"Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions

Hi Faith, Remember how I mentioned in Message 57 how William Li distinguishes between "results in a petri dish and results in a person"? Well apparently Wark doesn't distinguish. That's crazy.There's a world of difference between in vitro results (in a Petri dish) and in vivo results (in a living organism). After all, if I pour liquid hot magma onto a Petri dish full of cancer cells, the cancer will die! That still doesn't mean that you should try and treat your cancer by swallowing molten lava six times a day.The type of study that Wark describes here should only ever be the starting point for studying a potential treatment. Countless compounds have shown promise in vitro only to completely fail when given to actual living organisms. This is sad but true and quite well known. That Wark seems unconcerned about this is one of the reasons why I call him a crank. If he is presenting these results as meaningful, then he's misrepresenting the data.So once again; alt-med cranks are a great source of juice recipes but a lousy source of medical advice.Mutate and SurvivesEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Well he's wrong. In vitro trials are not good enough evidence to claim efficacy in vivo. Wark ought to know this but apparently doesn't know or doesn't care.You have to understand that just because a compound is effective in a Petri dish doesn't mean that it's going to work in a person. It is extremely common for a promising compound to show activity in a cell culture in a Petri dish, only for that promise to completely disappear when it's exposed to actual clinical conditions. Not all compounds are bioavailable for example. Some compounds break down in the body far too quickly to have any effect. There are simply too many confounding factors to be able to claim efficacy in patients based only on in vitro studies.Making the kind of claims that Wark seems to be making is grossly irresponsible. He is, at the most generous assessment, deeply ignorant. At a less generous assessment, he is a charlatan making a fortune from shilling bogus "cures" to desperate and vulnerable people. Either way, he has no place offering anyone medical advice.Mutate and Survive

Could be. I'm not about to wade through hours of tedious crank videos. If you have evidence you wish to bring to bear, go ahead, I'm listening. But you know the forum rule about bare links just as well as I do. Really? You eat amla fruit every day? Personally, I skipped mine this morning, cos it's foul. Nothing. That's not my objection. I'm objecting to the notion that drinking vegetable juice is going to have any significant effect on cancer.If all that Wark was saying was that juiced fruit and veg are tasty and jolly healthy, I'd have no problem with any of it. Instead, he just has to go too far and claim that juicing will help fight cancer. It won't, or at the most generous assessment, Wark has no good evidence upon which to make that claim. It relies upon the entirely false claim that there is a significant relationship between fighting cell cultures in vitro and fighting cancerous tumours in vivo. Promoting that lie is unethical. It gives people false hope and, at worst, might encourage them to abandon real medicine in favour of quackery. I think that you're placing way too much trust in anecdotal data. Another worthlessly vague anecdote. Either this woman is missing out significant details (like, you know, surgery) or she's full of it. I see no reason to believe that far-fetched tale without evidence. Almost as if there's no meaningful relationship between what works in a test tube and what works in a person. Yes, he issues the standard Quack Miranda.

quote:

---

The quack Miranda warning is a term used by skeptics to describe the text which the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) requires that all labels and marketing materials for products sold as dietary supplements carry, in boldface type:

​

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

​

The name is a reference to the Miranda warning used by law enforcement agencies. It is also used by websites selling a variety of alternative medicine products and unproven devices.

---

All quacks do this. It's a standard part of their bag of tricks. "This isn't medical advice!" they insist, before lecturing us on the best ways to fight cancer. What is that if not medical advice? "I'm not a doctor!" they protest, as they launch into another spiel about how your doctor is poisoning you. It's fundamentally dishonest. Wark can lie to camera all he likes, he very clearly is issuing medical advice and the fact that he hides behind disclaimers like this only serves to illustrate his hypocrisy.Mutate and Survive

So the short version; Ty Bolinger is a pathetic fraud and his "conference" consists of nothing but lies and lunacy. You have been conned. Again. Fortunate then that no-one on this thread has made any such dismissal.Novel solutions from outside the medical establishment are fine, but they need to submit to testing and evidence, just like any treatment. He is more than fringey, he's a complete loon. Let's take a look at some of his "truth";

quote:

---

False Claims

​

He voices unsupported opinions and makes claims that can be easily refuted by a little research or even by common sense. Here are some of them:

​

​

Lies about chemotherapy

​

He says chemo is incredibly ineffective and is such a hazardous material that nurses who administer it have to take precautions. If it’s hazardous to medical personnel, why give it to people who are sick? (There is a simple answer: because it has been proven to benefit those sick people.)

