The Budwig protocol is, simply, an attempt to cure all types of cancer by eating things like cottage cheese, flaxseed oil, and various fruits and vegetables. While a healthful diet is a wonderful thing, the Budwig protocol simply does not cure cancer. Thinking it will is adopting cancer quackery and turns curable cancer into an about certain death sentence.
Regrettably, I engaged in a discussion with a devoted Christian family (not people who regularly attend my church). This family had a member who had a probably curable (by scientific medicine) type of cancer, but the person with the cancer decided to reject scientific medicine and instead go with the Budwig protocol. These people then proceeded to claim that God led them to do this (He did nothing of the kind), that God had given them assurance that He was going to heal the person with the cancer, and that He had led them to embrace the Budwig protocol. They then started to explain how wonderful the Budwig method was and how it was working very well. Since I did not want other people to follow these devoted Christian people in their rejection of scientific medicine for quackery, I engaged in a written discussion over this subject. The family stated that they had been “led” by God to reject scientific medicine after watching “The Truth About Cancer,” a series by a body-builder on YouTube that has received millions of views. This Youtube video series is absolutely filled with untruth about cancer and very, very little truth about cancer. The six-part series “Untruths About Cancer: 10 Common Lies Espoused by Many Unconventional “Medicine” Advocates on my website deals with many of the fallacies, lies, and distorted truths in the “Truth About Cancer” video. They eventually opted for the Budwig protocol as the unconventional “medicine” of choice to cure this precious Christian’s cancer. They claimed that the Budwig protocol cured 90% of all types of cancer. The only “proof” given for this 90% figure was the incredibly unscientific video linked to here (warning: do not believe what this video says).
Part of what I sent the people who adopted the Budwig Protocol was as follows (somewhat edited):
I hope that you have solid, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials proving that what you are doing cures cancer 90% of the time without side effects. It would be such incredibly good news. Some of the things stated give cause for concern, however. For example, the idea that the person who developed the Budwig protocol was nominated for a Nobel Prize and would have gotten it had he been willing to also use conventional scientific medicine. As far as I know, the discussions of the Nobel Committee are kept secret for 50 years, so nobody knows what they said, and anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Prize; I could nominate you for a Nobel Prize in physics if I wanted to. Are we sure that these statements about the Budwig Protocol are accurate? How did we get in on the secret discussions of the Nobel committee? Also, eating healthfully is a wonderful, wonderful thing to do, but is there a rational scientific basis for concluding that if we eat berries, cottage cheese, etc., that our bodies will start to identify cancer cells as foreign and kill them? Has this been tested the same way that conventional scientific medicine goes through rigorous testing and been found to be true? Has it been verified for the specific type of cancer that is in view here? I also wonder why non-profit organizations that would love to see cancer defeated like the American Cancer Society do not recognize that simply eating these types of food will cure 90% of cancer–if they really do.
Of course, with so much at stake in this–the very life of your dearly beloved other half–I would think that you have examined the medical journals, verified that placebo-controlled testing has taken place, looked at comprehensive reviews of multiple well-designed clinical trials, etc.
The only reasons that I am writing is because if these things are not factually accurate, other people who get cancer could, out of their great respect for you as a godly, sincere, and knowledgable Christian, conclude that they should forsake medicine scientifically proven to have the best chance of working, according to the vast majority of scientists. It would be a terrible thing if we unintentionally led others among God’s people to an early death by promoting to them things that do not work. I know several people who have rejected conventional medicine for things that did not have proof, and they are all dead now, even if they had types of cancer that had a very high chance of cure through conventional science. I can think of one situation where the death of a godly woman now leaves a probably unsaved man raising their many children because of a rejection of scientific medicine. I, at least personally, do not know a single person who clearly had a proven type of cancer who lived significantly longer through unconventional medicine than what was plausible if that person had just done nothing at all / had a placebo effect.
The second reason of concern is that we have stated that God has convinced us that this cancer is going to be cured. If we haven’t done the work to be sure that there are plausible, rational scientific explanations for why what we are doing cures cancer, and there isn’t clear evidence of it based on unbiased clinical trials, then if we are doing something that does not work, and then something that is very sad for us takes place and your precious one with cancer goes to be with the Lord, then I am concerned about the honor of God’s glorious name when we have said that this person was going to be healed.
I am sure that this is a very sensitive subject, and I cannot think of much else that could possibly touch closer to home. I thought that love for God, whose Name is at stake if we say that He is going to heal as we use means that we have said cure 90% of cancer, and love for the brethren, whose future lives may be at stake based on what we say, and love for you and your family, required me to write this letter, which I would much rather not have written.
Obviously if the “Truth About Cancer” series is what led you to not go with conventional scientific medicine, you would have carefully analyzed and been able to refute articles such as this one:
I would be interested in seeing what you had put together in response to articles such as that one before you decided to go with Budwig, etc.
Furthermore, we know that YouTube is an incredibly unreliable source of information and not a place we could trust on anything important, much less our lives. Perhaps, instead of YouTube, you could direct me to the peer-reviewed clinical trials on humans, that are independently verified, demonstrating the 90% cure rate for Budwig. Obviously someone who is a possible Nobel Prize winning scientist, as you claim the person is who developed the Budwig protocol, would have many, many such trials for her cure for cancer. For any type of cancer treatment, we absolutely must know:
1.) Does the remedy have clear, properly tested and verified cure statistics?
2.) In creating these statistics, did they verify what stage of cancer a person had (e. g., I, 2A, 3B, etc.), and that the persons supposedly cured actually did have cancer?
3.) Did they follow up on their patients to verify that they were actually cured, or was follow up spotty or nonexistent? Do they follow up on 100% of those they treat, or do they only publicize people who happen to still be alive while ignoring the rest?
4.) Do they utilize unsubstantiated testimonials about cures instead of objective testing?
5.) Have there been double-blind, placebo-controlled tests of the remedy, or only poorly designed tests, or no tests at all?
6.) Are their statistics independently verified, or are they only self-promulgated with no independent verification?
Perhaps I could be directed to the published scientific material on this that you examined, and the resources from published, independently verified trials are mentioned that you looked up and verified for yourself.
Obviously also, cancer cells are our own body’s cells where the mechanism that causes the cells to stop dividing has failed. I would be interested in knowing the scientific explanation for how eating the types of food recommended in the Budwig protocol makes our body start recognizing the cancer cells and deciding to kill them instead of not recognizing them as dangerous because they are our own cells. I have taken some college biology, etc. so I think I would be able to understand the cellular explanation. Why does eating cottage cheese, when that substance is digested, make a macrophage or some other white blood cell recognize a cancer cell as foreign when it has all of our own body’s identifying markers (as it is our own body’s cell with certain non-replicative functions disabled)?
