You Probably Don't Need to Treat a Fever

[jts]

William wrote:

Can you please expand on this? Not all of us know who this Dr McDougall is, nor Fuhrman.

If Gerson therapy can 'reverse' Type 2 diabetes in eight days, this would be a world-shaking accomplishment. If it were true, it could be demonstrated to be true. Do you ever wonder if 'case reports' are reliable? And, do you set the bar low or high for evidence of any of these claims?

Dr MacDougall said ... ? Where did he say it and how can we validate or falsify his claims?

Anyone who is interested can easily Google these doctors. McDougall promotes a starch based diet; he is the starch guy. Fuhrman promotes nutritarian, meaning high ratio of nutrients over calories, with emphasis on micronutrients and phytochemicals. Whenever I post videos, it seems nobody is interested.

All I know about Gerson reversing type 2 diabetes in 5 to 8 days is Charlotte said that in passing in a video. I listened to all the video lectures and interviews about Gerson that I could find. That's all I know about Gerson and diabetes. I have no special interest in diabetes.

Dr. McDougall said in a video which I posted on OL. He said type 2 diabetes is 100% reversible. I don't know how he would do it, probably his starch based diet that he is always talking about.

If you want to falsify the claims made by McDougall or Fuhrman or Goldhamer or Charlotte or whoever, first you need to do your homework. That means listen to the videos you don't want to listen to and find out exactly what their claims are and then go on from there.

I posted a video on OL where Dr. Fuhrman was invited to write a report about reversing type 2 diabetes. He selected 4 cases that recovered completely. Nope, they couldn't publish the report unless Fuhrman toned it down and said the patients got only a little better instead of saying they recovered completely. They were afraid of offending Monsanto who sold insulin because Monsanto funded them. Fuhrman refused to tone down the report and it was not published. Probably the same thing would have happened to a report about Gerson reversing type 2 diabetes in 5 to 8 days. So even if it works, we are not interested.

[jts]

William wrote:

We have brought up several 'fever' diseases, from Lassa fever to Hemorrhagic fever. Do you really think they all can be 'cured' by fasting? I wonder how rigorous is your investigation of claims ...

Fasting is not a cure. It is physiological rest. You are confused. The reason why you are confused is you didn't do your homework.

[jts]

William wrote:

Well, let's consider a generally-considered-incurable condition like Cystic Fibrosis. This doesn't appear to be covered by your doctors. What is the function of a cough in this condition, and what do you know of the standard medical protocols for treatment? I am wondering if any of your recommended names have anything to offer to cystic fibrosis patients.

If you leave us guessing, I think I would guess that a fast will take care of it.

You are weird. What is your point? Do you have a point? Obviously fasting can't fix everything. The limits of fasting are the limits of the body's healing power. Can DNA be repaired by the body's own healing power? Probably not. What does this prove? That the body has no power of healing?

[william.scherk]

Doctors need not be controlled and licensed by government. You seem to think they should be. There can still be governance of doctors through other means.

I was hoping you would give a re-gander of the paragraphs I reposted. No biggie if we have a difference in opinion on what my "shoulds" are, but I prefer we identify a set of facts we can both agree on. The governance of medicine in my province is 99% through the guilds. When I visit my GP at his clinic office, he has his guild (College of Physicians and Surgeons) certificates on the wall. I can look him up in detail on a website maintained by the college.

If government disappeared tomorrow in BC, medicine would continue on inside the margins patrolled by the guilds. (of course the single-payer would disappear at the same time, and we'd be back to a cash/private insurance/barter medical economy)

I will look up "Dr Blaylock" and his claims about diabetes. Where we probably could find common ground is that the first line of defense against Type II diabetes is 'lifestyle changes.' This is the nexus of exercise, weight loss, and a plant-based diet. Older and fatter folks can benefit from this if vital signs suggest they are heading towards diabetes. So, yeah, in that sense, insulin should be the last kind of treatment, if the patient fails to change the behaviours that put him or her at risk.

-- although Jerry is perplexed by my reactions to his claims, he and I probably have a fair bit of common ground on basics: the primary thing that a person can do to maintain general good health is to be wise with nutrition. A good dietitian can help a person wade through the science and pseudoscience of nutrition.

