5 ms·

Watch Food Matters on Netflix. A good diet can help cure many diseases.

by spontaneus 15y ago

zacharypinter 15y ago
Not to discredit (haven't had a chance to watch yet), but is there scientific evidence behind this?
- rvanniekerk 15y ago
  Most people tend to discredit diet therapy because it's "not mainstream" or against the norm. Of course you don't see nearly as many "studies" on diet therapy as you do a typical medicine or pill, most scientists and doctors that practice alternative therapy are considered heretics (cooks, crazy people, etc) and banished from the "mainstream" portion of the medical world (the one with all the cash flow). Look up Dr. Max Gerson and all of the amazing things he's done with the use of a simple diet therapy consisting mainly of juices and fruits and vegetables. I would highly recommend his biography - http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Max-Gerson-Healing-Hopeless/dp/0976018616/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1309140433&sr=8-6 http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Max-Gerson-Healing-Hopeless/dp/0976... It's a fascinating read and really challenges you to think against the mainstream medical world.
  - arn 15y ago
    for the grandparent poster, the relevant studies on Gerson http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gerson/patient/page2 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gerson/patient/pa...
  - G3P 15y ago
    Max Gerson believed that cancer was a result of an individual lacking production of "cancer digesting" pancreatic enzymes - aka he was a complete quack. As a medical student dedicating the overwhelming majority of my spare time fighting conflict of interest infringement in the Pharma/Device-physician relationship, and in addition attempting to permanently establish evidence-based standards for patient care, its advice like yours that take the whole fucking thing two steps back. Do sick people a favor, and keep your ignorant statements to yourself.
  - Klinky 15y ago
    There is plenty of money to be made in quackology as well.
- tellitlikeitis 15y ago
  What a stupidly irrelevant question. Haven't seen this movie, but your question is more online group think pessimism and reluctance to take responsibility for our actions and lifestyles. What about the movie, apparently covering diet and nutrition, makes you think it has anything to do with a belief system based on stronger dilutions of chemicals having a greater effect than a weaker dilution? Seriously, some of the questions asked by geeks online leave the ordinary reader wondering if there's a herd of you in a room high-fiving each other after your asinine remarks. Carry on with your groupthink if you must, but it's getting old.
  - zacharypinter 15y ago
    Wow.... No need to go hostile. Just trying to gauge if it's a serious response, or a superfluous one.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - zacharypinter 15y ago
    Asking for evidence is hardly an ignorant statement. I'd be happy to hear the evidence, it's just that claims like the above tend to set off a radar.
    - G3P 15y ago
      Zach, I was responding to rvann's statement, not yours. The "reply" button wasn't available on his for some reason.
      - zacharypinter 15y ago
        Ah, thanks for the clarification G3P.
  - tellitlikeitis 15y ago
    Since you claim Max Gerson was "a complete quack", does that mean that people who were helped by following the advice of eating fresh fruits and vegetables to the exclusion of other foods (which almost nobody does) were just coincindentally made healthier? And we should dismiss that advice because you don't like Gerson? What would you recommend their diet consist of if they want to prevent ill health or gain health? Ignore diet because Gerson was a quack? And just hope they don't get sick? And if they do, come to you for you to select what drugs you deem to have the least conflict of interest at the time? Do healthy and sick people a favor, and keep your "intellectual" clown bullying from encouraging them to ignore the daily factors that accumulate to become their health or ill health over years.
    - G3P 15y ago
      No, it means that he invented treatment regiments that weren't supported by any scientific evidence, and did so while failing to document or properly control any of his "studies," some of which were repeated and found to be not only no better than placebo, but actually harmful to patients. If I call Dr. X a fraud because he claims coffee enemas are a great way to clear the body of cancer (Such as, say... Max Gerson did), yet Dr. X also believes that drinking water is necessary to sustain life, it doesn't follow that I don't believe drinking water is a great way to stay alive.
- niels_olson 15y ago
  > is there scientific evidence behind this? Doc here. Yes. Literally acres of it (measuring the floor space occupied by the National Library of Medicine). Eat real food, not to much, mostly plants. Two entrees at most US restaurants will feed a family of 4, with leftovers.
  - artmageddon 15y ago
    I take it you highly approve of the Eater's Manifesto :) (still need to read it)

