https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...bsite-ft5wbdlfh

Here we go again . . . Since success factors for traditional treatments are 100% backed by evidence (not), why has the keto approach become a lightning rod in this case? Perhaps that it's not embraced by physicians and doesn't solely depend on the involvement of pharma or toxic chemicals. Why, the nerve! What a world, what a world!

Although it is couched in terms that suggest that patients are being protected, it is in fact just another attempt to protect the power of dieticians and other entrenched professionals. Just like with Tim Noakes where there was never any evidence of any harm done, and Gary Fettke where he is accused of inappropriately reversing someone's type 2 diabetes. this is another instance where no harm could ever be proven but it goes against the powers that be so must be stopped.

Jean

https://www.indi.ie/news/957-ketogenic-diet.html

Write up on this at INDI.

Also, the 9 worst myths of nutrition is good for a wince.

https://www.indi.ie/news/741-the-9-...f-all-time.html



Total hypocrisy here. They say flat out no, they're just plain lying in claiming to know. I don't care what degree the person writing this has, they're up against the same thing Daly is--the definitive I can have candy? cancer study hasn't been done. Imagine even trying to get that past a review board. You want to feed people extra candy and see if it accelerates their cancer growth? This isn't about evidence based medicine, it's about protecting their racket.

Myth number one is another good one;

..............................

Thanks for posting this Demi!

I have read a lot about this in Banting's writings and it shows some very interesting benefits.
Sadly I tried to refer this to someone with a family member who was newly diagnosed and they almost bit my head off. For some reason Chemo and or radiation alone has been so ingrained in us as the only way. Last year I was diagnosed with a spot of inflammation in my Colon which was sending my entire body into a stealth attack against my own immune system. As in, it went into overdrive... After biopsy I learned that it wasn't cancer, not now.
I truly believe that if I had not been on low carb and moderately high fat that it really would have been cancerous...

Banting was a very smart man.
http://www.bantingdiet.org/

I also just found their book on US Amazon.
Do you know if the measurements are in Metric or US measurments?

I just answered my own question:
"This North American paperback edition has been updated to include U.S. customary units of measure appearing side-by-side with metric measures."

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...togenic+Kitchen

Speaking of biopsy, I don't know if we've discussed this topic before, but a biopsy runs the risk of spreading cancer by metastasis due to the fact that if the mass if cancerous and if it's contained within a sort of sealed tissue, a biopsy inevitably breaks this envelope thereby allowing whatever's inside to escape and reach other tissues.

With the DNA theory of cancer, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A knee cell couldn't transform into an elbow cell, or a lung cell couldn't transform into a brain cell, and so forth. Therefore, a new theory must be devised to explain this risk in a plausible manner. I have my own theory on that. Cancer isn't strictly a DNA disruption, it's some other disorder. So, what's the cause? Virus can disrupt DNA for its own purpose, that's one plausible cause. If that's how it works for this particular cancer, and if this mass is sealed, a biopsy will allow this virus to escape and disrupt other tissues in the same manner.

Either way, the risk is real and should be considered seriously before making a decision on biopsy. It's a similar principle as for colon cancer screening tests (with the big giant tube camera thingy) where the test itself can trigger an otherwise benign mass to become more active and virulent and then require aggressive treatment. That's a perfectly good idea if we're the ones making a buck on those ludicrously ridiculously ridiculous treatments, let alone the test itself.

From there, regardless of how we see the above, if we're doing low-carb, at least we mitigated the various risks by modifying the internal environment so that it's much less hospitable to cancer growth, i.e. less glucose, more ketones, but most importantly less insulin. I mean, even we have exactly zero diet-cancer data of any kind, we have ample diet-health data that says low-carb returns us to good health in myriad ways, therefore any disorder including cancer should be made less severe by extension.

Absolutely agree with everything you said!



Agree again but unfortunately as sick as I was, after getting a little better, I decided to weigh the risks and do the test and while they were there they took 3 biopsies to see what it was.
It turned out to look like cancer as far as identical cells duplicated in a small area but cancer was Neg which I do believe is as a result of low carb for almost 2+ years prior to that.

Funny though about eating fat to help starve cancer, it was like my body knew what I needed and I began craving lots of coconut oil in my coffee (which I never really added before) and while I couldn't eat much else, I lived on boiled whole chicken...fat and all, eggs and bacon for months on end. Just the thought of any high fiber veggies as well as most any other food was totally out.

You're totally right that Low-carb does help us in a Myriad of ways..

So this is against the law now?

Well, this is distressing news. Another good keto/cancer resource, who like Dr. Fettke, I use for cancer/diet information, but now this negative article will top any search on her name. I follow Dr. Champ’s cautions about not claiming miracles about the keto diet http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/breakthroughs/856 and always thought her writing has had sufficient warnings. However, there is a thin line between Carbohydrate Restriction diets and equating it with non-scientific diets such as the Breuss cure.


