Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61   ^
Old Fri, Jan-23-15, 04:13
Rosebud's Avatar
Rosebud Rosebud is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23,426
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 235/135/135 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Good to know you're doing well, Janet.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #62   ^
Old Fri, Jan-23-15, 04:25
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosebud
Failed? Are you sure about that? I've said this before in this forum and been completely ignored, but there are many, many thousands of cancer survivors (ojoj, didn't you have surgery for cancer once? I did, back in the eighties, and here I am, still going strong. ) who have had surgery, radiation and, or chemo for their cancers and are now alive and well. And some cancers, such as the lymphomas and some leukaemias are now completely curable with chemo. So careful with your "failed" statements there, mate.


I did have surgery, but I refused the chemo and radio - that was nearly three years ago now and AFAIK, I'm ok, altho I've not had any checks to confirm, but the symptoms have gone. (interestingly, the tumour appeared during a spell when I wasnt low carbing)

Jo xxx
Reply With Quote
  #63   ^
Old Fri, Jan-23-15, 08:47
io_oakley io_oakley is offline
New Member
Posts: 8
 
Plan: Ketogenic
Stats: 240/170/155 Male 71 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosebud
Failed? Are you sure about that? I've said this before in this forum and been completely ignored, but there are many, many thousands of cancer survivors (ojoj, didn't you have surgery for cancer once? I did, back in the eighties, and here I am, still going strong. ) who have had surgery, radiation and, or chemo for their cancers and are now alive and well. And some cancers, such as the lymphomas and some leukaemias are now completely curable with chemo. So careful with your "failed" statements there, mate.


You may not be sure of "failed", but I am, and apparently many cancer specialists agree with me as quoted in this article that addresses the issued more clearly than I could:

http://www.alive.com/articles/view/...of_chemotherapy

Here is a quote from the article:

"Another disturbing fact about chemotherapy is that the majority of specialists who prescribe such drugs would refuse to take them if they or their families had cancer themselves. According to one survey published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 1987, 81 percent of cancer specialists would not consent to a drug trial due to the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity."

Pointing to cases were cancer has been "cured" or sent into remission by chemotherapy offers little support for its effectiveness. What would have happened if no treatment other than change in diet and lifestyle had been undertaken or if some alternative had been undertaken? Maybe people who are treated with chemotherapy survive in spite of the treatment instead of because of it. Just because the medical/drug monopoly has endorsed the slash, burn, poison approach means nothing other than once government and special interests collude to exclude competition then people are limited to what serves those controlling the market. When "knowledge" gets institutionalized and is profitable to special interests, it stagnates.
Reply With Quote
  #64   ^
Old Fri, Jan-23-15, 08:51
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,207
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I've heard that quote before but when I researched it further I read it was taken out-of-context. The whole context was about experimental and low-success treatments. Notice that "such drugs" is undefined in that snippet.

If a treatment has a pretty good success rate, then why wouldn't you? I'd do that and do a highly ketogenic cancer diet.

Last edited by Nancy LC : Fri, Jan-23-15 at 08:58.
Reply With Quote
  #65   ^
Old Fri, Jan-23-15, 10:22
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,380
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

I sort of thought the term "drug trial" was a bit ambiguous. It could mean the drug was new to the individual being treated, or it could mean something more experimental, like Nancy said.

I would look at all options, see what was available for the particular cancer, the specific effectiveness, if it was me.
Reply With Quote
  #66   ^
Old Fri, Jan-23-15, 13:20
keith v's Avatar
keith v keith v is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 729
 
Plan: Wheat belly
Stats: 235/220/200 Male 6 feet 2 inches
BF:
Progress: 43%
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA Earth
Default

You have to know the success rate.
If I get cancer I would want hard facts about the success rate of the proposed reatment. I know it's out there, and if there is no data, no treatment.

My dad had chemo, multiple surgeries and was pretty miserable.
My Father inlaw refused treatment and except for the last week or so was sick but not as bad as dad despite being 20 years older than dad
Reply With Quote
  #67   ^
Old Fri, Jan-23-15, 13:44
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is online now
Posts: 7,788
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/183/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 54%
Location: Texas
Default

A friend of mine who had Lymphoma, cured it and then skin cancer on her nose. I helped her a little through the chemo by cooking big pot(s) of chicken soup with lots of veggies, no starch. I boiled noodles for her and placed them in zip lock bags separately so she could add what she wanted and they would stay whole. She said it was the only thing she could keep down and I knew it would help her to have nourishment instead of starving while going through this.

Fast forward several months later when she was declared cancer free, I sent her a post with a link to this web-site.
Her response to me was that she could never do this WOE because she is addicted to sugar....enough said.
Reply With Quote
  #68   ^
Old Fri, Jan-23-15, 14:57
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,966
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

I think there is a huge range of success in treatments. When I had a cancer scare, my own research (what doctors tell each other) indicated a 2% success rate.

