I am sure, we have all heard it hundreds of times: THERE ARE IMPORTANT LINKS BETWEEN OUR DIET AND CERTAIN CANCERS. The evidence for this statement seems fairly compelling. Yet it also is complex and often confusing.
A recent review, for instance, suggested that fruits (particularly citrus) and vegetable consumption may be beneficial in the primary prevention of pancreatic cancer, the consumption of whole grains has been shown to reduce the risk and fortification of whole grains with folate may confer further protection. Red meat, cooked at high temperatures, should be avoided, and replaced with poultry or fish. Total fat should be reduced. The use of curcumin and other flavonoids should be encouraged in the diet. Another equally recent review, however, indicated that there is no conclusive evidence as an independent risk factor for isolated nutrients versus adoption of dietary patterns for cancer risk. Cancer colon risk derived from meat intake is influenced by both total intake and its frequency. The interaction of phenolic compounds on metabolic and signalling pathways seems to exert an inhibitory effect on cell proliferation and tumor metastasis and induces apoptosis in various types of cancer cells, including colon, lung, prostate, hepatocellular or breast cancer. A third recent review concluded that cruciferous vegetable intake protects against cancer of the colon, while a forth review suggested that the Mediterranean dietary pattern and diets composed largely of vegetables, fruit, fish, and soy are associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer. There was no evidence of an association between traditional dietary patterns and risk of breast cancer.
Not least based on these mixed messages from the scientific literature, an entire industry has developed selling uncounted alternative cancer-diets and dietary supplements to desperate patients and consumers. They promise much more than just cancer prevention, in fact, leave little doubt about the notion that cancer might be curable by diet. Here are just a few quotes from the thousands of websites promoting alternative cancer diets:
- The Ketogenic Diet is believed capable of starving cancer cells to death, and thus capable of restricting tumour development.
- a more alkaline body makes it difficult for tumors to grow.
- Budwig diet: This diet was developed by Dr. Johanna Budwig who was nominated for the noble Prize sixth times. The diet is intended as a preventative as well as an alternative cancer treatment.
- the Gerson Therapy naturally reactivates your body’s magnificent ability to heal itself – with no damaging side effects. This a powerful, natural treatment boosts the body’s own immune system to heal cancer, arthritis, heart disease, allergies, and many other degenerative diseases. Dr. Max Gerson developed the Gerson Therapy in the 1930s, initially as a treatment for his own debilitating migraines, and eventually as a treatment for degenerative diseases such as skin tuberculosis, diabetes and, most famously, cancer.
- the concept of macrobiotics is much more than an alternative diet for cancer, or any other illness, but rather the ancient Chinese belief that all life, indeed the whole universe, is a balance of two opposing forces Yin and Yang.
Confused? Yes, I do worry how many cancer patients listen to these claims and pin their hopes on one of these diets. But what exactly does the evidence tell us about them?
A German team of researchers evaluated the following alternative cancer-diets: raw vegetables and fruits, alkaline diet, macrobiotics, Gerson’s regime, Budwig’s and low carbohydrate or ketogenic diet. Their extensive searches of the published literature failed to find clinical evidence supporting any of the diets. Furthermore, case reports and pre-clinical data pointed to the potential harm of some of these diets. The authors concluded that considering the lack of evidence of benefits from cancer diets and potential harm by malnutrition, oncologists should engage more in counselling cancer patients on such diets.
In other words, alternative cancer diets – and I mean not just the ones mentioned above, but all of them – are not supported by good evidence for efficacy as a treatment or prevention of any type of cancer. In addition, they might also cause harm.
What follows is obvious: cancer patients should take sound nutritional advice and adopt a healthy general life-style. But they should run a mile as soon as anyone suggests an alternative dietary cure for their disease.
55 Responses to Alternative cancer diets, what does the evidence say?
Leave a Reply to Edzard Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Well, we finally agree on something, Professor. Diets can’t cure cancer.
In the U.S., cancer kills 580,000 people each year. (Trailing medical care that kills 800,000+ each year). In the U.K., 159,000 die of cancer each year. It is obvious that cancer treatment should be left only to highly qualified oncologists and other cancer specialists…who can’t cure cancer either.