In relation to your ozone treatments, it is true, of course, that ozone in a high enough concentration will kill cancer cells, for ozone is a dangerous pollutant that will kill any cell in our body in a high enough concentration. Ozone in a high enough concentration in our blood stream to kill cancer cells would also kill the red blood cells and so on.
Anyway, the published clinical trials that are independently verified about the 90% cure rate would be of definite interest; I would also be interested in your response to the web article referenced above.
Thanks again for sending the video on the Budwig protocol. I had the following thoughts.
1.) The video is filled with bad, incorrect grammar, painfully so, throughout the entire work. We are supposed to believe that this video provides proof of a cure for all types of cancer, although it provides no substantiation for its claims. It is so sloppy that it cannot even take the time to learn how to avoid basic grammar mistakes that a well-trained middle school student at a Christian school would notice. Should we trust it with our lives?
2.) It claimed a “90% documented success rate,” but did not define “success,” nor provide any real medical evidence. This is why we should never trust YouTube with anything as important as our lives or the lives of those whom we love. Why not cite real evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals such as at PubMed?
3.) It also provided no documentation for the “7 times Nobel Prize Nominee” claim.
4.) It claimed the Budwig protocol was “effective in all type [sic] of cancer.” There are many different types of diseases that go under the rubric of “cancer” with many different causes. There is no one cure for “all type [sic] of cancer.” Are we supposed to trust the unsubstantiated claims of this video with our lives or the lives of loved ones when the video does not even contain proper English?
5.) The video is filled with egregious scientific errors and failures to understand science. It would take pages to describe them all. I believe that a discussion of this video with any family practitioner trained in scientific medicine, that is, with an M. D., would be able to point out huge numbers of errors. For example, 4 minutes in the video claims that Ms. Budwig discovered a “yellow green” substance in an (unspecified) number of patients in an (unspecified) location at an (unspecified) time. The video does not state what this substance is. Wouldn’t that be kind of important? It then states that these (unspecified) patients began to improve after three months, and thus “Dr. Budwig had found her cure for cancer”! Anything can happen to someone for three months. Real science employs repeatable trials with much larger numbers of people over a much longer periods of time with much better documentation, rather than claiming a cure for all types of cancer based on what allegedly happened to unspecified people in an unrepeatable setting for three months based on an unspecified and mysterious “yellow green” substance. Another example—the video claims that sauerkraut is “full of enzymes” (7:55) that allegedly help to cure cancer, but the video does not mention the fact that our stomach digests and breaks down all enzymes that we eat and then our bodies make their own enzymes, so it does not matter if sauerkraut has enzymes. At 8:55, the video claims that Muesli has “high energy electrons” that “attract . . . healing photons from sun [sic].” That type of food has no more high energy electrons than any other type of food, and electrons do not attract photons, much less “healing photons from [“the” missing] sun,” whatever “healing photons” supposedly are. A single class in undergraduate chemistry or physics would make this claim clearly appear to be nonsense. Furthermore, “sugar is absolutely forbidden” (16:45), but then honey and various other things that have exactly the same chemical compounds as table sugar are permitted.
6.) 8 minutes in the video claims that clinical studies have regularly confirmed this allegedly 90% cure rate for all types of cancer by eating cottage cheese, being in the sun, and so on. Why doesn’t it cite even one of them, then?
7.) The statement of what allegedly causes the Budwig protocol to work at 15:23 is simply utter scientific nonsense. If she actually wrote it, then she also cannot even write simple English grammar, and the science of this affirmation is worse and far more dangerous than the grammar.
8.) At 15:58 the fact that Ms. Budwig “favors homeopathy” as a cure for disease should be a dead giveaway that her “cancer cure” is fraudulent. Homeopathy is drinking water—nothing but water, as it is so dilute that not a single molecule of anything else is in most homeopathic “treatments.” See http://faithsaves.net/medicine/. Anyone who thinks homeopathy does a single positive thing has no understanding of science or medicine.
9.) The most important fact to be taken away is that all there is not a single piece of actual evidence given in the entire video. The claims of cures are entirely and utterly unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the clearly erroneous health claims, clear scientific errors, ideas that, if they were true, would require that simple elementary biology, chemistry, and physics are all wrong, and an inability simply to speak English evidence that it is extremely dangerous to rely upon this sort of sloppy YouTube misinformation in any way. This video is crying out “health fraud.”
I am sorry that I have to draw this conclusion from the video. If we follow the recommendations of this video, we should conclude that we are not more likely to be cured of cancer than if we do nothing at all. God can heal against means, but 99%+ of the time He uses means. The recommendations of this video are a placebo “treatment” for cancer. The video is a clear example of why we must not trust YouTube instead of scientific medical professionals and scientifically validated and proven medicine to treat life-threatening disease. I would be very fearful to promote the “cure” for cancer mentioned in this video by Ms. Budwig to thousands of saints of God, knowing that out of love and respect for us they may adopt this placebo “treatment” when they are in a bad spot and could die instead of being cured of cancer.
I am sorry if my comments come across as harsh. That is not my intention. This is a matter of life or death, potentially for many of the people of God who can follow our example. Otherwise it would not be so important.
You also sent me a second Youtube video, “How Shannon beat Stage 4 breast cancer.” Warning: do not believe what this video says. The following thoughts came to me in relation to this video.
1.) If what Shannon is saying is accurate, the hospital she went to had very poorly trained workers. Also, getting her medical records is a great idea, and I’m all for it.
2.) There is no way to know or verify what she is saying actually happened to her. She says in the video that she had extensive radiation treatment and also drank juices and so on. She says it was not the radiation that helped with the cancer but the juices and other unconventional remedies, but all we have is her unsubstantiated word on that.
3.) Before scientific medicine makes claims, it goes through rigorous testing, something like: “80% of patients with stage III breast cancer lived 10 years or more after receiving treatment X, while only 10% lived 10 years or more when they did not, while all other treatment features were the same, verified for 10,000 people over a 20 year study.” What one person says happened to her is not a wise way to judge something that can put our life at stake. Before getting on an airplane, we would want to know that the engine prototype has been rigorously and extensively tested, that the plane wings have been rigorously tested, etc. We would not want one person to say, “Yep, I flew in it and it worked for me for a while.” Why would we do this with cancer treatments when we don’t do it with airplanes?
4.) She claims that it has been three years since she was allegedly cured by doing all the stuff she was doing. Cancer cure claims are not made for three year time periods–it is too short. How do we know she has no cancer?
