novikoff@tesla.UUCP (Eric A. Novikoff) (02/01/85)
Is there anyone out there following the Gerson Cancer Therapy method? My mother, diagnosed as having CUPS (Cancer of Unknown Primary Source) is going through the treatment now, after having been told by her doctors at Kaiser Permanente (An HMO in California) that there was nothing that could be done. The Gerson therapy is a nutritional therapy in which the patient drinks pressed vegetable and liver juices on an hourly schedule, and can eat only cooked vegetables, baked potatoes, fruit, salads, etc. All salt and fats are forbidden, and five daily coffee enemas are also taken. The Gerson doctors claim a cure rate of over 60% - for people who are in advanced stages of cancer, having been through the rounds of conventional doctors. My mother, upon returning from the Gerson hospital, claimed that she saw amazing cures in which people's tumor masses shrunk visibly over a period of days. The diet is relatively innocuous (if one doesn't consider the work and willpower required to remain on it) and should not interfere with other therapy methods. The basic idea is to restore the patient's imuune system to full function by eliminating the bodily (metabolic ?) poisons which preoccupy the liver, allowing it to function at far above normal levels. Most conventional M.D.'s my mother has seen have been violently antagonistic towards her and the therapy. (Apparently they have heard of it.) Most of today's M.D.'s, especially oncologists, have not had any in-depth training even in standard nutritional principles, so I find it hard to understand why they are so against a treatment with such a possibility for success. Also amazingly enough, the AMA is so strongly against the Gerson therapy (and others like it) that they are currently sponsoring legislation to make it illegal to promulgate or engage in such therapies. As of now, it is illegal for the Gerson Center to mail Dr. Gerson's (Yes, he was a *real* M.D.) book in the United States, even though it does not advertise the treatment. Can't we decide what to do with our own bodies? Especially, as in my mother's case, when the doctors don't know what to do? Eric Novikoff (tesla!novikoff@Cornell.ARPA)
mef@wucs.UUCP (Mark Frisse) (02/02/85)
> > Is there anyone out there following the Gerson Cancer Therapy method? > The Gerson doctors claim a cure rate of over 60% - for people who are > in advanced stages of cancer, having been through the rounds of conventional > doctors. My mother, upon returning from the Gerson hospital, claimed that > she saw amazing cures in which people's tumor masses shrunk visibly over > a period of days. The diet is relatively innocuous (if one doesn't > consider the work and willpower required to remain on it) and should > not interfere with other therapy methods. The basic idea is to restore > the patient's imuune system to full function by eliminating the bodily > (metabolic ?) poisons which preoccupy the liver, allowing it to function > at far above normal levels. > > Most conventional M.D.'s my mother has seen have been violently antagonistic > towards her and the therapy. (Apparently they have heard of it.) > Most of today's M.D.'s, especially oncologists, have not had any in-depth > training even in standard nutritional principles, so I find it hard to > understand why they are so against a treatment with such a possibility > for success. > ....Especially, as in my mother's case, when the doctors > don't know what to do? > > Eric Novikoff > (tesla!novikoff@Cornell.ARPA) I thinkg that "the doctors" DID " know "what to do" when confronted with a terrible condition like adenocarcinoma of unknown primary.....That is, they did no harm. I am a board eligible medical oncologist and, like most of my peers, have extensive training in biochemistry and nutritional/metabolic pathways. I look forward to reading a report about this new form of cancer treatment in any reputable medical journal....If this physician has not intentions of submitting his data to a peer review process, I feel it is reasonable to speculate that he just is "hacking" at the public's expense. The claims for efficacy apparently are based upon the presumption that the liver is "poisoned" by some product produced by the tumor, that "vitamins" can eliminate this "poisoning", that the liver then will be enhaced, and magically, influence the immune system to kill tumor cells in a selective fashion. I'm sure the immunologists on the net will have more to say about this, but this "model" of host-tumor relationships seems a bit weak. I imagine the group treating patients with diet and vitamins is extremely sympathetic, concerned, and compassionate...I applaud them for that and wish I could say that I and my fellow M.D.s have a perfect track record in that area. But I will not accept claims for therapeutic efficacy without data....and there are no data that stand up to scrutiny. Cancer is terrible, and people should have a right to make informed decisions when faced with therapeutic alternatives. But we have an obligation to give our patients hard data, and not anecdotes. For the sake of those chosing alternative cancer treatments, I hope they work. Mark Frisse M.D. (Not part of any conspiracy)
gary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) (02/03/85)
In article <690@wucs.UUCP> mef@wucs.UUCP (Mark Frisse) writes: > >For the sake of those chosing alternative cancer treatments, >I hope they work. > >Mark Frisse M.D. >(Not part of any conspiracy) I, for one, think that people should try anything that doesn't seem harmful; simply because the most powerful drug discovered to date appears to be the placebo. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, as they say. gary cottrell (allegra or seismo)!rochester!gary (UUCP) gary@rochester (ARPA)