​

Chemo started with mustard gas. Yes, that’s true, but so what? The American Cancer Society explains the history of how observations of soldiers exposed to mustard gas led to an effective treatment for lymphoma.

​

He ask: Why is modern medicine so drug-intensive? My answer: because drugs have been proven to work. And because efforts to get patients to improve their health by lifestyle modifications are so often fruitless.

​

He claims that 97% of people who undergo chemo are dead in 5 years. That is absolutely not true. The study that claim is based on omitted all the types of cancer that chemo is most effective for, and it lumped chemo intended to cure with chemo used as an adjuvant or for palliation.

​

He perpetuates the lie that 90% of oncologists wouldn’t take chemotherapy themselves. That myth was based on another old study where oncologists were asked about an experimental chemotherapy regimen for one specific type of incurable lung cancer. The majority of them thought that the evidence available at that time showed that cisplatin and other experimental chemo drugs were ineffective and toxic. Keep in mind that lung cancer is not particularly amenable to chemo. A 1991 study in the British Journal of Cancer found that the majority of oncologists would take chemotherapy; for instance, 98% of oncologists would take their own medicine if they had stage IV Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer for which chemotherapy has been proven effective.

​

He claims that chemotherapy stimulates cancer stem cells. He interviews Blaylock, who seems to confuse embryonic stem cells with cancer stem cells. He says chemo has no effect on stem cells, only on daughter cells. After killing daughter cells it comes back infinitely more aggressive. When asked to explain, he says it’s complicated but has to do with chemistry and the micro-environment of the stem cell, producing cytokines that cause more DNA damage which makes the cancer more aggressive and more likely to metastasize. He can’t explain it because it isn’t true. Sayer Ji claims that chemo enriches cancer stem cells; there’s no evidence for that.

​

They claim that chemo harms every patient; it is referred to as a suffering instead of a treatment. They say that doctors who won’t prescribe it stand to lose their license. The tentacles of the medical cartel reach everywhere. Chemo causes side effects, which gives doctors a reason to prescribe more drugs and multiplies their business.

---

Source; The Truth About Cancer Series Is Untruthful About Cancer | Science-Based Medicine97% percent of people who take chemo are dead in five years! OMFG!!!!!!1! That's amazing!!!!! Or at least it would be if it weren't a disgusting and moronic lie.Nobody dies from cancer! Well that's a relief. I guess we'll just stop all cancer treatments, I bet that will work out well. Gee, I wonder what it was that cancer sufferers died from before the advent of these killer therapies.What a moron. What a liar. What a scumbag. A motley collection of liars and loons, such as snake oil salesman Joe Mercola, scam artist Mike Adams, cynical quack Stanislaw Burzinski and the whacky Tullio Simoncini, who thinks that cancer is a fungus. Crackpots every one. Faith, why are you repeating this obvious lie? Doctors are trained in nutrition. There are even specialists in nutrition, they are called dieticians (note that the terms dietician and nutritionist are not interchangeable; anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, whereas dieticians are actual medical professionals).Bolinger's Truth About Cancer series is nothing more that the same banal debunked rubbish that alt-med quacks always serve up. If you have cancer, see an oncologist. Don't risk your life following the advice of frauds.Mutate and Survive

How much evidence did Ty Bolinger provide for his inane lie about 97% of chemo patients dying within five years? Yes. Registered dietitians must be properly trained to use the title. This is a legally protected professional term, with its own professional bodies. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. Dr Ben Goldacre registered his dead cat as a certified professional member of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants. To become a registered dietitian, you actually have to do the work. Yes. For example;

quote:

---

Harvard Medical School developed the Division of Nutrition in 1996 in order to establish nutrition as a discipline. The purpose of this Division was to coordinate nutrition activities between the medical school and the Harvard teaching hospitals, including research, teaching, postgraduate education and patient care.