Watch Food Matters on Netflix. A good diet can help cure many diseases.

zacharypinter 15y ago

Not to discredit (haven't had a chance to watch yet), but is there scientific evidence behind this?

rvanniekerk 15y ago
Most people tend to discredit diet therapy because it's "not mainstream" or against the norm. Of course you don't see nearly as many "studies" on diet therapy as you do a typical medicine or pill, most scientists and doctors that practice alternative therapy are considered heretics (cooks, crazy people, etc) and banished from the "mainstream" portion of the medical world (the one with all the cash flow). Look up Dr. Max Gerson and all of the amazing things he's done with the use of a simple diet therapy consisting mainly of juices and fruits and vegetables. I would highly recommend his biography - http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Max-Gerson-Healing-Hopeless/dp/0976018616/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1309140433&sr=8-6 http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Max-Gerson-Healing-Hopeless/dp/0976... It's a fascinating read and really challenges you to think against the mainstream medical world.
- arn 15y ago
  for the grandparent poster, the relevant studies on Gerson http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gerson/patient/page2 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gerson/patient/pa...
- G3P 15y ago
  Max Gerson believed that cancer was a result of an individual lacking production of "cancer digesting" pancreatic enzymes - aka he was a complete quack. As a medical student dedicating the overwhelming majority of my spare time fighting conflict of interest infringement in the Pharma/Device-physician relationship, and in addition attempting to permanently establish evidence-based standards for patient care, its advice like yours that take the whole fucking thing two steps back. Do sick people a favor, and keep your ignorant statements to yourself.
- Klinky 15y ago
  There is plenty of money to be made in quackology as well.
tellitlikeitis 15y ago
What a stupidly irrelevant question. Haven't seen this movie, but your question is more online group think pessimism and reluctance to take responsibility for our actions and lifestyles. What about the movie, apparently covering diet and nutrition, makes you think it has anything to do with a belief system based on stronger dilutions of chemicals having a greater effect than a weaker dilution? Seriously, some of the questions asked by geeks online leave the ordinary reader wondering if there's a herd of you in a room high-fiving each other after your asinine remarks. Carry on with your groupthink if you must, but it's getting old.
- zacharypinter 15y ago
  Wow.... No need to go hostile. Just trying to gauge if it's a serious response, or a superfluous one.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- zacharypinter 15y ago
  Asking for evidence is hardly an ignorant statement. I'd be happy to hear the evidence, it's just that claims like the above tend to set off a radar.
  - G3P 15y ago
    Zach, I was responding to rvann's statement, not yours. The "reply" button wasn't available on his for some reason.
    - zacharypinter 15y ago
      Ah, thanks for the clarification G3P.
- tellitlikeitis 15y ago
  Since you claim Max Gerson was "a complete quack", does that mean that people who were helped by following the advice of eating fresh fruits and vegetables to the exclusion of other foods (which almost nobody does) were just coincindentally made healthier? And we should dismiss that advice because you don't like Gerson? What would you recommend their diet consist of if they want to prevent ill health or gain health? Ignore diet because Gerson was a quack? And just hope they don't get sick? And if they do, come to you for you to select what drugs you deem to have the least conflict of interest at the time? Do healthy and sick people a favor, and keep your "intellectual" clown bullying from encouraging them to ignore the daily factors that accumulate to become their health or ill health over years.
  - G3P 15y ago
    No, it means that he invented treatment regiments that weren't supported by any scientific evidence, and did so while failing to document or properly control any of his "studies," some of which were repeated and found to be not only no better than placebo, but actually harmful to patients. If I call Dr. X a fraud because he claims coffee enemas are a great way to clear the body of cancer (Such as, say... Max Gerson did), yet Dr. X also believes that drinking water is necessary to sustain life, it doesn't follow that I don't believe drinking water is a great way to stay alive.
niels_olson 15y ago
> is there scientific evidence behind this? Doc here. Yes. Literally acres of it (measuring the floor space occupied by the National Library of Medicine). Eat real food, not to much, mostly plants. Two entrees at most US restaurants will feed a family of 4, with leftovers.
- artmageddon 15y ago
  I take it you highly approve of the Eater's Manifesto :) (still need to read it)