Author Topic: The Anti-cancer diet (Read 2117 times)

Miss Andrea · « **on:** January 29, 2011, 01:17:43 PM »

so, after my father got sick I started a research on my own with the aim of finding out alternative therapies to follow together with the chemo. Fortunately I came across with this wonderful book that I strongly recommend:

Anti-cancer: a new way of life. by Dr. David Servan Schreiber

http://www.anticancerbook.com/

that author also recomends the reading of this book:

Foods to fight cancer. by R. Beliveau

Ill post some diet recommendations, but I advise people interested in this matter to read the book. NOt only it's reassuring, it's also very helpful to undergo a situation like this.

these are foods that are *proved (every single recomendation by Servan Schreiber is based on scientific researches and lab tests on mice) to be effective against cancer:

* green tea : it is rich in catechins, a powerful polyphenolic antioxidant that reduces the growth of new blood vessels (this process is called angiogenesis and is one of the main factos that make tumors grow). it is given to children who have to undergo radiotherapy cause it makes their cells more sensitive to it, thus making the therapy work better.

* Turmeric: it's the natural most important anti inflammatory substance ever known. (again, tumors get advantage of swelling. So the aim in this treatment is to add lots of antiinflammatory foods to our diet)

* ginger: anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, reduces angiogenesis, relieves nausea.

* soya: it has fitoestrogens which, in our body, work in a similar way to Tamoxifen, a drug used to treat breast cancer. BUT !!! the one sold as dietary supplement is believed to promote the growth of tumors.

*mushrooms:

Specially the japanese ones - shiitake, maitake, kawaratake and enokitake. This mushrooms are given in hospitals to patients undergoing chemo because they contain a molecule called lentinan, which stimulates the immune system. the thistle mushroom (warning: the name in spanish is Setas de cardo and it has two possible translations: cardoon or thistle, but it refers to this plant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eryngium_campestre and this mushroom: http://fichas.infojardin.com/foto-hortalizas-verduras/pleurotus-eryngii-seta-de-c.jpg ) can stop almost completely the growth of cancer in cell cultures.

* red fruits:

blackberries, raspberries, strawberries, blueberries... they have a substance called ellagic acid which is capable of slowing down the growth of tumors in mice exposed to aggressive carcinogenic substances. it also promototes cell-detoxification. blueberries have the particular property of promoting Apoptosis, which is sort of "the suicide" of cancerous cells.

* mint, thyme, marjoram, oregano, basil, rosemary: work in a similar way to Glivec ( a drug used to keep the growth of cancer under controll).

The book explains many factos better than me, one of the most relevant questions debated here is: If these foods are so effective against cancer, why arent they recommended during conventional treatments? well, labs subsidize scientific research all the time with the hope of finding a synthetic drug to treat cancer (or aids, for instance). Once a scientist finds a drug, the lab registers it and then affords a phase of process validation which is around 1.500 billion dollars. Even if its effect is minimal, the lab will earn 1.500 billion dollars per year. Let's say a scientis finds out that strawberries have a powerful effect against cancer... can the lab register strawberries? labs cant register foods, that's why unfortunately there're so little researches about their effect on people and their potential so little spread in the medicine world. The author by no means recommens to abandon the conventional treatments though (chemo, rays, surgery). He only advices to follow a "3D" treatment and combine the anti cancer diet, psychological treatment and the conventional chemo and so on

Faxl · « **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2011, 04:23:31 PM »

I'm personally really interested in the links between diet and cancer. And I believe in the simple idealism that if you simply eat & live healthily then you can cure or sidestep it and many other illnesses.

I know the 'plenty of excercise, fresh fruit & veg' thing is a cliche, but cancer cannot survive in a clean environment. A tumour is, according to the guy who wrote a book called 'Cancer is not a disease, it's a survival mechanism', the body trying to create a new organism in a constant toxic onslaught. You can 'clean' your insides by having plenty of excercise and fresh fruit & veg. No alcohol, tobacco, other substances, fast or processed food. It makes my laugh when these articles pop up about 'Scientists reckon tomatoes have anti-cancer properties...' Durr. ALL the natural, good stuff does!

