Cancer Disappears With Fasting -Dr Alan Goldhamer

[jts]

I look for results first, theories after. If you don't have results, I'm not interested in your theories. If you do have results and and your results are real, then and only then I might be interested in how you dunnit, your methods and theories.

But here is a case that startled me. It is well known that fasting sometimes (not always) brings about autolysis of a -non-cancer- tumor, emphasis on non-cancer. Shelton saw this happen hundreds of times and says it has happened in Europe thousands of times. But never a cancer tumor. Shelton regarded cancer as irreversible, at least by fasting. He also said that 99 out of a hundred cases that are diagnosed as cancer are not cancer, so sometimes you will hear a story about a case of cancer reversing but maybe it's not true cancer. Sometimes a tumor will be part cancer and part non-cancer; in that case fasting might get it to shrink but not go away completely.

The theory behind autolysis of a non-cancer tumor during a fast is very simple. During a fast (air and water and sleep and nothing else, no food) the body is consuming its own tissues because no food is coming in and there is nothing else to consume. If there is no good reason for the tumor to be there (toxins, nutritional problem, whatever), the body regards the tumor as non-essential tissue and therefore expendable and consumes it as a food source.

But true cancer is different. I don't know what to make out of the following video. It sounds to me like bullshit.

He tried to get this case in a peer reviewed journal. Maybe the peers will be gullible enough to accept it.

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

Why is the non-cancer cancer killing people?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, jts said:

I look for results first, theories after. If you don't have results, I'm not interested in your theories. If you do have results and and your results are real, then and only then I might be interested in how you dunnit, your methods and theories.

But here is a case that startled me. It is well known that fasting sometimes (not always) brings about autolysis of a -non-cancer- tumor, emphasis on non-cancer. Shelton saw this happen hundreds of times and says it has happened in Europe thousands of times. But never a cancer tumor. Shelton regarded cancer as irreversible, at least by fasting. He also said that 99 out of a hundred cases that are diagnosed as cancer are not cancer, so sometimes you will hear a story about a case of cancer reversing but maybe it's not true cancer. Sometimes a tumor will be part cancer and part non-cancer; in that case fasting might get it to shrink but not go away completely.

The theory behind autolysis of a non-cancer tumor during a fast is very simple. During a fast (air and water and sleep and nothing else, no food) the body is consuming its own tissues because no food is coming in and there is nothing else to consume. If there is no good reason for the tumor to be there (toxins, nutritional problem, whatever), the body regards the tumor as non-essential tissue and therefore expendable and consumes it as a food source.

But true cancer is different. I don't know what to make out of the following video. It sounds to me like bullshit.

He tried to get this case in a peer reviewed journal. Maybe the peers will be gullible enough to accept it.

 

 

Whom are you addressing?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I guarantee that if one goes on a total H20 fast (non taken as drink or as moisture in food)  for 15 days  one will not be troubled by cancer or anything else. 

[jts]

10 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I guarantee that if one goes on a total H20 fast (non taken as drink or as moisture in food)  for 15 days  one will not be troubled by cancer or anything else. 

Obviously you know nothing about fasting.

The term 'water fast' does not mean abstinence from water but water only. Dr. Alan Goldhamer requires his water fasting patients to drink at least 1 quart of water every day with no upper limit and he gives them something to measure with.

I don't like to put the word 'water' in front of the word 'fast' because to me a fast always means water only. People speak of a 'juice fast' meaning juice only, but to me that is not a fast but a juice diet. People speak of a 'dry fast' meaning a fast with little or no water and they have a theory behind it but dry fasting makes no sense to me.

Let me make it clear. During a fast you drink water. 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

14 minutes ago, jts said:

Obviously you know nothing about fasting.

 

On Yom Kippur  i fast.  No food, no liquid for 25.5 hours. 

[Brant Gaede]

32 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

On Yom Kippur  i fast.  No food, no liquid for 25.5 hours. 

Another reason to be a Christian.

--Branto

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Another reason to be a Christian.

--Branto

A more exact statement:  Another reason not to be Jewish.

[jts]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

On Yom Kippur  i fast.  No food, no liquid for 25.5 hours. 

Sometimes I do something like that merely because I don't have the opportunity to eat but I don't think of it as a fast. It takes something like 1-3 days to get into full fat burning mode. That's when the proper part of a fast begins.

 

 

[jts]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

On Yom Kippur  i fast.  No food, no liquid for 25.5 hours. 

