An English woman, Jane McClelland, wrote a book called, "How to Starve Cancer Without Starving Yourself." She was diagnosed with cervical cancer and jumped through all the necessary hoops/procedures but was ultimately sent home to get her affairs in order.
She was already working in healthcare so she began scouring PubMed and other sources for info...long story short, she healed herself. Frankly, I found the book to be a difficult read, BUT she has a facebook site on which she has an extensive list of doctors who have integrated her methods into their protocols! When Wayne was diagnosed, we shot up I-65 to Brentwood, TN, to see Dr. Reisner. Like many doctors nowadays, he's available for long distance consults/treatment.
For anyone interested in a companion treatment but with a dr.'s supervision, I'd recommend checking out that list on her Facebook site.
Written by
jtango
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
She appeals to people who don't understand biochemistry. Many cancers (although not PCa usually) metabolize glucose. Unfortunately, all healthy cells metabolize glucose too. One cannot slow down a cancer cell by lowering carb/glucose intake. Cancer cells will simply switch to other energy sources - lipids, amino acids, and cannibalizing healthy cells to get their energy. PCa preferentially metabolizes lipids and amino acids at first. There is no evidence to back up her ridiculous claims.
Well, she was sent home to die then didn't. I'd say that merits some attention. Have you read her book? I'd be glad to send you my copy so you don't have to buy one.
A lot of people "are sent home to die and didn't" if one can believe them. No, it merits no attention, especially from men who have prostate cancer - a cancer with an entirely different biology. Its premise has no evidence, yet it attracts attention from desperate patients who don't know any better - very sad. Patients are better off when they base their therapy on valid research, not anecdotes.
No. There is enough actual medical science without wasting one's time by giving credence to the latest Internet garbage. There is no evidence that reducing intake of any vital nutrient is beneficial. If she had anything worth paying attention to, it would have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Anyone who doesn't is a quack. Peer review is how we separate the news from the noise.
You should always be leery of any .com site where they charge you for their secrets. It's you money. Why argue? If you think it will help you, shell out the $ and have at it? There is no medical science backing her claims. None. There are theories.
No medical evidence backing her claims? What ARE her claims? You another one making allegations without having read the book? She provides 18 pages of studies/references at the back of the book.
And leery?! I'm leery of physicians who throw drugs at symptoms rather then trying to find the cause. On top of that, there's a good chance that the Dr. or institution is getting a kickback for those prescriptions.
"She provides 18 pages of studies/references at the back of the book."
People like her rely on people like you, who don't understand how to evaluate research, to pedal their pseudoscience. The danger is that it sounds like science, but isn't. It dupes susceptible people like yourself into following it. Here are the characteristics of pseudoscience.
Because no one who understands the difficulties involved in evaluating research would advise others to "do your own research." She is displaying the Dunning Kruger Effect:
"The Dunning-Kruger Effect occurs when a person’s lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence. "
You must allow room for others to heal in the way they want… there is much research into alternative medicine that has healed many. It sounds like you are completely closed to any of that information which is fine for you .. but perhaps not for others. You are an expert in what you research. And others are seeking other avenues which have healed many… each person is entitled to their own path of healing. Have you looked into DR Thomas Seyfried from Boston? He believes cancer is a metabolic disease … how about dr William Li. He believes an antiangiogenic diet can help to heal the body… it sounds like you dont do any alternative treatment or much research into it but are very critical of any person who does. You lack the information. You would have to dedicate as much time to alternative treatment as you do to allopathic conventional treatment to comment on what others may be expert on. Alternative treatment has cured many people.
You certainly cannot believe that there is not a cancer cure by now. They make trillions of dollars from chemo and radiation. I’m sorry allopathic will never find “a cure” for cancer. Ever. Their treatments are much to profitable.
Thank you for the work you do. It matters. Abe the work others do also matters.
You are seriously mistaken, and are creating a strawman argument. I actually do much more research into medicines and supplements that are hypothetically proposed than to approved medicines. That is the nature of science - there are many more hypotheses that are disproved than are ones that are proved. However, I only see the hypotheses (including all lower levels of evidence like mouse studies) that are published in peer-reviewed journals. If you have a mouse study that led you to some hypothesis, why would you not publish it for other scientists to review? The only reason you wouldn't is if it would not stand up to scrutiny.
I certainly have a bias. It is toward science and away from the kind of alternatives you espouse. Alternative medicines like "naturopathic medicine" and "homeopathic medicine" are NOT medical science. Do you even consider that you may be doing others harm by espousing pseudoscience?