5.) She seems like a nice lady, but anyone can put anything on Youtube. I can make a Youtube video where I interview my wife and we both say that we had stage 4 cancer and were cured by singing carols to the full moon. We don’t even have verification that this lady had cancer. I’m not saying that she didn’t, but that we can’t base anything on Youtube.
6.) She does not appear to have her facts very straight; she claimed, for example that cancer in the lymph nodes is by definition stage III, when it could be stage II, not stage III. Do we know that she even can tell what the four stages are, and if not, can we trust her that she had stage four cancer?
7.) Among all the unconventional remedies she proposes, she does not push the Budwig protocol, which the other video claimed, without proof, to have a 90% cure rate. If the Budwig protocol really has a 90% cure rate, why push all these other things? Are they all better than 90%?
8.) She claims that cancer can be caused by things like having one’s pet die and feeling sad. She said that she was robbed and that was a big part of why she got cancer. Is there evidence that people who have pets die and feel sad get cancer because of that? Does she have evidence that getting robbed and so on results in one getting cancer? The video even said people can get cancer because they get divorced. Divorce causes cancer? The video said feeling shame causes cancer. So listening to convicting preaching from the Bible that leads to people feeling ashamed of their sins causes cancer? Is there evidence for this? Is this real science or crazy quackery?
9.) She talked a lot about the immune system, but never specified how doing what she recommends makes the body identify cancer cells as foreign. For example, when we develop antibodies to, say, one strain of the common cold, the antibodies attach to the foreign cells and then the macrophages, etc. destroy them. Cancer cells are our own body’s cells that have begun to multiply out of control. Our immune system does not recognize them as foreign because they are not foreign. Why doesn’t she specify exactly how what she is recommending leads to our body recognizing cancer cells as foreign if it actually works?
10.) She says many cancer clinics in Mexico are doing wonderful things. This reminded me of something I wrote here:
after another Christian opted to reject scientific medicine and went to the Oasis of Hope unconventional medical clinic in Mexico. (The person is now dead, not having lived any longer than if nothing at all had been done, although the Mexican clinic now has the family’s inheritance, not the heirs.) Based on the link above, should we trust clinics in Mexico?
11.) She promotes the “Truth About Cancer” video which, as mentioned before, is filled with extremely dangerous misinformation; see, again:
12.) She promotes a different series of videos called “Quest for Cures,” which is also filled with misinformation. Interestingly, I read about this very series a year or more ago, and would highly encourage the reading of the “Untruths about Cancer” series here:
Untruths About Cancer: 10 Common Lies Espoused by Many Unconventional “Medicine” Advocates, Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6
13.) What the video promotes, such as laetrile, does not cure cancer. See, e. g., here:
The cancer “treatments” promoted in the video do not cure cancer.
14.) The video even said that doing what she did cures HIV as well as cancer. Does she really have evidence for this also? Why doesn’t she do real clinical trials in countries where there are people dropping dead right and left from HIV? Couldn’t the multi-billion dollar unconventional treatment industry fund a few well-designed clinical trials in, say, sub-Saharan Africa and prove that everyone is cured of HIV by drinking juice and so on?
15.) She claims that doctors know nothing about nutrition, but a survey of the 126 accredited medical schools in the USA revealed that the overwhelming majority did teach nutrition, although some did not do as much as could be desired. There is a huge difference between some doctors not taking as many courses in nutrition as would be ideal and saying that doctors receive no training in nutrition. The former is true, the latter totally false.
16.) Near the end of the video, horrible statements were made claiming that we cannot make our decisions based on statistics about cures from different types of scientific, verified studies. The affirmation was made that all of these were doctored and faked statistics. Does she have proof of this? There are actually strong safeguards in place to watch against what the video says is the case for all scientific cancer studies. We are allegedly, then, just to do what we feel will work and reject scientific studies of what works because all the science is allegedly corrupt. This rejection of scientific clinical trials is very dangerous and she should have very, very powerful evidence that thousands and thousands of trials, in thousands of places, with thousands and thousands of medical professionals, with all sorts of contradictory vested interests, in both for-profit settings, non-profit settings, and competing educational institutions, and so on, are all conspiring to corrupt all the trials that they are doing. Is this really possible? Why doesn’t she produce proof of it instead of mere assertions?
There is a lot more that can be said, but the bottom line is that the video contains:
a.) Major misinformation and misrepresentation;
b.) Crazy ideas like that having one’s pet die and feeling sad can lead to a person getting cancer;
c.) Zero real evidence that any of the ideas promoted actually cures cancer;
d.) Contradictory ideas to the Budwig video, unless all the other ideas promoted in this video do better then 90% at curing all kinds of cancer. What is actually recommended here does not agree with what is actually recommended in the other video. The only thing they agree on is to reject scientific medical treatments. Could all these other ideas all be equally promoted as an alternative because all of them are no better or minimally better than a placebo, and none of them have any real evidence for them?
I’m sure we both agree that if we are commending treatments to thousands of God’s saints, recognizing that they might adopt our recommendations when they get cancer, we should be very, very sure that we are promoting what is true, so that the people of God will live and not die early. We do not want people to die because they have received placebos when they forsook proven science and adopted unconventional remedies for cancer.
Unfortunately, the family to whom I sent these communications did not listen, but continued to promote the Budwig protocol to vast numbers of people and gave testimony about how great it was–at least for a little while, about as long as one would be OK having cancer and doing nothing at all or following a placebo “treatment.” Then the precious and devoted Christian who had the type of cancer that was probably curable by scientific medicine died, not having lived any longer than one could live with nothing but a placebo.
The Budwig video’s lie about curing 90% of all cancers remains on Youtube, of course, as do the other videos that these poor deluded Christians placed their trust in and promoted to many, many others. The death toll will, doubtless, continue to rise even higher among those who continue to trust YouTube videos with their lives and reject scientific medicine based on the Biblical scientific method (Genesis 1:26-28) in favor of quackery.
Whatever your state–whether you have cancer or not–please read Do You Know You Have Eternal Life? by clicking here.
And science has also 'proven' that global warming and evolution are facts. It is so sad to see you put so much weight on corrupt science, and big Pharma funded university studies. Chemo and radiation are a multi-billion dollar revenue for pharma. And they are killers for many many people. As a Christian, open your eyes to the desperate condition of the western world's health (caused by our food supply choices) and the devil's place in it. Here is a very simple statistic for you. If you get 6 CAT scans (radiation) in your lifetime, you are 6 times more likely to get cancer. You lambaste honest Christian folks for trying to go an alternate route than the big cancer machine. Have grace and let people decide what they want to do with their own lives.
