Sign in to follow this  
jts

what Chris ate today

Recommended Posts

This is Chris, of chrisbeatcancer. He beat cancer by nutrition and he interviews people who beat cancer by nutrition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this, Jerry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Chris, of chrisbeatcancer. He beat cancer by nutrition and he interviews people who beat cancer by nutrition.

It bears mentioning the kind of cancer Chris had (colon cancer). It also bears mentioning that Chris had his 'golf-ball sized tumour' resected.** In other words, Chris had the cancer cut out of him (including affected lymph nodes). So, Jerry, your suggestion that he cured his cancer by nutrition alone is quite misleading.

It's a fanciful and dangerous assumption that a cancer can be cured only by nutrition. It isn't reasonable and it isn't rational.

For a skeptical take on Chris's claims, I recommend the blog post "Chris beat cancer? He did indeed, but it wasn’t quackery that cured him."

I just came across one such person, a man by the name of Chris Wark, whose website and blog Chris Beat Cancer sells the idea that he beat his cancer with nutrition and “natural therapies” that he used to “heal himself.” This alone wouldn’t be so bad (although it’s still definitely bad) except that Wark is now selling all sorts of misinformation about cancer, all for $175 for a two hour phone consultation. Regular readers will recognize right away where Mr. Wark goes wrong in his story. Even so, I think it’s worthwhile to take a look at his story because since discovering Mr. Wark’s site I’ve seen his name popping up all over the place promoting “natural” cures, and his site has become a repository of all sorts of “alternative cancer cure” testimonials, as well as credulously promotional material for quackery like the Gerson therapy, the Beck protocol, and the Gonzalez protocol.

_______________________

** one of the commenters at Orac's blog made a pretty grim point:

Funny that for all his anecdotes, he was so lacking in faith in nutrients and smoothies that he opted for surgery to save his life, giving him his present opportunity to tell his readers how unimportant that surgery was.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife is celebrating ten cancer-free years. :smile:

The doctors told her after her operation that if she didn't get both chemotherapy and radiation, cancer would return within two years.

She didn't get either...

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, Chris had the cancer cut out of him (including affected lymph nodes).

Mechanical removal of cancer is an excellent way to give the body a head start on keeping it out.

...as well as credulously promotional material for quackery like the Gerson therapy...

My wife does the Gerson quackery.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, I am sure glad that your wife beat cancer, sincerely. I have a sister who is a fifteen year survivor of breast cancer, and I have another sister receiving adjuvant radiation therapy for breast cancer (after a successful surgical resection of a tiny tumour).

Do you remember what the particular cancer was that your wife had (no need to answer this)? I can't imagine an oncologist giving such a dead-line for a cancer. Guy/gal sounds like a jerk ...

The downside of Gerson therapy protocol is the relentless coffee enemas.

From the website link above:

Coffee enemas are the primary method of detoxification of the tissues and blood on the Gerson Therapy. Cancer patients on the Gerson Therapy may take up to 5 coffee enemas per day. Charlotte Gerson explains the necessity of coffee enemas in Healing the Gerson Way:

“The moment a patient is put on the full therapy, the combined effect of the food, the juices and the medication causes the immune system to attack and kill tumor tissue, besides working to flush out accumulated toxins from the body tissues. This great clearing-out procedure carries the risk of overburdening and poisoning the liver—the all-important organ of detoxification, which, in a cancer patient, is bound to be already damaged and debilitated.”


IMAG0033-e1317227182851.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you remember what the particular cancer was that your wife had (no need to answer this)? I can't imagine an oncologist giving such a dead-line for a cancer. Guy/gal sounds like a jerk ...

I'll just say that her cancer was very serious, William.

Had they not operated she would have died. And the doctor was not a jerk. That was his prognosis after he had completed the operation, and he was the person with the most first hand knowledge of her condition. My wife made the decision to forgo radiation and chemotherapy after seeing so many people we know whose lives deteriorated from the toxic side effects which were as bad or worse than the cancer.

The idea of poisoning your body in order to heal it is insanity.

But there is a strong pre-existing secular religious faith in the insurance/medical/government bureaucracy. Literally hundreds of millions of people belive it is the god who possess the power to heal...

...and you can never argue over belief. Each person freely chooses for themselves and gets the consequences they deserve as the results of their choice.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of poisoning your body in order to heal it is insanity.