Do unproven alternatives work? I have no doubt that there are miracle cures have some placebo effect, but people like the ones you mention are responsible for a great number of early deaths. People who treat themselves with alternative medicines are 2.7 times as likely to die from cancer as those who stick to science. People who treat themselves with complementary medicines are twice as likely to die from cancer as those who stick to science.
Respectfully the 3rd leading cause of death is IATRoGENICS…. deaths unintentionally caused by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures.
According to a recent study by Johns Hopkins, more than 250,000 people in the United States die every year because of medical mistakes, making it the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
We have to allow for people’s choices .. and their ability to choose for themselves To research what resonates for them..
my dad is 85 uses conventional and alternative inc THC and cannabis and supplements, and a whole foods angiogenic diet , moves, he prays , he keeps stress levels down. Has done some emotional healing .. all have been helpful as his PSA remains around 0.045 for 21 months. His oncologist says he’s remarkable his GP says your dad has surprised us all.. they are used to using their treatments but not used to dads supplementary protocol. And are all shocked with dad…
Yes, if I die during a heart transplant, it is iatrogenic, but that does NOT mean it was avoidable.
"We" do not choose research that "resonates with us" if one wants safe and effective medicines. Everyone is free to do that, but that does not validate the choice. It only means that emotion rather than science is driving the decision. Any fool can decide that some finding doesn't comport with his beliefs, but that will lead to a lot of bad decisions.
BTW- Prevention of angiogenesis has repeatedly been found to be irrelevant to prostate cancer. Many anti-angiogenetic medicines have had clinical trials, which have always failed. It may not comfirm your beliefs, but empirical data nevertheless prove it to be true.
Of course the nutrition trials “fail” when do they ever win? When would they allow the trials for healing foods to win and shut down their trillions of dollars money making drug machines?! It will never happen in our lifetime. That’s why there is little known science which supports alternative modalities. They squash all of it in favour of their chemo and radiation and drugs. It’s a well known fact .. they also kill doctors who are healing people alternatively .. this is also a fact… cancer is a massive money making machine. Extremely profitable. They give you the drugs and their treatment and tell you to go home and eat whatever you want. ??? How would MacDonalds and tons of sugar be supportive to an immune system? Especially if someone who has a C diagnosis.. healthy people are NoT profitable…. Look what they’ve done with fake chemicalized foods lining the store shelves. Also chemicalized home products, skin products etc. all toxic for us. The water is polluted etc… all of it makes us sick. They bank on that happening. 75 % of North America is overweight or obese. .. they love it .. more profit from the people. Chronic illness including cancers are way up .. not because of healthy lifestyles. We are getting wiped out in our own countries. Until and unless we take responsibility for ourselves and learn to heal our bodies. Using conventional treatment may be part of that protocol.
So you decide what the outcome should be, and when they do not turn out that way, you claim the trials were rigged? That is an unfalsifiable belief, and is a hallmark of pseudoscience. Your "well known facts" are just products of your imagination and your conspiracy theories.
Anyway, I am very conservative in my beliefs and value science. You and the OP clearly do not so further discussion is fruitless.
Whoa there fella. Take a beat. First, you don't know that I didn't read the book. Why come at me? I said it's your money, meaning, spend it as you please. I said if you think it will help you, have at it. I said there is no medical science backing her claims. Studies are just that. They are not definitive. There is no known cause of Prostate cancer. Makes it difficult to find root cause though no? There are possibly several causes.
I have had tumors biopsied twice. My cancer has mutated. It does that to stay alive.
Lastly, no doctor of mine is "throwing" drugs at me. Minnesota statute §147.091, subd 1 (p)(1), under which a physician is prohibited from receiving compensation for the referral of patients or the prescription of drugs.
So again, slow your roll. My Oncologist is trying to extend my life. That's what they do and all they can do. Believe what you will, I don't care.
Any fool can "advocate" anything in a book or on the Internet. Medical science is peer-reviewed and published in acknowledged medical journals. If you want to understand the science, the way is not to read her book.
Who funds the medical journals? Big Pharma funds medical schools , medical journals , medical books…. All for profit. You seem ignorant to that fact. Not all of your peer reviews are based in “science” alone. They do what they need to to get their “$cience” out.