What do you mean by ‘cure’?
The medical definition: Still alive after five years and not killed by us.
are you trying to be funny?
Difficult to tell…
SkepdicProf said:
Well, that’s one definition. Here’s another question for you: what sources of information on survival would you accept?
But let’s also look at what you claimed:
That’s a bold claim and can be refuted by just one datum showing survival after five years. Are you sure that’s what you wish to claim?
And many thanks for not confusing ethical veganism with quack “cure-all” diets!
Regarding ketogenic diet : http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/749855
Is this somehow positive ?
“Conclusions These pilot data suggest that a KD is suitable for even advanced cancer patients. It has no severe side effects and might improve aspects of quality of life and blood parameters in some patients with advanced metastatic tumors.”
a pilot study!!!
not testing efficacy but ‘suitability’, it seems!
No George, it is not positive.
I am surprised that, from your extended peruse of this blog, you have not yet learned the difference between a pilot study and research.
This is even a failed one.
(I have tried many times but I am only able to tally fourteen patients in this report of the results. They seem to have forgotten two of the sixteen patients entered)
Only a third, five patients were able to finish the diet course as intended. That is not much to hang your scientific hat on.
“…improved emotional functioning and less insomnia…” This tells us absolutely nothing as there is no control and the improvement is very likely to have been from other causes than diet.
These were people with advanced disease, dying people, terminally ill people!
Reading the whole article reveals a lot of other problems with this pilot study.
What in the world are these people thinking when they conclude that KD diet might be suitable and even useful? Perhaps they are hard pressed as the trial got a lot of media attention and they feel they owe it to whoever to write a positive conclusion?
That advanced cancer can be “starved” with a low carbohydrate diet seems to be nothing but wishful thinking in the first place. It is hardly a plausible notion physiologically and attempts at demonstrating a positive effect have failed. So why continue to wave this false flag, just because it fulfils an honourable notion?
As a surgeon who spent a large part of my life’s energy and effort dealing with the cruelty of advanced cancer I have developed a very low respect and tolerance for half-witted besserwissers who think that everything can be cured or healed “naturally”.
My father died a few weeks ago in pancreatic cancer at the age of 80. I would have given much to be able to prolong his useful life even a few weeks to help him finish some of the things he so much wanted to do before he signed out. You can rest assured we did whatever we could and I certainly thought about all these wonderfully attractive promises of “alternative miracles”. I was even tempted to call this clown, just in case there was something to it 🙂 .
Taking away some of his few remaining delights to pursue an unproven “cancer starving” diet would have been nothing less than cruel!
Legumes and protein shakes were certainly not among the dietary elements he was able to enjoy after the cancer started to advance.
In addition to the wonderful soups mother made, sometimes light beer was the only liquid that did not taste disgusting to him and butterscotch drops and a tablespoon or two of Tullamore Dew were treats he was able to enjoy at times.
Only days before he lost consciousness he enjoyed Christmas eve at my home with the whole big family and he even ate heartily of the blueberry ice cream, a rich recipe of family fame.
I certainly do not regret allowing him more than 70 grams of CHO’s per day.
Oh please teach me something I did not know about pilot studies.
Of course this is not a well established study but it is not a failure either. It shows something and it might deserve more research. Lack of evidence does not mean NO evidence as they imply- this is misleading.
80 years ago there was a …..lack of evidence that smoking causes cancer – the wise ones did not smoke.
