear under scrutiny.
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.
Re: You think he should have been happy with 60% chance of living five years?:
quote:
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.
Since they are making claims they cannot know to be true, their credibility on the issue can't be considered to be high. There is simply no way around that.
No, I don't think so. Li differs strongly from loons like Mercola or Axe, on several points;
- He is doing research, not just making it up as he goes along.
- His research sounds pukka, not the usual bogus studies we see from alt-med. For instance, he makes the distinction between results in a petri dish and results in a person; a distinction missed by many alt-med types.
- His Angiogenesis Foundation supports chemotherapy and the foundation seems to be using dietary interventions on top of chemo, not as a substitute.
- He actually has a plausible mechanism in his sights, not vague hand-wavy nonsense about "energy" or something.
- He is not telling you that you can cure cancer with carrot juice!
The fact that someone is interested in the therapeutic potential of foods is not crazy in and of itself. It's actually perfectly reasonable and merits proper research. The lunacy comes when people make over the top claims (carrot juice cures cancer!) or when they encourage people to refuse life-saving medication. Li doesn't appear to be doing that.
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.
Re: You think he should have been happy with 60% chance of living five years?:
It is not direct evidence Faith, it is TESTIFY. And TESTIFY is the lowest, weakest, least reliable form of evidence. In fact in many if not most cases of TESTIFY it is simply false.
No, what it proves is that people die even given the best possible treatment available. That's the point.
That's a pointless point.
People die of cancer. We know. No-one said otherwise.
People who receive the best treatment still sometimes die of cancer. We know. No-one said otherwise.
No-one disputes any of this. No-one claimed that chemo would make you immortal. But what it will do is enhance your chances of survival. That's not a golden ticket to everlasting life, but it is the best we have on offer.
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?
No. Do you? In fairness, that's going to be tricky data to study. People who refuse all treatment (including surgery?) aren't typically in regular touch with health professionals.
But I have already showed you clear and robust data showing that alt-med cancer patients die more often that their conventionally treated fellows. Do you really imagine that the untreated do any better?
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.
No. None of us can draw firm conclusions either way from such weak data.
Let's not say this "proves" anything but it certainly suggests a trend.
Well sure, but only very, very weakly. Anecdote isn't completely without value. It can be useful in pointing out areas for future study. But your dataset is way too small to draw any conclusions from it, especially conclusions that are inherently implausible, such as carrot juice curing cancer.
I'm all for research to take it out of the realm of suggestion into something more trustworthy.
Great, me too. I just think that you are jumping the gun a little in placing such faith in quacks who refuse to perform such trials.
I am no expert and Wark, despite his claims to the contrary, is clearly out of his depth on this. He gives 28% here, and makes it seem as though this is the survival rate for colon cancer. It isn't. On his website, his FAQ has the figure as 53%. He writes that;
™ Version 4.2
