Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. People swear by it. There are even Ted Talks about the Ketogenic diet curing cancer. It's also claimed that the keto diet reverses type 2 diabetes.
Since you quoted me almost verbatim - where am I off base? Your post is confusing.
...I just ate a double fudge brownie....I'm not responsible for anything for at least the next hour!
You were saying "drugs"...the FDA approves "drugs"...a "drug" is submitted to the FDA...
Emverm...the FDA didn't approve a drug....they only approved one "brand name" of a drug
Obviously the FDA couldn't approve a drug off patent that's now generic....in this case, the FDA didn't approve a drug....they approved one brand name, marketed by one company
...the FDA did not approve a drug...they approved one brand name of that drug
No. People swear by it. There are even Ted Talks about the Ketogenic diet curing cancer. It's also claimed that the keto diet reverses type 2 diabetes.
I find it odd when the public accuses some physicians (rightfully so) of quackery, but at the same time actively seek and prefer quackery over conventional medical treatment.
I cannot tell you how many times I have had a patient say that they cannot afford a medicine, but produce half a grocery sack of expensive "herbals", which they have eagerly paid for!
In these instances, I ask if the herbals are so effective, why are you here?
The ketogenic diet as a cure for cancer is promising, the theory behind the concept makes sense, and there's no way for it to be a scam because there's no profit incentive for anybody to recommend a zero-carb diet.
Quote:
I find it odd when the public accuses some physicians (rightfully so) of quackery, but at the same time actively seek and prefer quackery over conventional medical treatment.
They have reason to because you are actually a profit-oriented salesman who is offering services and drugs for money. You don't actually have an incentive to cure anybody's cancer. Expensive radiation treatments, surgeries, and chemo therapy, lines your pockets.
Quote:
I cannot tell you how many times I have had a patient say that they cannot afford a medicine, but produce half a grocery sack of expensive "herbals", which they have eagerly paid for!
In these instances, I ask if the herbals are so effective, why are you here?
You can make that argument about snake-oil "herbal remedy", but not about a lifestyle recommendation.
Probably where that "get more than one opinion" comes from....people get so set in their ways....they refuse to even look at...or consider...something that goes against their 'conventional medical treatment'....
There seems to be *something* to the Ketogenic diet for cancer, because, as I pointed out to you earlier (which you ignored), in primitive societies (which happen to have diets low in sugar and, of course, low in processed food), cancer is relatively rare.
Regarding the bolded statement above - who do you think approves drugs? A drug is submitted to the FDA and they look at the research on the safety / effectiveness of the drug. They also look at the inserts and labeling, but it's up to them to either approve the drug or respond to the manufacturer about why they are not approving it. So yes, they do regulate what consumers can buy.
Doctors may prescribe drugs that have not been approved by FDA:
"Among the most popular unapproved drugs still available are estrogen-plus-testosterone pills, which are marketed as hot-flash remedies. Doctors wrote 1.8 million prescriptions for these drugs in 2008, despite the FDA's 2003 findings that there wasn't enough evidence the hormonal cocktail works. And it may raise the risk of breast cancer, liver problems, and depression." https://www.oprah.com/health/drug-sa...#ixzz5mbqLfnV4
Then there is off-label prescriptions. For example, a doctor might write a prescription for propranolol, usually used for high blood pressure, to help a patient with performance anxiety. But propranolol has not been approved for performance anxiety, and the manufacturer may not market it as a treatment for that condition.
A similar situation exists for diagnostics. A company may get their kit or device approved for diagnosing a particular disease under either a PMA or 510k submission. Other tests are marketed "For Research Use Only", yet doctors may use results from these tests to aid in diagnosis.
"The results, in conjunction with our earlier data, suggest that FZ is a new microtubule interfering agent that displays anti-neoplastic activity and "........."...may be evaluated as a potential therapeutic agent because of its effect on multiple cellular pathways leading to effective elimination of cancer cells."
They are saying it may be evaluated as a treatment....they are not saying it didn't work
"Results
FZ destabilizes tubulin network in human NSCLC cells"
They are not being ambiguous or wishy washy about it.....they say it flat out....
"Altogether, our findings show microtubule disruption, p53 stabilization and interference with glucose metabolism as collective underlying mechanisms of FZ induced preferential elimination of cancer cells both in vitro and in vivo."
I'm not saying it doesn't work; I'm saying we don't know yet.
Treating cancer cells in a petri dish is not the same as treating a human tumor
Treating human tumors transplanted into a mouse is not the same as treating a person with cancer
A person may have seen their cancer disappear after taking this drug. That remains a coincidence, until there have been controlled studies on a sufficient number of patients.
I'm not saying it doesn't work; I'm saying we don't know yet.
Treating cancer cells in a petri dish is not the same as treating a human tumor
Treating human tumors transplanted into a mouse is not the same as treating a person with cancer
A person may have seen their cancer disappear after taking this drug. That remains a coincidence, until there have been controlled studies on a sufficient number of patients.
Leo...it already works in humans....I wish you guys would read their paper
It kills parasites in humans....it kills cancer cells exactly the same way it kills parasites
A further anti-cancer mechanism the researchers found with fenbendazole was that it blocked the uptake of glucose in cancer cells, depriving them of their primary fuel.
This is interesting. The drug in question, Fenbendazole, allegedly stops cancer by "starving" the cancer of glucose. The Keto diet is said to work the same way, but instead by simply not eating any foods that raise blood glucose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
