4 ms·
Can you cite the studies that show that changing lifestyle (organics + supplementation) doesn't influence cancer outcome? Frankly, I find your know-it-all arro
by trapper 18y ago
Can you cite the studies that show that changing lifestyle (organics + supplementation) doesn't influence cancer outcome?
Frankly, I find your know-it-all arrogance shocking, and all that is wrong with the medicine. 90% of doctors I have worked with have the same mentality. If it's not studied, how can you come to a conclusion?
Here's one little extract to whet your appetite.
[edit: btw I am in no way advocating naturopathy, homeopathy or other well debunked shams]
-----------------------
Men with early stage prostate cancer who make intensive changes in diet and lifestyle may stop or perhaps even reverse the progression of their illness, according to a new study.
The research is the first randomised, controlled trial showing that lifestyle changes may affect the progression of any type of cancer.
The research team behind the American study looked at 93 men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who had elected not to undergo conventional treatment for reasons unrelated to this study. The participants were randomly divided into either a group who were asked to make comprehensive changes in diet and lifestyle or a comparison group who were not asked to do so.
Participants in the lifestyle-change group were placed on a vegan diet consisting primarily of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes supplemented with soy, vitamins and minerals. They participated in moderate aerobic exercise, yoga/meditation, and a weekly support group session. A registered dietitian was available for consultation, and a nurse case manager contacted the participants regularly.
- rms 18y agoThe burden of proof is not on me here. I am certainly in favor of more medical studies about alternative approaches to cancer treatment. More science is a wonderful thing.
- rarrrrrr 18y agoAbsolutely. The trouble is mainly research funding, and then publishing and marketing the research that's already happened (there's more scientific research on alternative treatments than is commonly known.) Pharmaceutical companies aren't likely to invest millions studying turmeric, spirulina, chlorella, sunlight, etc. There are credible studies if you intentionally go looking for them, though.
- trapper 18y agoYou made a claim that changing your lifestyle cannot possibly cure cancer. Surely the burden of proof is on the claimant? How do you reconcile the growing body of evidence to the contrar?
- rms 18y agoMy intended claim, which I admit could benefit from more precise wording, is that lifestyle changes are not more effective than conventional treatment.
- trapper 18y agoShouldn't you have to back up a bold claim like that with proof though? Conventional treatment is often marginally better than placebo.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- rms 18y agoNo, I don't have to back up it up. That's the whole point.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- trapper 18y agoExplain?
- rms 18y agoDecades of the scientific method have established the status quo. You, as the outsider of convention, have the burden of proof. You intuitively know this -- if there was such compelling proof, you would be able to convince a lot of people of the potential, rather than saying "no, I don't have to prove it, you need to prove science." Science is already proven. I'm not denying the potential of alternative treatments, but for now, I expect you and I both would take the chemotherapy over making ourselves guinea pigs.