I wish I could find the article on how "evidence based medicine" is far from it due to monied interests. Everyone knows this but we still have people insisting that only double blink clinical studies count. It takes tons of money to do them and support is not given to those studies that might produce results not of interest to the funding parties. And then the studies that produce unwanted results are swept under the rug never to be seen. We have money based medicine not evidence based medicine. This might be the journal article I was thinking of ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
Getting research right is hard. That's why it's important to try to get it right. Without good research, you are usinbg voodoo, not science. BTW - Based on what you wrote, I don't think you will like Rahul Aggarwal. He is heavily into research.
i love Rahul he is not a bullshitter and is willing to listen to anything i am still getting a third opinion before doing pluvicto also have appts with UCSF integrative studies group.
i don't object to his research i just think there could be other viable approaches. i have decided to have him as my main MO and value his opinions immensely. why do you see everything as so black and white?
All clinical trials listed on clinicaltrials.org must report results. They don't all follow that yet, especially at universities. We learn a lot from failures as well as successes.
You are correct, Spencoid2. Tall Allen, it amazes me that you profess to value science yet are are so enamored with doctors and clinical trial results that you think doctors and Big Pharm are pure and true and not motivated by money. Cherry picking trial data (and not reporting negative data) is a big problem.
Those running clinical trials listed on clinicaltrials.org are now required to post trial results even when they are negative. In 2018, penalties were imposed on those who failed to do so. Hopefully, it will seldom be the case as stiffer fines are imposed. University hospitals are more likely to be out of compliance than Big Pharma. In a recent survey of compliance, the worst offenders were Mayo, MD Anderson, and Yale. Big Pharma were almost perfectly in compliance.
Cuts a big hole in your theory, doesn't it? Doctors have no incentive to hide negative findings. They have the same pay regardless of the outcomes. Big Pharma has no incentive to hide results because drugs that don't work can't get FDA approval - efficacy and safety have to be demonstrated. University hospital PR Departments only like to report good news.
and what are the penalties, a little slap on the wrist.$10000 against $10000000 in profits? if i made that much i could tolerate the little slap whenever my lawyers could not get me out of paying it. you really that naive about human predilections
Did you even look at the article you linked? At least 6 of the worst offenders were pharma companies out of the list of 29. And who do you think sponsors the majority of the trials at Mayo, MD Anderson, etc? Big pharm companies. It is one of the reasons why the drugs are free but the patient pays (or their insurance is billed) for the rest. Drug trials have been required by law to report their results since 2007 and it isn't happening. Consumer beware. Spencoid2 has it right--small fines don't matter compared to profits.
Contrary to what you want to believe, FDA approval does not require--and the drug makers don't want--efficacy and safety. Since FDA Fast Track began in 1997, drugs are approved first, then are determined to be effective or not in the field.
Maybe you need glasses.the Pharma companies in the chart at the bottom all have 99-100% compliance, except Teva. The University hospitals were the trial sponsors on many trials and were seriously out of compliance.
"Science analyzed ClinicalTrials.gov records of all clinical trials with results legally required to be reported between 18 January 2018 and 25 September 2019. The chart, covering trial sponsors with 15 or more results due in that window or reported early, shows that some results deposited were not posted due to quality lapses. It also highlights that pharma's record has been markedly better than that of academia and the federal government."
"IN A RECENT ARTICLE IN THE BMJ, GOLDACRE and colleagues highlighted a long-running MD Anderson trial as an example of what's at stake when clinical research results go AWOL. ..Mayo, Yale, the University of Minnesota, Baylor, and Boston Children's, which have similarly poor reporting records, all said via email that they, too, were committed to fulfilling ClinicalTrials.gov requirements."
"Twenty big pharma companies met all reporting requirements under the 2017 rule and some major academic centers improved sharply compared with data collected in 2017 (as detailed in the second STAT investigation). Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Duke University, and Johns Hopkins University—poor performers in 2017—complied with the law in nearly all their registered trials covered by the new rule. Johns Hopkins added staff to track and assist on reporting and to identify "problem records." And it enlisted university executives to crack down on recalcitrant investigators, according to Anthony Keyes, a clinical research manager there."
The ACA requires that all drugs given in clinical trials are free.
What do you imagine happens when a prospective new drug isn't reported? The drug cannot be approved, of course. Even orphan drugs that get provisional "fast track" approval, must submit preliminary Phase 3 test results.
The only danger in university hospitals not reporting results is when they test supplements that are available without FDA oversight. Patients can then avail themselves of such illicit drugs, labeled as natural products, without knowing if they are ineffective or dangerous.