Since we rejected the western diet, as a family, we realize how much better our minds function, and how much we were finding our satisfaction in food (processed food) instead of the Lord and family, etc. Eating wholesomely doesn't give the same fleshly satisfaction. I definitely see the devil's work in that regard.
All in all, they are just your own bias opinions. Not well researched, but simply your own opinion, just like the stupid judge that rerejectedTrump's executive order.
I know it’s been a long time since you left this comment but what this guy is saying is 100% right and any REAL oncologist in the USA would confirm that. I personally am not even a very religious person but have also looked over “The truth about cancer” and the “Chris beat cancer” YouTube videos. They are promoting nonsense and YouTube even recently deleted the channels from the Bollingers. It might all be protected free speech but just because the Bollingers call themselves Christians doesn’t mean they are telling the truth. Whether they really believe what they are selling is legitimate or not isn’t really even the most important part of this. If any REAL doctor could spend 5 minutes skimming their stuff and say they are promoting anti-reality BS then if you had any sense you would trust their professional opinion. Don’t be one of the Christians that causes non-religious people to believe it’s common for a Christian to not be in touch with reality when it comes to something as deadly as cancer.
Dear Kathrine,
Please give me the solid facts explaining how eating cottage cheese, etc. can cure cancer. Does the Budwig protocol:
1.) Does the remedy have clear, properly tested and verified cure statistics?
2.) In creating these statistics, did they verify what stage of cancer a person had (e. g., I, 2A, 3B, etc.), and that the persons supposedly cured actually did have cancer?
3.) Did they follow up on their patients to verify that they were actually cured, or was follow up spotty or nonexistent? Do they follow up on 100% of those they treat, or do they only publicize people who happen to still be alive while ignoring the rest?
4.) Do they utilize unsubstantiated testimonials about cures instead of objective testing?
5.) Have there been double-blind, placebo-controlled tests of the remedy, or only poorly designed tests, or no tests at all?
6.) Are their statistics independently verified, or are they only self-promulgated with no independent verification?
I trust that you have this evidence and that is why you said that my post is "just your own bias [sic] opinions."
I trust that you are also aware that CAT scans are not designed to get rid of cancer but to identify where it is in the body, and that medical science recognizes that one should not have unnecessary CAT scans–all of which is totally irrelevant to the Budwig Protocol.
KJB is illogical here. He's great with red herrings. This lady did not say or imply that she had evidence that Budwig is always good, but she did imply that TDR did not have evidence that it should never be used. It's his opinion – No one who's studied theory of knowledge could deny that.
Tell me, if in, say, 1750 one developed a malignancy, what should they have done for treatment? What does TDR think would have been Biblically allowed? If one heard of three herbs by hearsay that were purported to cure some similar cases would that be okay or must he try a risky surgery? How about 1760, 1770, etc.? When and why exactly did it become unequivocally wrong? When did modernism get such control that it become okay for those of us who've not faced a certain disease to dogmatically hold forth on what a sufferer's treatment options should be?
As another thread put it, with admittedly tortured grammar, "People is not cars."
Paul Teague
Dear Paul,
Please tell me what types of cancer eating cottage cheese cures (and so when the Budwig Protocol should be used), and what your evidence is for it curing this type or types of cancer. Apparently you believe it is illogical to say that eating cottage cheese, etc. never cures cancer, so please tell me what type of cancer it cures and explain the biological mechanism for how it works with clear specifics. Please answer the following questions in your explanation:
1.) Does the remedy have clear, properly tested and verified cure statistics?
2.) In creating these statistics, did they verify what stage of cancer a person had (e. g., I, 2A, 3B, etc.), and that the persons supposedly cured actually did have cancer?
3.) Did they follow up on their patients to verify that they were actually cured, or was follow up spotty or nonexistent? Do they follow up on 100% of those they treat, or do they only publicize people who happen to still be alive while ignoring the rest?
4.) Do they utilize unsubstantiated testimonials about cures instead of objective testing?
5.) Have there been double-blind, placebo-controlled tests of the remedy, or only poorly designed tests, or no tests at all?
6.) Are their statistics independently verified, or are they only self-promulgated with no independent verification?
In 1750–or 1850–a Christian mother could have given her baby cough syrup that was chock-full of heroin–yes, heroin–and it would not have been a sin since the mother did not realize what she was doing to her child, even if he was dead in the morning. Heroin was a common ingredient in cough syrup, and there was often a lot of it in there. Now that science has progressed, it is a sin for a mother to give her baby heroin to stop him from coughing. It is unequivocally wrong to give children heroin, and it became wrong as soon as the evidence was in that heroin is a bad treatment for the cough. In 2017 it is also very clear that eating cottage cheese doesn't cure cancer, so it is unequivocally wrong for a person to kill himself or herself in violation of the 6th commandment by refusing to get real medicine for treatable cancer while trusting in the Budwig Protocol instead. It violates the teaching of James 5 that requires getting the best medicine available (see the study of James 5 here: http://faithsaves.net/medicine/). Repeating "people is [sic] not cars, people is [sic] not cars" does not change the facts nor the violation of the sixth commandment's requirement that we seek to preserve life.
Please answer questions #1-6 above if you are going to justify using the Budwig protocol to cure any type of cancer at any time, or if you refuse to do this, please explain why you don't care if the Budwig protocol works, while you have said zero words condemning it as a cancer treatment, but numbers of words condemning me for exposing it as a fraud. Also, if you refuse to answer questions #1-6, please let me know how many more people need to be dead because they believed the lie of the Budwig Protocol before answering questions #1-6 begins to matter.
I trust that you will actually answer these questions, instead of ignoring the content of my post while attacking me as "illogical," "great with red herrings," etc. If you go after me more, or refuse to answer these questions but bring up other irrelevant things, it will be tell-tale.
Thanks.
Knowing next to nothing about Budwig (although her book is a few steps or one library nook from where I sit), I take no position thereon. Asking one who has taken no position on a subject these sorts of questions is absurd! Must we, no matter how uninformed (i'm not asserting this means you), have an opinion on everything? That's my reason for not answering.
Bringing up the cough syrup was a classic! Bravo! How did we get there? (or does your final sentence bar me from objecting to your red herrings?)
Paul Teague
Dear Paul,
If you know next to nothing about the Budwig protocol, then why are you criticizing me for exposing it as a fraud?
Please answer my questions in my previous comment.
Thanks.
i thought I had clearly written in reference to your questions that I do not know.
Congratulations! You've stumped me on this oddball "treatment"! Ergo, everything you write is absolute truth!
