Gonzalez dismantles the ketogenic diet for cancer. In early 2. 01. 2, I started to see some chatter online about the ketogenic diet as a potential anti- cancer diet. Mercola's Nutrition Plan will give you tips on healthy eating and exercise, as well as other lifestyle strategies to help you achieve optimal health. I’ve understood for many years that different diets work for different people, and I was intrigued by this as another possible dietary strategy to heal cancer, so naturally I shared information about it on this site, thinking it might be a viable option for some. At that time there were no other sites as large as mine talking about it. In 2. 01. 3, awareness of the keto diet exploded, mostly do to Dr. Mercola’s articles, interviews and endorsement of it. Since then, many others have jumped on the bandwagon. And at first glance, there is a compelling hypothesis which presents the ketogenic diet as a method to starve cancer cells of their primary fuel, glucose, thus killing the cancer. Despite the zealous promoters of it, some of whom I have great respect for, my opinion of the ketogenic diet for cancer has changed. It started with several long phone conversations and email exchanges I had with cancer healing expert friend who was adamant that the ketogenic diet did not work in healing cancer long term. This coincided with the recurrence of cancer in someone I knew who was promoting the ketogenic diet as effective.
It appeared to have some positive short term results for some people (shrinking or slowing down tumors), but I was beginning to have some doubts about it working long term. This uneasiness persisted for many months and I could not shake it. So I finally made the decision to take down my very popular post and youtube video about it. Then came the coup de grace from Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez MD in October 2. Addendum: Dr. Gonzalez passed away in 2. Dr. Gonzalez and his colleague Dr. Diet Time By Vivien WadeDiet Times To EatLinda Isaacs MD have had remarkable success treating cancer patients with a non- toxic nutritional protocol that incorporates some Gerson principles along with the late Dr. William Donald Kelley’s protocol which includes high doses of pancreatic enzymes and individualized diets depending on body type and cancer type. I have huge respect for them, not because of their theories, but because they are getting RESULTS, including reversing “incurable” stage four cancers. Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health. Articles, research, diet advice, and free guides from IF-expert, Martin Berkhan. News evaluated 38 of the most popular diets and identified the best. Find which top-rated diet is best for your health and fitness goals. Dr. Gonzalez wrote an eight part article series for Natural Health 3. Gonzalez’s nutritional cancer treatment expertise is much deeper than ANYONE currently promoting the ketogenic diet for cancer, because unlike anyone else promoting it, he actually treats cancer patients with nutrition every day. There are thousands of people out there who have healed cancer naturally. I meet natural survivors constantly and even share their stories on this site. Most natural cancer healing protocols involve a radical change of diet and lifestyle that includes overdosing on nutrition with juicing, lots of raw plant food, little to no animal food, supplements, and herbal cleanses along with detox protocols like coffee enemas, etc. Those are all time- tested methods validated by a large body of long- term survivors. I know a lot of long- term natural survivors, but I don’t know of any long- term survivors who have used a ketogenic diet to heal. I’ve seen studies where rats on a ketogenic diet lived a little longer, then died. Survivors trump scientific theories. And until we have a substantial list of long- term survivors, I cannot in good conscience support ketogenic diet as a viable option for healing cancer. I am perfectly ok with being proven wrong, and if so, will freely admit it, but it will be at least 1. Having said all that, if the plant- based nutritional protocol that I and so many others have used successfully to heal, did not work, I would certainly be open to try the ketogenic diet. It just wouldn’t be my first choice. Here is a short interview with Jonathan Landsman of Natural Health 3. Dr. Gonzalez explains why he thinks a ketogenic diet doesn’t work for cancer. Gonzalez uses nutrition to treat cancer, and puts his patients on a variety of diets based on their cancer and other factors. If the ketogenic diet worked, this is a doctor who would be using it. If you want to take a deep dive, Dr. Gonzalez masterfully dismantles the ketogenic diet for cancer in the lengthy article below. This is not a scientific rebuttal, quibbling over theories about Warburg, glycosis, cell respiration, and ATP, rather it is a thoughtful, well- reasoned reflection from a doctor who has been in the trenches of nutritional cancer treatment for nearly three decades. His real world experience, insider knowledge, historical perspective and common sense put him head and shoulders above the lab- rat researchers and theorizers, no offense guys/gals. The following article, which first appeared on Natural Health 3. Nicholas Gonzalez. In this