I will admit that health-industries governance is complicated, like a palimpsest; it isn't easy to separate guild-governance entirely from the dead hand of the state.

(one of my close relatives had pneumonia. He was near death when he finally consented to medical attention. His recovery will take at least four months. Lifestyle changes will prevent another brush with death)

[Brant Gaede]

I have absolutely no familiarity with Canadian guilds. Never even heard of them before. I have contempt for Canadian medicine, British medicine and now American medicine goes down the tubes and in the worst way I can imagine. The irony of me envying your system makes me want to choke. As for further detailed discussion, I really don't know enough and my interest is slight.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

I have absolutely no familiarity with Canadian guilds. Never even heard of them before. I have contempt for Canadian medicine, British medicine and now American medicine goes down the tubes and in the worst way I can imagine. The irony of me envying your system makes me want to choke. As for further detailed discussion, I really don't know enough and my interest is slight.

Discussion with you always cheers me, Brant. If you know not much about the various provincial systems of regulating and licensing of doctors, so what -- why should you? It has no meaningful impact on your life or your health. You raised a couple of points and assertions. I answered them. You had a misapprehension or suspicion about my opinions. I answered. That's how I work. In life, face to face, we would discuss to the point of understanding ... or move on to other more interesting topics.

(I do wonder if most US states have similar jurisdictional realities, medical guilds and colleges governing professions. I expect they do. Long before there were Departments of Health or any controlling state legislation over doctors, there probably were colleges of physicians and surgeons that saw to the business of accountability and exacting standards. In a laissez-faire world, I would expect the medical guilds and colleges to be just as choosy and picky and principled about giving anyone a certification as a physician.)

So, I don't see any irony; you don't have grounds for envy as you might have for indifference. Your contempt is out of my zone of interest.

In any case, mine was an attempt to give information and to correct misapprehensions. You had written above "Doctors need not be controlled and licensed by government. You [William] seem to think they should be." I answered that from a couple of angles -- both my actual thoughts and the actual systems in place in my province. You claimed I conflated governance and government (in regulation of doctors). I gave you an answer to that. If you are implying that I need not have bothered -- there are readers here beyond the triad.

I see upon review that we have discussed Dr Blaylock in other threads, if not his views on diabetes. I guess you pay for his newsletters or for access to his online articles. I don't.

Jerry might get a kick out of this Youtubed audio interview with Blaylock. I had only heard tell of it at Quackwatch and linked to it in an earlier skirmish (in which Jerry declared Ebola a hoax). It is titled What Chemtrails Are Doing To Your Brain - Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock Reveals Shocking Facts. I can only find a short article by Blaylock on Chemtrails, but it probably does not do justice to his entire rationale. I consider anyone who believes in chemtrails to be a loon, especially if they have had an opportunity to engage with skeptical inquirers.

Welcome to the Land of Woo.

[Jules Troy]

No kidding!! Lol The day I worry about a chem trail would be the day alien ufo's started zipping around in plain sight for the world to see. Not happening.

[Brant Gaede]

You have to understand William, you discuss myriad things with a detail I don't have the time to research and match. You usually need expert feedback. I'm not expert about much. Starting sometime next year I may run out of time for Internet postings even. That's because I'll be working. I'm right now living in special circumstances which are not productive and I do not like. I'm not a retired gentleman of leisure.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Jules, Dr Blaylock is not alone in the World of Woo, and he is not the worst purveyor. I think he has been bamboozled by a kind of paranoid attitude within alternative medicine circles. He may offer promises that he cannot deliver and oversell "miracle" nostrums and supplements, but at the same time he doesn't go to the wall of dementia and recommend bleach enemas or Miracle Mineral Supplement (which is, yes, bleach-producing). He doesn't recommend the dire regimen of a full-on kook like Charlotte Gerson nor offer a panacea or cure for all that ails, like the hoary old quacks of yore Tilden, Shelton and Trall. That said, if interested, see what Quackwatch has on file for Blaylock ...

For giggles, here is the classic short video, by a lady who found danger in her own yard: HAARP Rainbow Aerosols. Be afraid. Be very very afraid.