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (02/05/85)
My dad was a victim of prostate cancer seven years ago. He, too, tried an "unconventional" cancer therapy--Laetrile plus a diet rich in "special enzymes." The claims were not unlike those I just read in this group for the Gerson methods. I don't know what the Gerson method costs, but I've been chronically ill for 6 years with myasthenia gravis and, over that period of time, have not paid for all medicine what Dad paid for Laetrile for about a year (thousands of dollars). The Laetrile didn't hurt him physically. His case was rather advanced when diagnosed and he lived for 3.5 years more--sometimes ill in the hospital, sometimes well enough to work and travel. My points are: Mom and Dad were desperate and would grab at any "promise." While it didn't hurt Dad, it might have caused someone with a less severe case to opt for it rather than a therapy with at least a statistically good chance for success. While they could afford the money they paid for the Laetrile, many old and frightened people shell out their last funds for it. Laetrile is made from peach pits! It's time we blew away the "medical conspiracy" theory. Brint
nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) (02/05/85)
> Laetrile is made from peach pits! > Brint So what? Where do you think digitalis, aspirin, etc. ad nauseum came from? Let your arguments stand on their own without attempting to ridicule, particularly when the statement is so silly. Please note that I am not taking a position on Laetrile, or even you, just a part of your methods. Nemo
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (02/06/85)
In article <6177@rochester.UUCP> nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) writes: >> Laetrile is made from peach pits! >> Brint > >So what? Where do you think digitalis, aspirin, etc. ad nauseum came from? >Let your arguments stand on their own without attempting to ridicule, >particularly when the statement is so silly. Please note that I am not >taking a position on Laetrile, or even you, just a part of your methods. >Nemo Sorry, I didn't make that point clear. I can buy 100 aspirin for $0.39. Have you priced Laetrile lately? This is an issue quite apart from its non-exisent efficacy. Brint
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (02/06/85)
> > Is there anyone out there following the Gerson Cancer Therapy method? > > The Gerson doctors claim a cure rate of over 60% - for people who are > > in advanced stages of cancer, > > Most of today's M.D.'s, especially oncologists, have not had any in-depth > > training even in standard nutritional principles, so I find it hard to > > understand why they are so against a treatment with such a possibility > > for success. Whoa... 2 things: First of all, anything that advertises a 60% cure rate for advanced cancer is suspect. It just doesn't happen that way. Some cancers (and very few, I could list them) have that high a cure rate, but only in the early stages. The rest are, shall we say, relentless. Secondly, since my desktop at this very moment is cluttered with two reprints entitled: Surgical Nutrition and Cancer: Dietary and Nutritional Aspects I resent the insinuation that oncologists specifically and MDs in general don't care about nutrition. To tell you the truth, one of the unfortunate things we learn (and is all too true) is that tumors tend to get better fed than the rest of the body anyway, so most nutritional therapy just doesn't work when tried clinically, can make matters worse, but does occasionally have some placebo value. That's all. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner What do you expect? Watermelons are out of season!
tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (02/07/85)
>
I have kept quite while watching many discussions go past in
net.med. Well here are my comments on this subject. The
opinions I am expressing here are my own.
I personnally support any natural method over the use of
drugs and treatments with possibly dangerous side effects.
There is of course a place for modern medicine, I wish
though that they would be more open to all the avenues
available in helping people.
To Eric I suggest you search for a homeopathic doctor or a
wholistic clinic where you might find licenced doctors who
are open to the many ways to help people. Also you might
search into House Bill 6050 sponsered by Claude Pepper. It
is supposed to help prevent "Quacks" from extorting money
from old people. However its effect would be to prevent
those of us who have choosen to be guardians of our own
health from having free access to the foods and vitamins we
would like to have.
To Mark I implore that you use an open mind. The human body
does do many things that seem like magic. I am a lay person
who has taken the interest to invest in my own and my
families wellness. I am an engineer and like to see facts
also, and I have found many people (some in my own family
group) who have been helped by natural methods. The proof
of hundreds of years of human experience to me is important.
There are many promenent doctors who support natural methods
when they are appropriate.
To Brint I also don't believe there is a medical conspiracy.
I do see that there is a set of medical blinders that cause
doctors to do the "standard treatment" when there are many
other ways. Finding the right one should be the patients
responsibility. Unfortunatly most of us can't be bothered
to take an interest in our own health. By the way Laetrile
also goes by the name Vitamin B17 and in nature is found
only in the seeds of fruits. When was the last time you ate
the seeds of a fruit in this currently seedless society (try
and find an Orange with seeds in it). Apricot seeds are a
good natural source of B17.