RED HERRING!!!!!
And by the way, you're wrong about heroin! Factually incorrect! Just like you ignored Washington University's study on Golden Rice's safety
From the article https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/
"Even if genetic modification succeeds in creating a strain of rice productive enough for poor farmers to grow successfully, it’s unclear how much impact the rice will have on children’s health.
As Stone and Glover point out, it is still unknown if the beta carotene in Golden Rice can even be converted to Vitamin A in the bodies of badly undernourished children. There also has been little research on how well the beta carotene in Golden Rice will hold up when stored for long periods between harvest seasons, or when cooked using traditional methods common in remote rural locations, they argue.
Meanwhile, as the development of Golden Rice creeps along, the Philippines has managed to slash the incidence of Vitamin A deficiency by non-GMO methods, Stone said."
Much of what you wrote contradicts the research of Stone and Glover. You were wrong in two instances on health! Will you correct? Should you be trusted that Budwig never works? Let the reader judge!
Paul
Dear Paul,
So, to be clear, in a post on the Budwig Protocol you have provided not a cintilla of evidence that it does anything at all to stop cancer, but you have attacked me for saying that one should not use the Budwig Protocol to stop cancer, and you have refused to say that one should not use it to stop cancer. Instead, you have defended it in the best way someone who has no evidence at all that it works can–by attacking me, the messenger.
Instead of providing evidence for the Budwig Protocol, you have talked about other things that were not what the post was about–while saying I was the one doing this: "RED HERRING !!!!!"
By the way, I highly suspect that you did not read the actual study that the web link you provided summarized. Also, it does not look like you even read the webpage very carefully, as it said exactly nothing about golden rice being unsafe, much less that it should not be used. It said that rolling out the rice has not gone perfectly smoothly and research is still underway, which is something totally different. And yes, of course there are other ways to avoid malnutrition–if these people were as wealthy as people in the first world, then they could eat a balanced diet and be healthy, but they aren't in the first world. If people in the Philippines become more wealthy and can afford to buy more types of food, they will not be malnourished.
If you refuse to deal with the actual content of the post, I am not planning to reply again. So go ahead–write about something else, attack me some more, say that what I write is a "RED HERRING !!!!!" while you don't talk about what the post is actually about, and refuse to say how many more people need to die from the Budwig Protocol before you will oppose it. I probably won't reply, so here is your chance. Go ahead, attack me some more and try to stand up for the Budwig Protocol without giving any evidence for it. Just be aware that if anyone listens to you and goes with the Budwig Protocol you will have part of the responsibility for their death. Blood will be on your hands.
One final thing: In order to encourage people to reject the evidence that the Budwig Protocol is a scam and encourage them to die of cancer by rejecting real medicine for Budwig, you wrote:
"Should you be trusted that Budwig never works? Let the reader judge!."
The idea that whether a medical treatment works or not is based on whether one trusts the person who puts a blog post together is total nonsense. It is as silly as watching YouTube videos to figure out what cancer treatments work. Whether I am as godly as John the Baptist or whether I am an ax murderer who is secretly working with the Taliban (or perhaps, to go with the conspiratorial mindset of so many people who reject scientific medicine, if I am part of the Big Pharma Conspiracy that somehow all the unconventional medical people know about but about which the hard evidence just does not materialize, and am making millions in bribes in order to make people not eat cottage cheese and so suppress their supposed "healing photons" and thus cause them to die of cancer) does not change the fact that there is no evidence that the Budwig Protocol works. Of course you should not trust me about whether or not the Budwig Protocol works. The fact simply is that there is no evidence–evidence–that it works, and that is what matters, not whether I am as godly as the Apostle John or as evil as Hitler. Trust the evidence. That's the scientific method that is a necessary consequence of the Dominion Mandate in Genesis 1.
There, Paul, I'm done. Go ahead and attack me some more. Put in some more all caps and exclamation points. I probably won't reply unless you present real, concrete evidence for the Budwig Protocol and actually answer my questions.
50 years ago, one in sixteen people got cancer. Currently one in three people will get cancer in their lifetime. Out of those that do get cancer, two out of three will be dead in 5 years or less. Our food is what gives us cancer, and our food can prevent and reverse cancer. Chemo drugs provide big Pharma 7 billion in revenue per year, while all cancer drugs together total 50 Billion in revenue. The AMA lobbied to make it a felony for a physician to prescribe anything other than pharmaceutical drugs. They have systematically outlawed most natural remedies used for centuries by traditional people groups, In the guise of 'protecting' the masses. Protecting their profits, more like it, as nature's (God's) remedies don't cost $70,000. So before you slash, burn, or poison yourself, do not be afraid to educate youself on remedies that many thousands have used and many hundreds have fought to try and keep them available. Get off the North American Cancer diet. You owe it to youself, your family, and to God to stay healthy as long as you can to preach the gospel. Cancer patients die by the droves. I just spoke with a 40 something man the other day. He had had lymphoma, which he said he was healed from through chemo. Unfortunately for him, he also said he got all the side effects from the chemo that they said he might get. Diabetes, high blood pressure, allergies, exzema, and overall ill health. Thank God we have options and information and folks willing to stand against such a lucrative killing machine. Budwig is a start and clearly there is FAR more to it than cottage cheese. Shame on you, Mr Brandenburg for being a part of the fear-mongering big pharma machine, and for trying to make honest folks feel stupid for trying to heal themselves naturally.
Dear Kathryn,
Your stats are not accurate, but it is true that in, say, 1900 fewer people as a percentage of the population died of cancer–they died of things like polio that we now have vaccines for (developed by pharmaceutical companies–what a blessing). When infant and child mortality was much higher people did not live long enough to die of cancer.
Eating healthfully is great, but the Budwig Protocol doesn't cure cancer. Perhaps you missed the questions I asked you. Here they are again:
Does the Budwig Protocol:
1.) Does the remedy have clear, properly tested and verified cure statistics?
2.) In creating these statistics, did they verify what stage of cancer a person had (e. g., I, 2A, 3B, etc.), and that the persons supposedly cured actually did have cancer?
3.) Did they follow up on their patients to verify that they were actually cured, or was follow up spotty or nonexistent? Do they follow up on 100% of those they treat, or do they only publicize people who happen to still be alive while ignoring the rest?
4.) Do they utilize unsubstantiated testimonials about cures instead of objective testing?
5.) Have there been double-blind, placebo-controlled tests of the remedy, or only poorly designed tests, or no tests at all?
6.) Are their statistics independently verified, or are they only self-promulgated with no independent verification?