There's no point in treatment that carries its own risks in such a case. But they wouldn't tell me that. I had to research it on my own.

I think anyone would object to that.
Reply With Quote
  #69   ^
Old Fri, Jan-30-15, 10:23
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,497
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Finally finished the new book, Tripping Over The Truth, by the author of the article that started this thread way back when. The first part covered a lot of ground already done in more depth by Murkerjee in "The Emperor of All Maladies". But the last half delves more how the Metabolic Theory of Cancer has reestablished itself in research after the failure of the Cancer Genome Atlas, and the appendix includes the diet and resources. It can get technical but is still highly readable. More detailed and Good reviews, esp. Read Tuit Nutrition's review if interested: http://www.amazon.com/Tripping-Over...y/dp/1500600318

Last edited by JEY100 : Fri, Jan-30-15 at 10:40.
Reply With Quote
  #70   ^
Old Sun, Feb-01-15, 19:42
LarryAJ's Avatar
LarryAJ LarryAJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 702
 
Plan: PP/PPLP
Stats: 150/140/140 Male 68 inches
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Northern Virginia
Default

Here is the issue in a nut shell - clipped from the Wikipedia entry for The phrase "Warburg effect".
******************************
In oncology, the Warburg effect is the observation that most cancer cells predominantly produce energy by a high rate of glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation in the cytosol, rather than by a comparatively low rate of glycolysis followed by oxidation of pyruvate in mitochondria as in most normal cells. The latter process is aerobic (uses oxygen). Malignant, rapidly growing tumor cells typically have glycolytic rates up to 200 times higher than those of their normal tissues of origin; this occurs even if oxygen is plentiful.

Otto Warburg postulated this change in metabolism is the fundamental cause of cancer, a claim now known as the Warburg hypothesis. Today, mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes are known to be responsible for malignant transformation, and the Warburg effect is considered to be a result of these mutations rather than a cause.
******************************
Thus, because I started to follow the Drs. Eades Protein Power Lifeplan diet recommendations, and went VLC, together with taking vitamins and supplements that have shown anticancer properties in published research papers, my PSA fell like a rock - from 5.2 in July to 2.5 in December. The ONLY plausible explanation for that drop was that the cancer was dying. Moreover, my PSA stayed down for most of ten years, only showing an increase as I am now old enough to suffer from "old man's disease" or benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Reply With Quote
  #71   ^
Old Mon, Feb-02-15, 03:51
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,497
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Tripping Over the Truth explores the history of Warburg's theory, but also covers the many advances since 1930 that support and expand on Warburg's basic premise. Pederson at JHH, Young Ko now with a company exploring how to deliver her treatment discovery, and Seyfried have used the new information from DNA structure and the Genome project, to explain the missing pieces in Warburg's theory.
Reply With Quote
  #72   ^
Old Thu, Feb-05-15, 14:18
LarryAJ's Avatar
LarryAJ LarryAJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 702
 
Plan: PP/PPLP
Stats: 150/140/140 Male 68 inches
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Northern Virginia
Default

The question of what causes cancer, genetic errors/damage OR metabolic damage, is really like which came first; "the chicken or the egg?" Since being obese relates to a higher change of having cancer, it is more logical that cancer is what causes genetic damage NOT the other way around.
Reply With Quote
  #73   ^
Old Thu, Feb-05-15, 14:40
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,207
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I don't quite follow that logic. Cancerous cells are genetically different from normal ones. I think it is fairly widely held that cancer is caused from genetic mutations to healthy cells. Otherwise we'd be built from cancer.

But those cancer cells probably come from genetic damage in the environment in most cases. Or a combination of a genetic propensity AND environmental triggers. Maybe some cancers are purely due to genes. There are some cancers that are due to viruses and other diseases.
Reply With Quote
  #74   ^
Old Fri, Feb-06-15, 20:31
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,207
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Well, sadly my brother was just diagnosed with lymphoma. It's a bit right on his belly and they cut it out. So far it doesn't seem to have spread. But he was telling us about his latest prognosis and I decided to share with him the info I've learned about ketosis and cancer. Turns out, he's already read "Tripping over the truth"! I'm very surprised because he and his wife were die-hard vegans.

I was fully expecting to hear how they were going to double down on the vegan diet or even worse to battle his cancer (should it need battling).
Reply With Quote
  #75   ^
Old Sat, Feb-07-15, 04:39
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,497
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Nancy, I am so sorry to hear of your brother's diagnosis, but the cure rate is quite good and he has you to help him adjust to using a ketogenic diet. The book includes the evidence that doing Keto while also receiving conventional chemo or radiation reduces the side effects. I have read that anecdotally in comments on Collin Champs site (believe he mentions it in his IHMC talk too). Very interesting that your brother found this book, since Dr Neal Barnards' PCRM markets their vegetarian diet, the Cancer ProjectDiet, in Cancer clinics. Things are changing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:00.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.