"Results of Water Fasting - Uterine Fibroids, Hypertension, and Diabetes"

[jts]

Questions:

1. Which is easier to believe? That the tumor really did disappear? Or that she did not have a tumor and there was a mix up?

2. What would be required for you to believe that a tumor disappeared on its own, by autolysis, not cut poison burn?

3. I had a tumor on my foot (no, not a wart). It disappeared during a fast. This is true. Do you believe it? Why not?

4. Why can't people believe that tumors can go away on their own?

Contrary to medical theory? Guess what, maybe medical theory is wrong. When there is a conflict between a theory (such as tumors can't autolyze) and a fact (such as a tumor autolyzes), the theory is wrong.

http://youtu.be/quY2cvWCHeE

Most doctors are into heroically doing something. Fasting is about unheroically doing nothing. During a fast, if you want max benefit from the fast, you are supposed to do nothing or as little as possible. That means total rest - physical rest, mental-emotional rest, sensory rest, physiological rest. The power of healing is inversely proportional to how active you are in those 4 ways. The benefit you get from a fast depends on how well you unheroically do nothing. This is the opposite of what most doctors want to do - heroically do something. Healing is done by the body, not to the body. The body is the hero, not the doctor, even if the doctor takes the credit and the money.

Warning: Altho fasting can sometimes work wonders for diseases of excess, it ain't worth shit for diseases of deficiency (unless the deficiency is caused by an excess).

[PDS]

It is also possible that the Placebo effect is in play, especially during a fast. Perhaps the combination of fasting and a heightened placebo effect is especially strong. The hangman's noose focuses the concentration, and all that.

[jts]

It is also possible that the Placebo effect is in play, especially during a fast. Perhaps the combination of fasting and a heightened placebo effect is especially strong. The hangman's noose focuses the concentration, and all that.

Placebo effect can be involved in almost anything. That's probably why they do the double blind experiments. Eliminating placebo effect from fasting would be difficult; it would require a person to fast and not know it.

But here is an interesting story that avoids placebo effect.

http://www.healthpromoting.com/learning-center/articles/fasting-back-future

In light of the clear misunderstanding of fasting by the medical

profession, the unexpected, successful fasting experience of Henry

Tanner, M.D., is truly remarkable. In 1877, Dr. Tanner was a respected,

middle-aged physician living in Duluth, Minnesota. He had suffered for

years with rheumatism and had consulted with seven fellow physicians,

all of whom considered his case to be "hopeless." He also suffered from

asthma, which chronically disrupted his sleep. He spent his waking hours

in constant pain.

Tanner had been taught in medical school that humans could live only

ten days without food and in this knowledge he found solace. Not

believing in suicide, he determined that he would simply starve himself

to death. As he stated later, "Life to me under the circumstances was

not worth living... and I had made up my mind to rest from physical

suffering in the arms of death." But fate had an agreeable surprise for

Dr. Tanner. By unwittingly invoking a constellation of health-promoting

responses associated with water-only fasting, he rapidly recovered.

By the fifth day of his fast, he was able to begin to sleep more

peacefully. By the eleventh day, he reported feeling "as well as in my

youthful days." Fully expecting that by this point he should be near

death, he asked a fellow physician, Dr. Moyer, to examine him. Not

surprisingly, Dr. Moyer was amazed.

According to Tanner's recollection, Moyer told him, "You ought to be

at death's door, but you certainly look better than I ever saw you

before." Henry Tanner continued to fast, under Dr. Moyer's supervision,

for an additional 31 days, a total of 42 days in all.

When fellow physicians heard his story, which was sensationalized in

the press, they responded with disbelief and intense criticism. Though

widely rebuked as a fraud, Tanner at least had the last laugh. After his

fast, Tanner had no symptoms of asthma, rheumatism, or chronic pain and

lived a full life until he died at the age of ninety.

[Mike82ARP]

Being a former chiropractor and son of a chiropractor, I’ve spent a good bit of time in the non-conventional medicine arena. I could tell stories like these. As such I am skeptical, but do not out of hand dismiss these reports. What is clear is that the incidence rates of many chronic illnesses is on the rise for whatever reason (environmental toxins/pesticides, electromagnetic pollution, vaccines, genetic degradation, etc). Fasting has been utilized for centuries as a treatment for illness with sufficient success to perpetuate its usage.

[jts]

Fasting has been around for a long enough time that if it had any value it would be accepted by mainstream medicine, but it is not. All those stories you hear about fasting success are just that, stories. Any evidence is just anecdotal.