This article (in my oppinion) is a Big Pharma (BP) paid for piece of obfuscation. BP are losing millions of dollars because patients are now taking over their own alternative treatments and getting cured (I am one of them). Edzard, who has many comments below, is more than likely a Big Pharma paid for Shill. I personally know many people who have totally reversed their cancers just by changing their diets. If you have cancer, your doctor, unless, he or she is well versed in alternative treatments and diets, will not only speed up your death but also your total incapacitation. For instance, in both the USA and Australia, studies prove that patients who undergo chemotherapy have only (little more than) a 2% survival rate. It not only kills them, but in doing so it totally destroy their immune system on the way- which leads to their cancer spreading even faster because their bodies just cannot fight it anymore. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_the_success_rate_of_chemotherapy_very_low_And_is_it_possible_to_improve_that
here are 3 previous post you should read before writing nonsense:
https://edzardernst.com/2019/06/why-why-on-earth-do-i-carry-on-is-it-for-the-money/
https://edzardernst.com/2018/03/my-ideological-biases/
https://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/
@Roger
Of course you do, Roger. And I bet that we wouldn’t know them because they go to a different school.
The glaring flaws in the piss-poor bit of nonsense which inspired the “2%” article have been pointed out repeatedly, Roger. That you gleefully cite this rubbish marks you only as an inconsequential fool, as with all those similarly deluded fools who decide to treat their cancers with solely “natural” methods. And then die. All of them.
Why didn’t the hospital diet of white bread, coffee, chocolate cake and strawberry Jello make the list? No problem with that, I guess.
what are you on about?
Well, it seems to me that everyone is in a tizzy here about things that apply to a small percent of the population. I think it could be safely said that almost every single one of the 580,000+ in the U.S. and the 159,000+ in the U.K. who died from cancer had undertaken the accepted and “official” cancer treatments, the best that the medical industry has to offer. That doesn’t seem to create a stir.
Yet, here people seem to get their knickers in a knot when they hear about someone straying from the herd. Just from reading, not from any study that I know of, it would be reasonable to conclude that those who stray have already been through what the medical industry has to offer. Who wouldn’t want to see what else is out there and try other things, even without an “official study”.
When you are going down the drain, you cling to any hair you can find, no matter whose it is and no matter where it comes from.
I was on the Jello, salt (chicken) bouillion, and white flour thins (crackers) diet for almost a month in the hospital. When I could not eat, I was fed sugar water by IV…… How healthy is that? My question is why could they not at least puree vegges or given me baby food in progression like they do babies? Why, because the sugar/flour diet is cheaper and easier. The consideration is NOT the health of the patient.
You were on that “diet”and getting that I.V. fluid because it was ordered by your surgeon until your G.I. tract started to function and could hanle more food The I.V. suger (dextrose) 5% is to balance the osmolarity of the fluid so theblood cells do not rupture. Your surgeon knows next to nothing about nutrition. How do I know this? I am a retired surgeon and have excised wheel barrows full of intestines. I have said many timse that if I had it to do all over, I would go into another specialty where my mood was not controled by someone else passing gas or having a bowel movement.
I was not even aware of the Warburg effect—–cancers huge need and appetite for glucose until recently. his is the basis for the PET Scan.T
Margaret Bluntzer, you are absolutely right
THERE ARE STUDIES ON ALKALINE AND KETOGENIC DIETS THAT ARE VERY PROMISING …..
ARE YOU SURE YOU DON’T WORK FOR THE DRUG COMPANIES
pity that this diet evidently does not help against paranoia.
You love cancer, it makes your master rich.
Sugar feeds cancer. Most cancer patients are not given any dietary advice. Most cancers come from toxins and nutrient deficiency.
We all have cancer cells, a strong immune system kills them daily.
Doctors are mostly drug pushing quacks.
even if all you state were correct [which it isn’t], you cannot CURE a cancer by diet, can you?
OK, if they sound so promising to you then you must be able to explain how they work, and what this has to do with cancer. I know principle of ketogenic diet, but then most protected from cancer are diabetics who do not stick sufficiently carefully to the regime and meds? But diabetics, especially 2 two ones get cancer more frequently…
Most cancers are diet related. Most doctors are ignorant drug pushers. He serves drug companies. Typical shill.
Cancer is a cash cow.
Most cancers are environmental, NOT GENETIC.
you obviously did not read the article!
“Doctors are mostly drug pushing quacks.”
Quack [noun]: a person who dishonestly claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field, typically medicine.
“Sugar feeds cancer. Most cancer patients are not given any dietary advice. Most cancers come from toxins and nutrient deficiency.”