---

Source; Division of Nutrition at Harvard Medical School How much do you feel would be enough? More than frauds like Bolinger, who has had no formal training in any medical field? Cite it then. Don't hide your light under a bushel Faith, share these incredible insights with us. Are they as reliable as claims like "Nobody dies from the cancer"? Check it out;

quote:

---

Tullio Simoncini (born 1951) is an Italian former physician and alternative medicine advocate. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from La Sapienza University. He is known for claiming that cancer is caused by the fungus Candida albicans, and has gone so far as to say that cancer is actually a form of candida overgrowth.[1] He also says that cancer can be cured with injections of sodium bicarbonate.[2][3] He says that he was formerly an oncologist, but that he was struck off because he prescribed sodium bicarbonate instead of conventional chemotherapy.[4]

​

The mainstream medical community has rejected Simoncini's hypothesis, citing a lack of peer-reviewed studies that support its use.[5] Quackwatch lists sodium bicarbonate injections as a "dubious treatment."[6]

​

Simoncini was tried and found guilty of fraud and manslaughter in 2006 after a patient died after using Simoncini's treatment.[7]

---

Source; Tullio Simoncini - WikipediaSimoncini is a dangerous fraud and a complete asshole. Another loon. Griffin is a promoter of amygdalin, another failed and debunked cancer treatment. He is fond of bonkers conspiracy theories and this appears no different.Do you intend to address the lies told by Bolinger? Or are you content to stand by him as he lies to cancer patients?Mutate and Survive

Of course they have medical training. They are trained in a medical field, thus medical training, to a professional standard.Dietitians are not doctors, I didn't intend to imply that they were, but they are nonetheless trained medical professionals.As to actual doctors, nutrition is a standard part of their advice. Every time a doctor tells you to lose weight, they are giving you medical advice on nutrition. And I already showed you a prestigious medical school that teaches doctors nutrition. So yeah, doctors do use nutrition. The attempts to claim otherwise are yet another example of the endless attempts by alt-med quacks to co-opt real medicine and re-brand it as exclusively theirs. It's nonsense.Mutate and SurviveMutate and Survive

You claimed that doctors get no training in nutrition. That was false. Doctors are trained in nutrition, that's why goddamn Harvard built a dedicated nutrition centre. What do you imagine they do there all day?Your false claim is debunked. Admit your error. They are the medical profession! They are medical professionals with a formal accreditation body. How are they not medical?Mutate and Survive

Your doctor never told you to lose weight?Mutate and Survive

How so? A doctor giving you advice on your diet clearly constitutes medical advice on nutrition. What else could it possibly be? Here is an entire series of advice pages from the UK's National Health Service giving advice on dieting and weight loss. What is that if not medical advice on nutrition?You claimed that doctors are not trained in nutrition. In actual fact, nutritional advice is part of the day to day activities of doctors. You were wrong.Mutate and Survive

*sigh* It's this kind of thing that makes me wonder if you even read what is addressed to you. Try again. Actually read it this time. Did you follow the link? It takes you to a page with "Harvard Medical School" at the top of the page. Check the sources! Have you considered reading what is addressed to you and checking cited sources instead of imagining things that turn out to be untrue?You claimed that doctors do not receive training in nutrition. That was false. Now if you'd said that doctors frequently don't receive enough training in nutrition, I would agree with you. But you didn't say that. You said that they didn't receive any. That was false. This "Truth About Cancer" quackfest had you making false claims. Your faith in it and its quack purveyors is misplaced.Mutate and Survive

Feel free to withdraw your false claim any time.The reason why doctors typically don't study deeply into nutrition is largely because they don't need to; they have dietitians for that, just as doctors don't usually do physiotherapy; they have physiotherapists they can call upon for that. That medical school isn't the only place that teaches nutrition to doctors. It is, in fact, standard. take a look at this study;

quote:

---

Status of nutrition education in medical schools

​

Kelly M Adams, Karen C Lindell, Martin Kohlmeier, and Steven H Zeisel

​

Abstract

​

Background:

​

Numerous entreaties have been made over the past 2 decades to improve the nutrition knowledge and skills of medical students and physicians. However, most graduating medical students continue to rate their nutrition preparation as inadequate.
Objective:

​

The objective was to determine the amount and type of nutrition instruction at US medical schools, especially including the instruction that occurs outside designated nutrition courses.
Design:

​

A 12-item survey asked nutrition educators to characterize nutrition instruction at their medical schools (required, optional, or not offered) and to quantify nutrition contact hours occurring both inside and outside designated nutrition courses. During 2004, we surveyed all 126 US medical schools accredited at that time.
Results:

​

A total of 106 surveys were returned for a response rate of 84%. Ninety-nine of the 106 schools responding required some form of nutrition education; however, only 32 schools (30%) required a separate nutrition course. On average, students received 23.9 contact hours of nutrition instruction during medical school (range: 2—70 h). Only 40 schools required the minimum 25 h recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. Most instructors (88%) expressed the need for additional nutrition instruction at their institutions.
Conclusion:

​

With the move to a more integrated curriculum and problem-based learning at many medical schools, a substantial portion of the total nutrition instruction is occurring outside courses specifically dedicated to nutrition. The amount of nutrition education in medical schools remains inadequate.