Quote

The book explains many factos better than me, one of the most relevant questions debated here is: If these foods are so effective against cancer, why arent they recommended during conventional treatments? well, labs subsidize scientific research all the time with the hope of finding a synthetic drug to treat cancer (or aids, for instance). Once a scientist finds a drug, the lab registers it and then affords a phase of process validation which is around 1.500 billion dollars. Even if its effect is minimal, the lab will earn 1.500 billion dollars per year. Let's say a scientis finds out that strawberries have a powerful effect against cancer... can the lab register strawberries? labs cant register foods, that's why unfortunately there're so little researches about their effect on people and their potential so little spread in the medicine world. The author by no means recommens to abandon the conventional treatments though (chemo, rays, surgery). He only advices to follow a "3D" treatment and combine the anti cancer diet, psychological treatment and the conventional chemo and so on

This is one of the many things wrong in the world that could easily be put-right.

As the line from 'Boom!' by System Of A Down goes, "The botttom line is money, nobody gives a fuck!"

Books i'd personally recommend:
-Cancer Is Not A Disease, It's A Survival Mechanism
-What The Drug COmpanies Won't Tell You (And Your Doctor Doesn't Know)
-The David Icke Guide To The Global Conspiracy (in this case, just the bit about medicine & money)

Miss Andrea · « **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2011, 04:49:29 PM »

Quote from: Faxl on January 29, 2011, 04:23:31 PM

I know the 'plenty of excercise, fresh fruit & veg' thing is a cliche, but cancer cannot survive in a clean environment.

exactly, actually there's a whole chapter that goes around that thesis.

Quote from: Faxl on January 29, 2011, 04:23:31 PM

A tumour is, according to the guy who wrote a book called 'Cancer is not a disease, it's a survival mechanism', the body trying to create a new organism in a constant toxic onslaught.

it's hard to picture it that way...(at least for me). the way I see it, it works just the opposite way: cancer is formed by cells that have mutated. why do they mutate? one of the reasons is exposure to that constant toxic onslaught you say. if we werent in touch with such toxic substances (or whatever that produces it) cells would grow normally and we would never develop a tumor. Now, once we grow a tumor, our immune system tries to destroy it (by sending a sort of "warrior" cells called Natural Killers ) and sometimes it succeeds. to me, that's the survival mechanism, not the other way round.

the approach is interesting though, maybe it's so complex that I dont fully understand it.

Quote from: Faxl on January 29, 2011, 04:23:31 PM

Books i'd personally recommend:
-Cancer Is Not A Disease, It's A Survival Mechanism
-What The Drug COmpanies Won't Tell You (And Your Doctor Doesn't Know)
-The David Icke Guide To The Global Conspiracy (in this case, just the bit about medicine & money)

thanks for the recommendations, I'll try to get them here (but even getting a best seller might become an impossible mission here, I really had to struggle to find the anti-cancer )

2NaFish · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2011, 05:33:46 AM »

whilst i dont want to trivialize anyone's fight against cancer, i do find a lot of the reporting on links about cancer to be below pseudo science.


Russell Howard - The Daily Mail Gives You Cancer

Miss Andrea · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2011, 08:08:31 AM »

Quote from: 2NaFish on January 30, 2011, 05:33:46 AM

whilst i dont want to trivialize anyone's fight against cancer, i do find a lot of the reporting on links about cancer to be below pseudo science.

Russell Howard - The Daily Mail Gives You Cancer

Of coooooooourse you didnt mean to trivialize it nor play the king dick by posting an ignorant unfounded message on a youtube link

. But let me assure you that this is not info taken from a google alert system. The book I posted about was written by a Psychiatrist and neurologist who was diagnosed with a glioblastoma (a brain tumor). His prognosis looked like a death sentence, so he started his own investigation to complement the traditional treatments (he never, by no means, advises to leave the traditional ones). All recommendations about foods and other treatments are based on reports provided by official institutions like the Commonweal Center in California, Laboratories from several universities (Wake forest, California; Hardvard Medical School, etc.), National Cancer Institute from US, Glasgow Hospital Researchers from Scotland, academic journals (Science, Nature, cell), WHO, Lancet, etc.

anyways, I still advise those who have a personal interest on the matter to read the book. Cause many of the tips I posted are incomplete and not fully explained and developed. It is always better to read sientific data explained by true scientists, instead of my poor summaries.

2NaFish · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2011, 09:15:54 AM »

Quote from: andy rosita on January 30, 2011, 08:08:31 AM

Of coooooooourse you didnt mean to trivialize it nor play the king dick by posting an ignorant unfounded message on a youtube link .

polar · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2011, 09:50:52 AM »

cancer research science has a lot in common with global warming research. ppl believe whatever fits their world view and rationalize anything contradictory

Miss Andrea · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2011, 12:46:45 PM »

Quote from: 2NaFish on January 30, 2011, 09:15:54 AM

For what its worth, everything listed in the link has been reported by a medical journal as a cause of cancer. Much like everything listed in your books, in which you hold so much trust. Your appeals to only serve to reinforce the point i was making.