I trust that you have this evidence and that is why you said that my post is "just your own bias [sic] opinions" and now that I should be ashamed of warning people about the Budwig Protocol. Please answer these questions before talking about wild conspiracy theories. Thanks.
Sorry, can't see any initials in these posts.
Great, now someone has 1.8-2% better chance of surviving. Incredible pharma cures going on.
Shame on you Thomas Ross for being a part of the fear-mongering Big Pharma machine.
Look at the bottom of the post. TDR is Thomas D. Ross. I am KAB, Kent A. Brandenburg.
Last year was the first year that life expectancy went down in the U.S. since 1993. The biggest contributing factor IMO is poverty. However, it wasn't cancer mortality that caused life expectancy to go down. Cancer mortality is shrinking according to statistics.
Overall cancer death rates decreased during 2003-2012 by:
An average of 1.8 percent per year for men
An average of 1.4 percent per year for women
An average of 2 percent per year for people ages 0 to 19.
This is at cancer.gov.
Why are cancer rates going down?
There seems to be a reading comprehension issue here. This Paul typing this has never defended "Budwig". Never. Read it again. Not once!
Does truth matter?
Were you not the one who introduced the heroin? And I'm not allowed to point out that what you wrote is factually correct. You werent trustworthy on that subject (which,again, you introduced to this stream), yet you hold to it. So why should we believe you on "budwig"?
As to "That's the scientific method that is a necessary consequence of the Dominion Mandate in Genesis 1.", you provide no basis or foundation. Is this merely your opinion? Very dangerous idea here. Does ANY Pastor teach this? Sounds close to Bertrand Russell's positivism integrated with a Bible veneer. Maybe it's a good thing you're "done".
Paul
I have debated in my mind whether I should comment or not. I really feel compelled to comment, but after reading the other comments, I feel I may be wasting my time. Anyways, just a few of my thoughts.
I have read most of the anti-anything that isn't standard excepted medical practice articles that TDR has posted. If I didn't know better, I would conclude that modern medicine that fits his criteria is almost a god to him. I am also shocked at the callousness of his writing. I know he means well, but to confront people in this manner is more than likely not going to change the persons mind (my two cents). Where is the speech with grace that is seasoned with salt?
I have been doing some reading and research on the BUDWIG protocol. It is actually much more than just eating cottage cheese and flaxseed oil. That being said, I personally would not recommend anyone using that as their sole treatment for cancer. However, if they followed the protocol closely, they would probably see some good health benefits. This article: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/what-is-the-budwig-diet, concludes that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that the protocol works. Yet, if you read it closely, it does state that flaxseed alone has been proven to be beneficial in stopping some types of cancer cells in the lab! Unfortunately they have not been able to do more testing on humans yet.
TDR, the BUDWIG protocol could never go through all of the double blind, randomised tests that you are suggesting. It just wouldn't work. It is not a pill. It is not a synthesised material. ETC.
I personally recommend doing as much as one can handled with the professional medical field, but at the same time use the natural things that God has created to help heal and sustain our bodies. No matter how hard man tries, do you really believe they can improve through synthesising, the molecular structures of God's creation?
One more thing, I would really recommend refraining from making public judgment calls on people's salvation. What if that man, his family, or others read what you wrote? It could be very damaging to your credibility.
God Bless
Joshua
Is this some kind of pro-vaccine site? Is anyone going to say with a straight face that there is not link to the skyrocketing autism rates and vaccines?
Dear Josh,
Thanks for the comment.
It would actually be very easy to see if eating the Budwig Diet actually had a beneficial effect on cancer. All that would need to be done is to get, say, even 500 of the people who are trusting it with their lives to verify what stage of cancer they have, how faithfully they followed the diet, and how quickly they died (or didn't die if it works, which it does not).
In fact, if the people that prescribed it simply kept good medical records, one could get a lot of information.
The reason things like this aren't done is because the Budwig Protocol is based on a rejection of evidence. People will continue to die and be unable to serve the Lord as long as they continue to reject evidence in this manner. It is tragic.
Dear Anonymous,
Vaccines do not cause autism. Please see:
http://www.autism-watch.org/
https://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/immu/autism.html
Thanks.
By the way, if some people think I am horrible for writing this blog post, but even one person's life is saved by not dying of cancer, that is worthwhile.
Also, if one wants to eat a weird diet but actually does treatments for cancer that actually work, that is far better than rejecting cancer treatments that work and just eating a weird diet.
Thanks.
In my last comment, "factually correct" should read "factually incorrect" in that Thomas D. Ross was wrong about Mothers giving heroin to their children in 1750 or 1850.
What if one can't afford chemo? Is Budwig okay then? Dr. Ross?
Also, Dr. Ross criticizes me for all-caps ans exclamation points as if my use thereof was highlighting his red herring rather than my own. I am sorry for confusing him.
Should i also apologize for doing anything that hasn't been run through a published double-blind study? We wait for Mr. Ross.
Must I make a list of all he wrote about golden rice that Washington University's study disproves? He was wrong (exclamation point deleted for the easily offended)
Paul
PS If Mr. Ross has made a "public judgment call on (my) salvation", that's just sad. He should apologize. Maybe KAB should shut the comments down.
Paul
Dear Josh,
One more thing–I have no idea what you are talking about concerning a public judgment call on people being unsaved. There are people who reject scientific medicine who are saved. That is part of the tragedy. If it was only murderers, gang members, drug dealers, etc. who went with the Budwig Protocol, it would not be nearly as bad as the dear people of God dying because of believing a lie (not that we don't want the murderers, etc. to repent and be saved, of course.)
TDR,
I do not think you're horrible. I believe you mean well and have "good intentions". I don't understand why you reacted like I was attacking you (i'm sorry if something i wrote led you to this. will you forgive me?) when I was just asking for evidence. You still haven't given any.
But I wonder, if there are not 500 people on Budwig, does it follow that 5 (or 3 or 1 for that matter) could not have been helped?
Paul
Dear Josh,
Why can medical science determine by objective testing that eating more dark green leafy vegetables and less red meat, and getting regular exercise, tends to reduce the onset of certain types of cancer (but does not cure cancer if one already has it), but whether or not the Budwig Protocol cures cancer is untestable? Please explain.
This site has just proven itself to be a complete and utter fraud. The pro-Big Pharma and the pro-Cancer-Industrial complex and the completely looney-tunes comments such as "vaccines don't cause autism" are just too much to even remotely take this site with a hint of credibility. But here's the rub, I don't think the owner of this site can claim to be as utterly naive as he looks. I find it hard to believe that anyone with a hint of honesty and intelligence could honesty believe this. I think this is an act. Was the owner of this site threatened in some way that he must not tell the truth about health on the site? Is it financial? Is he being paid to promote Big Pharma and the cancer-industrial complex? Anyone have any ideas?