---

Now that is not good, but it is very far from the situation you tried to portray. Instead of no doctors receiving any nutrition training as you falsely claimed, ninety-nine out of 106 medical schools responding taught nutrition. On average students received 23.9 hours of nutrition training. Plenty of room for improvement I agree, but anywhere near as bad as you claimed. Yes, the Harvard facility concentrates on real medicine, not crazed fantasies of the kind peddled by Bolinger. You're not going to find that out from the likes of Bolinger and Adams, who are scientifically illiterate lunatics. They don't bother to do the kind of research that might prove their claims, nor are they competent to do so. Exactly, Joe Mercola is a nutcase. Cell phones will not give you cancer. This particular claim is especially bonkers. Mike Adams is another nutcase. He's an anti-vaxxer and a notorious purveyor of pseudo-science. His presence discredits the whole enterprise.Mutate and Survive

It's not up to doctors to test every insane notion that runs through a crackpot's head. They don't necessarily have the resources for that and in any case, many alt-med interventions are so loony that they don't even pass the prior plausibility test.The alt-med industry on the other hand is rolling in cash. Estimates online value the industry at 30 to 200 billion dollars. If they want to test their nonsense, they can. But they rarely do. Worse, when something is debunked, they just carry on with it as though nothing had happened. Bring them. Don't just mention them offhand. If you have evidence, bring it. Otherwise no-one is impressed.Alt-med studies are typically poorly designed and amount to little more than quacks cosplaying as real doctors. I call them quacks because that's what they are.Have you forgotten that Ty Bolinger, the person behind "Truth About Cancer" is responsible for various grotesque lies, or did you fail to read that as well? As a reminder, this is the guy who said that 97% of people on chemo are dead within five years. Do you believe that? Or is it a disgusting and irresponsible lie that will discourage sick people from taking life-saving medication? ... is a total loon. He's an HIV?AIDS denialist and a 9/11 "truther". He is nothing but a conspiracy theorist. Amygdalin doen't work. It was tested extensively when it first came to light and found to be worthless. This is an excellent example of alt-med quacks refusing to abandon failed treatments.The reason why so many people become convinced that quack cures are in fact working is mostly because they don't know what they are doing. The testimonies of non-experts aren't especially reliable. Might as well say that magic is real because some people say that they've seen it work. Once again, anecdote is no substitute for data.Also, don't forget, many of the ringleaders in the alt-med world are simply liars. Ty Bolinger, as we have seen, is a liar. His word is not trustworthy. Excpet that's not true.Bolinger tries to convince people that chemo and radiotherapy are going to kill them. That's not presenting a choice, that's fear-mongering for profit. It's a despicable lie, designed to drive sick people to buy snake oil. For instance, from Bollinger's own website;

quote:

---

Did you know that the overall success rate for most cancers treated with the chemotherapy is a paltry 3%?

---

I did not know that. I didn't know it because it's complete horse shit. That's easily checkable and it's completely untrue. That's the sort of filthy lie you get from scam artists like Bollinger. How exactly are you going to get useful information from someone who lies so freely and so crudely?Or are you going to defend that rubbish? Tell me, do you think he's right about that? Or is it nonsense? Or are you just going to continue to ignore it?Mutate and Survive

