Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8801 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2017 5:08 AM
335 online now:
frako, PaulK (2 members, 333 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,604 Year: 27,210/21,208 Month: 1,123/1,714 Week: 331/525 Day: 6/67 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   "Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 241 of 312 (821854)
10-13-2017 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Granny Magda
10-13-2017 4:52 PM


Re: The evidence isn't so hot on either side
I'm sure I'd accept surgery, just not the chemo or radiation. Maybe if I were younger I'd do it since of course I'd be pressured into it.

I believe the nutrition people and don't find you convincing, not much more to say.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Granny Magda, posted 10-13-2017 4:52 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 10-13-2017 5:43 PM Faith has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 242 of 312 (821861)
10-13-2017 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
10-13-2017 5:21 PM


Re: The evidence isn't so hot on either side
I'm sure I'd accept surgery, just not the chemo or radiation. Maybe if I were younger I'd do it since of course I'd be pressured into it.

Fair enough. No-one's saying that cancer patients have to take the chemo option. If you were to decide that it wasn't for you, fine, it's your choice. I'm all for patient choice. I just think that it's important for people to make informed choices, unsullied by the misinformation and outright craziness of alt-med.

Also, even if you have cancer and take the surgery+chemo route... what's to stop you from drinking carrot juice? Nothing! It's not an either/or thing. Just because you have this touching faith in the miraculous powers of carrots doesn't mean that you have to refuse conventional therapy.

Informed choices are great. But the scare tactics and falsehoods spread by con-artists like Adams and Bollinger do not help inform patients. Instead, they deceive them into taking risks with potentially lethal consequences.

I believe the nutrition people and don't find you convincing, not much more to say.

Translation; "I am unable to come with any rational objection to your points, but I want to believe in fairies, so, la-la-la, I'm not listening again".

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 5:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 7:12 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 243 of 312 (821865)
10-13-2017 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Granny Magda
10-13-2017 5:43 PM


Re: The evidence isn't so hot on either side
I haven't seen much in the way of "points" from you, mostly just loud namecalling to discredit the opposition. I think the "alt-med" people are just a lot more persuasive than you are, and I didn't see ANY "scare tactics" by anybody at that conference. Your going on about Mike Evans is ludicrous considering what I saw of him at the conference, a reasoned discussion of heavy metals in our environment. Makes your accusations look like the scare tactics.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 10-13-2017 5:43 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Granny Magda, posted 10-13-2017 8:32 PM Faith has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 244 of 312 (821872)
10-13-2017 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
10-13-2017 7:12 PM


Re: The evidence isn't so hot on either side
I haven't seen much in the way of "points" from you, mostly just loud namecalling to discredit the opposition.

Her's a point for you; when Ty Bollinger says that “Chemo has a 97% fatality rate” he is wrong. Never mind whether he's lying, deluded or whatever. He is wrong.

Do you agree that he is wrong Faith? Or are you going to defend that bit of tosh?

I didn't see ANY "scare tactics" by anybody at that conference.

Telling cancer patients that chemo will kill them is the essence of a scare tactic and that's from the host of the conference.

Your going on about Mike Evans is ludicrous considering what I saw of him at the conference, a reasoned discussion of heavy metals in our environment.

Mike Adams.

Mike Adams is by far one of the nuttiest fruitcakes on the interwebs. Take a look at Mike Adams at his most "reasoned";

quote:
Chemotherapy has never been shown to have curative effects for cancer.

Not true.

quote:
Cancer is more a healing response than it is a disease.

Not true.

quote:
Does the mainstream media ever report about the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows chemotherapy has zero benefits in the five-year survival rate of colon cancer patients?

No, because it's not true.

quote:
Or how many oncologists stand up for their cancer patients and protect them against chemotherapy treatment which they very well know can cause them to die far more quickly than if they received no treatment at all?

Not true.

Can you trustingly place your life into their hands when you know that most of them would not even consider chemotherapy for themselves if they were diagnosed with cancer?

Just not true.

quote:
Subjecting patients to chemotherapy robs them of a fair chance of finding or responding to a real cure and deserves criminal prosecution.

Wow. Just wow.

Do you agree with Adams that oncologists should be prosecuted for doing their jobs? Really?

All of that is from the same article by the way.