“Most cancers are diet related. Most doctors are ignorant drug pushers. He serves drug companies. Typical shill.
Cancer is a cash cow.
Most cancers are environmental, NOT GENETIC.”
Quack, quack, quack; moo, moo, moo; baa, baa, baa…
sugar DOES feed cancer, most cancers ARE diet related, and most cancers ARE environmental
anyway, this is where the smart people doted with independent thinking (and a bit of luck) survive and the others don’t…
What i see is that it takes a certain kind of character to heal from disease deemed “uncurable” by normal doctors, it takes capacity for research and for taking reasoned decisions, it takes dedication to follow “scientifically unsupported” therapies if they make sense to us, it takes sacrifice to chance one’s own lifestyle and way of thinking instead of popping pills and following the doctor’s orders, not everyone can do that.
The smart and the lucky survive and they are better people for that.
This article really barks up the wrong tree.
Minnie,
Do you know what happens when blood sugar level 1) rises too high? 2) falls too low?
Do you know what regulates blood sugar level?
Do you know the metabolic processes that convert various sugars into blood sugar?
Do you know the metabolic processes that create blood sugar, even when eating a sugar-free diet?
Your comments strongly suggest that you do not know, let alone understand, these essential things.
This complete big pharma fraud information site is sheer deception. Not only do the obvious profit mongers hiding behind the scene not add one honest science, based fact for their claims, but they obluterate hundreds of thousands of actual patient cases where the complete dishonest “science” used to market high profit patent snake oil meds by big pharma nearly destroyed those patients’ lives as big pharma does with evrry sucker who turns to their lethal, German Death Camp supplier manufacturing cartel, owned and run by the Rockefeller Group.
People, stop being so gullible! Get medical science that is NOT for profit!
I found this (http://www.naturalprostate.com/going-to-a-big-pharma-md-how-to-manage-his-help-with-natural-healing.html) authored by you [?]:
“I am 70, and have experienced zero mouth and internal disease for 6 years, as I soak my mouth with Hydrogen Peroxide to keep free oxygen in my blood. This procedure reversed a fast-growing tumor in my throat 6 years ago, then I found my entire mouth was squeaky clean and zero colds and flu. ”
If you write stuff like this, it shows what your arguments above are worth, I think.
@ClaudeA
That’s hilarious! And stupid.
diet itself will not “cure” any cancer, but without that there is really no point in doing anything else, that’s the foundation on which all the other therapies should be based on
why is people still promoting these diets?
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/16/ketogenic-diet-benefits.aspx
to make a fast buck?
Abstract: Source: http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v112/n5/full/bjc2014606a.html
Start of quote
Background:
Typically, lifetime risk is calculated by the period method using current risks at different ages. Here, we estimate the probability of being diagnosed with cancer for individuals born in a given year, by estimating future risks as the cohort ages.
Methods:
We estimated the lifetime risk of cancer in Britain separately for men and women born in each year from 1930 to 1960. We projected rates of all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) and of all cancer deaths forwards using a flexible age-period-cohort model and backwards using age-specific extrapolation. The sensitivity of the estimated lifetime risk to the method of projection was explored.
Results:
The lifetime risk of cancer increased from 38.5% for men born in 1930 to 53.5% for men born in 1960. For women it increased from 36.7 to 47.5%. Results are robust to different models for projections of cancer rates.
Conclusions:
The lifetime risk of cancer for people born since 1960 is >50%. Over half of people who are currently adults under the age of 65 years will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetime.
End of quote
Makes you think, doesn’t it?
only if you did not know it before – as most of us probably did.
Team of geniuses you are! Do you have an opinion on WHY this is so?
Why is modern medicine not containing the increase in numbers?
because the problem is exceedingly complex.
Edzard: because the problem is exceedingly complex.
Edzard: come on, give it a try!
Yes, thank you. Many of us have academic education and training in (real) health care.
Epidemiology, which is the type of scientific work behind this paper, is not about opinion.
We do not use opinion in science, we use facts and figures and rational logic. Where full information is wanting, we use available facts to make estimates. Opinion tends to lead to erroneous conclusions.