Yeah, they're relying on that. They casually mention some study, they don't provide any detail, then they move on, leaving you with the impression that they did something sciencey. It's a con job, a conjuring trick. It's Ty Bollinger's conference, he's the owner, the ringleader in this particular circus. He bears overall responsibility for it.Anyway, you have seen his lies. I showed you one in the last message. He asks "Did you know that the overall success rate for most cancers treated with the chemotherapy is a paltry 3%?". It's right here. And it's simply untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.You need to respond to this. Why is it acceptable for Bollinger to bear false witness like this? But it's okay for you to portray those who disagree with you as prejudiced and closed minded?I don't call Bollinger a liar because he doesn't toe the party line, I call him a liar because he tells easily disproved lies. For money. At the expense of the gullible and the desperate. Medical science and public healthcare do not rely upon whether or not someone can make a compelling Youtube video. They rely upon carefully gathered evidence. If Griffin has evidence that - for instance - HIV does not cause AIDS, a favourite insane claim of his, let him bring it. Until that time I will continue to call him a crank.Mutate and Survive

Cue the temper tantrum.You don't have to trust me, you can look for yourself. The lie is right there on Bollinger's own site. Look for yourself. It's not out of context. Bollinger claims that 97% of chemo patients die within five years. What context is there where that is in any way true? It's right there on his current website and in the videos he still promotes. He has not changed his mind. You are clutching at straws. I thought you were against smear tactics? To me, this translates as "La-la-la, I'm not listening". How childish.This is a debate forum. If you want to post your opinions unchallenged, put them on your blog. You don't care if people lie to cancer patients. You don't care that people lie to scare cancer patients into rejecting life-saving medicine. Got it. What I find repugnant is lying to cancer patients in a way that could cost them their lives. Apparently you care so little about that possibility that you won't even address the issue, resorting instead to childish antics. A shame.Again, I would suggest that you take a look at Bollinger's crappy website. You will find the "97%" claim right there in black and white. Even a casual analysis of this claim reveals it as a moronic lie. Why are you content to treat liars as reputable sources?Mutate and Survive

It's here --> Cancer TruthYou were probably looking at another of his sites, Bollinger has a few. For the record;

quote:

---

Chemo has a 97% fatality rate...

​

It has been scientifically proven to fatally poison several hundred thousand people each and every year. Did you know that the overall success rate for most cancers treated with the chemotherapy is a paltry 3%? In other words...

​

The truth is: most of the conventional methods, including all sorts of drugs, radiation and surgeries don't work and they are less effective than ever before and will make your Cancer and your health worse in the long run! Why?

​

Because unless you regain a healthy immune system the cancer will return.

---

Well I guess you've seen it now, unless you're going to tell me that claiming a 97% kill rate for chemo is somehow not discouraging people from taking chemo. Not true in Ty Bollinger's case. He explicitly encourages people to refuse chemotherapy, radiotherapy and (most worryingly of all) even surgery. This is exactly the sort of irresponsible behaviour that gets people killed.Again, just for the record, Bollinger's claims are purest poppycock. The 97% claim in particular is blatantly insane and the reality is easy to check up. Bollinger has no excuse for this kind of nonsense. He's a terrible, terrible source for anyone to be relying on. At the most generous possible assessment, he's a insane idiot. At a less generous assessment, he's a lying asshole. Second glance too. That is not a general understanding, it's an alt-med thing. It's also completely untrue. Indeed. Bio-availability is the key concept here, not to mention potential side effects. Well you see, this is really in-depth, technical science stuff, so buckle up...Candida is white. And cancer is white.That's it. Really! That's it! Never mind that cancer isn't necessarily white. Or that fungus isn't necessarily white either. Simoncini really is a fruitcake's fruitcake. Huh. Weird. Well I'm glad you're feeling better at any rate, skin rashes can be a real pain. For my money it's more likely that the problem was being exacerbated by something that you have now stopped eating, rather than being cured by something you started eating, but hey, what do I know...Incidentally, diabetes very much is something that can be prevented and/or managed by diet. Any mainstream doctor will tell you this, there's nothing "alternative" about it. Alt-med cranks do not have an exclusive on dietary interventions. No, that's not right. Carrots and potatoes have a ph of around 5. That makes them comparatively low acid as far as foods go, but that's still acid. It's not very acid, but it's more acidic than neutral. The whole alkaline thing is a red herring anyway. He's wrong in every possible way. Tullio Simoncini is a total loony and not a reputable source. His presence robs any venue where he appears of a great deal of credibility. I see from your follow-on post that you are aware of how dangerous he is. I don't see why you would want to salvage anything from this mess. I certainly don't see why Ty Bollinger would invite Simoncini to talk at his cancer conference. Well, not unless Bollinger were as quacky as Simoncini is.Mutate and Survive