Edited October 9, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

(I clicked on Blaylock)

All considered I'd never get a flu shot because the virus seems to keep morphing into something different before the vaccine is changed in an attempt to catch up.

I've decided to get a Shingles vaccine because of the possibility of really serious negative long term after effects of Shingles.

If I had a baby I'd not let him be hit with all those vaccines all at once. I'd research each out. The combo vaccine that includes tetanus is a go. I'll never forget the baby I saw in Vietnam that died a few hours later of tetanus. I got this shot as a booster several years ago and likely never again. At 71 I'm done (but still having fun).

I read Blaylock for quite a while and his Wellness Letter isn't as hookey as the criticism makes him seem. That said that's been my only direct exposure to him. When he answers a reader's question and the reader is under treatment he never rips him out of his treatment context and just suggests this or that tweak or something to discuss with his doctor. The supplements he advocates to boost immune function, whether they work or not, likely don't do any harm. He never refers to any supplements of his available elsewhere.

I'd get extremely aggressive with doing this or that if my ancestors' health histories said I'd be dying young of this or that. (I don't smoke.) But I'm good for another 25, according to them. Of course, according to them, I'd die with a full head of hair.

--Brant

waiting for the grow back to start

[Brant Gaede]

Dental amalgam: if it's already in leave it alone. When it's removed dust is generated. Specialists who are afraid of the dust use all kinds of equipment to avoid it. It's amazing to watch. They seem to be wearing spacesuits over their upper bodies and the air is continually vacuumed up. Very few dentists do this. For a fresh or replacement filling I'd probably avoid amalgam. These ideological dentists also avoid root canals--another subject--preferring extractions specially done and bridges.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Not using vitamin C in IV drips for infections and surgeries.

How about for targeting particular mutations of certain cancers?

Vitamin C Stresses And Kills Mutant Cancer Cells

Colorectal cancer cells with certain mutations "handle" vitamin C differently than other cells, and this difference ultimately kills them, finds a new study. [...]

The idea that vitamin C could be an effective therapy for human cancer holds great appeal, but its track record in this arena has been more claim than data, with most clinical studies finding no evidence. Several ongoing clinical studies are exploring whether a therapeutic effect may require a high plasma level of vitamin C that can be achieved only by intravenous, not oral, administration.

In the meantime, the molecular mechanism by which vitamin C might selectively kill cancer cells remains unclear.

In a Science journal study, Jihye Yun and colleagues studied human colorectal cancer (CRC) cells with certain mutations in genes known as KRAS and BRAF, which regulate cell growth. They show that these cells take up the oxidized form of vitamin C through a certain receptor that is specifically over-expressed in the mutant cells.

This leads to oxidative stress, which in turn inactivates an enzyme required for growth of mutant but not normal cells. Consistent with the cell culture results, the authors found that administration of high-dose vitamin C to mice bearing intestinal tumors with the KRAS mutation inhibited tumor growth.

Moving forward, scientists can begin to explore whether the selective toxicity of vitamin C to these cells could be exploited to create vitamin C-based therapies.

The study appeared in Science:

Vitamin C selectively kills KRAS and BRAF mutant colorectal cancer cells by targeting GAPDH

More than half of human colorectal cancers (CRCs) carry either KRAS or BRAF mutations, and are often refractory to approved targeted therapies. We report that cultured CRC cells harboring KRAS or BRAF mutations are selectively killed when exposed to high levels of vitamin C. This effect is due to increased uptake of the oxidized form of vitamin C, dehydroascorbate (DHA), via the GLUT1 glucose transporter. Increased DHA uptake causes oxidative stress as intracellular DHA is reduced to vitamin C, depleting glutathione. Thus, ROS accumulates and inactivates glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH). Inhibiting GAPDH in highly glycolytic KRAS or BRAF mutant cells leads to an energetic crisis and cell death not seen in KRAS and BRAF wild-type cells. High-dose vitamin C impaired tumor growth in Apc/KrasG12D mutant mice. These results provide a mechanistic rationale for exploring the therapeutic use of vitamin C for CRCs with KRAS or BRAF mutations.

See also High-Dose Parenteral Ascorbate Enhanced Chemosensitivity of Ovarian Cancer and Reduced Toxicity of Chemotherapy