Just this month Dr. Champ and others published a response to a very critical review of ketogenic diets. For Dietitians or Researchers, it will be a long road to acceptance as even an adjuvant treatment:

"Need for new review of article on ketogenic dietary regimes for cancer patients"

Rainer J. Klement, Richard D. Feinman,
Elena C. Gross, Colin E. Champ,
Dominic P. D’Agostino, Eugene J. Fine,
Ulrike Kämmerer, et al. in Medical Oncology, May 2017

“ To the editor,
In a recent article entitled ‘‘Systematic review: isocaloric
ketogenic dietary regimes for cancer patients’’ [1],
Erickson et al. provide their summary of the use of ketogenic
diets for treating cancer patients. As active
researchers in this field, we find the Erickson paper to be
inaccurate in its characterization of ketogenic diets. The
writing is highly biased and contains a significant number
of errors, some of an elementary nature. The overall tenor
of the paper, rather than that of a balanced review, gives
the impression of established experts warning patients
about the risks of a new method. In fact, Dr. Erickson and
co-authors are not acknowledged experts and, as far as we
know, have no record of clinical or research experience in
this area. We detail below the paper’s faults and suggest
the positive side of the issue which we feel remains
ignored. We think that the pertinent subject matter was not
considered in the manuscript. In essence, failure to address
these questions means that the paper could not have
received adequate peer review. We suggest that some form
of re-review of the paper be instituted. As it stands,
Erickson et al. are likely to be misleading to patients and
practitioners alike. ...


Back to Patricia Daly’s book, there are other cancer diet books I was using before her Keto Kitchen was published in the US. Ellen Davis’s book, based on Dr. Seyfried’s work, is highly recommended: https://www.amazon.com/Fight-Cancer.../dp/1943721033/

Miriam Kalamian has an e-book as well as the Basics of a Keto Diet for Cancer on her website. http://www.dietarytherapies.com/faqs22.html This diet or list of keto foods is the same diet provided in print in the appendix of Travis Christoferson’s book, Tripping over the Truth. There are over 100 hospitals in the US offering a Keto Diet clinic (for epilepsy but extensions to other diseases are on the rise)

Dr. Champ gave a new lecture April 27, waiting for it to be published on TheIHMC YouTube channel:
"Cancer Prevention Through Diet - Tangible Takeaways” https://www.ihmc.us/lectures/20170427/

His previous lecture that is available was “Augmenting Cancer Therapy with Diet: Have We Found a Sweet Spot?” http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2014/1...e-florida-ihmc/

Edit: The more I read this though, the instructions are to change the wording on her website, as the charge was brought by an Advertising Review Board. There is nothing like Dr. Fettke's instructions to stop talking to patients about nutrition, or stop giving talks at Keto conferences, selling the e-book, or printing the book in the US.

This discussion really hits home for me right now. Less than 2 weeks ago my granddaughter was diagnosed with Ewings Sarcoma, an aggressive bone cancer. I have written about it in my journal. She has already had surgery to remove a tumor on her spine and she is starting chemotherapy this Monday. Her treatment will consist of in hospital chemotherapy sessions every 3 weeks for 12 months. I introduced the idea of low carb eating for cancer to my son as something to potentially augment treatment, but I did it very off hand so as not to anger him. He is very "scientific" minded, nothing but evidence based for him and of course he is overwhelmed with this new reality effecting his daughter. I am just barely keeping grief and fear at bay. I wish I could take charge of her diet but I am just a sideline grandma but I'm ready in case the minds of those directly caring for her (father, mother, stepmother) should seem able to listen. I hate when nutritional politics interferes with real scientific possibility.

Jean

I am sorry to hear of such a distressing situation, Jean. We have a close friend dealing with such, but he is an adult and open to the resources I sent him on diet.

On the topic of ketogenic diet and cancer, specifically for the focus which seems to be on glucose rather than anything else, whether it's by proponents or opponents. I'd like to shift this focus to a much more pertinent aspect instead.

A while ago, Feinman did a pilot experiment with a ketogenic diet and cancer. The premise was insulin signaling inhibition. No consideration for glucose downstream. I believe this is the more appropriate focus.

To illustrate, a very similar parallel - growth hormone disorders, specifically excess growth hormone. Without knowing the cause, let's look at the treatments. Let's say we believe growth is a function of energy, the obvious solution is to restrict energy for this growth. Would that work? No. Energy is not the cause of growth, though energy is used to realize this growth. The cause of growth is growth hormone. The only effective treatment for excess growth hormone is to restrict growth hormone directly through some means. From there, independently of energy intake or quality (i.e. fat or glucose or whatever), excess growth ceases because the cause has been treated.

With cancer, just like with growth hormone disorders, the cause is not [excess] energy - glucose in this case - it's another hormone, insulin. Cancer grows because of excess insulin. We call this hyperinsulinemia. We create hyperinsulinemia primarily with an on-going high-carb diet. It follows therefore that a low-carb diet would mitigate the creation of hyperinsulinemia, thus treating the cause of cancer growth.

The fact that the treatment itself focuses on carbs (and glucose) leads to confusion, and also allows strawman discussion and obfuscation whether intentional or not. It doesn't help that there was an expert - Warburg - who developed a theory blaming glucose directly. But it's easy to dismantle this strawman. The methods used to discover the apparent culprit only looked at glucose, nothing else. Let's do an experiment with insulin only, then see if the Warburg effect appears anyways. I bet it will, it's inevitable in my opinion, just like growth is inevitable with excess growth hormone.

Feinman is on the right track.

p.s. I'm making the same basic argument Taubes often makes to illustrate the cause of excess fat accumulation, i.e. excess calories vs excess insulin.

p.p.s. The discussion of Feinman's pilot experiment: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=447278

Ivor Cummins writes: "Irish Advertising Standards Agency leverages their incredible metabolic science knowledge and weighs in - with clueless attack on healthy eating patterns?"
http://www.thefatemperor.com/blog/2...ertising-people