Greg

I'm glad your wife beat cancer, but the only thing we know for sure is this "poisoning" is crude, not insanity and not necessarily ineffective.

There is the story of a surgeon who did many, many of a certain type of cancer surgery, but when he needed the surgery for that same cancer, just went home and settled his affairs. This doesn't necessarily mean what he did as a surgeon over the years was wrong and ineffective qua surgery, but it does mean I don't know what it means.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of poisoning your body in order to heal it is insanity.

Greg

I'm glad your wife beat cancer,

So am I, Brant... :smile:

...and she did it by following her own sense of right and wrong.

...but the only thing we know for sure is this "poisoning" is crude, not insanity and not necessarily ineffective.

In my opinion it's on the same level as blood letting used to be. It's counter-intuitive to make your body sick in order to make it well. This because there is no such thing as "making your body well". You can only either help it heal itself... or hinder it from healing itself.

When the results of chemotherapy and radiation are considered, what is unseen are those who would have been ok without them. Because almost everyone gets the standard medical treatments, the unseen automatically get lumped into the same column as the successes.

There is the story of a surgeon who did many, many of a certain type of cancer surgery, but when he needed the surgery for that same cancer, just went home and settled his affairs. This doesn't necessarily mean what he did as a surgeon over the years was wrong and ineffective qua surgery, but it does mean I don't know what it means.

Surgery does have merit in some instances because it's a mechanical approach which is different from taking poison.

This is also not normally considered... and that is outliving cancer. Since everyone is going to eventually die, why not die from something else other than cancer?

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a fanciful and dangerous assumption that a cancer can be cured only by nutrition. It isn't reasonable and it isn't rational.

Do you mean 'only by nutrition'? Or 'by only nutrition'? There is a difference.

Dr. Moser claims to have seen cancer reverse by fasting, which is not nutrition. Dr. Shelton supervised 40,000 fasts and altho non-cancer tumors sometimes reverse during a fast, he never saw a cancer reverse completely. Shelton says 99 cases out of a hundred that are diagnosed as cancer are not cancer. Maybe Dr. Moser counted tumors as cancer that were not cancer.

Fasting tends to be effective for problems caused by excesses, excess eating, excess smoking, excess alcohol, excess poisons. But fasting is dangerous for problems caused by nutrient deficiencies. The Gerson therapy people seem to think cancer involves both excesses and deficiencies, and Dr. Patrick Vickers is strongly thumbs down on fasting for cancer.

Gerson therapy is more than nutrition therapy. Without the coffee enemas to clean the liver, many patients would die from too much poison in the liver. Coffee enemas did not begin with Dr. Max Gerson. Coffee enemas used to be mainstream standard medical procedure.

Why is reversing cancer by nutrition (plus other things such as sleep, coffee enemas, etc.) not reasonable and not rational? No reason is given.

Some possible reasons:

1. Intuition. It is counterintuitive.

Intuition is based on experience and therefore can be tricky. If you have no experience with extreme (and complete) nutrition, the results are likely to be counterintuitive to you.

2. Feeling. You feel reversing cancer by nutrition is not possible.

Then maybe you believe emotions are tools of cognition.

3. Government authority. Government approved doctors say cancer can't be reversed by nutrition.

In our world, government gets to say who is and who is not a legit doctor. This is supposed to be for our protection. When a doctor is government approved, that is supposed to assure us that the doctor at least knows the basics. What are the basics? How many government approved doctors are experts in nutrition and fasting? Think for yourself. Don't go blindly by authority.

4. DNA. Tumors are caused by a glitch in DNA and therefore this glitch must be corrected before the tumor can be reversed and it can't be corrected by nutrition. This is from the medical world.

A tumor might be caused by a glitch in DNA but it does not follow that the glitch must be corrected before the tumor can reverse. In fact tumors do reverse. When there is a conflict between a fact and a theory, the theory is wrong. Every cell has a self-destruct mechanism, lysosomes. If a cell is damaged, it must repair itself or self-destruct and be replaced by another cell. If the self-destruct mechanism is damaged in such a way that the cell can't self-destruct when it should, the result can be a tumor. Sometimes the self-destruct mechanism can be restored by ... guess what ... nutrition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to die?

--Brant

bummer

Yeah, Brant... someone had to break the news to you so it might as well be me.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to die?

--Brant

bummer

Yeah, Brant... someone had to break the news to you so it might as well be me.

Greg

The bright side is I know it isn't true! :smile:

--Brant

reality's fool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this