"Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions

good point.

It's specifically called an "anti-inflammatory," and the markers in the blood that were the indicators of efficacy in the studies Modulus was talking about were specifically markers for inflammation. That's why it is thought it could be effective for any form of inflammation of the joints. Besides which, there are anecdotal reports from sufferers of osteoarthritis that it does seem to reduce their pain, which would be due to reduction in inflammation.

Again, "could be effective" is not a good enough reason for self-medication. Anecdotes that "seem" to confirm are not good enough reasons for self-medication.Figure out what there is in cherries that causes the improvement. Then eat cherries and other foods that contain the same ingredient(s). Buckets of cherry juice or handfuls of cherry pills are no substitute for real food.

The effective ingredient is called Anthocyanin.

quote:

---

Although anthocyanins have been shown to have antioxidant properties in vitro,[39] there is no evidence for anthocyanin antioxidant effects in the body after the plant is consumed.[40][41][42] Wikipedia

---

Odd that it is common knowledge, verified many times by experience, that cherry juice and just cherries are very effective at reducing gout pain. Even doctors tell people that.

Common knowledge is like common sense. Dirt is common too but not very valuable.

Apologies for my tardy reply. I've been away/busy/lazy. That is absolutely not clear, nor true.None of Wark's homilies, at least none of the ones you've mentioned, have any evidence of anyone living beyond what might be expected. Wark's own case shows no such thing, Karen's case certainly shows no such thing. And doctor's don't "just give up" on people. They are honest enough to tell them when they have no cure, that's not the same as "giving up on them". You misunderstand. When I say that none of these cases exceed "standard medical expectations", I mean that they don't exceed the expectations even for a person who isn't being treated. Wark's survival, considered entirely in the context of his refusing chemo, is unremarkable. It is well within the norm. Karen's survival is quite ordinairy. As we have seen, 10% of WM patients are alive and well, with no chemo, after ten years. Armed with that information Karen's survival suddenly looks a great deal less impressive, certainly well within normal expectations. I am not equating them, nor should they be equated.The cases cited by Wark show nutrition patients doing no better than we would expect from the more fortunate untreated patients. You don't know that. You only have Karen''s word from it, based upon her imperfect recollections. That applies to all of her story. That makes no sense. If she was vegetarian, she could hardly have been eating chicken. How much vitamin D? In what form? How often?How much exercise? Compared to how much before?"And the phrase "green products" is entirely meaningless.All this is too vague to be of use to any rational examination. I don't agree actually. researching individual cases is pointless. It's only by studying multiple cases that one can detect the underlying trends. That's how meaningful insights are gained. Researching a single case might be somewhat useful, but it isn't particularly instructive, since the peculiarities of that single case might not apply equally across the board. That's a big part of why these case-by-case anecdotes are so worthless; they do nothing to separate a particular patient's unique experience from the whole. Fine, you didn't lie. You misspoke. Again. Please stop misspeaking. Karen's cancer is not cured. Yes, she was "cured" as in "not cured".If you mean to say that Karen is alive and asymptomatic, just say that. If you choose to attribute this to nutrition, I can't stop you, but you have no real reason to do so, especially given that Karen's case is not particularly exceptional. Nonsense. It doesn't have to mean that nutrition was the cause. A single case study does not and cannot achieve such a distinction. The possibility remains that Karen would be just as well without her nutritional regime. Remember, 10% of WM patients are alive and asymptomatic after ten years even without treatment. Karen has managed twelve. That's impressive, but not mind blowing. Fair enough. I do think though that the willingness of some of your sources to embrace outright craziness undermines them as trustworthy sources. I am loathe to take medical recommendations from someone who thinks that homoeopathy is real or that you can heal with crystals.In Greger's specific case, I agree that he doesn't go for that sort of stuff. His problems are more direct; he simply misrepresents studies to further his highly partisan vegan agenda. Are you ***ing kidding me?!Nutrition failed to cure Abraham Cherrix. It failed to cure Jessica and Sharyn Ainscough. It failed to cure Bill Henderson. It has failed others. I can name more if you wish, but I think I make my point. Nutritionist quacks act like they can cure any ill through nutrition, but in actual fact they can point to little in the way of concrete success. Cancer patients who choose to treat their illness with nutrition can and do die. There are failures, but you won't hear mention of them on chrisbeatcancer. By concentrating only upon the positive stories and ignoring the failures, Wark creates a false narrative of overwhelming success, one that is not born out by examination of his claims. We have been at that point for decades, centuries even. The earliest mention of a crude clinical trial comes from - you're gonna like this - the Book of Daniel. The notion of a controlled experiment is nothing new. The modern clinical trial has existed since the 1950s at least, arguably as far back as the 1920s. That's plenty of time for the research that would vindicate the nutritionists to have been done. And it has been done to an extent, with no good evidence for nutritional cancer therapies. I don't see that anything is served by allowing quacks and charlatans too go unchallenged. In particular, I think that you do yourself a disservice by using quacks and charlatans as your sources. I don't really care who does the research, I only care that anybody making medical claims be able to back up those claims with hard evidence. If nutritionists and other alt-med types aren't up to that challenge, that's their problem.Mutate and Survive