Dear Mr. Blog owner,
I like some of the stuff on your site. We all know you are not below in intelligence. That's why it is such a mystery why you promote the lies you have on your site concerning vaccines being harmless and not causing autism and why you are pro big-pharma. We are sorry if someone has threatened your life if you tell the truth. Wouldn't you feel better if you didn't give in to fear and were honest with us instead? Can you at least give us a hint why you are trying to pull off this charade? It would help us better understand.
Bro. Ross:
It appears you've hit the jackpot with this thread! Yikes . . .
Mr. Ross, "Josh" did not say Budwig was untestable. He wrote,
" the BUDWIG protocol could never go through all of the double blind, randomised tests that you are suggesting. It just wouldn't work".
Very different!
Paul
Dear Thomas,
Maybe I can answer all your questions/replies in one post.
First, I thank Paul for his comment above. I never said that Budwig couldn't be tested. That is not what you have previously called for. It would be great if they could do some "approved" testing to see if Budwig would slow down or even cure cancer. However as one oncologist said, "There is no cure for terminal cancer."
Two, I do not think you are horrible for writing these kind of posts. Maybe overstepping your place when you tell somebody that you think they are breaking the sixth commandment by not following your approved method of treating cancer, but not horrible.
Three, you never named anyone specifically by name, but you did publicly state, "I can think of one situation where the death of a godly woman now leaves a probably unsaved man raising their many children because of a rejection of scientific medicine." That is a public judgment call on the man's salvation without any proof or evidence for making such a claim. Does the man claim to be born again?
Four, I find it ironic that you decry any anecdotal evidence, yet you say "I, at least personally, do not know a single person who clearly had a proven type of cancer who lived significantly longer through unconventional medicine than what was plausible if that person had just done nothing at all / had a placebo effect." I actually know a man who decided not to go with the recommended cure for what he was diagnosed with, because he was told it would only prolong his life for a very short time and that extended period of time would just be complete misery. He decided to go semi-alternative for awhile, only to find out that he had been misdiagnosed by the professionals originally. He then went back to "conventional" medicine once they properly diagnosed him. This is just anecdotal, so take it for what it is worth. However, play by the same rules. Just because you personally do not know of anyone that has been helped by what you call "unconventional" medicine, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Overall, I think people need to be wise and balanced in the treatment they seek, and people (such as your self) need to be kind, caring, compassionate, prayerful, and understanding in regards to the course of treatment others choose for themselves or their family. Are some people to trusting of medicine that is not accepted by the "professionals"? YES! Are some people to trusting in the "mainstream, accepted" medical "professionals"? YES! I personally try to use all of the tools in this realm that God has provided – "conventional" and "non-conventional" (being very careful to stay clear of anything new age, superstitious, etc.)
Josh
PS: I think Tyler's comment was actually kind of funny. 🙂
Is anyone else 100% flummoxed by this post?? I don't have a clue what the Budwig protocol is, although from reading the comments, it must be a type of philosophy that says that man is responsible for his own health and can make other choices other than following the corrupt cancer-industrial complex. Is this post just a clever tactic to get us back to a theological topic and back to Calvinism? In other words, if we are sick, it's God's will, if we are well, it's God's will. We have no "choice" to "decide" to pursue or not to pursue any type of health care plan because we are all robots and man has no free will to think or do anything on his own? Is this the goal of this post? Maybe the point of this whole thread is that whether one supports the corrupt pharmaceutical-medical-complex or whether one believes in alternative philosophies, neither of them are right because everything is pre-determined ahead of time and we have no choice to do anything??? This whole thread is a mystery to me and that is just my guess.
Dear Paul,
Yes, I forgive you.
Dear Josh,
Unfortunately, there are many things that can kill cancer cells in a test tube (e. g., gasoline, ammonia, salt, etc.) that don't turn out to make effective cancer cures.
Finally, if you believe that the way that I attempted to stop a precious saint of God from being deceived by the lie of the Budwig Protocol and tragically dying of the horrible disease of cancer was not gracious enough–and doubtless my indwelling sin affects all my words, actions, etc.–I hope that when you find out that your brother or sister in Christ is going to do something like this where his/her life is going to be thrown away, his/her ability to serve God on earth is going to be gone, and relatives and the body of Christ are going to be grieving over the person's tragic and needless death, that you do not say nothing, but attempt to stop that precious blood-bought one in a way that is better than the way I did. If that is so, that is wonderful, and I am glad.
Thanks.
Dear Josh,
I wrote the above before I read your last comment. In relation to that comment, I agree that if one will only live two weeks longer (probably) and have a horrible life, one doesn't necessarily have to do what will make one live the extra two weeks.
I also agree, of course, that anecdotes prove nothing–including my own.
I would prefer not to be specific about any particular individuals who one or both or neither of us may or may not know.
Doing something like Budwig that had no evidence for it violates the principle behind the sixth commandment, well summarized as:
What are the Duties Required in the Sixth Commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.
What are the Sins Forbidden in the Sixth Commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge;all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
Exposing the Budwig Protocol is also, therefore, obedience to the Sixth Commandment.
Thanks.
Dear Bro Robbins,
I think YOU are probably getting paid off by Big Pharma too–in fact, you are probably diverting my checks, since they haven't been coming to my house, and I have been waiting and waiting and waiting.
Fact-check: Did "Josh" say that "anecdotes prove nothing"?
But, frankly the following statement has scared me, and I would guess "Josh" as well, into silence:
"I would prefer not to be specific about any particular individuals who one or both or neither of us may or may not know."
Paul
Here is an easy way to do a double blind test of the Budwig Protocol. Take this stuff that people are supposed to eat with Budwig and put it into blenders. Then put something else in other blenders that looks the same and tastes the same but is simply healthy food that doesn't cure cancer. Give half the people in the clinical trial the one and half the people the other. If the people on the Budwig diet are cured of cancer 90% of the time, then it works. If they aren't, then it doesn't work. Why hasn't something like this been done? Because the Budwig Protocol doesn't cure cancer. Proponents don't even keep track of the dead bodies piling up.
How about instead of curing cancer, we try to promote nutrition and stop people from getting sick in the first place with all the junk in the modern diet? But even so, much of the ills of modern day life can actually be cured by non-conventional methods, but you would never be told this by Big Cancer. The industry wants you to live so they can bleed you dry financially with all sorts of their treatment methods, but they don't seem to have any vested interest in actual cures.
