So you're defending the idea that cancer can be halted by diet. Anyone who speaks out against that is toxic?
If all people had to do to halt cancer is vary their diet, far fewer people would succumb to the malady. The only way you can make that work is by taking a derisive and dismissive attitude to everyone, saying they must be too stupid and stubborn to want to live; moreover you must also posit that all doctors involved in oncology are evil and ignoring the facts.
This seems like a far more toxic worldview than quiet regret that Steve isn't still with us that I get from this article.
"Purpose: Men with prostate cancer are often advised to make changes in diet and lifestyle,
although the impact of these changes has not been well documented. Therefore, we evaluated the
effects of comprehensive lifestyle changes on prostate specific antigen (PSA), treatment trends
and serum stimulated LNCaP cell growth in men with early, biopsy proven prostate cancer after 1 year
...
Conclusions: Intensive lifestyle changes may affect the progression of early, low grade prostate
cancer in men. Further studies and longer term followup are warranted."
DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000169487.49018.73
===== and ....
"Clinical Events in Prostate Cancer Lifestyle Trial: Results From Two Years of Follow-Up"
Please show me where in these documents it recommends ignoring other treatments and I will upmod your post.
The idea that "diet" is alternative is ludicrous. What's alternative is "curing cancer" with diet. The science of how diets affect cancer—and the resulting medical advice that falls out—is an open and somewhat understood topic and a good part of a whole spectrum of treatment; one that all indications suggested were ignored in this case.
I always think it's funny that naturopaths say they're treating the "whole patient" but almost inevitably they focus on ONE THING that CURES EVERYTHING, whereas doctors come at the problem with a whole spectrum of tools ranging from diet and lifestyle to chemical interventions.
Diet is largely considered alternative medicine in America. Obviously pancreatic cancer cannot be cured with diet. However, some conditions respond favorably to diet and other lifestyle modifications.
Hypertension can be reversed through weight loss and diet, the Mayo Clinic even publishes books about how to do it. However, in the USA, it's largely considered a secondary line of treatment because doctors assume (correctly) that most Americans won't change their eating habits, even if it's a matter of life and death.
Most people don't think twice when their doctor tells them to change their diet. They just ignore it.
It's only when a diet is some outrageously expensive and super-implausible idea like "only eat berries and uncooked food" that it enters the realm of alternative medicine. "Diet & Exercise" is even in the American vernacular.
The only people who want to co-opt diet is alterantive are the CAM proponents who are attempting to use it as the thin edge of a wedge to get themselves funding and legitimacy.
Eh, your experience will of course vary, but when it was determined that I had hypertension the first thing my (american) doctor told me is that I had to knock off the activities that.. err... inspired my HN handle ;)
I think doctors probably make a judgment call based off your described lifestyle and age. In my case diet and weight loss were easy, since I've been vegetarian at various points in the past and am fairly young.
If all people had to do to halt cancer is vary their diet, far fewer people would succumb to the malady. The only way you can make that work is by taking a derisive and dismissive attitude to everyone, saying they must be too stupid and stubborn to want to live; moreover you must also posit that all doctors involved in oncology are evil and ignoring the facts.
This seems like a far more toxic worldview than quiet regret that Steve isn't still with us that I get from this article.