That is a religious fast. You can do all kinds of stupid things in the name of religion. Your religion requires you to abstain from water during the fast. Fortunately this abstinence from water is only one day. If the purpose of the fast was not religious but therapeutic, the correct thing to do would be to drink water according to physiological need, meaning when you are thirsty. You might go a day without going dry if the day is cool and you are not sweating and you are not losing much water due to any other cause.

For most people during a fast, starting maybe 2-4 days, the body goes into a lower toxin tolerance level and therefore gets rid of stuff. This tends to call for water. If you want maximum value from the fast you drink as much water as thirst demands. Any religious fasts contrary to this are to that extent and in that way unphysiological.

 

[jts]

On 8/15/2016 at 3:55 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

On Yom Kippur  i fast.  No food, no liquid for 25.5 hours. 

You reject all sources of information about fasting except peer reviewed medical journals. You reject the experience of all doctors who supervised thousands or tens of thousands of fasts. You reject 'The Science and Fine Art of Fasting' by Shelton as not worth reading because it falls short of your gold standard of peer reviewed medical journal. This is one of the great classics in the literature of fasting, written by an author who supervised 40,000 fasts ranging in length up to 90 days, who was familiar with the entire literature on fasting in his time including work on fasting done by other doctors and including peer reviewed literature and scientific studies. You reject modern doctors who have experience with fasting and who continued where Shelton left off and who have knowledge beyond Shelton. You reject this in favor of what? Medical journals? Nope. You turn to religion. Religion is your source of information about fasting. You pride yourself on being scientific but you accept religion as your source on how to fast.

Religion is not a valid source of information about how to fast.

There are 2 ways to go about it, with some validity to both, but neither of these 2 ways is religion. You can live in your head or live in your body or some of both. Animals (other than humans) live mostly or entirely in their body. They don't read books about diet or fasting and yet they seem to do okay. Humans probably have the same instincts that animals have on diet and fasting but perhaps humans get too much noise from their head to pay attention to body signals. Animals, having not much in their head, have not much choice but to live by body signals.  In the matter of drinking water during a fast, head (knowledge) and body (body signals) are in agreement; in a properly done fast you drink water. Any religion that tells you to not drink water during a fast, phooey on that religion.

A challenge if you want to be rational and scientific:  Show me a peer reviewed study in a medical journal that shows evidence that a fast of 3-6 weeks** without water is more beneficial to health than a fast of the same length with water (as much as thirst demands). That would be better than religion.

** less than that is not likely to accomplish much

 

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think peer-reviewed literature advances knowledge (vertically) but rather confirms the advancement of some knowledge and helps spread the information around (horizontally).

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, jts said:

You reject all sources of information about fasting except peer reviewed medical journals. You reject the experience of all doctors who supervised thousands or tens of thousands of fasts. You reject 'The Science and Fine Art of Fasting' by Shelton as not worth reading because it falls short of your gold standard of peer reviewed medical journal. This is one of the great classics in the literature of fasting, written by an author who supervised 40,000 fasts ranging in length up to 90 days, who was familiar with the entire literature on fasting in his time including work on fasting done by other doctors and including peer reviewed literature and scientific studies. You reject modern doctors who have experience with fasting and who continued where Shelton left off and who have knowledge beyond Shelton. You reject this in favor of what? Medical journals? Nope. You turn to religion. Religion is your source of information about fasting. You pride yourself on being scientific but you accept religion as your source on how to fast.

Religion is not a valid source of information about how to fast.

There are 2 ways to go about it, with some validity to both, but neither of these 2 ways is religion. You can live in your head or live in your body or some of both. Animals (other than humans) live mostly or entirely in their body. They don't read books about diet or fasting and yet they seem to do okay. Humans probably have the same instincts that animals have on diet and fasting but perhaps humans get too much noise from their head to pay attention to body signals. Animals, having not much in their head, have not much choice but to live by body signals.  In the matter of drinking water during a fast, head (knowledge) and body (body signals) are in agreement; in a properly done fast you drink water. Any religion that tells you to not drink water during a fast, phooey on that religion.

A challenge if you want to be rational and scientific:  Show me a peer reviewed study in a medical journal that shows evidence that a fast of 3-6 weeks** without water is more beneficial to health than a fast of the same length with water (as much as thirst demands). That would be better than religion.

** less than that is not likely to accomplish much

 

One fast a year has no medical or nutritional significance.  It is just a cultural and family tradition.  I only brought it up because  you said  fasting does not include giving up taking in water.  I pointed out that the Yom Kippur fast which is only just over a day long is a total  fast.   Clearly it cannot be maintained.  Without water we would be gone and dead in under ten days.