Big Cancer and the medical-industrial complex has now started to call everything "pre" and start pushing pharmaceuticals for that as well. So, before you get hypertension or diabetes, or whatever, instead of trying to change your lifestyle to a more healthy one, just take a "pre (whatever)" pill and then take the real pill once you develop the full blown disease. The whole medical/pharmaceutical industry is so corrupt that it utterly baffles me how someone can stand up for them. (By the way, not every doctor or pharmacist is corrupt, of course. Many are legitimate and honest and ethical. I'm referring to the overall philosophy of the industry in general.)
I don't think anyone method of treatment can necessarily offer a guaranty of a cure. But on the other hand, many of the proponents of non-traditional treatment methods actually want people to be cured. Big Cancer doesn't necessarily care so much about any cures as much as they do about bleeding people dry financially. The industry in general is so corrupt, that it just baffles me how people can totally defend it and at the same time belittle and denigrate alternative therapies. People are just too, too gullible and naive, in my opinion, to put their trust in this industry.
TDR is wrong again.
His blender idea won't test Budwig.
He should have paid attention to "Josh" who wrote:"I have been doing some reading and research on the BUDWIG protocol. It is actually much more than just eating cottage cheese and flaxseed oil."
At the article Is the Budwig Protocol “just flaxseed oil and cottage cheese”? http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/budwig_protocol_vi.html
we find written, "The Budwig Protocol is a complete nutritional approach, and more, which besides flaxseed oil/cottage cheese [or quark] includes a number of elements which some other celebrated protocols use as their main approach to better health. It includes a vegetarian diet, lacto-vegan diet (except that fish is allowed), flaxseeds, fruit juices, vegetable juices, sauerkraut, sunshine, emotional and spiritual peace and stress control."
Please don't retaliate by discussing the private affairs of you-know-who.
Paul
I applaud you for writing this article. The attacks against you, the numerous and varied logical fallacies and false equivalancies are astounding. It seems simple. There are treatments that have been demonstrated to be successful through rigorous methods, then there are those that provide anecdotal evidence and testimonials with no data to support the so-called treatment. Your patience with those attacking you is commendable.
Unfortunately the people challenging you are themselves the ones most likely to be harmed by these alternative therapies. They will do as so many have done before, use the alternative until the cancer progresses beyond any hope.
I never understood the claim that the entire medical community and the drug companies want to prevent real cures for cancer when these people and their loved ones would benefit from a cure. Making money is of no value if you die of cancer.
It is a sad state that we have come to. People with little or no scientific understanding promote themselves as de facto experts. They assign evil motives to those who spend their lives trying to treat and cure their patents, and they offer this as opposed to real evidence.
Again, I applaud you. I hope your message reaches someone and spares them an unnecessary and untimely death.
Dear Mr. Bynum,
Thanks for the encouragement. I trust the article will indeed save lives; I think it may already have done so.
Andecdote:
I followed 'natural cures' for four years and felt truly great – vegan, mostly raw, green juices, coffee enemas etc) – after having been diagnosed with Stage 2 Triple Negative breast cancer, grade 3/4 ie. aggressive, (why did I start to give the disease capitals? – because it's a name, not a measure of its importance, silly). Not the Budwig Protocol although I had read about it. No diagnostic tests after the first set other than ultrasounds – my choice. I thought the 'alkalise and oxigenate your body' approach made sense, certainly to a non-scientist like me, given that apparently cancer thrives in an acidic, anaerobic environment. Then I slipped on ice and crashed onto my upper back.
After four months of agony, I finally became paraplegic. Spinal cord surgery intervened and I slowly regained the use of my limbs. What had happened?
Cunning cancer had crept into my spine. It ate away 8 vertebrae (4 cervical, 4 thoracic, consecutive) and the fall finished off the job.
So! Now I was having radiation to kill the parts of the tumour they hadn't been able to remove. Then a year later, with cancer in my lungs and bones, I conceded to take chemotherapy tablets – not as a cure, but to try to slow down the speed of the progression and to reduce the pain. So now I've done all three – surgery, chemo and radiation.
So? Well the so is – would I have been better to have bitten the bullet and taken chemo right at the start? Only God knows. I don't regret, but I do wonder. But I think chemo could possibly have saved my life and I wonder what I would have done without the internet putting forth the 'natural philosophy' and those 'healed' by following the 'natural path – God's way'. It seems many have been cured, in fact. Just not me!
I lost so much weight I had to relinquish my green leaaves and eat 'dinners'! But it's fine. I'm still here, 5 years and 5 months later.
Dear Kristine,
Thank you for sharing your story. I am so sorry that this has happened to you.
In relation to the claim that one can manipulate the acidity of one's body by eating certain foods, please note:
Some myths about cancer are surprisingly persistent, despite flying in the face of basic biology. One such idea is that overly ‘acidic’ diets cause your blood to become ‘too acidic’, which can increase your risk of cancer. Their proposed answer: increase your intake of healthier ‘alkaline’ foods like green vegetables and fruits (including, paradoxically, lemons).
This is biological nonsense. True, cancer cells can’t live in an overly alkaline environment, but neither can any of the other cells in your body.
Blood is usually slightly alkaline. This is tightly regulated by the kidneys within a very narrow and perfectly healthy range. It can’t be changed for any meaningful amount of time by what you eat, and any extra acid or alkali is simply peed out in urine.
To maintain the correct balance within the body, your urine can and does change pH, depending on what you’ve eaten (explained in detail in this post). This can be seen by testing urine pH (acidity) after eating different foods and is the basis of the mistaken belief that diet can “make the body alkaline”. But that’s all you’re changing, and anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn’t understand how the body works.
While eating lots of green veg is certainly healthy, that’s not because of any effect on how acid or alkaline your body is.
There is something called acidosis. This is a physiological condition that happens when your kidneys and lungs can’t keep your body’s pH (a measure of acidity) in balance. It is often the result of serious illness or poisoning. It can be life-threatening and needs urgent medical attention, but it’s not down to overly acidic diets.
We know that the immediate environment around cancer cells (the microenvironment) can become acidic. This is due to differences in the way that tumours create energy and use oxygen compared with healthy tissue. Researchers are working hard to understand how this happens, in order to develop more effective cancer treatments.
But there’s no good evidence to prove that diet can manipulate whole body pH, or that it has an impact on cancer. (from: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/03/24/dont-believe-the-hype-10-persistent-cancer-myths-debunked/)
I hope, Kristine, that you are ready to meet God (as everyone, including everyone reading this comment section, must be). Please read:
http://faithsaves.net/salvation/
and find out how you can be 100% sure about this matter.