What Would You Do If You Were Diagnosed With Cancer

[ken]

When I wrote Peat about a friend's desire to try baking soda for his metastasized cancer Dr. Peat responded by saying he should use small doses often and add DCA. Then take cyprheptidine at night. I don't think he took the information. He found an "energy healer" and died on morphine. I probably should have mentioned aspirin too.

 

[Anonymous]

First I would stop identifying as someone with cancer. All illness is the same. And it all has the same treatment. So don't let this world make you feel like you are a label. First I would get some cyproheptadine and run that for a couple weeks. I would also get some thyroid glandular and start with a half a grain and gradually move up. I would also take an aspirin a day, maybe two. I would also take the fat soluable vitamins and eat all the peatarian foods with adequate gelatin. I would also do things I enjoy and be with people who like to have fun. So basically I would do anything different than what I normally do.

 

[XPlus]

The least intensive alternative therapies seem as best practice to me. If the cancer doesn't respond or gets worse and one could manage to live without that particular part or organ, then surgery wouldn't be a bad option.

I think the difficulty arises when the tumor's invaded so much of an organ or a tissue and rendered it dysfunctional. If that organ is of special physiological function (e.g. liver, colon, testicles), it's probably not possible to undo the damage.

There are obviously cases where it's too late and the only hope left is prayer.

 

[artemis]

Glucose makes tumors grow. I wouldn't advise any cancer patient to eat sugar, lest they want to feed their cancers.

I don't understand this, burtlancast. Everything I've read from Ray says different.

From "Cancer: Disorder and Energy:"

"There are many people currently recommending fish oil (or other highly unsaturated oils) for preventing or treating cancer, and it has become almost as common to recommend a sugar free diet, "because sugar feeds cancer." This is often, incorrectly, said to be the meaning of Warburg's demonstration that cancer cells have a respiratory defect that causes them to produce lactic acid from glucose even in the presence of oxygen. Cancer cells use glucose and the amino acid glutamine primarily for synthetic purposes, and use fats as their energy source;the growth stimulating effect of the "essential fatty acids" (Sueyoshi and Nagao, 1962a; Holley, et al., 1974) shows that depriving a tumor of those fats retards its growth. The great energetic inefficiency of the cancer metabolism, which causes it to produce a large amount of heat and to cause systemic stress, failure of immunity, and weight loss, is because it synthesizes fat from glucose and amino acids, and then oxidizes the fat as if it were diabetic."

"Recently, a group at Johns Hopkins University (Le, et al., 2012) has been working out the implications of this ability to change the metabolism under hypoxia: Using an isotope-labeled amino acid, ". . . glutamine import and metabolism through the TCA cycle persisted under hypoxia, and glutamine contributed significantly to citrate carbons. Under glucose deprivation, glutamine-derived fumarate, malate, and citrate were significantly increased." The implication of this is that if the tumor isn't supplied with sugar, it will increase the rate at which it consumes the host's proteins. Forty years ago the work of Shapot and Blinov was showing the same effect..."

"Sugars are probably more favorable than starches for the immune system (Harris, et al., 1999), and failure of the immune system is a common feature of cancer."

“Starving for sugar causes the body to break down proteins to make glucose, weakening the organism’s resistance, providing amino acids for tumor growth, and probably providing ammonia and other things that stimulate growth and interfere with differentiation. The liberated free fatty acids in either sugar deprivation or diabetes (in which cells are starved for glucose) stimulate tumor growth.”

If what you say is true, I need to go back to my no-sugar ways!

 

[burtlancast]

Glucose makes tumors grow. I wouldn't advise any cancer patient to eat sugar, lest they want to feed their cancers.

I don't understand this, burtlancast. Everything I've read from Ray says different.