I've spoken my peace. I welcome any comments. I am only a
student and like to hear real experiences. I wish there was
a net.health where people could share ways to be healthy
instead of a net.med where the peolpe are already sick. If
there are others who are familier with such terms as
Homeopathics, reflexology and iridology and use herbs or
vitamins on the net please send mail.
(allegra | ihnp4)!cbdkc1!tjsjlg@lanl.ARPA (02/07/85)
> > > Is there anyone out there following the Gerson Cancer Therapy method? > > > The Gerson doctors claim a cure rate of over 60% - for people who are > > > in advanced stages of cancer, There are two types of 'cures' for cancer. 1) someone undergoes treatment and is later found free of the disease. 2) someone is examined 5 (or more) years later and is still free of the disease. Which one does the above claim refer to? Where is their data (ie. can any or the rest of the medical community get access to it - if it's locked in a safe at some medical center it's pretty useless)? Where is your evidence to support the claim that the general medical community is ignoring the method? Maybe a lot of doctors are applying a variation of the method as part of a more conventional treatment (nutrition is not as foreign to the medical community as you make out). J. Giles
seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) (02/07/85)
In article <8013@brl-tgr.ARPA> abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc>) writes: > >The Laetrile didn't hurt him physically. His case was rather advanced >when diagnosed and he lived for 3.5 years more--sometimes ill in the >hospital, sometimes well enough to work and travel. > >My points are: > > Mom and Dad were desperate and would grab at any "promise." >While it didn't hurt Dad, it might have caused someone with a less >severe case to opt for it rather than a therapy with at least a >statistically good chance for success. > > While they could afford the money they paid for the Laetrile, >many old and frightened people shell out their last funds for it. > > Laetrile is made from peach pits! > > It's time we blew away the "medical conspiracy" theory. > >Brint Laetrile is one of the less common B vitamins. (I forget which one) Hard to imagine a B vitamin hurting anyone. (if you get more than you need, your body dumps the extra) Nutritional type therapys are much better, since they work *with* your body, instead of *against* it, as drugs tend to do. Alternative treatments often get a bad rep bacause people turn to them after conventional treatment fails. The cancer (or whatever) is much worse at this point, and the conventional treatment has seriously weakened the body. At this point, it's too late for *anything* to work. (except a miracle, see net.religion.your-favorite) Drugs work reasonable well for contagious diseases and such. They don't work so well for cancer, heart disease and such. Nutritional methods work quite well, but they are slow, and we don't know nearly enough about nutrition at this point, having ignored it in favor of drug therapy. I wonder what the cancer rate would be if we all ate properly, and noone smoked, etc. Much lower, I know that. _____ |___| the Bavarian Beagle _|___|_ Snoopy \_____/ tektronix!mako!seifert \___/
ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (02/11/85)
> ... > The Gerson therapy is a nutritional therapy in which the patient drinks > pressed vegetable and liver juices on an hourly schedule, and can eat > only cooked vegetables, baked potatoes, fruit, salads, etc. All salt > and fats are forbidden, and five daily coffee enemas are also taken. > The Gerson doctors claim a cure rate of over 60% - for people who are > in advanced stages of cancer, having been through the rounds of conventional > doctors. > > ... Also amazingly enough, the AMA is so strongly against the > Gerson therapy (and others like it) that they are currently sponsoring > legislation to make it illegal to promulgate or engage in such therapies. > As of now, it is illegal for the Gerson Center to mail Dr. Gerson's > (Yes, he was a *real* M.D.) book in the United States, even though > it does not advertise the treatment. > Isn't their an amendment to the constitution that allows freedom of the press? Or of 'speach'? How is this circumvented? If it is, this is most serious... E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems Comedo ergo sum The opinions expressed by me are not representative of those of any other person - natural, unnatural, or fictional - and only marginally reflect my opinions as strained by the language.
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (02/12/85)
I have already put more time into this than is profitable for anyone, but some things need to be said. First, it is not necessarily true that because a Physician prescribes it and a Pharmacist sells it that it is not "natural." Many of our standardized medicines were first discovered in nature. Second, the seed of a fruit is not necessarily a good thing to eat. The dangers of cyanide poisoning from Laetrile have already been documented in this group. Third, I am as interested in "wellness" as anyone. So is my physician. But "wellness" has become a buzzword for do-it-yourself medicine practiced by people who haven't the foggiest notion of what's going on. Sure! Less red meat; less animal fat; less cholesterol; less sugar; far less sodium; more veggies; more balance; etc; are not harmful for healthy people and do a great deal of good in preventing cardiovascular disease and many cancers. But when you're sick, genuinely ill with a life-threatening disorder, it's no time for the amateurs. Brint
mef@wucs.UUCP (Mark Frisse) (02/12/85)
> > Laetrile is one of the less common B vitamins. (I forget which one) > Hard to imagine a B vitamin hurting anyone. (if you get more than > you need, your body dumps the extra) Who says laetrile is a VITAMIN? And what is a vitamin? Answer: a vitamin is a small molecule isolated from human cells that acts as a "cofactor" in enzymatic reactions (e.g. thiamine, riboflavin). I've never heard of laetrile meeting these criteria! But vitamin sounds so much better than "drug", doesn't it? > > Nutritional type therapys are much better, since they work *with* > your body, instead of *against* it, as drugs tend to do. This generalization is simplistic and medieval. Nutritional substances cause profound alterations in metabolism too! (Or don't you get sleepy after a big meal?). Pick the diet of your choice, and you'll be able to measure dramatic changes in insulin activity, gut hormones, and every thing else. > > Alternative treatments often get a bad rep bacause people turn to > them after conventional treatment fails. The cancer (or whatever) > is much worse at this point, and the conventional treatment has > seriously weakened the body. At this point, it's too late for *anything* > to work. (except a miracle, see net.religion.your-favorite) Lots of things (conventional and alternative) wouldn't work even if one turned to them earlier. Naturally, if something does no harm, the time between starting the therapy and death will be longer if you start it earlier! > > Drugs work reasonable well for contagious diseases and such. > They don't work so well for cancer, heart disease and such. Tell my patients with Hodgkin's disease and coronary artery disease that their drugs don't work. > Nutritional methods work quite well, but they are slow, and > we don't know nearly enough about nutrition at this point, > having ignored it in favor of drug therapy. I wonder what the > cancer rate would be if we all ate properly, and noone smoked, > etc. Much lower, I know that. I agree about our ignorance about nutrition, but we never will learn more unless we apply the same rigor to nutrition as we do to other fields in biochemistry. Some say that computers aren't useful for many problems, are you going to throw out your computer and by a pair of dice? or are you going to try to expand upon what you know within your present conceptual framework? But I certainly agree that much of our concern about health is paled by the widespread subsidization of tobacco, etc. Mark Frisse, St. Louis
marathe@fortune.UUCP (Avinash Marathe) (02/22/85)
Although this is a followup to an article in net.med I'm also posting
it to net.veg as I feel it might be of interest to that newsgroup also.
Lately there have been many articles about unconventional cancer therapy
in net.med, but none has mentioned the "macrobiotic diet" as one
such therapy. I've been reading a lot about the macrobiotic diet and how
many people have cured their cancers after getting on this diet. Even
people in advanced stages of cancer and people with cancers with low
cure rates (such as cancer of the pancreas) have been cured. There was
a story on TV recently about a medical doctor who cured his cancer of
the lungs by going on this diet. They showed X-rays of his lungs before
he went on the diet and the cancerous tissue was clearly visible. Then
they showed X-rays of his lungs after he had followed this diet for a
certain length of time and the cancerous tissue had completely
disappeared. While he was on the macrobiotic diet he did not use any
conventional therapies (such as chemotherapy and rediation) for
treatment.
The macrobiotic diet is really a very ancient diet that has been followed
by traditional cultures for centuries. It is not some new invention.
Even today there are communities in the world that follow this diet
without knowing that they are following the macrobiotic diet. These
communities have been known to be very healthy and free of the common
degenerative diseases (such as cancer, heart disease, arthritis etc.).
An example of these communities are the Hunzas (who live in the
Himalayas in India) and the people of Vilcabamba in South America.
These communities basically follow a diet which is high in complex
carbohydrates, low in fat (especially animal fat) and low in protien.
Not only is the incidence of degenerative diseases rare among the
elderly but also there are no signs of obesity or undernutrition.
Also it is common to live to be a hundred (100) years old. There is
a description of these people in the National Geographic Magazine,
Vol. 143, No. 1, Jan. 1973, "Every Day Is A Gift When You
Are Over 100" by Alexander Leaf, M.D.
Avinash Marathe
{sri-unix,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!marathedaemon@decwrl.UUCP (The devil himself) (02/25/85)
Re: Unconventional Cancer Therapy______________________________________________
The original article mentions both the curing and preventative effects
of a macrobiotic diet. The flame that followed seemed to notice only the pre-
ventative effect. A pity.
There are many people who have cured cancer with a macrobiotic diet.
That doctor was one of the more recent to come to the media's attention. An-
other famous person was Dirk Benedict.
I personally know another person who did this. His name is Tinker.
He had a bad case of cancer, including at least one tumor the size of an or-
ange. He went on a macrobiotic diet and was *completely* cured in less than
two years!
I'd say there's something more to this than our flaming friend would
care to believe.
As for the related complaint that he or she brought up, I don't think
it's insulting to say that the medical establishment has (until recently) ig-
nored preventative approaches and concentrated on curing. It's simply true.
Fortunately a more holistic view is emerging, and this situation is
changing.
<_Jym_>
:::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer
::::' :: `:::: Dracut, Massachusetts
::' :: `::
:: :: :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
:: .::::. :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer
::..:' :: `:..::
::::. :: .:::: Statements made in this article are my own; they might not
:::::::::::::::: reflect the views of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Corporation.abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (02/25/85)
In article <703@decwrl.UUCP> daemon@decwrl.UUCP (The devil himself) writes: >Re: Unconventional Cancer Therapy______________________________________________ > > The original article mentions both the curing and preventative effects >of a macrobiotic diet. The flame that followed seemed to notice only the pre- >ventative effect. A pity. The original article CLAIMED curing and preventative effects of a macrobiotic diet. No evidence of "cure" was offered. Because event B follows event A is no proof whatever that A caused B. > There are many people who have cured cancer with a macrobiotic diet. Again, what is your evidence of a "cure?" Do you distinguish between spontaneous remission, which occurs in a small fraction of cases, and outright "cure?" Have the "cured" people remained free of the original malignancy for five years? >That doctor was one of the more recent to come to the media's attention. An- >other famous person was Dirk Benedict. > I personally know another person who did this. His name is Tinker. >He had a bad case of cancer, including at least one tumor the size of an or- >ange. He went on a macrobiotic diet and was *completely* cured in less than >two years! Again, if such a diet is truely a "cure" for cancer, it should be able to withstand the rigors of scientific, "double blind" testing or, at least, a retrospective variant thereof. Has such research been published? Have these results been subjected to critical, scientific, peer review? > As for the related complaint that he or she brought up, I don't think >it's insulting to say that the medical establishment has (until recently) ig- >nored preventative approaches and concentrated on curing. It's simply true. For 50 years that I know of, many physicians have been urging patients to quit smoking; clearly a "preventative" approach. For 40 of those 50 years, their pleas went unheeded. Perhaps the public has not been listening to their doctors! What is your evidence that the medical establishment ignored preventative approaches? Brint
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (02/25/85)
** I had an acquaintance that worked at Linus Pauling's institute in Stanford. He was totally sold on nutrition as a preventive and curative for cancer. I have another acquaintance that was co-author of a book, *Getting Well Again.* *Getting Well Again* outlines using visualization to mobilize the body's resources against the disease. I have still another friend that was born and educated in mainland China. She practices Chinese medicine. I asked her about the Chinese model of cancer. She said it is considered incurable and it is believed to be caused by depression. Even the AMA is recommending some selenium and fresh vegetables, i.e. nutrition. Though I have not seen anything directly relating stress and cancer, there is much evidence that changing ones attitude and life style will greatly decrease ones chance of heart disease. People that are beraved are much more suceptable to disease indicating that perhaps there is a subtle relationship between ones attitude and ones immune system. The thing that makes it so difficult to make convincing arguments one way or the other for any of these approaches (or the standard one) is that they do not always work. Sometimes they "work." The problem is, many cancers spontaniously reverse themselves anyway. If someone is undergoing a therapy and the cancer reverses itself, how is one to know if it was the therapy or nature? The number one low-fat fresh vegetable nut in the country, Nate Pritikin, died a few days ago. He killed himself because he was in such pain from terminal lukemia. The Chinese got their system of medicine from from India and passed it on system to the Japanese. In all the experience of all of those systems of medicine there is no cure for cancer. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta -\ 109 Torrey Pine Terr. ucbvax!twg --> scc!steiny Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 fortune!idsvax -/
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (02/26/85)
> Re: Unconventional Cancer Therapy______________________________________________ > > The original article mentions both the curing and preventative effects > of a macrobiotic diet. The flame that followed seemed to notice only the pre- > ventative effect. A pity. > There are many people who have cured cancer with a macrobiotic diet. > That doctor was one of the more recent to come to the media's attention. An- > other famous person was Dirk Benedict. > I personally know another person who did this. His name is Tinker. > He had a bad case of cancer, including at least one tumor the size of an or- > ange. He went on a macrobiotic diet and was *completely* cured in less than > two years! > I'd say there's something more to this than our flaming friend would > care to believe. Although a number of people are making claims about the effectiveness of the macrobiotic diet in curing cancer, it is worthwhile to note that Ruth Carter Stapleton died of pancreatic cancer while taking no treatment except the macrobiotic diet. I have also heard that a substance in the rhizomes of violets will cure or abate cancer. jcpatilla
steve@lpi3230.UUCP (Steve Burbeck) (02/26/85)
<Bug Food> >I had an acquaintance that worked at Linus Pauling's >institute in Stanford. He was totally sold on nutrition >as a preventive and curative for cancer. Linus Pauling Institute is on the net. One of our research interests is the effect of nutrition (particularly ascorbic acid) on cancer. My involvement is in data analysis and statistics rather than biology or medicine. But I can report that a recent large (>800 mice) experiment funded by the National Cancer Institute (suprised, huh?) is now complete. There is a clear, dose related effect of ascorbic acid in the diet. Those groups with larger doses of vitamin C in the diets had (on the average) later onset of cancer and somewhat slower progression (I am deliberately using imprecise terminology here). Projecting from mice to humans is risky at best, in part because mice synthesize their own ascorbic acid, and also because rodent cancer cells in culture are known to show considerable difference from human cancer cells in culture. Nonetheless, the result substantiates the general notion that "simple" dietary supplements such as vitamin C can affect extremely complicated diseases such as cancer. On the other hand, a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by a group at the Mayo Clinic heaped scorn on the efficacy of ascorbic acid in the treatment of very advanced colorectal cancer. That study, though not without some serious flaws, showed no effect in treatment with large (10 grams/day) ascorbic acid. To complicate the matter further, another study to be published by this Institute in the next few months shows a positive effect in humans for ascorbic acid treatment of some types of cancer (particularly for colorectal and intestinal) and no effect whatever for others (particularly lung and breast). But this study, too, has some unavoidable flaws. The debate goes on. Learned and presumably honest researchers find wildly differing results. And the press cheers on the battle (it sells newsprint after all). The only clear lesson to me is that the answer is not in. -- lpi3230!steve Steve Burbeck - Linus Pauling Institute ihnp4!pesnta -\ 440 Page Mill Road (415) 327-4064 ucbvax!twg -->!lpi3230!steve Palo Alto, Calif. 94306 hplabs!analog -/
marathe@fortune.UUCP (Avinash Marathe) (02/26/85)
I think Brint Cooper misses the intent of my article on the macrobiotic diet. I did not claim that the macrobiotic diet cured or prevented cancer. I am aware that there is no scientific evidence that macrobiotics cures cancer. I just wanted to share information about the diet with others in this newsgroup and since the subject was *Unconventional Cancer Therapies* it seemed OK to present information on a method that wasn't scientifically proven. I am not an authority on either macrobiotics or allopathic medicine. The sole purpose of the article was to expose people to other methods of treating/preventing cancer, so that maybe someone would do some scientific research on this diet. Macrobiotics makes a lot of sense to me and the number of people cured of their degenerative diseases after going on the diet seems more than mere coincidence. Avinash Marathe "Make your food your medicine and your medicine your food."
andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (andrea) (02/26/85)
>> > Most of today's M.D.'s, especially oncologists, have not had any in-depth >> > training even in standard nutritional principles, so I find it hard to >> > understand why they are so against a treatment with such a possibility >> > for success. > > Secondly, since my desktop at this very moment is cluttered with >two reprints entitled: > Surgical Nutrition >and Cancer: Dietary and Nutritional Aspects >I resent the insinuation that oncologists specifically and MDs in >general don't care about nutrition. I have read a summary of a recent study of curricula in the major medical schools in the country (I think the study was completed over a year ago) which revealed that the average amount of time allocated to nutrition was *FOUR HOURS* over the total 3-4 years of medical school. Many doctors *DO* care about nutrition (as the respondent above shows), and to their credit have made an effort to increase their knowledge and stay up to date in this area. Since that study came out, more med schools have made an effort to provide instruction in nutrition, although it still gets short shrift (hardly surprising, given the sheer quantity of knowledge being presented during those four years!). I think that it is not a question of not caring about nutrition, but a more fundamental split in philosophy between those who sincerely believe that maximizing health and strengthening the immune system through good nutrition is a primary tool is helping the body overcome dis-ease (and drugs can provide supplemental help), and those who sincerely believe that "well of course nutrition is important, but to really cure a serious problem you have to use drugs and surgery" (to grossly oversimplify! :-) The really heartening trend that I see is that more and more good physicians are starting to value nutrition in addition to (not in place of) conventional treatment. As has been said before, but bears repeating: the best doctors have always been holistic. Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 487-4100 x4664 net: {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax}!hplabs!hp-sdd!andrea ...searchlights casting for faults in the clouds of delusion
andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (andrea) (02/26/85)
> >> ... Also amazingly enough, the AMA is so strongly against the >> Gerson therapy (and others like it) that they are currently sponsoring >> legislation to make it illegal to promulgate or engage in such therapies. >> As of now, it is illegal for the Gerson Center to mail Dr. Gerson's >> (Yes, he was a *real* M.D.) book in the United States, even though >> it does not advertise the treatment. >> > >Isn't their an amendment to the constitution that allows freedom >of the press? Or of 'speach'? How is this circumvented? If it is, >this is most serious... for an eye-opening account of the history of medicine in this country, and the somewhat less-than-constitutional workings of the AMA, I recommend reading "Divided Legacy" by H.L.Coulter. Should be required reading for all doctors and doctors-to-be (are you listening out there?;-) Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 487-4100 x4664 net: {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax}!hplabs!hp-sdd!andrea ...searchlights casting for faults in the clouds of delusion p.s. Claude Pepper's bill died in committee, and he is about to reintroduce it. It is an abominable attempt by an entrenched power to limit individual freedom, and I expect to see much discussion here if it resurfaces again!
adm@cbneb.UUCP (03/07/85)
YES! MACROBIOTICS __________________ >So, you "saw a story on TV" and you read materials by those who promote >this "therapy." Do you not know, by now, that to be sure a new therapy >works is for people who do not care what the result is to test it? If >macrobiotics work, do you really believe that the major medical >centers would not have tested it by now? Are you going to insult the >readers of these groups by insisting that a "conspiracy" exists among >medical people to allow one in 4 of us to get cancer? > >Great! Macrobiotics sounds like a very good way to prevent the >>occurrence of much disease; perhaps even cancer. But why on earth would >you think that such a diet has medicinal value? When are pepeople like >you going to stop raising needlessly the hopes of ill people? > >It has already been observed in this group that increased heart disease >and cancer are partly attributable to the fact that folks no longer die >in large numbers under the age of 40 due to TB, pneumonia, and diabetes. > >Finally, since you insist on stories rather than science, the people of >my acquaintance who use this diet have just as many colds, periods of >fatigue, and all the rest as the rest of us. > >Wake up, man! If it were that simple, we'd all live forever! /* ---------- */ You are right! It is time to 'Wake Up'. 'cause it is that simple. It is potent, and not being able to justify and rationalize from the 'American Medical Assoc' point of view does not in anyway disprove its efficacy. It works and can potentially cure most of the maladies of the human body. Not a TV commercial or any propaganda brought me to it; instead it was desparation and plain disgust with 'Modern Medicine'. My doctors had given me all the scares and the bills, and my own condition was hopeless enough when I ran into a friend who suggested Macrobiotics. Instead of looking at impending death in my immediate future, I recovered in less than 2 months. When I started I hardly knew anything about macrobiotics but was just fortunate to have some experts in my backyard, they taught me the basic principles - the YIN and the YANG and that is all I need to know. I don't need to know the biochemical constitution of the food I eat, broken down into amino acids or sodium, calcium .... Not even the protein hype, or calories etc. either. Probably this reductionistic analysis is relevant in mainitaining the image of "AMA" and also the hopes of some biochemical fanatics alive. I grew up with doctors in my family and was always made aware of what was being consumed from the biochemical point of view, and I think it is an interesting discipline, at least I know what bacteria or virus afflicts me when I have flu; I can even take a look at the micrograph and appreciate the beauty of the virus.. I have one point in favour of Macrobiotics, and it is that IT WORKS! And of common cold and flu etc. elementary my dear Watson - too much YIN, under normal circumstances does not take more than 24 hours to subside. Numerous people have tried such cure on my insistence, and have been cured too, even yesterday, today too. Give it a shot yourself, before espousing any more antagonistic arguments without first-hand evidence. Macrobiotics is not just another diet. It is a way of life operated by balancing the YIN and YANG in about everything. If it is used for some patchwork cure, or as a fad, it will lose its potency. There are some amazing underlying principles behind our existence and our body, when understood propely, everything works- - even without NEW IMPROVED EXTRA STRENGTH TYLENOL. It is a question of which paradigm or representation scheme works, and here YIN and YANG are effective; protein,calories, amino acids exist too, and probably are effective in another domain. Thus I see no reason for people to wait 10 years until the AMA releases its own brand of Macrobiotics with some biochemical interpretation, that may not be relevant. My oncologist friend was antagonistic towards Macrobiotics too, just a simple fear of unknown, then he and his family fell sick and some very simple advice cured him and the whole family in 24 hours, now he is learning about Macrobiotics, and already one of his patients has gone on the diet. I personally owe my current well-being to Macrobiotics and am more enrgetic and mentally resolved than ever before in my life. To appreciate the beauty of a flower, I don't need to squish it into a slide and then put it under Auger Electron Spectroscope to find its chemical constitution so that I can see its beauty. It is easier than that, you just look at it. Similarly with food, you just eat it, it will tell you all you wanted to know about it. By the way, its all in the attitude............. - Chandra S. Shastri 'The Smart Lunatic' A T & T Bell Laboratories (614)-860-4654 ...!cbosgd!cbneb!css
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (03/09/85)
Your last sentence summed up what's really going on: It's all in the attitude. You haven't proven a thing about curing cancer by macrobiotics, let along curing it in 24 hours. Perhaps you did. I SINCERELY HOPE you did! I believe that you feel better--even "well." But "cured?" How can you know? Brint
carter@gatech.UUCP (Carter Bullard) (03/11/85)