It looks as though you are not understanding the messages in this article dear Greg.
Did you read all of it?
If you try to read it carefully again (and try to set your disgruntlement with medicine aside this time) you will learn that they are not talking about the risk of cancers developing, they are talking about the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with cancer, which is another thing altogether. They say so in the very beginning of the article:
“What is the probability of developing cancer for someone born in a given year? The lifetime risk of developing cancer is the probability that a person will be diagnosed with cancer over the course of his or her lifetime.”
Unfortunately (and surprisingly for a journal of this calibre ?!) the title is misleading. There are, from my perspective, other inaccuracies and debatable assertions and assumptions in this article but let’s not go into that. If I had reviewed it I would have suggested several amendments.
If you read the discussion section, you will learn that only a smaller part of the increase in cancer cases is likely to be due to an actual increase in the risk of cancer developing. Some cancer types have decreased, others increased, diagnostic methods have evolved and much more cancers are being found, than before, cancers that before went undiagnosed. They give examples and explain this very clearly. They explain in simple terms that even you should be able to comprehend, that the biggest factor behind an increasing caseload of cancers is increasing life expectancy, which is of course partly due to progress in health care.
So in a way, better sanitation, better healthcare, better diagnostics and better lifestyle is paradoxically causing an increase in cancer diagnoses not the true risk of developing cancer at any given time. If you live long enough, you have a very high lifetime risk of getting a cancer diagnosis. There is very probably a true increase in risks due to smoking,obesity and life style related factors as well as some environmental factors such as popularity of sunbathing. Other environmental factors have decreased such as coal-smoke, use of toxic dyes etc.
There is an infinitely complex interplay here between a multitude of factors working both ways, as Professor Ernst already pointed out.
Containing??
If by “containing” you mean doing something about it, we are certainly working on it. Health care authorities in most of the “developed” world are tackling cancer risks in various ways. They address environmental and lifestyle factors in your interest. You only have to look around and read the media (with an open mind of course 😉 ). We are also getting increasingly better at treating the cancers that occur.
Vaccines have for example been developed and improved against known infectious carcinogenic factors etc. etc…
Public health measures and education is actually abundant but few pay heed. Instead, idiots like David Wolfe and Joe Mercola are getting more attention with their contemptible commercialistic quackery.
And homeopaths? What are they doing to help? Nothing. On the contrary they are putting people at risk by abject atrocities such as advising against proper vaccinations and pretending to cure cancers with shaken water and sugar pills.
Dr. Bjorn Geir (National University Hospital of Iceland): ‘And homeopaths? What are they doing to help? Nothing. On the contrary they are putting people at risk by abject atrocities such as advising against proper vaccinations and pretending to cure cancers with shaken water and sugar pills.’
(Quote will be easier for ‘uncle Google ‘ to find in future)
First: pretending to treat or cure cancer is a criminal offense under the Cancer Act of 1939 (UK): it is an offense to “offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof”.
Second: homeopathy does not treat ‘diseases’ it treats ‘sick people’.
Third: How did human beings survive on this planet without modern medicine for thousands of years. We have thousands of years of evidence that TM ‘works’ without modern medicine. Now that we have modern medicine too, the world is better off.
That is three degrees of wrongness for Dr. Geir
The answer to your answered rhetorical question (lol): TM has always referred to the importance of ‘healthy’ lifestyle and diet.
‘Study author Professor Peter Sasieni, based at Queen Mary University of London, said: “Cancer is primarily a disease of old age, with more than 60 per cent of all cases diagnosed in people aged over 65. If people live long enough then most will get cancer at some point. But there’s a lot we can do to make it less likely – like giving up smoking, being more active, drinking less alcohol and maintaining a healthy weight.’ (Cancer Research UK)
“How to you people think human beings survived on this planet without modern medicine for thousands of years?”
THEY DIDN’T!
they died at ~30 of diabetes, younger if they had appendicitis. life expectancy was below 40 etc. etc.
