"Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions

The conference is underway and I'm really fascinated with it. Tons of research is being discussed, this isn't snake oil stuff. I could make this my career if I had the time to put into it.The Truth About Cancer LIVEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've never heard of David Jockers but I guess I'll find out about him when he's the speaker. Mercola hasn't spoken yet either. Chris Wark is going to do a keynote address on Saturday.Most of the speakers have their credentials and expertise in the area of nutrition and aren't pretending to anything more that I've seen. Medical doctors don't get much if any training in nutrition so it figures there wouldn't be many represented here, though there is one cardiologist. The speakers have all been citing tons of research about cancer and other diseases related to nutrition, and causes of cancer like environmental toxins, acid or alkaline body environment, different diets of different cultures, emotional stress, organic versus nonorganic crops, etc.You could register and watch a little if you like, or don't watch, it's easy to register, just email address and first name and so far all they've sent me is the titles of upcoming talks so I don't think you risk getting spammed. If enough people register at the link I get credit and maybe a free DVD or book. And in my opinion you could get some very useful information. The Truth About Cancer ConferenceEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How would they make money from you registering?

There are long commercials between talks, all for the supplements sold by the conveners of the conference, but I've been tuning them out. They may be a good line of supplements, I don't know, but I can't afford that stuff. If I ever decide to take any I'd have to research a lot of different sources.Yesterday's lineup of speakers was very interesting though and one thing I'm interested in is who teaches what in this area so I'll check out their websites eventually.The guy starting out this morning is NOT interesting to me though, he's going on about some pet idea of his own about "toxicity" that is boring and subjective, to the point that I've turned off the sound. I hope the whole day isn't going to go like this.Yesterday there was a lot of citing of research into various aspects of the causes and treatments of cancer. The one on skin cancers and skin as an organ was interesting. I was also persuaded by the guy who cited research into the effects of pesticides on animals and people as a reason to choose organic produce.The speaker on juicing didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, but I learned that the ketogenic diet influences a lot of these nutritionists and she's one. She thinks the sugar in carrots and beets is a problem even though all the research shows their efficacy with cancer and other diseases, so she recommends diluting these juices! What? Diluting them will dilute their useful nutrients as well as the sugar, what can she be thinking? I think Chris Wark has it right in this case: the sugar in vegetables is not a problem.A couple of them go too far into doctor-bashing I think. Doctors just do what they believe works and is in the best interest of the patient, and they get some cures too. I understand that someone who has been cured by nutrition after chemo didn't work would strongly oppose conventional medicine but there's no point in bashing doctors. The nutritionists just have to keep working on their own protocols. Even if nutrition turns out to be an important factor or even curative, at this point it's still pretty trial-and-error. This field has some growing up to do. I think it's off to a pretty good start myself but it's just a start.I don't think the problem is that this is an infomercial, I think it's a fascinating arena of health research.But this morning's speaker does remind me that there are some fringey ones too.

Superfoods, antioxidants, amino acids, anti-gluco-something, I guess I should be taking notes but I'm just listening and hopefully absorbing some basics for now, since all this stuff is pretty new to me beyond the popular headline level. It's interesting enough for me to want to follow up and learn more about the sciences involved in nutrition.Interestingly I'm finding out that there are a lot of Christians in this field, so prayer is a factor in many of the systems.As is often the case there seems to be a general idea that all this is about God's Creation, and the Fall isn't taken into account. But disease is a legacy of the Fall, so the way I think about it all is that God is providing us with methods to counteract its effects through these people who are studying it, just as He's always provided medical and health methods. Things are worse now than ever with the toxic environments, pesticides, depleted soils, drugs in the animals we eat, bad eating habits promoted by available junk foods, processed foods with bad additives. All those things are symptoms of the Fall that contribute to the diseases the Fall brought about. We won't be able to cure all the effects of the Fall, but we don't have to continue to support the processes and habits that feed disease, and we can learn to emphasize antidotes to a lot of it and improve health and longevity. That's how I think about this stuff myself.

The ketogenic diet really is big with these guys, restricting or eliminating simple carbs. Some accept meat and fats, but some restrict or eliminate them, or insist on "good" fats like avocados and nuts, while emphasizing fruits and vegetables, making the diet more vegan than ketogenic.A talk this morning was about water fasting and calorie restriction, two areas I don't know anything about in relation to curing disease or enhancing health in general. Interesting to think about. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The conference is over and I just want to say I thought it was extremely good and inspiring. I feel sorry for the people who dismiss out of hand anything about healing strategies that don't agree with the medical establishment. I changed my mind about the presenter I tuned out because he seemed fringey, I was just impatient because he said he doesn't prepare for talks and he was slow getting started and I was tired so I tuned him out.I think all the presenters had something important to say. A bunch of smart, knowledgeable and passionate people committed to learning and teaching everything they can about improving people's health through nutrition, which is an area of study doctors are simply not trained in. They covered a huge array of factors that contribute to cancer as well as factors that heal it.The conference isn't online but there is a You Tube series by the convener Ty Bollinger with the same title, The Truth About Cancer in which he goes around the world interviewing people about cancer causes and cures.