Only half of trials report results, even if it is required by law Tall Allen. You refer to the Dunning Kruger Effect often...perhaps you are too puffed up with your own self importance to see it also applies to you? "A review by the US Office of Inspector General found that only about half of the scientists running clinical trials funded by the NIH in 2019 and 2020 appropriately recorded their findings in a federal database, as is legally required."
Mtn Wife, as I replied above, the offenders are seldom Big Pharma. Big Pharma was 99%-100% in compliance. I hope it will be enforced more because we learn as much from failures as successes.It is mainly university hospitals that are out of compliance. They have little motivation to report failures, but I hope that penalties will force their hand.
I understand the weaknesses of research in a way you can't even imagine. But I believe whatever problems there are can be fixed. Unlike you, I've seen the huge benefits that can happen when research is done well, and am unwilling to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
See above. Big Pharm is behind the trials whether they are at universities, hospitals, or university hospitals. Follow the money.I don't think you understand weaknesses of research at all, because if you did you wouldn't make ludicrous statements like Big Pharma is 99-100% in compliance.
It's why you'll never see trials for BAT, nutrition, exercise, or any other factors you don't think are important because there is no research. If it can't be patented or trademarked, it won't be funded.
Your imagination seems to have gotten the better of you. When Big Pharma sponsors a trial, it is always multi-institutional. They always have an independent Primary Investigator, usually a well-respected doctor who makes all decisions on trial protocols. Results are presented at well-publicized conventions by the investigator, published in peer-reviewed journals, and the raw data is submitted to the FDA for review.
Contrary to your imagination, there have been many trials for BAT, nutrition and exercise. I was one of the early advocates of BAT, but trials have been disappointing. Nutrition is difficult, but not impossible, to research, as the MEAL trial proved. There are numerous trials on the importance of exercise, and I have always been a strong advocate of it.
You shouldn't be out here. You're just trolling. I've read your posts. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you dad is ill, take care of him and save all your conspiracy stuff for some other extreme view website. Shame on you. There are no "gotcha" moments in stage 4 prostate cancer. I'm guessing you're more than happy to use all of the services offered to you to treat your dad, Stop with the conspiracy mumbo jumbo before you get reported and removed. Use you time on here to help your Dad.
Publishing medical journals is its own big business that does not rely on Big Pharma or the multibillion dollar supplement industry. All journals have professional standards that are made public. Original data must be provided to reviewers.
Since 1660, when Isaac Newton created the Royal Society, peer-reviewed journals have been the mainstay of science.
Publishing is imperfect, and mistakes are made. The difference between an imperfect peer-reviewed journal article and the kind of Internet garbage you value is that professional journals correct their mistakes. We are all human, and all err for whatever reason, but by exposing research to peer review, mistakes surface.
Medical journals , medical schools and medical books are funded by pharma. They have the powers to change “the science” to suit them. Like the lancet did when they scrubbed the hydroxychloriqujne study (which stated it helped with respiratory viruses) during covid .. they do whatever they want as long as it suits their profits. That’s why I do not completely trust peer reviews and journals. Or “science”. We certainly saw the BS science during covid with zero evidence to support most public health officers claims.. covid was the greatest medical hoax in history. And harmed and killed millions of people. No evidence just $cience.
That is purely a product of your imagination. The Lancet is owned by Elsevier. They have a prestigious editorial board and get peer-review from the world's top scientists.
While I love and respect the advice that Tall Allen gives, his statements reflect the gross majority of practicing MD / DOs in medicine these days. You might want to consider reviewing AAPS ( not the AMA ) group of physicians and surgeons that are working together to repurpose old drugs, using lots of adjunct and complimentary medicines and have experience with many treatments other than just chemo / radiation being successful. Best to you.
Prostate cancer only rarely shows up on the metabolic PET that looks for high rates of glucose metabolism - FDG, but does show up on PETs that look for high rates of fat metabolism (choline and acetate PETs) and amino acid metabolism (fluciclovine PETs). I explain this in the section on metabolic ligands in the link below:
Thanks for the link to your interesting article on PET scans, albeit from 2016. However, I was asking for your source re the statement about preferential metabolism, not something self-referential.
It is updated frequently. I thought an explanation of metabolic PET scans would satisfy your curiosity. Maybe your doctor will more patiently explain to you why metabolic PET scans show exactly what I said.
