6 ms·

I hate to rain on your parade, I do... But, you simply couldn't be further from the truth. Diet can only be considered a "cure" in an extremely small subset of

by G3P 15y ago

I hate to rain on your parade, I do... But, you simply couldn't be further from the truth. Diet can only be considered a "cure" in an extremely small subset of all disease; and, furthermore, the word "cure" is practically never used to describe the effects of diet in any treatment scenario. It's true that there is no money to be made by Pharma, and that's why they aren't funding this study. My words may be harsh, but it's people like you, spreading pseudoscience, that lead to desperate patients being taken advantage of.

rvanniekerk 15y ago
Right because desperate cancer patients that could clearly seek an alternative are being told that their only hope is Chemo therapy or death aren't being taken advantage of... God forbid someone suggest an alternative as simple as gasp diet.
- G3P 15y ago
  There are instances in which chemotherapy is the only option, as advised by sound evidence-based medical research, just as there are instances in which diet is a completely acceptable treatment, and those instances must abide by the same strict evidence-based guidelines. However, when people go around claiming that diet can cure the majority of disease it plants a seed in the minds of patients that have no option, patients that should be discussing palliative care with their physician, that all they need is a pot of "herbs" and a low-fat, vegan diet to cure their terminal illness. Then the physician has to spend an exponentially larger amount of time than it took to plant that seed to dig it up and move on, time s/he could be spending discussing palliative treatment or even working with other sick patients.
  - aik 15y ago
    Let me know if you disagree, however I think the problem so many people have in this thread (and an increasing number in today's world), and one reason a good number seek and believe in alternative treatments, is because the medical community (as viewed by individuals from the outside anyway) is viewed to be full of self-righteous elitists who believe they always know what is best when dealing with the human body, while a. People like to believe in miracles, and b. Successful outlier cases that are contrary to common medical understanding keep cropping up -- the media loves them and people notice them. One more reason could be that many have experienced alternative treatments be fiercely dismissed by their physician, even when it can be surmised that the dismiss-er is probably fairly ignorant on the particular topic -- it turns people off. Naturally physicians don't have to have an answer or even an opinion, so why does it seem like they often feel they have to? Can it be boiled down to personal insecurities and fears? Trying to live up to the stigmas around what a doctor should be and know?
    - G3P 15y ago
      In my opinion, physicians are no different from any other profession. They feel that input from those outside the profession on matters of the profession are irrelevant, and in most cases this is probably true. There is a push in the evidence-based medicine movement, however, to recognize the influential power physicians have in the doctor-patient relationship and the ways this influence might effectively ignore the patient and their right to dictate their own treatment path. It's called "Informed Patient Choice," and is something I personally believe should be emphasized much more than it is today, because the truth is for most diseases there are multiple treatment routes, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. The job of the physician should be to, without bias, present these options to the patient and ultimately allow them to choose. As for dismissing alternate treatments, I feel it's perfectly acceptable to dismiss treatments that lack basic scientific validity (Mind you, I include in this bunch treatments prescribed by physicians today that lack proper evidence, of which there are more than a few). There are an increasing number of physicians interested in CAM, however; some hope to discover new medical treatments hidden within; some use them as a rich source of evidence related to the placebo effect; or, as was mentioned earlier in this discussion by another poster, some seek to stake their share in the increasingly lucrative market of quackery. The truth is, quackery is even more lucrative than medicine. All that is needed is invention of a treatment that doesn't hurt people, at least not immediately (Think water soluble vitamins, fruits, vegetables, etc...), and clever marketing. No grants need to be written to conduct the basic science research. No costly clinical trials need to be conducted. The FDA doesn't regulate "alternative therapy" because most are categorized as supplements, and so efficacy data does not need to be provided. All of that costs a great deal of money, which of course eats into profit. In addition, as proponents of CAM can't point to a single treatment that has been effectively "taken off the market" due to lacking efficacy, it's quite clear that not only are these treatments 100% quackery, but they hold amazing long-term revenue potential, Potential that exists because patients are taken advantage of and claims are made by peddlers that aren't supported by a shred of evidence.
    - wbhart 15y ago
      I would agree that people like miracles and notice them. However miracles are by their very nature the exception, not the norm. Science works by quantifying what is the norm through carefully controlled studies. The reason that alternative treatments are fiercely dismissed by many physicians is because they know, on account of said science, that they should not be the first course of action. Empirically, they work far too infrequently. Until an alternative treatment can demonstrate that it works for a statistically significant sample size it should not be recommended as the first course of action. However, if it does prove to be a viable treatment in a statistically significant study, it becomes part of mainstream medicine, not an "alternative" therapy.
- ghshephard 15y ago
  Well, to be fair, I don't believe there are a lot of peer-reviewed, doubly blinded, placebo controlled studies that provide evidence that diet helps in most cancers. Lots of evidence that suggests you can avoid them in the first place, but once you have Cancer, you usually have to turn to modern medicine, in much the same way you do when you have something like HIV. Diet just won't cut it. It's also important to differentiate diseases resulting from pathogens, versus basic body health. Type-2 Diabetes is almost 100% a function of nutrition - it almost doesn't exist in many populations of the world that haven't been exposed to a western diet, and, quickly develops in those populations as they adopt a western diet.
  - pella 15y ago
    > diet & cancers. "Changes in prostate gene expression in men undergoing an intensive nutrition and lifestyle intervention" http://www.pnas.org/content/105/24/8369 http://www.pnas.org/content/105/24/8369
vixen99 15y ago
He goes over the top but so do you. Diet is a word usually reserved for a temporary alteration in the type and amount of food we eat. But of course it also refers to a permanent change in what we eat. The evidence that an evidence-supported diet in the latter sense (eating 'properly') can protect us to varying degrees from the onset of much disease is overwhelmingly supported by countless peer-reviewed studies.

by G3P 15y ago

rvanniekerk 15y ago

Right because desperate cancer patients that could clearly seek an alternative are being told that their only hope is Chemo therapy or death aren't being taken advantage of... God forbid someone suggest an alternative as simple as gasp diet.