I wish dear Greg, you would take a little time to read through your comments and try make them legible and coherent. You are often writing circular arguments and contradicting yourself in the most peculiar ways.
You even write sentences in seeming attempts at putting me down, that really have the opposite effect and sometimes even corroborate your antagonists arguments.
Try writing your attempts down in a word processor, not into the comment window, and go over them a few times. Compare them to the subject being discussed and try to understand what is being argued. You should especially read the comment you are responding to and see if you are really responding to its content.
Also try to understand that the world is bigger and more diverse than your own home country and not always governed by the same laws and regulations. It can also be good to lay them aside for a while and come back, then you often realise your errors of reasoning, particularly if you wrote the original when upset or inebriated.
That is a fine comment from Doctor Geir with only moments of condescension arising in the text, and that can be tolerated.
Cancer nResearch UK say that 60% of cancers are related to age, so as people live longer, expectancy for cancer increases.
Quote:
Thanks to research, the UK’s cancer survival has doubled over the last 40 years and around half of patients now survive the disease for more than 10 years. But, as more people benefit from improved healthcare and longer life expectancy, the number of cancer cases is expected to rise. This new research estimating lifetime risk finds that, from now on*, 1 in 2 people will be diagnosed with the disease.
This new estimate replaces the previous figure, calculated using a different method, which predicted that more than 1 in 3 people would develop cancer at some point in their lives.
Age is the biggest risk factor for most cancers, and the increase in lifetime risk is primarily because more people are surviving into old age, when cancer is more common.
Study author Professor Peter Sasieni, based at Queen Mary University of London, said: “Cancer is primarily a disease of old age, with more than 60 per cent of all cases diagnosed in people aged over 65. If people live long enough then most will get cancer at some point. But there’s a lot we can do to make it less likely – like giving up smoking, being more active, drinking less alcohol and maintaining a healthy weight.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/2015-02-04-1-in-2-people-in-the-uk-will-get-cancer
End quote
If the answer is as straightforward as you put it to me then why did Edzard reply to me: ‘because the problem is exceedingly’ complex?
MY ANSWER WAS TO YOUR QUESTION: “Why is modern medicine not containing the increase in numbers?”
I asked you two questions, not one:
Do you have an opinion on WHY this is so?
Why is modern medicine not containing the increase in numbers?
Never mind it is passed now; just get your keyboard checked for caps lock malfunction.
and I answered the one outlined in my last comment. or do you pretend to know better than I do which question I wanted to answer?
i agree that old age is the greatest risk factor for nearly all disease (I turned 78 yrs. yesterday). The real question is how to extend longevity and quality of life. From my study the last several years, I have concluded that minimizing carbohydrates and maximizing resistance strenth training (See Dr. Doug McGuff) seems the best answer.
Thank you for that comment. Priceless!
Dr Geir’s reply is nonsense as he did not respond the points in my comment. He states: ‘You are often writing circular arguments and contradicting yourself in the most peculiar ways.’ Explain/provide an example to support this comment Dr. Geir
Dr. Geir’s haughtiness and condescension seem to frequently lace in his comments on this site.
Dr Robert Hare’s view, based on years of study of psychopathy, is that lack of empathy is a central attribute of psychopaths who lack general empathy for the feelings of people. He points out the some people may develop an insensitivity towards a particular group of people as a personal protective mechanism in order to cope with a role. He argues that ‘doctors who are too empathetic towards their patients would soon become overwhelmed, and their effectiveness as physicians would be overwhelmed (Hare, R. 1993. Without Conscience)
Is Dr. Geir perhaps expanding a limited zone of a lack of empathy to a wider group of people (TM people) in order to promote his anti-homeopathy/anti-TM viewpoint on this blogsite?
I responded to his comment about homeopaths and not about the article:
Dr. Bjorn Geir (National University Hospital of Iceland): ‘And homeopaths? What are they doing to help? Nothing. On the contrary they are putting people at risk by abject atrocities such as advising against proper vaccinations and pretending to cure cancers with shaken water and sugar pills.’
My answer is set out in point form 1.2.3.
Where is Dr Geir’s support for his statement about homeopaths?