I think some of the respondents may have her confused with other alternative treatment gurus? First of all she is complimentary, not alternative. Second, Jane is very aware of the metabolic flexibility of all cancers, particularly PCa. Cancer alters the metabolism of its cells and thereby 'feeds' itself aggressively. There are multiple ways to block not just the metabolic pathways but the signaling and growth pathways as well. If you haven't read her book you haven't really experienced the amount of research referenced. And the research is prolific. What I have come to understand is that complimentary treatment is well researched BUT not making it to clinical practice. If readying Jane McClelland is not your thing then that's fine. But for those of you looking for real help, I'd high recommend this book. (Make certain it is the second version - with ferroptosis.)
She has published nothing in peer-reviewed journals - I checked. What is she afraid of if she is legit. Anyone can pull mouse studies and observational studies to "prove" any hypothesis. But that does not constitute proof - only a hypothesis.
I only read peer-reviewed journals. If she has anything worth saying, she would welcome the scrutiny of her peers. There is too much bad pseudoscience out there for any of us to take seriously.
I read the book. Each cancer is different. I have members of family whose cancer went away with conventional treatment, I personally know at least three people whose cancer went into remission, one using only complementary stuff and the other two a combination of the two. A few other friends survived breast cancer simply using the western treatments. They were already very healthy and fit and continue to be so.
They were not following her approach. My husband had a version of prostate cancer that was aggressive. I contacted the organisation recommended in Jane's book to ask how many prostate cancer patients had turned things around with her approach. It was going to be expensive for generic drugs and there was not much experience with prostate cancer there. There have been a few on this forum who tried that - all of us discover these books. We had an open mind to try everything and anything. But we did not follow the generics approach. Jane had the access to details of the kind ordinary folks do not have such as what the cancer expressed as is clear from the book which I have read in detail, making notes alongside - that type of expensive research is out of our control plus nobody in the NHS in the UK was about to order it for us. Cancer changes so we would have to do this from time to time. The NHS follows a flow chart approach to treatment and one size fits all. I think that each person needs a personalised approach to their cancer and it may well come in the future. We do not even have medical providers of IV vitamin C gives nearby to try.
Having said this, the things that we tried that we feel gave my husband a better quality of life than at the time of diagnosis included vegan food with plenty of vegetables, beans and whole foods. When he was diagnosed he was taken in a wheelchair to his CT scan. Within a few weeks and before hormone treatment started, he was able to walk without pain and start exercising again. We did some supplements too but the food and exercise were the mainstay of complementary support. When cancer developed into yet more aggressive stage, it affected his mobility again at which point it did not matter what he ate or did.
Fasting seems to work for some cancers but PCa feeds early on fats and proteins and later on anything. Fasting may help PCa to keep some growth factors down, but someone here has tried longer fasts and their PSA did not necessarily appear to decrease from simple fasting over long periods.
All the research we did and our experience makes me think that each person is different and even if it worked for her, Jane's approach is not easy for all, esp without the kind of research support she had and access to private therapies.
but they are nice people, they wouldn't mislead us seriously doctors and researchers may go into their fields thinking they will save the world but when it comes to paying off their student loans and surviving most become "practical" and just tow the standard line. my primary care doctor is great in terms of what a doctor can be but she can not go beyond the guidelines set by the group she is part of. she does to some extent but any farther and she would be out of a job. i have appointments coming up soon with the UCSF integrative studies group and hope to find that they are capable of thinking outside of the corporate box.
Thanks for the post. I personally know of two people who used conventional treatment and were told nothing else could be done for them. Both were women and had metastatic breast cancer. One went to Mexico and came back and lived 29 years and the other went to a naturopathic doctor. What amazed me was when Karen went to the ND the first thing she did was send hair and stool samples out for testing. The ND then came up with a plan based on the results of stool and hair samples as well as a complete blood work up. Karen was literally on death’s doorstep. She looked terrible and was in pain. That was about a year ago and today she looks great, feels great and scans are clean. When I was diagnosed 23 years ago a nutritionist said something that sticks with me to this day. She said that you can treat the cancer but if you don’t address the cause it will most likely return. Johanna Budwig found that most cancer patients lack omega 3 fats. She came up with a protocol using quark to be the Trojan horse to deliver the flax seed oil. She was discredited and made a mockery of. It is interesting that if you search tree nuts and prostate cancer you will find that men who have Pca and eat tree nuts live longer than those who don’t. Now this could be because cancer treatments take a toll on the heart and the omega 3 fat protects the heart. Anyway, thanks again for the post as there are some on this forum who have open minds and like to read both sides.
Keep in mind it is impossible to have a double blind study to prove or disprove theories related to diet. Humans are not lab rats. You can not control the subjects over enough time to have any conclusive results that would be acceptable to any peer review.