G3P 15y ago
There are instances in which chemotherapy is the only option, as advised by sound evidence-based medical research, just as there are instances in which diet is a completely acceptable treatment, and those instances must abide by the same strict evidence-based guidelines. However, when people go around claiming that diet can cure the majority of disease it plants a seed in the minds of patients that have no option, patients that should be discussing palliative care with their physician, that all they need is a pot of "herbs" and a low-fat, vegan diet to cure their terminal illness. Then the physician has to spend an exponentially larger amount of time than it took to plant that seed to dig it up and move on, time s/he could be spending discussing palliative treatment or even working with other sick patients.
- aik 15y ago
  Let me know if you disagree, however I think the problem so many people have in this thread (and an increasing number in today's world), and one reason a good number seek and believe in alternative treatments, is because the medical community (as viewed by individuals from the outside anyway) is viewed to be full of self-righteous elitists who believe they always know what is best when dealing with the human body, while a. People like to believe in miracles, and b. Successful outlier cases that are contrary to common medical understanding keep cropping up -- the media loves them and people notice them. One more reason could be that many have experienced alternative treatments be fiercely dismissed by their physician, even when it can be surmised that the dismiss-er is probably fairly ignorant on the particular topic -- it turns people off. Naturally physicians don't have to have an answer or even an opinion, so why does it seem like they often feel they have to? Can it be boiled down to personal insecurities and fears? Trying to live up to the stigmas around what a doctor should be and know?
  - G3P 15y ago
    In my opinion, physicians are no different from any other profession. They feel that input from those outside the profession on matters of the profession are irrelevant, and in most cases this is probably true. There is a push in the evidence-based medicine movement, however, to recognize the influential power physicians have in the doctor-patient relationship and the ways this influence might effectively ignore the patient and their right to dictate their own treatment path. It's called "Informed Patient Choice," and is something I personally believe should be emphasized much more than it is today, because the truth is for most diseases there are multiple treatment routes, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. The job of the physician should be to, without bias, present these options to the patient and ultimately allow them to choose. As for dismissing alternate treatments, I feel it's perfectly acceptable to dismiss treatments that lack basic scientific validity (Mind you, I include in this bunch treatments prescribed by physicians today that lack proper evidence, of which there are more than a few). There are an increasing number of physicians interested in CAM, however; some hope to discover new medical treatments hidden within; some use them as a rich source of evidence related to the placebo effect; or, as was mentioned earlier in this discussion by another poster, some seek to stake their share in the increasingly lucrative market of quackery. The truth is, quackery is even more lucrative than medicine. All that is needed is invention of a treatment that doesn't hurt people, at least not immediately (Think water soluble vitamins, fruits, vegetables, etc...), and clever marketing. No grants need to be written to conduct the basic science research. No costly clinical trials need to be conducted. The FDA doesn't regulate "alternative therapy" because most are categorized as supplements, and so efficacy data does not need to be provided. All of that costs a great deal of money, which of course eats into profit. In addition, as proponents of CAM can't point to a single treatment that has been effectively "taken off the market" due to lacking efficacy, it's quite clear that not only are these treatments 100% quackery, but they hold amazing long-term revenue potential, Potential that exists because patients are taken advantage of and claims are made by peddlers that aren't supported by a shred of evidence.
  - wbhart 15y ago
    I would agree that people like miracles and notice them. However miracles are by their very nature the exception, not the norm. Science works by quantifying what is the norm through carefully controlled studies. The reason that alternative treatments are fiercely dismissed by many physicians is because they know, on account of said science, that they should not be the first course of action. Empirically, they work far too infrequently. Until an alternative treatment can demonstrate that it works for a statistically significant sample size it should not be recommended as the first course of action. However, if it does prove to be a viable treatment in a statistically significant study, it becomes part of mainstream medicine, not an "alternative" therapy.
ghshephard 15y ago
Well, to be fair, I don't believe there are a lot of peer-reviewed, doubly blinded, placebo controlled studies that provide evidence that diet helps in most cancers. Lots of evidence that suggests you can avoid them in the first place, but once you have Cancer, you usually have to turn to modern medicine, in much the same way you do when you have something like HIV. Diet just won't cut it. It's also important to differentiate diseases resulting from pathogens, versus basic body health. Type-2 Diabetes is almost 100% a function of nutrition - it almost doesn't exist in many populations of the world that haven't been exposed to a western diet, and, quickly develops in those populations as they adopt a western diet.
- pella 15y ago
  > diet & cancers. "Changes in prostate gene expression in men undergoing an intensive nutrition and lifestyle intervention" http://www.pnas.org/content/105/24/8369 http://www.pnas.org/content/105/24/8369

vixen99 15y ago

He goes over the top but so do you. Diet is a word usually reserved for a temporary alteration in the type and amount of food we eat. But of course it also refers to a permanent change in what we eat. The evidence that an evidence-supported diet in the latter sense (eating 'properly') can protect us to varying degrees from the onset of much disease is overwhelmingly supported by countless peer-reviewed studies.