Or perhaps you would prefer his cartoons;

Because comparing people to the Nazis is just so reasonable and level headed. He does that a lot you know, when he's not accusing the medical establishment of mass murder or claiming that mammograms cause cancer or that Sandy Hook was some kind of conspiracy, or that the pharmaceutical industry is deliberately spreading HIV. And there's more;

quote:
In July 2014 Adams compared media outlets that wrote positively about GMOs with Nazi Germany's propagandists, calling them, "Monsanto collaborators who have signed on to accelerate heinous crimes being committed against humanity under the false promise of 'feeding the world' with toxic GMOs." He continued with a statement that he set in boldface: "that it is the moral right—and even the obligation—of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity."[45][46] A day after the post a website called "Monsanto Collaborator" appeared online which listed the names of scientists and journalists who allegedly collaborate with the bio industry; Adams denied creating the website claiming that Monsanto set up the website in order to frame him.

Source


So... yeah. Mike Adams. Crazy person.

But I'm less interested in Mike Adams and much more interested in whether or not you agree with Ty Bollinger's statement that “Chemo has a 97% fatality rate”. Do you agree with that? Or is he wrong?

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 7:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 9:21 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 245 of 312 (821877)
10-13-2017 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Granny Magda
10-13-2017 8:32 PM


Re: The evidence isn't so hot on either side
I don't know if he's wrong. All you've done is say it many times, in very insulting ways.

And he didn't say that at the conference.

I'll have to come back to the rest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Granny Magda, posted 10-13-2017 8:32 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 7:44 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 252 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 8:04 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 246 of 312 (822056)
10-18-2017 9:13 AM


Scientific studies of nutrition
This looks like a very helpful source of information for sorting out all these questions about nutrition. It's all about scientific studies of the efficacy of diet and other factors related to specific diseases and health in general.

https://nutritionfacts.org/about/

So far I've only seen a few videos, which happen to show a strong positive effect on health and even on cancer from a plant-based diet. Carrots don't play a major role, and there's at least one study that suggests that juices don't work as well as whole foods either, but I'd point out that I haven't yet seen a study of the huge amounts of carrot juice used in the programs I've mentioned earlier.

Looks like a site to spend time on. Check it out.


Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Stile, posted 10-18-2017 11:28 AM Faith has responded
 Message 253 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 8:47 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3036
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 247 of 312 (822060)
10-18-2017 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
10-18-2017 9:13 AM


Re: Scientific studies of nutrition
Faith writes:

So far I've only seen a few videos, which happen to show a strong positive effect on health and even on cancer from a plant-based diet.

The idea that someone's health can be greatly improved by eating vegetables instead of chips, pop and pizza... has been proven to be vaild beyond the shadow of a doubt for a very, very long time.

I think it was shown to be true 50 years ago? 100? I dunno... how old is pop?

If you're wondering if drinking carrot juice and eating vegetables can improve your health right now... stop wondering. It will improve your health. Start eating vegetables and stop eating all that terrible junk. This is wonderful advice. It was wonderful when your mom told you about it when you were 6, and it's still wonderful now.

What it doesn't do, is cure cancer.

If you have cancer, and you're eating chips, pop and pizza... then your health will still improve if you stop eating that stuff and start eating vegetables.
And it will improve your chances of curing your cancer.

But it will not improve your chances of curing your cancer anywhere close to the treatments of chemo therapy or surgery or whatever else the doctor's think is best based on your specific situation and specific issues.

Want to improve your health at any time? Eat vegetables.
Want to cure cancer at any time? See your doctor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 10-18-2017 9:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 10-18-2017 3:41 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 249 by ringo, posted 10-18-2017 3:45 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 248 of 312 (822072)
10-18-2017 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Stile
10-18-2017 11:28 AM


This is about RESEARCH -- you know, SCIENCE. Heart disease a main focus
OK, I'll try another time to get it said more clearly and then try to stay away.

Did you even look at the link? I would guess not.

This is a doctor's website, yes an M.D., Dr. Michael Greger, who says he reads all the journals of nutrition and culls information for short videos he shows on his website, says he has thousands up by now. These are based on RESEARCH into nutrition, so those complaining that this thread is all about anecdotes should finally get some information they can appreciate.

He also isn't selling anything, the information is free, so those complaining that the presenters at the Truth About Cancer conference were all selling something, which supposedly compromised their information. can rest easy on that score.

So research into nutrition and its effects on health and diseases of all sorts.

https://nutritionfacts.org/about/

Greger says he got interested in nutrition in relation to disease, and in fact was inspired to become a doctor, by the example of his grandmother who had severe heart disease, had had many bypass surgeries, was in pain all the time and sitting in a wheelchair at the age of 65, when she decided to go on the Pritikin diet, and as he tells it, was out of her wheelchair in three weeks, and going on long walks. Her case is mentioned in Pritikin's book.