initial article, I’d like to begin by making the point that the world of cancer research and cancer medicine is littered with the discarded theories and rejected therapies thought at one time to be the next promising miracle, the final answer to this perplexing and deadly disease. In my own professional lifetime, I have witnessed a number of cancer miracles come and go, sometimes in quite dizzying succession and at times with extraordinarily dazzling hysteria. I remember one of the first, from 1. I was a first year medical student at Cornell; in this case, it was, according to the press and the journals, the magic of interferon, an immune stimulant destined to bring cancer to its knees. Not too long afterward, interferon would turn out to be a bust, with its promise and fame rising and falling in roller coaster- like style. I lived through a far more extraordinary situation just five years later. I had graduated medical school by that point and was living in Florida, finishing my immunology fellowship under Robert A. Good, MD, Ph. D, the famed “father of modern immunology” as he had been called. It was late 1. 98. I was sitting in my apartment overlooking beautiful Tampa Bay, when I read the initial front- page newspaper reports. Steven Rosenberg, already well- known as Ronald Reagan’s surgeon (the President had a malignant polyp), and a highly regarded basic science researcher running a section at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, had just revealed to the world – at a press conference, as I remember – his preliminary pilot study results with a new immune modulator, interleukin- 2, that would provoke an extraordinary media frenzy. The initial pronouncements, released with such glowing enthusiasm, indicated that finally, yes finally, after so many disappointments we might actually be looking at a real, universal cancer cure. In both laboratory and preliminary human trials, interleukin- 2 – like interferon before it, a natural product secreted by lymphocytes that stimulates other cancer- fighting immune cells into action – had performed almost magically against even the most aggressive of cancers, such as metastatic melanoma and metastatic kidney cancer. News of Dr. Rosenberg’s “miracle” was everywhere, in the print media, on the local and national news, and in an extended Newsweek story appearing December 1. Dr. Rosenberg on the cover peering intently at the world. The article, titled “Search for A Cure” in large bold print went on for six pages, accompanied by photos of Dr. Rosenberg, one with a patient, another as the serious scientist in the lab. Elaborate, colorful artwork illustrated the narrative, showing the intricate mechanisms of the immune system, and pinpointing interleukin- 2’s ability, under the guiding hand of Dr. Rosenberg, to fight malignant disease. A separate subsection headlined “The Rise of a Superstar, From Reagan’s surgery to the frontiers of research” chronicled the compelling life story of Dr. You couldn’t buy better publicity than this. At the end of this piece, the writers did include a brief section titled “Interferon: A Cautionary Tale,“ reminding readers of the hoopla five years earlier over that other immune modulator, which too had been all the rage in the cancer research world. The essay, following the main laudatory articles, began: To some ears, last week’s exultation over interleukin- 2 has a familiar but discordant ring. Something similar happened about five years ago with a substance called interferon, the “magic bullet” of cancer research, featured on magazine covers and in articles with titles like “To Save Her Life – And Yours.” . Good, had done much of the original research linking it to a possible anti- cancer effect. By that point, I knew Dr. Good quite well: during my second year of medical school, Dr. Good, at the time a professor at Cornell and Director of the Sloan- Kettering Institute, had begun guiding my fledgling research career. In 1. 98. 2, during my third year of medical school, to my dismay the powers that be at Sloan pushed him out rather unceremoniously. Subsequently, he spent some time at the University of Oklahoma, where he was hired to set up a cancer research division, before moving to All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, where again he established a cancer research- bone marrow transplant unit. When the news of interleukin- 2 first hit the press, I discussed this new “miracle” with Dr. Good, who had grown quite cautious after years of experience and having witnessed many similar announcements followed by the inevitable letdown in the research community.“Look at the data, always look at the data,” he said, “not the media reports.” I followed his advice, tracked down and studied the actual clinical data, which I found surprisingly unimpressive. As I recall, in the first uncontrolled trial, of more than 1. In subsequent months, reports of enormous toxicity, even patient deaths began to filter through the research community, serving to temper the initial hysteria. And it wasn’t cheap, as miracles go – the very toxic drug was so potentially dangerous it had to be administered in a hospital setting under very close supervision, with costs running in excess of $1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |