Dear Brian,

You are so much like my older brother, whom I love and with whom I spar, argue, discuss and generally share life. He and I actually agree on more than we admit to. On this subject I get the last word:

Peace.

OH NO!!! You can't have the last word!!!! I think that we both want to help people, and I don't see a problem with open discussion. There wasn't any name calling, stone throwing or "I'm taking my ball and going home".... so as far as I'm concerned we both got to have our say. But you can see that at times I react like an overprotective father. I am heavily invested in OCF emotionally and in those who come here. That doesn't mean I always know best.... and diplomacy was never my strong suit.

I just couldn't keep from saying just one more thing: While I was surfing on the web I found this paragraph that seems to support my case.

"What not to eat is nearly as important. Cutting back on salt, fat, alcohol and sugar intake is essential. Not only are these "empty calories", but in some cases they may assist the continuing development of cancer in the body. For instance, researchers now feel that some tumors are primarily obligate glucose metabolizers; in other words, these tumors are "sugar feeders". In one animal study, there was even a clear dose-dependent response, the more sugar in the diet, the quicker the cancer metastasized in the test animals."

If you read the whole thing it mentions SUGAR

I found it in the nutrition section of the OCF web site!

I guess maybe a lunch is owed to Me

:p

I can't believe that someone is reading the rest of the web site besides the boards....... you would be surprised when you look at the monthly statistics, the relationship between the message board hits and the many sub pages in the site. Everyone wants the easy fix, ask a question, get an answer, when much of the time the answer is located right in the body of the site.

As a prolific poster, and likely the captain of your debating team, I had a suspicion that you wouldn't be able to let this go. Please note that the studies which I researched, and which were approved by the doctors that reviewed my writings, indicate that they were on ANIMALS, not on humans. While I believe there was some merit in the study that I mentioned regarding these animals and the uptake of glucose, the researchers failed to establish that it was the uptake of sugar and not just that availability of extra caloric intake that made the cancers metastasis faster. That is a flaw in the study, (though they still may be right) and is the nature of preliminary scientific investigation. The word MAY is included in the sentence you quote as well...two points which you might consider incorporating into your posts when you are unsure of the data, or pull it off of the web from some unregulated site. We really have no conclusive evidence of what goes on in humans, just hypotheses, and I believe that is clear in my writing. It is all too frequent that we find something exciting in an animal model only to later find that in human trials it doesn't hold water. You have to understand that I may have gut feelings that certain things MAY help, but as a site that is referred to by over 200 medical sites in the US, including the National Cancer Institute, what I say MUST conform to known provable knowledge, or state WITH A QUALIFICATION, what I suspect. For instance I take a ton of curcumin each day. If you research it, or even read our news stories, you will understand why. But it is highly unproven what it does in humans, for how long, and especially why it does what it does. So you do not see me making excited claims about curcumin within this site. If you knew all the various things I take, you might be surprised, but it is not proper to endorse unproven theories, or those still in preliminary science, to those people who are looking for a golden pill that will slow down or reverse something terrible that is happening to them. That is neither fair nor appropriate.

I do not edit many postings. I occasionally correct someone