Well, the dailymail is not a medical journal, it’s a yellow press tabloid. I still checked one of the their sources, like the relationship between alcohol and breast cancer and when I came across with the original report (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/pressrelease/2002-11-12-alcohol-smoking-and-breast-cancer-the-definitive-answer) I found that the article talks about drinking * in excess * (in agreement also with Servan Schreiber who recommends only a glass of red wine a day), and that it is not scientifically satisfactory since it doesn’t explain How they are related. While after each recommendation in that book you can have a fully detailed scientific explanation that makes you understand all the reasons why about it.
Besides, there’s a matter of organization, if you group some of the substances you listed (like all kinds of meat together: Pork, chicken, beef in the same category, ruling out fish) what Servan Schreiber would tell you is that they ARE pro-cancer because THEIR food is junk. The new techniques of animal breeding are harmful for them, and of course, for us because we eat them. The recommendation is to eat animals that have been fed in a more “natural” way. The explanation to this phenomenon is that the animals fed with the new techniques have higher amounts of Omega 6 and very little amounts of Omega 3. That balance of fatty acids is Pro-cancer, while the animals bred in “the old way” contain more Omega 3 than Omega 6, then, they are anti-cancer. Or group men, women and bearing children in the same category as stress, doctors proved those factors are Pro cancer cause they increase the level of noradrenalin and cortisol which affect our immune system. By doing exercise, therapy and stuff that makes us “happy” we can fight against it and reduce those levels.
So as you see, it’s not like “everything produces cancer and everything reduces cancer”, in any case, many things produce cancer, but we also have the tools to counteract it. And even though I do notice there’re some similarities in those links and the info given in the book, I still think it is much better to know Why and How nature works that way. So from a biological point of view, the book is also highly informative and explicative.

Quote from: 2NaFish on January 30, 2011, 09:15:54 AM

Its all just pseudo-science and scare-mongering for people who are pre-disposed to be fearful of cancer, such as yourself. But by all means, read up on it. Eat healthily; clearly eating healthy is good for you, the clue is in the title. The stuff also probably works better as a placebo effect anyway.

I don’t think placebos work well on mice experiment, since I doubt people can put ideas and preconceptions in their heads. Now, unless you’re an oncologist and can explain how tumors in mice get smaller after taking anti-cancer nutrients Ill shut the fuck up.

And if you want to post a well founded persuasive argument against it, you can find that experiment done on mice in The anti-cancer book, page 184 (in the Spanish version) and the experiment was carried out by Dr. Richard Beliveau in the laboratory of the Saint Justin Hospital.

Quote

Dr. Richard Béliveau is titular of a doctorate in Biochemistry of the Laval University and supplemented a post-doctoral training course at the university Cornell (New York). He is titular pulpit in Prevention and Treatment of Cancer. Professor at the department of Biochemistry at the UQAM since 1984, he is, to date, the author of more than 300 communications and of 168 scientific articles in several prestigious reviews of which the Newspaper of Biological Chemistry, Blood and Cancer Research. He directed about thirty students to the doctorate and nearly 70 students to the master degree. He is a professor associated with the Faculty of Medicine with the University of Montreal.
Since 1996, he is a director of the molecular Laboratory of medicine of the UQAM and the Ste-Justine Hospital. He is also member of the department of hemato-oncology of the Ste-Justine Hospital, service of neurosurgery-oncology of the CHUM and Group of Experimental Therapy on the Cancer of the Jewish General Hospital. Elected Member of forty subsidies in career, he currently receives the financial support of the CRSNG, IRSC, Society of research on cancer, Foundation Charles-Bruneau and Foundation UQAM. The fight against cancer is in the heart of the scientific and human concerns of Dr. Béliveau. Its team of 35 people works out of three great projects: cerebral tumours and the blood-brain barrier, tumoral vascularization (angiogenèse) and prevention of cancer by the food (nutraceutic).

