Don,

This was a really interesting presentation, thank you for posting the link! He's informative and entertaining. I am looking forward to reading the book.

Don

Thank you for posting a link on this forum that actually conforms to the OCF dialogue guidelines. Your posts and presentations are both civil and thought-provoking. I have to admit that Dr. S's presentation was not only entertaining but persuasive, much more so than his book. Maybe it was the new 2009 studies slides or the wry way he told his jokes (my favorite was his quip on women shaving under the armpits and applying antiperspirant getting more cancer while those who did not got less cancer and less sex ). Now I can blame riding my bicycle behind the DDT truck that sprayed for mosquitoes each week in my childhood New Jersey town as we pretended we were flying through clouds for overwhelming my natural defenses.
Seriously, I guess I will have to get used to being the 15% of the population that he posits won't be protected by his anti-cancer regime. Or maybe the fact that my wife and I went on a "no sugar" diet for the last twenty years (and boy was that hard - scoping out the hidden fructose and secret names for sugar) is why I did not get cancer until I was 60. My wife did like that part of his book and web site about the post 1945 sugar infusion into everything remains a major cause of cancer - although we went on the diet for other health reasons as everyone we knew could not imagine how we could always decline dessert or ice cream or chocolate etc.
So thanks again for sharing this information. It is hard to extricate oneself from one's own personal experience and I still remain skeptical about its efficacy for anti remission instead of generic cancer prevention. It seems like "closing the barn door after the horse is out" in light of my experiences and adherence to all but his environmental protocols for so long. Still, one could not go wrong following his diet and exercise advice and he does not shill a particular product so I have to give credit where credit is due. I withdraw my prior objections and agree that his book is worth reading. I especially like the Q&A portion in the final minutes, where he specifically mentioned alcohol causing head and neck cancer but that red wine with a meal did not have a cancer causing effect. He was adamant about the meal part so I hope taking red wine in my PEG with Jevity 1.5 counts. He also clarified that it was better to eat broccoli with pesticides than no broccoli at all. In his lecture he was more precise about false hopes in remission than my initial impression of his book. So thanks again Don
Charm

Charm,
I also really liked his joke about the study on women shaving, antiperspirant, cancer (and sex ).

Maybe that will raise a little curiosity and get some more of our OCF family to take a look.

I must say, I am just getting into thinking about a lot of the things Dr. S discusses and I still have a lot to study and sort out, but he has my attention and I am open-minded.

Cheers

Charm,

Where was my paranoid rant about the government, exactly? The insurance industry is one of the largest general campaign contributors to our major political parties in the United States, and directly influences specific policies made within the FDA that harm public health. I am perfectly prepared to support this with proof, should you wish to challenge it.

Labelling my point as being paranoid is not really an argument. My point was that the general public does not have all the facts about nutrition, and this relates to OC survivors, because they also do not.


"Read DavidCPA's signature line or EricS posts or even mine to see that doing all three of your "therapies" is Zero protection against getting oral cancer.
"

I never said any of these things protected against oral cancer!!!!!!!!!!. I would have been offended by somebody saying such a thing.

"Cohort studies, which follow large groups of initially healthy individuals for years, generally provide more reliable information than case-control studies because they don't rely on information from the past. And data from cohort studies have not consistently shown that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables prevents cancer in general."

I'm sorry if I failed to make this clear, so let me repeat:

Good nutrition is important for those with oral cancer, and those without it. Anti-oxidants show some evidence in benefit to various types of cancer. Harvard Health advocates a diet rich in fruits and vegetables because scientific evidence points to this being good for health.

Conclusion: there is no harm, but a great deal of potential benefit, if being attentive to nutrition and fitness and in looking further than the latest fad, but in sorting out the crap from the truth.

I did NOT say that you got cancer because you didn't have enough organic juice; in fact I rather made an attempt to counter that view and distance myself from that way of thinking. In addition, I did not advocate vegetarianism or juicing. I was attempting to distance myself from this sachool of thought on nutrition and base it instead on scientific and current research from unbiased sources. I am very familiar with the content on the Harvard Health website; no need to imply that I am not.

I am upset that you assert that I'm implying any differently. Please reread my post.

I'm sorry you got cancer in spite of doing what you thought was right for your health. I didn't come here to lecture anybody, but to raise a valid point: good nutrition should be advocated, not lumped away with some obscure and non-related part of recovery and prevention in ANY disease.

Hi Eric, I am familiar with turmeric, and cook with it daily. A large bag (like a half pound) costs about 6 dollars in the US if you know where to look and get the good stuff. I see Whole Foods (part of the whole "natural" racket) sells a few tablespoons for the same price, and I doubt it's as potent.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think turmeric can be consumed in high enough quantities by most people to equal the volume of anti-oxidants my FIL is getting from goji berry.