The idea in the video that a tumor can disappear by not eating for 24 days is absurd. No reputable medical doctor would believe that. As the video suggests, it is easier to believe that there was no tumor to begin with.

Stories don't prove anything. What you need is peer reviewed studies in reputable publications. The reason why there aren't any is fasting doesn't work.

[day79]

That's interesting. So you are saying if you can not prove something then it is false? In the court of law it could be seen as who has the better lawyer!! I will agree that there isn't enough evidence to support naturopathic methods but to say with all certainty that it could never work is a mistake. I am assuming you are a person without faith. All that being said, I am in the pre-stage for a water fast. I have recent MRI/Sono gram records to secure my starting point and will be have my vitals etc measured at the end to put this theory to the test. If I am free from this impairment due to placebo as is suggested. I'll take it! Placebos are free and without side effects. Most doctors would deny fibroids (any most other diseases) can be cured without surgery or pharmaceuticals. We will see.

[Selene]

That's interesting. So you are saying if you can not prove something then it is false? In the court of law it could be seen as who has the better lawyer!! I will agree that there isn't enough evidence to support naturopathic methods but to say with all certainty that it could never work is a mistake. I am assuming you are a person without faith. All that being said, I am in the pre-stage for a water fast. I have recent MRI/Sono gram records to secure my starting point and will be have my vitals etc measured at the end to put this theory to the test. If I am free from this impairment due to placebo as is suggested. I'll take it! Placebos are free and without side effects. Most doctors would deny fibroids (any most other diseases) can be cured without surgery or pharmaceuticals. We will see.

Welcome to OL and God speed on your fast!

[jts]

That's interesting. So you are saying if you can not prove something then it is false? In the court of law it could be seen as who has the better lawyer!! I will agree that there isn't enough evidence to support naturopathic methods but to say with all certainty that it could never work is a mistake. I am assuming you are a person without faith. All that being said, I am in the pre-stage for a water fast. I have recent MRI/Sono gram records to secure my starting point and will be have my vitals etc measured at the end to put this theory to the test. If I am free from this impairment due to placebo as is suggested. I'll take it! Placebos are free and without side effects. Most doctors would deny fibroids (any most other diseases) can be cured without surgery or pharmaceuticals. We will see.

There are plenty of success stories. Rational people are not impressed by success stories.

There is the story of the Frenchman with 18 surgeries on his nose, removing polyps. The polyps were removed by surgery 18 times and grew back 18 times. Then he went from France to Texas and went to that quack Dr. Shelton. The polyps went away on their own without surgery.

There is the story of the 21 year old woman with a breast tumor. The doctor said it's cancer and surgery is necessary. She didn't like that and went to another doctor, who said the same thing. She still didn't like that and read an article by quack Dr. Shelton who wrote that 99% of all cases that are diagnosed as breast cancer are not cancer and if it's not cancer, then surgery is not necessary. She went to Shelton and he diagnosed the case as not cancer and put her on a fast. In 3 days the tumor was gone. Shelton says this was a record, the shortest time he ever saw a tumor go away; usually it takes more like 3 weeks. Shelton claims he saved hundreds of women from breast surgery.

There is the story of Dr. Jack Goldstein who did a 42 day fast to overcome colitis. He wrote a book about the whole thing, the events leading up to the fast, the fast itself and the breaking, and life after the fast.

On my own body, I saw a harmless tumor go away during a fast. Do you expect me to believe it just because it happened to me?

These stories and all other stories like them are just that, stories. If they are not in a peer reviewed, refereed journal, they are of absolutely no value as evidence. No rational person takes any of these stories seriously.

But being an irrational primate, considering that the medical profession by its own statement offers nothing, given a choice between some chance and no chance, I would take some chance any day.

Risk, someone says. Oh really. And how do you propose to avoid risk when you have a life destroying condition that the medical profession can't do anything about, by their own say so? By doing nothing? And how can a fast involve risk if it's properly done and properly broken?

[BaalChatzaf]

Questions:

1. Which is easier to believe? That the tumor really did disappear? Or that she did not have a tumor and there was a mix up?