If you’re not a doctor nor an oncologist, then I’m really curious about which is your authority on the matter to underestimate these scientific (not pseudo at all) breakthroughs in spite of all the evidence and the authority on the field of those who support them (Oncologists, Neurologists, biochemists) In my case, i’m a medical translator (from English into Spanish) and I found all these postulates quite coherent and matching with the available info that I’ve been working with to date.

polar · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2011, 12:54:38 PM »

andy, i'm assuming that you are an oncologist yourself since you are doing research on alternative cancer treatments and posting them on a gnr forum.

Miss Andrea · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2011, 01:07:54 PM »

Quote from: polar on January 30, 2011, 12:54:38 PM

andy, i'm assuming that you are an oncologist yourself since you are doing research on alternative cancer treatments and posting them on a gnr forum.

well I know my good shit about natural sciences. And If I won the lottery (cant see other solution in my current situation) I'd leave everything Im doing now and I'd start Med school. it's getting like a craving...

Rocket Queen · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2011, 10:25:15 PM »

You know your good shit about natural sciences? So...you are Good Shit Science PHD?

/or did you just read a couple of medical journals?

BarbiStolatVonG · « **Reply #11 on:** January 31, 2011, 07:46:15 AM »

This is interesting (just adds to the debate....)

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/darryl-jones-faces-court-over-cancer-cure-claims/story-e6frfku0-1225997622825

A QUEENSLAND man who claims he can cure cancer with diet and exercise is facing court action questioning the credibility of his treatment regime.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleges Darryl Peter Jones' medical treatment claims are misleading or deceptive under the Trade Practices Act.

Before it was shut down, the Darryl Jones Health Resolution Centre's website, advertised a cancer treatment program involving an exercise regimen, the consumption of vitamin B17 and restriction of glucose in the diet.

The Federal Court in Brisbane heard today that Mr Jones sold an e-book on his website, entitled The Truth about Overcoming Cancer.

Lawyer for the ACCC, Matthew Brady, said Mr Jones made representations on the website that his treatment plan was effective in the prevention and treatment of cancer, even the worst cases.

The court heard he also claimed his treatment was more effective than surgery, chemotherapy and pharmaceutical drugs and that it was backed up by medical science.

The ACCC tendered written reports from Melbourne St Vincents Hospital oncology director Dr Raymond Snyder disputing Mr Jones' medical claims.

Mr Jones, who is representing himself, sought to tender affidavits from several of his clients, a dozen of whom were present in court.

But Mr Brady said the affidavits were irrelevant because they do not detail specific treatment and asked Justice John Logan to rule them inadmissible.

"If they all say 'I've been diagnosed with cancer, had surgery and seen Mr Jones ... and I'm still here', that doesn't assist the court one iota," Mr Brady said.

Justice Logan ruled he would consider Mr Jones' clients' written statements.

The trial continues with legal submissions tomorrow.

In March, the ACCC won a court injunction which stopped the Nambour-based man from promoting his treatments without first obtaining written medical or scientific advice in support of his treatment from a registered medical practitioner.

His website was blocked with a court notice from the ACCC.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/darryl-jones-faces-court-over-cancer-cure-claims/story-e6frfku0-1225997622825#ixzz1CcHMKhYS

Stuff like this kinda reminds me of that Jim Carrey film - Man on the Moon.

Miss Andrea · « **Reply #12 on:** January 31, 2011, 11:59:24 AM »

Quote from: Rocket Queen on January 30, 2011, 10:25:15 PM

You know your good shit about natural sciences? So...you are Good Shit Science PHD?

/or did you just read a couple of medical journals?

I've translated a couple of medical journals and I've memorized many concepts I read in books, many books (that's how I managed to reply to 2nafish, I wasnt born knowing all this you know). I've also learnt * A GOOD SHIT * about Biology in Vet school (which I left to start scientific translation) and I also watch medical programmes on the tv all the time to be aware of the updates in the field, since this is my job. But most of my knowledge about it is due to my own will to investigate and learn about this subject.

Now, do you have any problem with ME? cause I thought spreading helpful information was something good. My bad if I offended healthy people who doesnt a fuck about cancer

2NaFish · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2011, 12:18:26 PM »

ease up on the defensiveness, hombre.

News:

Author Topic: The Anti-cancer diet (Read 2117 times)

Miss Andrea

The Anti-cancer diet

Faxl

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

Miss Andrea

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

2NaFish

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

Miss Andrea

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

2NaFish

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

polar

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

Miss Andrea

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

polar

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

Miss Andrea

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

Rocket Queen

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

BarbiStolatVonG

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

Miss Andrea

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

2NaFish

Re: The Anti-cancer diet

GNR Audio N' Video
GNR Tracker