I did not start my FIL on anti-oxidant therapy until well after his treatment was concluded.

I do not advocate this for everyone; I just decided to do it because I don't think it will hurt and it adds a lot of fiber to a liquidy diet.

Charm,

I haven't read as much about OC as you, but what I have read is that most experts do not consider OC to be a genetically inherited cancer.

India has the highest rate of oral cancer in the world. In fact, it is the most common kind of cancer in India. It is becoming a vast epidemic, in fact. It is linked to tobacco, and India sells some very, very nasty brands of tobacco.

As to whether there is a genetic component, I have no opinion. I also do not promote the idea that there is ANY environmental cure for it. However, there do appear to be environmental causes for it a lot of the time. I simply advocated that nutrition is important and thrown out as if it's neglect is some kind of tool used to blame people who are ill. It is not, and most doctors and cancer centers on earth DO NOT treat nutrition and wellness with the attention it deserves.

I mentioned that my FIL is on anti-oxidant therapy, and said that I don't think it can hurt. You are having a knee jerk reaction that is precisely what I was arguing against. A lot of people come on here and don't understand the basics, and a lot of people lose weight and are malnourished during their treatment when they don't have to be. That is my experience coming from India, and in reading posts from around the world. Just because you are an exception to that, does not mean you need to fight it.

A balanced diet does not necessarily include goji berries or half the other stuff my FIL takes. But these foods that he takes are not from industries that tout them as miracle cures (for the most part); they are based on sound evidence that they have some benefits to health according to dieticians and current research. Benefits to health are a good thing for people with cancer, not necessarily a CURE. No need to patrol my posts.

ALl:

I want to apologize for my use of the phrase "cancer-fighting" in the context of this forum.

"Cancer-fighting" is a dengerous term, which, upon reflection, I know to be highly misused and abused by people selling "natural cures". I didn't communicate as effectively as I should have.

There is no evidence of a specific cure for "cancer" in nutrition. The scientific studies behind various nutrients and how they affect various types of cancer is very complex. In some cases, an abundance of certain nutrients can actually interfere with your treatment, or cause deficiencies of other nutrients.


However, rather than following the dieting habits of the general public, and rather than following the dieting habits of the juice fanatics, find a path between the two that is based on sound, unbiased study and -if possible-the guidance of a certified clinical nutritionist.
But do so under the primary guidance of your oncologists.


If my father in law would have followed ONLY the advice of only his oncologist team with regards to his nutrition, he would have lost many, many pounds and his health would have deteriorated much further than it did as a result. With proper diet monitoring he didn't lose much weight at all. This is an example of why I posted the thread originally. Diet is an important component of treatment and recovery. In some diseases, it is an important part of prevention too; I am not claiming that is the case for oral cancer. But it is a possibility the most current research has yet to demonsrate.

This doesn't mean it is your fault if you aren't well, lose weight, get OC, Etc. I do not mean to burden you with additional concerns when you might be fighting for your very life. I simply wish to counter those who seem to throw out the baby with the bathwater or disregard the importance of the big 3: this includes most doctors I have dealth with.

If my post took a lecturing tone, I apologize. I am nobody to lecture you guys; just trying to contribute something, actually.

Marma

Maybe it is a grammar thing that is the confusion. the use of the latin i.e. in a parenthentical means you equate them to be the same. So in your statment below, you equate the "insurance industry" with the US Government. There would be no reason for the current contentious health care debate if the US Government was the same as the insurance industry or ran it.

[quote]The insurance industry (I.E. US government) doesn't line the back pockets of personal trainers and dieticians as much as it could because it's too busy getting IT'S back pocket lined by corporate interests and Big Pharma. And it's a viscious cycle from there. That is not my theory, that's a documented and verifiable fact[/quote].

Is it true that lobbyists are derailing health care reform. Yes. But that does not support your contention that otherwise they would then "line the back pockets" of personal trainers and dieticians. that a start on pointing out your conspiracy blind spot. There is so much wrong mixed up with the common sense approach advocated by Don that I will take my time explicating the rest. Meanwhile, reread your original post and see what you are missing.
Charm

I was exaggerating to make a point. My point got lost because the topic was out of context in an already long post. It should have been a separate thread, but I didn't (and still don't) have the energy.

Point taken!

Marma

I have reread all your posts and it's clear that we are going to have to agree to disagree. I find your posts lacking in logic plus based on experiences in India which I do not believe are transferable to the OC population of the USA. I have reconsidered and rejected my prior plan to systematically point out each error or exaggeration. You obviously mean well. Your use of prepositions and adjectival and adverbial qualifiers lends itself to misunderstandings (e.g. trying to parse a distinction between " cancer fighting" and its implicit meaning of preventing cancer)that make a productive dialog impossible since all I would be doing is giving grammar lessons. At this point, no one will be mislead who reads this thread, so my job is done,
charm