2. What would be required for you to believe that a tumor disappeared on its own, by autolysis, not cut poison burn?

3. I had a tumor on my foot (no, not a wart). It disappeared during a fast. This is true. Do you believe it? Why not?

4. Why can't people believe that tumors can go away on their own?

Contrary to medical theory? Guess what, maybe medical theory is wrong. When there is a conflict between a theory (such as tumors can't autolyze) and a fact (such as a tumor autolyzes), the theory is wrong.

http://youtu.be/quY2cvWCHeE

Most doctors are into heroically doing something. Fasting is about unheroically doing nothing. During a fast, if you want max benefit from the fast, you are supposed to do nothing or as little as possible. That means total rest - physical rest, mental-emotional rest, sensory rest, physiological rest. The power of healing is inversely proportional to how active you are in those 4 ways. The benefit you get from a fast depends on how well you unheroically do nothing. This is the opposite of what most doctors want to do - heroically do something. Healing is done by the body, not to the body. The body is the hero, not the doctor, even if the doctor takes the credit and the money.

Warning: Altho fasting can sometimes work wonders for diseases of excess, it ain't worth shit for diseases of deficiency (unless the deficiency is caused by an excess).

Let's see. The tumor on your foot disappeared following a fast, therefore any tumor will also disappear following a fast?

I think that is a stretch. Not all tumors are alike. Some are cancerous. Some are benign fibroids.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

[jts]

Let's see. The tumor on your foot disappeared following a fast, therefore any tumor will also disappear following a fast?

I think that is a stretch. Not all tumors are alike. Some are cancerous. Some are benign fibroids.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

1. It didn't disappear following the fast. It disappeared during the fast.

2. I never said any tumor will disappear. Why do you insinuate that I said that?

3. Is it not sufficient that it might disappear? Yes, it is.

4. Can you suggest an alternative to fasting after all medical options (cut, poison, burn) have been ruled out? You can't.

I think it is reasonable to assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that

a. if all the reasons for the tumor to be there are gone (deficiencies and excesses and imbalances)

b. and if it is not cancer

c. and if the tumor is not blocking a lymph stream

d. and if the fast is long enough and is done well enough and enough fasts are done

that the tumor probably will disappear or at least get smaller.

And furthurmore, I think it is reasonable to act on that assumption. In the worst case scenario, it doesn't work; so what?

The burden of proof is not on the side that it will work but on the side that it won't work.

I posted this link many times. Did anyone read it?

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.ch5.htm

[BaalChatzaf]

Let's see. The tumor on your foot disappeared following a fast, therefore any tumor will also disappear following a fast?

I think that is a stretch. Not all tumors are alike. Some are cancerous. Some are benign fibroids.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

1. It didn't disappear following the fast. It disappeared during the fast.

2. I never said any tumor will disappear. Why do you insinuate that I said that?

3. Is it not sufficient that it might disappear? Yes, it is.

4. Can you suggest an alternative to fasting after all medical options (cut, poison, burn) have been ruled out? You can't.

I think it is reasonable to assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that

a. if all the reasons for the tumor to be there are gone (deficiencies and excesses and imbalances)

b. and if it is not cancer

c. and if the tumor is not blocking a lymph stream

d. and if the fast is long enough and is done well enough and enough fasts are done

that the tumor probably will disappear or at least get smaller.

And furthurmore, I think it is reasonable to act on that assumption. In the worst case scenario, it doesn't work; so what?

The burden of proof is not on the side that it will work but on the side that it won't work.

I posted this link many times. Did anyone read it?

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.ch5.htm

I don't have to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

I don't have to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Unthinking knee jerk reaction. Think about what you are saying.

The question of whether fasting will or might or won't result in autolysis of a tumor is of no importance to you. Even if you had proof to your satisfaction one way or the other, you would not care and you would have no reason to care. Why are you even participating in this discussion? To you the subject of fasting is purely academic, like the big bang theory, of no relevant to anything that matters.

If you would actually think about what you are saying, you would understand that this is what you are saying:

You are saying that a person with an inoperable tumor must prove that fasting will for sure result in autolysis of the tumor, 100% probability, in order to justify fasting as an attempt to get rid of the tumor.

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't have to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Unthinking knee jerk reaction. Think about what you are saying.

The question of whether fasting will or might or won't result in autolysis of a tumor is of no importance to you. Even if you had proof to your satisfaction one way or the other, you would not care and you would have no reason to care. Why are you even participating in this discussion? To you the subject of fasting is purely academic, like the big bang theory, of no relevant to anything that matters.

If you would actually think about what you are saying, you would understand that this is what you are saying:

You are saying that a person with an inoperable tumor must prove that fasting will for sure result in autolysis of the tumor, 100% probability, in order to justify fasting as an attempt to get rid of the tumor.

What controlled studies indicate that tumors of some types disappear while fasting. If you are going to make a case for fasting then it should be backed up by controlled studies.

Ba'al Chatzaf