Margaret

Thanks, I agree with you on environmental causes. It's hard to remain "agnostic" on diet and nutrition when you actually have cancer or are a caregiver. And you are certainly right that no person of science would focus solely on nutrition.
As one of my quack busting sites said in showing that the survival rate of the most famous "alternative clinics" was actually less than those for "conventional treatment":
[quote]These studies cover most of the popular themes in current alternative cancer practice: diets, vitamins and other supplements, herbs, detoxification, enzymes, building up the immune system, Laetrile and psychological support... How could such dramatic claims arise? I suggest from a combination of misplaced enthusiasms and factors that I have described elsewhere: lack of understanding of the normal progress of cancer and its response to conventional measures, unreliable assumptions as to diagnosis and staging, and the misinterpretation and misattribution of clinical events. [/quote]