> > YES! MACROBIOTICS > > I have one point in favour of Macrobiotics, and it is that > IT WORKS! > > To appreciate the beauty of a flower, I don't need to > squish it into a slide and then put it under Auger > Electron Spectroscope to find its chemical constitution > so that I can see its beauty. It is easier than that, > you just look at it. > > Similarly with food, you just eat it, it will tell you > all you wanted to know about it. > > By the way, its all in the attitude............. Well, well, well. The Rev. Moon said the exact same thing 7 years ago. Except he did not seriously push his stuff into medicine. There appears to be a strong desire to push the idea that what one thinks is truth in the universe is actually the reality of the universe. There is nothing wrong with this philosophy. And there is nothing in the universe to say that it is wrong either. But now that yin and yang have gotten into the picture, I just have to say something. Many of the ideas that come out of these california discussions on health find there final roots in religious practices of several thousands of years ago. It is amazing that some of them haven't seriously proprosed human sacrifice as a means of curing the gout, but the one thing that one has to consider, is that none of the people that followed these religious practices even 200 years ago are still alive, and damned if any of them did not have some form of physical suffering before they died. The romantic notion that some previous generation really knew what was going on, I believe, predominates because of some morbid sense of nostalgia. Also a lack of faith in the current generation and also a general lack of understanding, period. It was a popular idea in the Dark Ages, that epilepsy was caused by diet. Bad bad poisons were the culprit and starvation was one of the popular therapies of the time. Well, after a couple of thousand years of interest, it now is not the popular idea that diet contributes predominately to the generation of epileptic seizures. However, I saw a pamphlet in a health food store that presented a detailed discussion of this Dark Ages concept as scientific fact (proved by some unknown institute in northern california). Now the reason that this concept was popular in the Dark Ages is the same reason that this concept is plausible today, and that is there are many people who are still living the personalities or attitudes of the Dark Ages around who are willing to accept this idea. It just happens to be a resonable explaination for them, it is easy to accept. And as a result it becomes their way of life, their religion so to speak. Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine, tried to show that there can be no place for religion when trying to understand physiological processes well enough to predict and manipulate them for the benefit of man/woman. It was his contention that disease is not of divine origin, but results from physical mechanisms. He warned extensively against the reliance on folklore and mythology. His techniques have proved extremely successful over the last 2-3 thousand years. Lets keep religion out of the discussion. Yin/yang or ping/pong or whatever just aren't tangable enough to use as arguements during a discussion like this. Maybe the discussion should be whether society should leave the development of new therapies to the "scientists" or the "clergy" or the "Californians". -- Carter Bullard ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet:Carter @ Gatech ARPA:Carter.Gatech @ CSNet-relay.arpa uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!carter
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (03/11/85)
** One of my favorite unconvential therapies is in "Anatomy of an Illness" Norman Cousins. He "cured himself of cancer" by watching funny movies. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta -\ 109 Torrey Pine Terr. ucbvax!twg --> scc!steiny Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 fortune!idsvax -/
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (03/11/85)
> > But now that yin and yang have gotten into the picture, I just have to say > something. Many of the ideas that come out of these california discussions > on health find there final roots in religious practices of several thousands > of years ago. Ying and Yang, as used in Chinese medicine, have long lost their religious significance. They are descriptive terms like "hot" and "cold." Chinese medicine 1) did not come from California. 2) claims no cure for cancer. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta -\ 109 Torrey Pine Terr. ucbvax!twg --> scc!steiny Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 fortune!idsvax -/
jlg@lanl.ARPA (03/19/85)
> Ying and Yang, as used in Chinese medicine, have long lost > their religious significance. They are descriptive terms like > "hot" and "cold." > > Chinese medicine > > 1) did not come from California. > 2) claims no cure for cancer. I know what 'hot' and 'cold' are, but what are 'ying' (or 'yin') and 'yang'? And how do I tell which loaf of bread has which? If the are descriptive terms they should describe something and I shouldn't need an indoctrination in Eastern culture or religion to understand what it describes. J. Giles