It's not. "Truth About Cancer" is literally Bollinger's trademark. It is the brand he uses to sell alt-med garbage. It is his primary web presence. The conference is merely another promotional vehicle for Bollinger and associated quacks. He is the host because it's his event. You can't expect to promote Bollinger's event without promoting its primary beneficiary. According to me? Excuse me Faith, but are you somehow in doubt?The claim that 97% of chemo patients die within five years is false. I have clearly demonstrated this. It ought to be obvious to any reasonable observer that this is nonsense, even at a glance. It is so plainly, so manifestly moronic that I am left with only three options;Bollinger is insane,Bollinger is an imbecile, or,Bollinger is lying.Probably it's a bit of each. I don't know. All I know is that anyone who can utter such obvious tripe is a piss-poor source of medical advice and that spreading inane scare stories like this is reprehensible. Call it what you want, it was a circus, where a selection of loons, antivaxers and quacks prated their usual bunkum from a big stage in front of a credulous crowd. You were practically begging people to sign up for his conference! In doing so you were promoting Bollinger and all of the loonies who he had on there, including dangerous antivaxers, quacks and charlatans. I appreciate that your interest was honest and I am not accusing you of being a liar or a lunatic. However, some of the people who you have been plugging are liars and/or lunatics. Bollinger is one such. Adams is another.I don't believe that you actually want to spread misinformation or scare stories. I'm just trying to open your eyes to the kind of people you have been praising.Mutate and Survive

I use one controversial substance after reading lots of information about it. It is called DMSO and the claims are that it has been thoroughly though not conclusively studied. I use it on my feet and ankles to improve circulation and reduce swelling. I can report that it works well for the said purpose. Lots of documented research and lots of testimonials, not that they carry any weight scientifically.Edited by Phat, : sub title

You probably already know this, but make sure your feet are clean before you apply the DMSO. DMSO penetrates the skin easily and rapidly and can carry other chemical compounds with it that don't normally penetrate the skin so readily. You would hate to be introducing bad stuff into your system inadvertently.

Seems they have done scientific studies and the cherry juice concentrate works.
https://youtu.be/N5rcQBVf-_E

I read up a lot on this substance. It is hawked by quacks and doctors alike. There have been many studies done on it scientifically and the consensus seems to be that it is not dangerous...apart from sometimes causing a mild skin rash which goes away--EXCEPT concerning the issue of how it can draw any other substance into the body through its powerful absorbability. Its odd how we Biblical Christians seem to flock towards non FDA approved cures, isnt it? Buzz did it and Faith also does it. I myself occasionally latch onto a product despite it being alternative and unapproved, largely because of all that I read from a wide variety of sources.I challenge anyone to find literature that shows conclusively that DMSO is either

Ineffective or

Potentially Dangerous.

​

Do your research carefully, as I have done.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

Maybe your acceptance of things goofy is odd. But such "flocking" is not surprising in the least. I would suggest that your pattern of accepting BS is part of a pattern of thinking that you apply to many situations. It is the same pattern that causes folks to think that comets are omens or that Bible codes actually mean something.

Faith said in Message 281 that she's concerned about the sugar content. I always cringe at the idea of using "natural" products in concentrate form or pill form. How much do you have to process it before it ceases to be "natural"?