Remarkable post that, without a shred of evidence for anything you say, just a lot of assertions. Dietitians are medically trained? You actually said that? Doctors get training in nutrition? How much training? I find it a lot easier to believe the conference presenters than you. And there was plenty of cited research. I missed the talk about fungus, have no idea what the guy said, perhaps he's an exception to the general high quality I found in the presenters, but I don't know, perhaps you're wrong.Also you are talking mostly about statements I dismiss myself. They may be true but I'm more interested in the nutritional cures and the studies of environmental and other causes of cancer.The history given by G Edward Griffin was very interesting, showing how the medical profession was manipulated by the tax-exempt foundations into their current drug focus. They manipulated a lot of things in the early part of the last century. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually I did check and they do not have MEDICAL training which is what GM implied.

Having a Division of Nutrition says nothing about what training in nutrition MDs get, which is generally understood to be little to none, and having to have training to be a dietitian says nothing about what sort of training and what connection there is with the medical profession.I mentioned somewhere on this thread my experience in a rehab facility in which the food served us was not only unappetizing, it contradicted even mainstream knowledge of good nutrition, and over time could kill a person IMO. I assume the "nutritionist" who planned the food service had some sort of credentials for the job. Perhaps she was in fact a Dietitian, and if so it doesn't speak well for that profession.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The level of advice about nutrition I'm familiar with from doctors is awfully low, not even as good as granma's knowledge.

You consider advice to lose weight evidence of training in nutrition? That's pretty funny.I keep remembering Chris Wark's interview with a former oncology nurse who talked about how drugs were the treatment for cancer wherever she worked. One patient had sores in his mouth that she knew from somewhere could be cured with vitamin C, and IV vitamin C IS prescribed sometimes but not in this case, though eventually she got it prescribed and the sores cleared up. Seems to me real knowledge of nutrition would lead a doctor to know such things already.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You don't say Harvard MEDICAL SCHOOL, just "Harvard" so I imagine different levels of health professionals being trained there, not necessarily just MD candidates, except for whatever little education they get in nutrition. ALSO, the existence of such a facility doesn't guarantee a high level of education in nutrition either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK I'll apologize for not reading through the whole thing. But I'm not very impressed anyway, with one nutrition program in one medical school that teaches doctors about nutrition in a once-a-month seminar and a yearly symposium. Granted it's something but it doesn't seem to have had much effect on the medical profession at large since it was founded in 1996.More of that would be good, I'm sure, but it doesn't give nutrition very much weight really. But the conference was focused on nutrition as a cure of disease, not just small improvements in the national diet, which seems to be the Harvard focus. (I looked up sample newsletter online). If a radical change in diet can prevent or cure cancer, you aren't going to find that out through the Harvard facility. All the presenters at the conference have a rather radical view of healthy nutrition, and how many factors prevent it, such as pesticides in foods, inadequate soil nutrition, hormones and antibiotics in meat, as well as other environmental toxins. Programs to improve the growing of food, and eliminate the toxins, need a radical perspective.Mercola's talk was about the dangers of microwaves and cell phones and similar hazards, for developing cancer and other diseases. Mike Evans, whom you also denounced, talked about heavy metals in the environment, even in organic produce. Is there something objectionable about such topics or what?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In other words diet never becomes a factor in the diagnosis and treatment of a patient's condition, it's completely separate. The nutritionist doesn't get to see the patient to consider if vitamin C might help with the sores in the mouth so if the doctor doesn't know about vitamin C the patient has to continue to suffer from the sores in the mouth.Well, of course I'm just a loony here as usual, but I found many of the presentations valuable, and after getting all this debunkery I think it's unconscionable that the medical profession with its chemo and radiation and no consideration at all of nutritional treatments has all the authority in the area and the power to keep other systems marginalized. For one thing this inhibits the very testing that would be helpful in the area of nutrition therapy. There are nevertheless studies and many were quoted during the conference. But I'd like to know more about the ketogenic diet versus high carb diets for instance, and comparisons of the different approaches in other ways. None of these people struck me as irresponsible quacks, the accusation of quackery seems to come from a prejudiced opposition rather than a fair consideration of the work involved.Organic produce against pesticides in our food. Seems reasonable to me. Studies of the effect of carrots have been done, some even mentioned earlier in the thread, but otherwise a study of "Alternative Medicine" just jumbles it all together so you can't find out anything about what particular treatments make a difference.G Edward Griffin has done a lot of work exposing the influence of the foundations on various aspects of American life, so I didn't find anything new in the claim that they also influenced the direction the medical profession took in emphasizing drug therapies. He describes medicine before the beginning of the twentieth century as an unregulated field of lots of different kinds of treatment systems. It sounds like it did need some regulation, but the regulation it got under the influence of the foundations favored drugs instead of the use of natural remedies, and apparently got everybody convinced this is because they work rather than that vested interests could be behind them. Griffin exposes real conspiracies and he's produced the evidence many times. Even conspiracies to conduct faked research to validate the pet theory of the day. So he said in his talk at the conference that there were studies that validated amygdalin as a treatment for cancer, but that they weren't accepted by the medical profession, and a way was found to set up an experiment to prove what they wanted to prove. That's not impossible and I have no reason to doubt it myself. Also there's this weird idea that people defend cures like amygdalin for some reason other than that they've seen it work. I have no idea myself but what if Griffin is right and research has been faked against it while validating research has been buried.Anyway my sympathies are with the natural treatments against the drugs and the poisons of chemo and radiation. I'm sure doctors sincerely believe they are doing the right thing but I hope more people find out about the alternatives because I'm convinced they actually can cure diseases that standard treatment can't. And most of the presenters at this conference were asking only for trying it when there is time to try it, so that anyone can go back to the conventional treatment at any time. Also megadoses of nutrition can help with the side effects of the standard treatments. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.