Nevertheless, I accept the theories that a healthy plant based diet is overall beneficial and could provide help in our struggle to get ahead of this disease.
We don’t “prove” or “disprove” things at all. We gain increasing levels of confidence, the more our observations match the predictions of our theories. Or, with observations that don’t matchup with predictions, we refine or outright discard a theory. That’s the idea, anyway, of how actual science works.
I’ve done some research on this site using the search feature and it’s hard to argue with death from PC. This site is full of BS that people who are still breathing and pushing homemade concoctions in gel caps and diets that are in the category of absurd.
Folks go back 8 or 10 years those pushing products that you buy on Amazon are in the majority of DEAD. I will admit on one hand the people that take a slew of concoctions are amazingly still alive. You know who you are because you are reading this and the dead aren’t. Being happy what you do with all the videos and articles with fighting PC more power to you. Keep doing it. Be happy.
To me reading someone’s bio who is heading to Palliative care or in home Hospice after seeing all the over counter products is just staggering.
As one member said “The placibo effect can be very powerful”
Working in the Casino industry I totally understand odds. Very few win and majority loose. They all have a mental concoction of what they thinks it makes them a winner. In the end they loose.
Every gambler will tell you they had a good time. So if you like to gamble with your health with potions and foods that heal and kill cancer.
I don't think many people would advocate refusing medical treatment in favor of tofu and carrot juice, but in our case, the side effects from his cancer treatment were becoming more dangerous than the cancer, so we're taking a hiatus from that but continuing our complimentary program.
I don't for the life of me understand how so many doctors seem so completely oblivious to the power of nutrition. It's the foundation.
I’ve taken the time to ask my doctors over the last 6 years if there is something I can or can’t eat with the scan or medication. I’ve always been told just a well balanced meal. If you asked them I think you will get the same answer.
Nutrition is very important.
Doctors understand that. Maybe it goes without saying. Someone that just eats Hot Dogs and Ice Cream might think that’s balanced. But then the doctor is smart enough to know diabetes and Obesity on the patients chart. Hopefully the doctor could explain the obvious about proper nutrition in that case.
comorbidities from poor food choices as well smoking and alcohol, doctors understand that. When you get to that point the horse has already been let out of the barn especially with cancer eating your body. Eating a balanced meal and getting away from the hot dogs, ice cream , alcohol and cigarettes should surely extend the life but to kill and cure cancer at that point in time most would be an absolute miracle.
To suggest a 'balanced diet' can mean different things to different people...means nothing. From what I hear, med school offers maybe a week of nutritional training.
Nope. That pyramid has been pretty much debunked recently. Like I said, Wayne is vegan...I'm a cheatin' vegan...can't quite give up cheese and the occasional egg, but we're both basically plant based, but with the weekly or bi-weekly salmon filet. Also, the only oils I have in the house are extra virgin olive, avocado and coconut. We need good quality saturated fats.
Looks like you are a much more superior human and educated than me when it comes to food intake. Time for my nightly snack of pickled pigs feet and beer.
Your post brings to my mind an article I read a little over two years ago. I googled gut health and adt thinking I would find adt to be hard on the gut. Instead I found an article about a group of students at John Hopkins University who did a study and found that men with good gut micrombe did much better on ADT. The doctor who reviewed the study was so impressed that he felt fecal transplants may be of benefit and felt further studies were warranted. It is interesting that abiraterone actually increases good gut bacteria. It is not often you find medicines that help the gut. As dhccpa mentioned, suggesting anything but conventional medicine can cause some friction. Hang in there and God Bless.
Many people talk about her so I read her book with an unbiased eye. I researched all of her recommended supplements. Most of them haven't been shown to do anything for human cancers. A few that were worthy of research have failed clinical trials. There are a couple that might have merit at certain times and in certain people with specific health concerns: low dose aspirin for example.
She had radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery, yet has decided that her supplements cured her, while she claims that SOC did nothing. Seems like a good setup to write a book.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
seriously doctors and researchers may go into their fields thinking they will save the world but when it comes to paying off their student loans and surviving most become "practical" and just tow the standard line. my primary care doctor is great in terms of what a doctor can be but she can not go beyond the guidelines set by the group she is part of. she does to some extent but any farther and she would be out of a job. i have appointments coming up soon with the UCSF integrative studies group and hope to find that they are capable of thinking outside of the corporate box.
Care Oncology Clinic and their cocktails
QoL: Booked in for some Respite Care
FYI: Be careful when considering RX 
Supplements and self-care
