I appreciate your reply, but I think calling diet and exercise “traditional” and saying the research is “limited” plays into the downvoters’ prejudice. I see t

I appreciate your reply, but I think calling diet and exercise “traditional” and saying the research is “limited” plays into the downvoters’ prejudice. I see this sort of sentiment a lot on this forum: it’s only “science” if it’s pharmaceutical, (see: any thread about semaglutides) when in reality cancer response to diet research is well trodden, and I would argue the better science. Better science because it has stronger controls on variables. When you read about diet research the patients are all given the same pharmaceutical regiment and the variable is the diet, whereas on the flip side the diets of the patients are completely ignored. That’s bad science. It may be great research, but it’s still bad science. It’d be like the diet researchers allowing the patients to choose their own doses for the pharmaceutical side of their treatment, which would be an absurd confounding variable. Cancer cell metabolism is thoroughly researched. The leading cause of death is heart disease, and the leading cause of heart disease is build up of fatty deposits, ie diet. I’m unsure why people act surprised that the same factors play into the body’s ability to respond to cancer. Read a study on chemo from the 90s and tell me what’s more “quackery”: the pharmaceuticals they tried back then that now would result in a malpractice suit if given to a patient today, or the diet guidelines that have remained consistent over the same time period? I made it clear in my op that both are necessary, I just want the pharmaceutical side to acknowledge that reality too.