Yes there's an anecdote for you, but the rest of his site is his condensations of various research studies on nutrition.

Since his grandmother had heart disease, which he claims the Pritikin diet cured so that she actually lived another 31 years, I'd recommend that Pressie take a look at it because he says his own father has inoperable heart disease. So maybe he could also be helped by a plant based diet, giving up the meat and the fats, going for grains and vegetables. Just a thought.

I don't do pop at all, chips and pizza only once in a great while, no sugar, little in the way of any simple carbs or processed foods. But I do eat meat and too much fat and now I'm going to try to stop all that and maybe even get near to vegan for the sake of my health because although I may not be officially sick with anything in particular I'm overweight and I feel lousy.

I put this up when I discovered it because I thought it would provide the scientific framework the subject needs, and maybe be of help to someone else.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Stile, posted 10-18-2017 11:28 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 10-19-2017 3:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13864
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 249 of 312 (822073)
10-18-2017 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Stile
10-18-2017 11:28 AM


Re: Scientific studies of nutrition
Stile writes:

I think it was shown to be true 50 years ago? 100? I dunno... how old is pop?


Well over 100 years, you young whipper-sapper. And Coca-Cola had natural (plant-based) cocaine in it too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Stile, posted 10-18-2017 11:28 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 250 of 312 (822123)
10-19-2017 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
10-18-2017 3:41 PM


Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
I really do try to leave EvC but always something comes up that I want to post. Sorry about that.

What I want to post here now is a video I know is too long for anybody's interest at EvC though I think it's really interesting and worth the time myself. This is one of Chris Wark's interviews with a cancer survivor who did it all on changing her diet and lifestyle. He did this interview during the Truth About Cancer conference so it's quite recent.

Karen was diagnosed with some kind of lymphoma in 2005 and describes how she brought down her cancer indicators to zero over seven years of eating organic plants, using only organic fabrics and green products etc. The interesting thing about her story is that after the seven years she went on a vacation that tempted her back to her old way of eating, which she did for a couple of months, after which the cancer came back twice as strong as before. She went back on her plant based treatment regime and has no more cancer for the second time.

Yup another anecdote that means absolutely nothing of course. Oh well, maybe somebody will see its value and benefit from it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 10-18-2017 3:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 9:49 AM Faith has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 251 of 312 (822284)
10-22-2017 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
10-13-2017 9:21 PM


Re: The evidence isn't so hot on either side
Okay, you're back, so let's take a look at your last few posts.

I don't know if he's wrong. All you've done is say it many times, in very insulting ways.

For the record, "he" is internet health crank Ty Bollinger and here is the claim;

quote:
“Chemo has a 97% fatality rate”

I am astonished that you cannot work this out for yourself Faith. This is very obviously wrong, common sense ought to be enough to debunk this turkey. I mean, as if the world's oncologists are prescribing chemotherapy, day in and day out, ojnly to have 97% of their patients drop dead! And then they... they what? They just say "Yup, looks good" and carry right on prescribing poison? Does that really seem likely to you? Do you not think that some of these doctors might smell a rat if this were true? How stupid do you think they are? Are they morons?Or are they just evil?

Anyway, if it's evidence you want, you can have it. Indeed, you've already been given sufficient information to show that this claim is wrong. I posted this back in Message 107

quote:
Stage I (colon) cancers have a survival rate of 80-95 percent. Stage II tumors have survival rates ranging from 55 to 80 percent. A stage III colon cancer has about a 40 percent chance of cure and a patient with a stage IV tumor has only a 10 percent chance of a cure.

That really ought to be enough to tell you that Bollinger is wrong about this. But there's more. www.Cancer.org has slightly different figures;

quote:
The numbers below come from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER database, looking at people diagnosed with colon cancer between 2004 and 2010.

The 5-year relative survival rate for people with stage I colon cancer is about 92%.


That's a 92% survival rate over five years, almost the complete opposite of Bollinger's claim. And what's more, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are the primary therapy for the vast majority of stage I colorectal cancer patients. The treatment is known as the Nigro Protocol.

quote:
In 1974, Dr. Norman Nigro developed what was initially supposed to be a ‘first step’ therapy for invasive anal carcinoma that was designed to help shrink tumours before surgery. Instead, and to their surprise, Dr. Nigro and his colleagues observed complete tumour regression in some patients using this therapy protocol. This protocol consisted of treatment with fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy administered concurrently with radiation and the addition of either mitomycin or porfiromycin chemotherapy. Their observations suggested that it might be possible to cure anal carcinoma without surgery and its associated after effects.