From "Cancer: Disorder and Energy:"

"There are many people currently recommending fish oil (or other highly unsaturated oils) for preventing or treating cancer, and it has become almost as common to recommend a sugar free diet, "because sugar feeds cancer." This is often, incorrectly, said to be the meaning of Warburg's demonstration that cancer cells have a respiratory defect that causes them to produce lactic acid from glucose even in the presence of oxygen. Cancer cells use glucose and the amino acid glutamine primarily for synthetic purposes, and use fats as their energy source;the growth stimulating effect of the "essential fatty acids" (Sueyoshi and Nagao, 1962a; Holley, et al., 1974) shows that depriving a tumor of those fats retards its growth. The great energetic inefficiency of the cancer metabolism, which causes it to produce a large amount of heat and to cause systemic stress, failure of immunity, and weight loss, is because it synthesizes fat from glucose and amino acids, and then oxidizes the fat as if it were diabetic."

"Recently, a group at Johns Hopkins University (Le, et al., 2012) has been working out the implications of this ability to change the metabolism under hypoxia: Using an isotope-labeled amino acid, ". . . glutamine import and metabolism through the TCA cycle persisted under hypoxia, and glutamine contributed significantly to citrate carbons. Under glucose deprivation, glutamine-derived fumarate, malate, and citrate were significantly increased." The implication of this is that if the tumor isn't supplied with sugar, it will increase the rate at which it consumes the host's proteins. Forty years ago the work of Shapot and Blinov was showing the same effect..."

"Sugars are probably more favorable than starches for the immune system (Harris, et al., 1999), and failure of the immune system is a common feature of cancer."

“Starving for sugar causes the body to break down proteins to make glucose, weakening the organism’s resistance, providing amino acids for tumor growth, and probably providing ammonia and other things that stimulate growth and interfere with differentiation. The liberated free fatty acids in either sugar deprivation or diabetes (in which cells are starved for glucose) stimulate tumor growth.”

If what you say is true, I need to go back to my no-sugar ways!

Ray is talking here about experimental scientific data.
Empirical data, from Max Gerson and others ( notably the very successful clinical results of treating cancer with hydrazine sulfate, which prevents the liver reconverting lactic acid to glucose) contradict him.

If you had cancer, which advice would you follow ?

The ones from Max Gerson, who spent 25 years treating cancer through diet, very successfully, or Peat's, who reads scientific literature but hasn't actually applied ( as far as i know) to cancer patients his theoretical data ?

I'm not slamming the door on Peat here ( god knows you can never do this with his writtings) but i would need to see the results of his sugar diet on cancer patients before i consider it.

 

[tara]

@burtlancast
From the little I thought I knew about the Gerson diet, I didn't think it eliminated glucose, but it does involve getting most of the glucose along with some fructose and a lot of vitamins and minerals? Doesn't it use a lot of fresh vege juices as a major component of calories? These would have some fructose and some glucose, like fruit juices, right? It's a low fat and lowish protein diet, too, so most calories come from carbs, of which significantly glucose?

 

[burtlancast]

Correct.
The diet allows for potatoes, carrot juice, fruits, etc...all rich in starches/ fructose.
It's only the pure, concentrated sugar form (sacchararose) that's forbidden, due to the direct observation of it causing the tumors to grow back.

 

[jyb]

The ones from Max Gerson, who spent 25 years treating cancer through diet, very successfully, or Peat's, who reads scientific literature but hasn't actually applied ( as far as i know) to cancer patients his theoretical data ?

I'm not slamming the door on Peat here ( god knows you can never do this with his writtings) but i would need to see the results of his sugar diet on cancer patients before i consider it.

I understand your point, but then if you want to use a more data driven treatment then you need to check the accuracy of the data. How can one check that Gerson's data is good? The number of treatments, the number of recoveries, existence of any patient/cancer type bias, placebo control (chemo is bad so doing nothing might be fine for some cancers), etc.

I'm sure many books and testimonials have been written. I'm sure I can find many great testimonials about chemotherapy too. So, how did you go about accessing the raw sources and checking its accuracy?

 

[burtlancast]

I've read the original book "A cancer therapy: results of 50 cases" , written in 1958 by Max.
It contains the totality of the therapy, plus the medical records of 50 recovered incurable patients ( with the original x-rays, pathology reports, etc...)

Now, there a few more books to read, notably his biography which doesn't leave many doubts on whether he cured these people, or whether he was railroaded out of the profession.

