Can movies kill?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
It's a good point, but you are assuming facts not in evidence. If EVERY person suffering from cancer went down the same debillitating road, eventually succombing just as doctors predict they would, I'd agree with you. But there are many instances of complete remission that doctors cannot explain. As long as that is the case, I see no hoax/fraud being committed--just alternatives submitted.

There are many reasons that explain such cases:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altbelief.html
(obviously not all apply to cancer, but others obviously do)
This is why peer-reviewed studies with strict methodologies are needed. Not because it's fun or simply interesting. It's a measure of how serious the study can be taken.

What about the ridiculous claims that it's all a conspiracy by all researchers and scientific journals in the world? The distrust this generates against physicians and will definitely lead to some people not accepting their conventional treatments? The fact that they call this a "cure" several times during the "documentary"? The list goes on.

If some people die after rejecting conventional treatments in favour of this diet, I hope their families sue every cent out of the producers of this AND the Gerson Institute.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Quite a strong opinion. What's your experience in the field, and upon what data are you basing your opinion?

Personally, I met 1 cancer sufferer who, after being diagnosed with cancer (and while waiting for chemo, I should add) went on a strict diet ala the Gerson Institutes, including the application of wheatgrass to the affected area (lip cancer). Wh ...[text shortened]... this as "Hocus pocus". I thought of you and smiled. The baby stopped crying, btw.

D

I've missed this. I'll try to comment on this later.

Originally posted by Palynka
If some people die after rejecting conventional treatments in favour of this diet, I hope their families sue every cent out of the producers of this AND the Gerson Institute.

You underestimate the foolishness of the feeble minded. They always find
a way to kill themselves in face of their worst fears, documentaries or not. I
for one welcome this documentary. It brings the Gerson Institute into the
open to be properly challenged, and that can only be a good thing (whether
you're right or wrong about it being a hoax).

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Quite a strong opinion. What's your experience in the field, and upon what data are you basing your opinion?

Personally, I met 1 cancer sufferer who, after being diagnosed with cancer (and while waiting for chemo, I should add) went on a strict diet ala the Gerson Institutes, including the application of wheatgrass to the affected area (lip cancer). Wh this as "Hocus pocus". I thought of you and smiled. The baby stopped crying, btw.

D

What's your experience in the field, and upon what data are you basing your opinion?

I have no experience, I'm basing my opinion on discussions with friends who are physicians and my subsequent searches on the internet? I try to stick to credible sources (going mostly to sites that publish scientific articles) and try to avoid random websites about cancer. I accept that this does not make me a specialist, but I believe that I'm not just pulling opinions out of my backside. Others might disagree, though. 😀

Here's a study about nutrition and cancer:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2005.04.005
You might not have access to it, so I'll post its conclusions:
Summary review of Gerson Therapy:
Nutritionally, the adherence to some of the dietary principles, such as a vegetarian diet with fresh fruits and vegetables and high-quality protein sources, is possible with well-planned meals and snacks to provide adequate nutrient intake. However, the Gerson Therapy diet plan is very low in fat content and the features of daily enemas and hourly consumption of organic fresh fruit and vegetable juices makes this eating plan undesirable in a population such as cancer patients that is already prone to the many side effects of the disease and conventional treatment including decreased appetite. The associated monetary costs may make it impractical for many patients.

Summary review of the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) Diet Therapy:
AICR’s guidelines are derived from ongoing scientific research. Cancer patients and their families have benefited with practical and easy guidelines and tips on diet and overall well-being. The AICR guidelines are designed to be holistic, taking into account other diseases that are linked to diet, and are designed to be updated as new evidence accumulates. Following these recommendations makes a positive impact on our dietary habits.

There are more reviews of other nutrition programs. As you can see, it's not about not believing any diet has any impact, but about believing which diets can be used alongside more conventional therapies.

They conclude:
There is increasing evidence that nutrient intake may play a role in the development of cancer and outcomes of cancer treatment. Patients should be encouraged to follow evidenced-based guidelines on diet therapy.

Personally, I met 1 cancer sufferer [...]
That's a great story, but there are many possible reasons why her tumour subsided, including the said diet. What are her reasons for attributing the decrease to her diet? Was it a Gerson diet?

Chemo patients are advised on what they shouldn't and shouldn't eat, so even oncologists accept that diet has an effect on cancer.
Most people, including me, accept that. The question is if the Gerson one is adequate and whether portraying physicians as corrupt while presenting a diet as a "cure" is potentially dangerous or not.