Prior to the 1970s, individuals diagnosed with invasive anal carcinoma were typically treated with an abdominoperineal resection (removal of the anus, rectum and part of the large intestine), no matter the stage of their cancer. Since Dr. Nigro’s discovery, the standard treatment for most anal carcinoma has shifted away from invasive operations.

Dr. Nigro’s chemoradiation procedure became known as the Nigro Protocol. Today, the Nigro Protocol consists of radiation therapy combined with 5-FU and mitomycin-C. 5-FU is usually administered through an IV over the course of four to five days at the beginning of treatment and repeated after four to six weeks. Mitomycin is also given as an IV injection, usually at the start of radiation treatment and then again towards the end, about four to six weeks later. This ‘first step’ is still the standard of care for most people diagnosed with anal cancer in stages I through III.


Source; https://www.analcancerfoundation.org/...fects/nigro-protocol

So in short, most stage I colon cancer patients get chemo. 92% of them survive over five years.

How exactly is that consistent with the claim that 97% of chemo patients are dead within five years? Answer; it's not.

Bollinger is wrong. Never mind whether he's crazy, lying, deluded or whatever... he's wrong. Not just wrong, but horribly, shockingly wrong. his claim is almost the complete opposite of the truth. It taints him as a source of reliable information.

And he didn't say that at the conference.

What does that matter? He says it on his website.

I brought this up so that you could see just how untrustworthy a source Ty Bollinger is. He is a fount of dangerously misleading information. you should not trust him.

Are you prepared to admit that Bollinger is wrong on this one? Or are you going to continue to dodge?

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 9:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 252 of 312 (822285)
10-22-2017 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
10-13-2017 9:21 PM


Mike Adams: Crazy Person
I'll have to come back to the rest.

"The rest" being the dialled-up-to-eleven craziness of Mike Adams.

Since you have not responded, can I assume that you accept that Adams is... how shall we say... a dubious source of information?

Remember Abraham Cherrix? You described the Hoxsey regime that he used as "weird stuff" and dissassociated yourself from it. Well, guess who's a big fan of "weird stuff"? Yep, Mike Adams' website, the supremely loony NaturalNews.com, has a number of articles promoting Hoxsey therapy. Ty Bollinger is also a fan of "Weird stuff". Isn't that "weird".

If you're still in doubt, try this little beauty, from Mike Adams, on his own website;

quote:
There is not a single cancer patient that has ever been cured by chemotherapy. Zero. They don’t exist. Not a single documented case in the history of western medicine.

Source; https://www.naturalnews.com/...motherapy_cancer_natural.html

That will come as news to Nigro Protocol patients, who have been enjoying five year survival rates of over 90%. Most see their tumours shrink and die without recourse to surgery. Chemo can and does work.

This is truly insane stuff. Adams is completely detached from reality. He's not fit to advise someone on how to treat acne, let alone cancer. He's a bad source. Don't trust him.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 9:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Coragyps, posted 10-22-2017 9:04 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 253 of 312 (822286)
10-22-2017 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
10-18-2017 9:13 AM


Re: Scientific studies of nutrition
This looks like a very helpful source of information for sorting out all these questions about nutrition. It's all about scientific studies of the efficacy of diet and other factors related to specific diseases and health in general.

Well, it's less nutty than Adams' or Bollinger's sites, so, that's something I guess. But it's still pretty flaky.

This is a doctor's website, yes an M.D., Dr. Michael Greger, who says he reads all the journals of nutrition and culls information for short videos he shows on his website, says he has thousands up by now. These are based on RESEARCH into nutrition, so those complaining that this thread is all about anecdotes should finally get some information they can appreciate.

Yes, Michael Greger is a doctor. And yes, he does cite scientific studies as his sources. Sadly, Greger has a reputation for misrepresenting data. The studies he cites frequently don't say what Greger claims they do.

Greger is an extremely keen vegan. He blames meat consumption for almost all illness. He has repeatedly misrepresented data in his crusade against carnivory. Here is an extract from a review of Greger's preposterously titled book How Not to Die;

quote:
For example, as evidence that high-oxalate vegetables aren't a problem for kidney stones (a bold claim, given the wide acceptance of foods like rhubarb and beets as risky for stone formers), Greger cites a paper that doesn't actually look at the effects of high-oxalate vegetables — only total vegetable intake (pages 170-171).