His observations about which foods feed the cancer still stand today. One point that was always strange to me was the flaxseed vs other fats thing; Max believed in the essentiality of PUFAS (apparently) and tried all his life different fats and oils to give his patients: he wrote he could never find a single one that wouldn't make the cancer grow back.

So he cured all his patients by restricting fats for 1.5 years !
Which of course is kind of strange, since he supposedly restricts an essential nutrient from being eaten, yet is still able to recover people to health !

Now, just before his death, he allegedly found flaxseed wouldn't make the tumors grow. Charlotte still uses it, but has been unable to explain to this day why only flaxseed, and not the other oils/fats is good for cancer, and how one can restrict an essential nutrient for 1.5 years and still cure all these hundreds of people !

When i read Peat's articles about vegetable oils being toxic ( and how animals incorporated them into their bodyfat) it made a light in my head turn bright.

It remained to understand why flaxseed didn't make the tumors grow despite being rich in PUFAS: the answer is it contained CBD ( 2009 discovery by Polish scientists) which shrinks tumors, as well as linmarin, which is a cyanide compound that works the same as laetrile against cancers.

The word is his secretary stole the first draft of the book, and poisoned him with arsenic in his morning coffee. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

[tara]

One point that was always strange to me was the flaxseed vs other fats thing; Max believed in the essentiality of PUFAS (apparently) and tried all his life different fats and oils to give his patients: he wrote he could never find a single one that wouldn't make the cancer grow back.

So he cured all his patients by restricting fats for 1.5 years !
Which of course is kind of strange, since he supposedly restricts an essential nutrient from being eaten, yet is still able to recover people to health !

This doesn't seem strange to me, considering that even that the serious proponents of EFAs say that the amounts required are very small, that most people have excessive stores of it that will presumably be released and could be recycled if needed, and that all those vegetables and fruits would supply the small amount considered essential. Unless Gerson thought large amounts were required regularly?

 

[tara]

Correct.
The diet allows for potatoes, carrot juice, fruits, etc...all rich in starches/ fructose.
It's only the pure, concentrated sugar form (sacchararose) that's forbidden, due to the direct observation of it causing the tumors to grow back.

Ta. So no highly refined sugars like table sugar (sucrose). What about mollases? Honey?
Did he completely restrict all animal products, or were there exceptions, eg for smalll amounts of liver, or quark, or eggs? (Am I right that it was Budwig, not Gerson, who used the quark and flaxseed combination?)
No coconut oil or cocoa butter?

 

[narouz]

Correct.
The diet allows for potatoes, carrot juice, fruits, etc...all rich in starches/ fructose.
It's only the pure, concentrated sugar form (sacchararose) that's forbidden, due to the direct observation of it causing the tumors to grow back.

Ta. So no highly refined sugars like table sugar (sucrose). What about mollases? Honey?
Did he completely restrict all animal products, or were there exceptions, eg for smalll amounts of liver, or quark, or eggs? (Am I right that it was Budwig, not Gerson, who used the quark and flaxseed combination?)
No coconut oil or cocoa butter?

Didn't Gerson use liver juice?

 

[burtlancast]

Guys, nearly all Gerson books are online, as well as the video presentations by Charlotte Gerson on how to do the Gerson therapy at home.

 

[narouz]

Guys, nearly all Gerson books are online, as well as the video presentations by Charlotte Gerson on how to do the Gerson therapy at home.

A couple of times in radio interviews
I have heard Peat say that the original Gerson therapy
was a "rational" anti-cancer approach.
I mean, he didn't seem to be endorsing it in all respects
or saying it was ideal necessarily.
Just that it had, in his view, some "rational" elements.

He framed the PUFA aspect of the Gerson therapy this way:
he said the ingestion of a large amount--like a cup or so--of PUFA oil, flaxseed I think,
on an empty stomach
would effectively be a purge or intense laxative,
and, Peat said, in that kind of an application
none--or very little--of the PUFA would be absorbed.

 

[YuraCZ]

 

[Parsifal]

Ray is talking here about experimental scientific data.
Empirical data, from Max Gerson and others ( notably the very successful clinical results of treating cancer with hydrazine sulfate, which prevents the liver reconverting lactic acid to glucose) contradict him.