For example, their movie website has statements like this:
it became abundantly clear that, contrary to the disinformation campaign spear-headed by the multi-billion dollar medical and pharmaceutical industry, a cure for virtually all cancers and chronic diseases does exist – and has existed for over 80 years!

I know you are anti-natural remedies and have difficulty believing that what goes through your mouth has an effect on your body. Although I can't understand your position given the accepted fact that eating too much junk food makes you fat and drinking alcohol makes you drunk.
Please. Of course I accept that nutrition has many impacts on health. The question is about this particular diet and the statements that are being made by them.

I thought of you and smiled. The baby stopped crying, btw.
🙂
(it's still a mischaracterization of my opinions, though...)

Originally posted by Palynka
As you can see, it's not about not believing any diet has any impact, but about believing which diets can be used alongside more conventional therapies.

I have a question slowly eating through the soft tissue of my mid-brain:
How could food possibly help cure cancer?

From what I can find only some cancer cells give themselves away by
being different from normal cells, allowing the immune system to
recognise them as intrusions and target them. But most cancer cells are
perfect replicas of normal cells as far the immune system is concerned.
So how is food going to suddenly educate the immune system to
separate a cancer cell from a healthy one, when they're identical in every
respect but their rate of division?

With all due respect to anyone who believes in the diet as anything more
than a preventive measure: a diet cure for every form of cancer is an
inane idea. Something so obvious would have been spotted a long time
ago by medical scientists.

I've read somewhere about a cancer vaccine being developed. It would
serve to "train" the immune system to somehow recognise cancer cells
specifically by putting tags on them (in a manner of speaking). I'm not
sure exactly how this could be done, but I'm fairly certain it involves
something a lot more complicated than mere food.

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm sure your death would be much more easy to endure for them. 😕

Anyway, what YOU personally would do is irrelevant. The question is: Are there people who will reject chemo and radiation because they believe in this nonsense (produced to sell DVDs, film tickets and extra-patients for the Gerson Institute)?

Why is this not considered a fraud? It's a hoax, being sold for profit.

I had hoped you wouldn't be of the same ilk as so many others on these forums--you seem intelligent, then prove that you are not by being rude. Sigh {ignore}....another one bites the dust...

Long live the New Flesh!!!

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by rbmorris
Long live the New Flesh!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ckiKF5DMA&feature=related

I read a few posts over there and one in particular stood out:

"Very good film - if it is understood by the viewer!"

Why is it that every time a crap film is seen for what it is, it's the viewer
who doesn't get the message? Couldn't it be that the film is simply crap?

Which quite logically brings me back to the original title of this thread.
Could it be that if someone watches the documentary and decides to
whack him/herself with a diet (HA!), that this someone kinda deserve to
die? Or is it just my bad mood lately?

Originally posted by Jigtie
I read a few posts over there and one in particular stood out:

"Very good film - if it is understood by the viewer!"

Why is it that every time a crap film is seen for what it is, it's the viewer
who doesn't get the message? Couldn't it be that the film is simply crap?

Which quite logically brings me back to the original tit ...[text shortened]... h a diet (HA!), that this someone kinda deserve to
die? Or is it just my bad mood lately?

Videodrome is a great film. If you don't like it, well... you know the drill. 😉

Originally posted by Jigtie
How could food possibly help cure cancer?

Well, cancer can be promoted by carcinogens (asbestos, tobacco,...) so it's not unreasonable to believe a diet whose purpose is to remove toxins can help (even if just marginally). Moreover, the diet I mentioned above that seems helpful seem actually more directed at coping with the chemo and other regular treatments than with directly attacking the cancer.

But I agree with you that promoting a diet cure in opposition of conventional treatments seems strange. But I wouldn't want to go as far as to say it's impossible. I don't need that to make the points I made about this particular one.

Originally posted by Palynka
Well, cancer can be promoted by carcinogens (asbestos, tobacco,...) so it's not unreasonable to believe a diet whose purpose is to remove toxins can help (even if just marginally). Moreover, the diet I mentioned above that seems helpful seem actually more directed at coping with the chemo and other regular treatments than with directly attacking the cancer.

That's what I keep saying. The diet is without doubt important to your
general health, but in order to help defeat most forms of cancer it would
have to educate the immune system to separate cancer cells from
normal ones. I just don't see that happening.

The only cases where a diet can help cure cancer (without
complimentary treatment), is when the cancer cells' antigen
expression allows the immune system to detect them. Now, if you
normally eat rubbish, attract such a form of cancer and change to a
better diet, then you would obviously see improvement (perhaps even
full recovery). However, as I understand it, those forms of cancer are a
ridiculous few out of the 200 some forms of cancer currently identified.