Along with stating "there is some concern that greater intake of some vegetables ... might increase the risk of stone formation as they are known to be rich in oxalate," the researchers suggest the inclusion of high-oxalate veggies in participants' diets could have diluted the positive results they found for vegetables as a whole: "It is also possible that some of the [subjects'] intake is in the form of high-oxalate containing foods which may offset some of the protective association demonstrated in this study".

In other words, Greger selected a study that not only couldn't support his claim, but where the researchers suggested the opposite.


Here is the study. It specifically mentions that high-oxalate vegetables pose a higher risk of causing kidney stones. It concludes that a diet high in vegetables might help against kidney stones, but also states that high-oxalate vegetables might offset this benefit.

The study does not say what Greger says it does.

And again, from the same review;

quote:
Similarly, citing the EPIC-Oxford study as evidence that animal protein increases kidney stone risk, he states: "subjects who didn't eat meat at all had a significantly lower risk of being hospitalized for kidney stones, and for those who did eat meat, the more they ate, the higher their associated risks" (page 170).

The study actually found that, while heavy meat eaters did have the highest risk of kidney stones, people who ate small amounts of meat fared better than those who ate none at all -- a hazard ratio of 0.52 for low meat eaters versus 0.69 for vegetarians


And here is that study. It says exactly what the reviewer says it does, that low meat-eaters were at less risk than non meat-eaters. That is not what Greger claimed. He is misrepresenting the data.

Bear in mind here, that this review is not by some frothing hater of all things alt-med; the reviewer is a raw food advocate. Her analysis is spot on though. Greger seems to get carried away in his zeal to promote veganism and he cherry picks and misrepresents his data. Yes, he's an MD, but that only means that he ought to know better.

He also isn't selling anything, the information is free, so those complaining that the presenters at the Truth About Cancer conference were all selling something, which supposedly compromised their information. can rest easy on that score.

Well, there's his book, which has been quite the little earner, selling millions of copies and I notice that his site solicits donations. But no, he does not have a gift shop tacked on to his website. He provides most of his information for free online. This is to his credit. But it does not absolve him of the way he abuses the data in order to push veganism.

I put this up when I discovered it because I thought it would provide the scientific framework the subject needs, and maybe be of help to someone else.

Fair play. I respect that you are trying to zero in on the most reliable sources. Greger is something of a step in the right direction. But whilst he's no Mike Adams, he's still a poor source.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 10-18-2017 9:13 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5295
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 254 of 312 (822288)
10-22-2017 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Granny Magda
10-22-2017 8:04 AM


Re: Mike Adams: Crazy Person
Faith, let me offer my stepmother, sister, and grandson as examples of the 3% that survived chemotherapy. Of course, that's only about 35 years for stepmom and 20 for Sis. And no, chemo isn't any picnic. But dying doesn't sound like all that much fun either. These "true believers" sound like mountebanks to me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 8:04 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 255 of 312 (822292)
10-22-2017 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
10-19-2017 3:56 PM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
Yup another anecdote that means absolutely nothing of course.

Yup. Another vague anecdote, shorn of the clinical data that might make it useful. Another venue for Wark to spread his irrational take on chemotherapy.

I have to say, having watched some of the video, I find your description of it inaccurate on a number of important points.

Karen was diagnosed with some kind of lymphoma in 2005 and describes how she brought down her cancer indicators to zero over seven years of eating organic plants, using only organic fabrics and green products etc.

That is not true.

Karen has Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia, a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. That's fine, but your claim that she treated it only with "organic plants, using only organic fabrics and green products etc" is wrong.

Karen describes in the video how she repeatedly underwent plasmapheresis, a distinctly non-alternative treatment, wherein the blood is removed, filtered and returned. This is a recognised therapy for treating the symptoms of WM. Yet somehow, you came away from that video with the impression that she used only alternative therapies. She didn't.

She went back on her plant based treatment regime and has no more cancer for the second time.

That is not true.

Karen still has cancer. She even explicitly says that she will always have the cancer. What she is saying is that the indicators for lymphoma were reduced to acceptable levels. The cancer is still there, its just at a low level of activity. Yet somehow you came away from the video with the impression that she had been cured. She hasn't.

So again, this video is pretty poor fare. The survival rates for WM are far from the worst to start with. Worse, even this low level of evidence isn't telling you what you think it is. You are being suckered into Chris Wark's standard MO of recounting a cancer survival anecdote, emphasising the alt-med aspects and glossing over and down-playing the conventional therapies that the patient also received. He makes a misleading video and you then credulously double-down and misrepresent it further. This only serves to demonstrate how alt-med depends upon misrepresented data and poor scientific literacy.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 10-19-2017 3:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 10-22-2017 11:54 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017