Where is Dr. Geir’s reply to my points?
Why did Dr. Geir not comment on:
‘Professor Peter Sasieni, based at Queen Mary University of London, said: “Cancer is primarily a disease of old age, with more than 60 per cent of all cases diagnosed in people aged over 65. If people live long enough then most will get cancer at some point.’
and
‘But there’s a lot we can do to make it less likely – like giving up smoking, being more active, drinking less alcohol and maintaining a healthy weight.’ (Cancer Research UK)
Bjorn Geir tracks well on Google (with Edzard Ernst) but more related information comes up with Bjorn Geir Leifsson.
Bjorn Geir Leiffson’s Twitter feeds include:
Fake Medical Journals Are Spreading, And They Are Filled With Bad Science (January 2017)
‘Proud’ that Mr D.Ullman blocked him on Twitter (December 2016)
This one is the nail. He tweeted: The real Drumpf talking. The simpleton who wants to rule America. Are there enough hobos in America to vote him in? (Tweet: 9 October 2016): Link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?utm_term=.51581e0e788d
Facts speak louder than opinion. He was wrong about his view on the election. He insulted the current President of the United States by referring to him as a ‘simpleton’. My God, help this man, his words: ‘are there enough hobos in America to vote him in’?
I am puzzled how certain people manage to get through the vetting process for high level jobs?
I seem to have upset you dear Greg?
You seem to mistake sarcasm and outspoken criticism for animosity.
If you want me to take ad hominem insolence seriously you will have to reveal your identity. I do not get upset at mudslinging from incognito adversaries hiding cowardly behind pseudonyms. Such missives only reflect on their own lowly characters.
What are you afraid of by revealing your identity? That we will make fun of your homeopathy site? Or start referring with ridicule to your Twitter feeds or snigger at your Pinterest collections?
Of course I am condescending at times. It comes naturally when dealing with people who cannot put together coherent arguments, do not understand basic science and laws of nature and pretend to be curing illnesses with magical water and sugar pills.
I write under my true identity and have seen it as a matter of honour and pride not to hide cowardly behind a pseudonym. If you want to insult me do it standing up as a man (or woman?) in clear view, otherwise I only see such emissions as proof of lowly character.
Your buddy John Benneth was also quite upset the other day, over my insolent attitude towards homeopathy. So to cheer him up and make it easy for him to understand why homeopathy simply doesn’t make it to first base, I sent him a link to a great film on Youtube where they explain it all with many interesting examples. It also talks about fake cancer cures by homeopaths. https://youtu.be/8cA_oGiNTOk
There is also a new article on SBM that is worth reading… on the other hand it may contain too many difficult words? https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-three-phantoms-of-homeopathy/
One more thing. You go on at length about “TM” as if it was a thing. I guess you are referring to the term “Traditional Medicine”, right? If so, which of the thousands of different entities from all over the world and different periods, are you thinking about? Many of them, that were found to have an effect, were fixed and improved and found their way into modern medicine. Take Aspirin for example. The rest has been tried and tested and found not to be good enough and therefore is not used when helping sick people with their diseases 😉
Homeopathy was invented as a substitute for the useless and harmful “TM” that was used at that time in Hahnemann’s environment but failed completely because they didn’t realise they were observing the effects of doing nothing instead of doing harm. When science found other methods that worked, Homeopathy was no longer appearing to work.
…Ah, well, now I’ve started preaching to the choir.
Best to go and tidy up in the study…
By the way. If you wish to address me formally outside Iceland it is ‘Dr. Leifsson’.
“Dr. Geir” makes no sense to me or anyone. In International context Leifsson is my surname but in reality we do not use surnames in Iceland. The telephone catalog is even ordered by first name. So I am always referred to as Björn Geir. Geir is the middle name. Leifsson is not a surname, it only denotes who my father was by his first name Leifur. This is called a patronymic system.
Follow the basic premise of the Zone diet, but adjust as needed. Some people are more carb-sensitive so you may have to reduce the carbs slightly. If you lack energy, increase the carbs a little.
any evidence for this advice?