If you had cancer, which advice would you follow ?

The ones from Max Gerson, who spent 25 years treating cancer through diet, very successfully, or Peat's, who reads scientific literature but hasn't actually applied ( as far as i know) to cancer patients his theoretical data ?

I'm not slamming the door on Peat here ( god knows you can never do this with his writtings) but i would need to see the results of his sugar diet on cancer patients before i consider it.

Have you read this? https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/th ... ainscough/

Also have you ever heard about Dr. André Gernez?

 

[Parsifal]

I'd consider something like lots of fruit and vege juices, high brix organic as much as possible, high minerals, enough oyster shell or similar calcium sources to keep pH up around 6.7-6.8, erring to the alkaline rather than the acid. I'd consider dropping meat, other than possibly occasional liver (I'd read more widely on this).

Why would you drop meat? How could you get enough proteins without meat?

 

[tara]

post 99968 Why would you drop meat?

As a temporary measure, Gerson-inspired, I'd consider it.

post 99968 How could you get enough proteins without meat?

Good question. Get serious about quality fruit and veges? Not sure about gelatine. I'd be looking into it a bit more if it arises. I'm not going to do something like this preventatively all the time.

 

[Amazoniac]

@haidut
I know that it must be difficult as a future supercentenarian to answer this, but what would you do if you discovered that you have cancer? And what would you not do?

 

[tankasnowgod]

I have two close friends that are dealing with cancer. In both cases it has spread. One has lung cancer with mets to the bone and vocal cord. The other had breast cancer which went into remission with the typical mainstream treatment of poison, burn, cut but eventually came back with lesions in the bone and liver. My friend with lung cancer did not discover she had it until it had already spread. She is dealing with pain and pain medication side effects. She is a fighter and is opting to try chemo and radiation. My other friend is already well into chemo and radiation. It saddens me to see the changes in their vitality. The medications and treatments take a terrible toll!

Following the Peat diet recommendations, we all hope to avoid this kind of diagnosis but if, god forbid, it happened to you...what would you do? There are some brilliant minds on this forum and I would love to know your thoughts.

Here is what I would do, personally.

First, I would tell whoever diagnosed me, that I understand I am going to die someday, and I don't fear this fact. This is actually something I have thought about for a while, and I really don't fear death itself. A much bigger fear of mine is the chronic pain that can precede death, and a loss of mental and/or physical abilities. Much better, in my opinion, to have a relatively quick and painless death, than a long, drawn out one where you slowly waste away.

I would listen to their recommendations (which would likely include standard chemo and radiation), and likely reject them. I would demand references and studies for any and all of their recommendations. I would also demand a full iron panel, full thyroid panel, full androgen panel, and full stress hormone panel (at minimum). If they refused to do this, I would pay for the panel myself.

I would then research the BEJEEZUS out of whatever kind of cancer I had. Pubmed, Case Studies, Alternative Treatments, This Forum, Clinical Trials, second opinions, you name it, I would look into it. I'm sure a lot of it I would reject, but no doubt I would learn something interesting. I have no doubt than within a week or two, I would be more knowledgeable about whatever kind of cancer I had than pretty much any doctor I would meet.

Things I know I would look into right off the top of my head would be- increasing thyroid, aspirin, Vitamin E, K2 and biotin (already using these), make sure my ferritin levels are near deficiency (I donate blood for this reason currently), maybe do a couple rounds of IV vitamin C (risks and cost are minimal, benefits potentially huge), and analyze diet big time. Since I think Estrogen is a big part of most cancers, I would probably be doing some sort of DHT supplementation or Aromatase inhibitor, or both. I would also be looking into antibiotics. I believe a combination of antibiotics and an iron chelation drug (like desferal) has worked great in reducing tumors.

If I were in serious pain and really didn't think, after all I had looked into, that the outlook was good, a I would probably opt for a Kevorkian type option. But understand, this would really be a last resort.

Edit- The "Move to a low stress Tropical Island" option also sounds delightful.