Originally posted by Jigtie
I have a question slowly eating through the soft tissue of my mid-brain:
How could food possibly help cure cancer?

From what I can find only some cancer cells give themselves away by
being different from normal cells, allowing the immune system to
recognise them as intrusions and target them. But most cancer cells are
perfect replicas of normal cel ...[text shortened]... one, but I'm fairly certain it involves
something a lot more complicated than mere food.

You can't believe in chemo if you don't believe that cancerous cells can be targetted.
From wiki...
"The first drug used for cancer chemotherapy, however, dates back to the early 20th century, though it was not originally intended for that purpose. Mustard gas was used as a chemical warfare agent during World War I and was studied further during World War II. During a military operation in World War II, a group of people were accidentally exposed to mustard gas and were later found to have very low white blood cell counts[2]. It was reasoned that an agent that damaged the rapidly-growing white blood cells might have a similar effect on cancer. Therefore, in the 1940s, several patients with advanced lymphomas (cancers of certain white blood cells) were given the drug by vein, rather than by breathing the irritating gas. Their improvement, although temporary, was remarkable.[3] [4] That experience led researchers to look for other substances that might have similar effects against cancer. As a result, many other drugs have been developed to treat cancer, and drug development since then has exploded into a multibillion-dollar industry. The targeted-therapy revolution has arrived, but the principles and limitations of chemotherapy discovered by the early researchers still apply."

Obviously, diet isn't going to cure Lung Cancer, seeing as the lungs are non-regenerative.

"a diet cure for every form of cancer is an
inane idea. Something so obvious would have been spotted a long time
ago by medical scientists."
Ever hear of the guy who killed the golden goose? I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy to keep the cash cow, but when most of the research is being conducted by the "multi-billion dollar industry", what do they stand to gain by saying each organic apples, instead of spend thousands on our drugs?

I think you've been reading the wrong sources on cancer, as you're over complicating cancer targeting.

D

Originally posted by Jigtie
That's what I keep saying. The diet is without doubt important to your
general health, but in order to help defeat most forms of cancer it would
have to educate the immune system to separate cancer cells from
normal ones. I just don't see that happening.

The only cases where a diet can help cure cancer (without
complimentary treatment), is ...[text shortened]... ms of cancer are a
ridiculous few out of the 200 some forms of cancer currently identified.

It's not only through eating rubbish that you are exposed to cancer causing toxins.

Unless you eat organic, even the fruit and veg you are eating can be causing cancer to grow due to the oceans of pesticides being sprayed on them. Cleaning products are full of chemicals as is the screen you are reading this on. Formaldehyde is used extensively in the furniture and electronics trade and this is constantly being discharged. The air is full of pollution, and the water we drink is also similarly polluted with huge levels of heavy metals present in a lot of our oceans.

Our homes are filled with items which can contribute to giving us cancer.

We just currently live in a world surrounded by chemicals, many of them toxic. Is it really that surprising that instances of cancer is growing?

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
You can't believe in chemo if you don't believe that cancerous cells can be targetted.
From wiki...
"The first drug used for cancer chemotherapy, however, dates back to the early 20th century, though it was not originally intended for that purpose. Mustard gas was used as a chemical warfare agent during World War I and was studied further during World War ...[text shortened]... ding the wrong sources on cancer, as you're over complicating cancer targeting.

D

As big a fan I am of the little man sticking it to the big, and conspiracies
being uncovered, I see no reason to believe that the entire scientific
community has been bought on this one. Cancer does work so well
simply because it's more or less a part of your own body, which is why
the immune system simply can't target most forms of cancer. No diet in
the world is going to change that fact.

Now, I'm aware how the chemo and radiation will kill not only cancer
cells, but normal cells as well, for the same reason that the immune
system fails. You simply can't distinguish the two that easily. The most
promising work I've heard of so far is a cancer vaccine, allowing the
immune system to recognise bad cells. Diet will no doubt be a big part
of that treatment since it partially relies on the immune system, but I
maintain that it can't really do the whole job.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
We just currently live in a world surrounded by chemicals, many of them toxic. Is it really that surprising that instances of cancer is growing?

D

No, I never said it was. I believe I wrote in my first few posts that the
environment is largely to blame, and without removing the various causes
to cancer a diet won't do much difference. On that we seem to disagree.

Besides, I've heard that more and more forms of cancer are successfully
treated using chemo and radiation nowadays. And (I believe that) the
currently untreatable forms of cancer won't be cured with a healthy meal or
two.