Do you believe Cancer is treatable via nutrition?

Kind of a little survey... What do you think? Just opinions are okay. Do you think Cancer can be PREVENTED and even CURED by using nutritional therapies?

14 Answers

  • lo_mcg
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    No. Cancer affects the healthy and the unhealthy alike - couch potatoes and athletes, healthy eaters and junk food addicts.

    You can reduce your risk of some types of cancer; a diet high in red and especially processed meats is a major risk factor for colorectal cancers, and thought to possibly increase the risk of stomach cancer (as is a diet high in salt). A diet high in meat and fat may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer and a diet high in dairy is thought to be a possible risk factor in prostate cancer, and a diet high in fat may be a risk factor for some other cancers.

    All these are risk factors, some of them not conclusively known risk factors. A risk factor is not a cause.

    While a diet low in or excluding red and processed meat reduces the risk of some cancers, and a low fat, low salt diet may reduce the risk of some others, there are no guarantees of prevention.

    You may well get answers from people claiming nutrition can cure cancer; in my experience, both on YA and elsewhere, all of the people making such claims have no experience of this happening at all; they know nobody who has been 'cured' of cancer in this way and will usually provide a link a questionable online health magazine as their proof.

    Many advocates of nutrition as a cure for cancer like to quote Max Gerson's therapy as a n example of success. In fact the Gerson diet has never been proved to have cured one case of cancer; many people have tried it after or alongside conventional cancer treatments, and some have chosen to credit subsequent improvement in their diet to the Gerson therapy rather than the conventional (proven) treatment. Here are some informed articles on this, the first being about Gerson's famous 50 'best cases', only four of which appear anything like credible:

    In my own case - I hav been vegetarian most of my life, and for the last 14 years have been a vegan. When I thought about it at all, I assumed my healthy, largely organic diet packed with fruit and veg, would protect me against cancer, especially coupled with the facts that I exercised regularly and have never smoked.

    Six years ago I was diagnosed with an aggressive and advanced cancer; my diet didn't prevent it or cure it, and I'd be foolish to rely on it to prevent or treat any recurrence or metastasis in the future.

    So my answer's no; I don't believe cancer is treatable via nutrition, or preventable.



    Oh Paddy, Paddy - where to start with you? I agree with Dave that your answer is terrible, but even though it contains a personal insult aimed at me - 'drug industry proponent' - I'mnot reporting it because I too think it's useful and I want people to see it.

    First, yes - anyone who uses Mike Adams' bastion of quackery, Natural News, as a reference loses all credibility. And the links are to magazne articles, not studies, much less proof of any kind.

    And anyone who resorts to calling someone who disagrees with them a 'drug industry proponent' has lost the argument, resorting to insult instead.

    There is still time, by the way, for you to answer this question - no other altie has been brave enough yet -;_ylt=Av8bi...

    I have NEVER said that meat causes cance; I simply give the known and suspected links between diet and a very few types of cancer. Read this carefully: ''While a diet low in or excluding red and processed meat reduces the risk of some cancers, and a low fat, low salt diet may reduce the risk of some others, there are no guarantees of prevention.'' Where exactly am I 'talking out of both sides of my mouth'?

    Taking your lead?! Don't flatter yourself. Here is an answer given by me containing exactly the same information, posted at least six months before your YA account was opened - I could go further back, but I'm too full of nut roast to bother. Happy Christmas


    @ Paddy. Once again, see see the robust response from Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch to the smear campaign that has been waged against him:

    The libel suits against Barrett were launched on behalf of that wicked old fraud, Hulda Clark.

    Clark wasn't a medical doctor, she was a a zoologist. who claimed cancer is caused by parasites and that she could cure it with her zapper.

    The way she worked was to diagnose the cancer herself, then claim to have cured it - so patients would believe themselves to be cured of a cancer they never had in the first place.

    She was run out of the US after she falsely diagnosed a Department of Health undercover agent with AIDS, telling her 'I can treat you here. It's a one minute test and it's all electronic'. She then told the agent she was 'full of the virus. And we will cure it in three minutes'.

    There is, of course, no actual evidence that she ever cured anyone with cancer or AIDS. She was a fraud and a charlatan exploiting the misery and desperation of vulnerable people to line her own pockets. She claimed to be able to cure all cancers, and got very rich on the proceeds of her quackery.

    As you probably know, Clark died a couple of months ago. Of cancer. I know which one out of her and Barrett I would rather trust.

    Oh, and I guarantee that if I reported your answer it would be deleted. It is highly reportable, as it contains an insult aimed at another YA participant.

    You seem to have some difficulties with reading, or perhaps it's with comprehension, or maybe it's simply delusions of grandeur. Who knows or cares...

    BTW, sticking with your motoring motif, an illustration of the difference between a risk factor and a cause. Insurance companies regard 'being male' as a risk factor for having a car accident. Being male does not actually cause car accidents.


    Paddy: ''Please don't try to bully me away from this forum, as it will not work!'' I have a way with words, don't I? I'm almost flattered that you've lifted a remark I made directly to you in the Alt Med section and used it here.

    For anyone puzzled by this exchange, Paddy believes I am lying about having had cancer and that I work for either a pharmeceutical company or the pharmeceutical industry in general, who pay me to answer questions here on YA. Yeah, I know. He's not singling me out though; he has made the same accusations against just about every regular on here who has written about their own or a relative's cancer and says they are well after conventional treatment, or that they believe conventional treatment was/is helpful in prolonging life.

  • Panda
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    No. And the reason is simple . . cancer is an ancient disease . . people have been trying for hundreds of thousands of years to 'cure' cancer using . . yup . . nutrition or food or what you would consider 'alternative's' . . and nothing worked. The only breakthrough that the human race has ever had for surviving cancer has come about in the last forty years or so and that is due to early detection and aggressive treatments . . prior to that time everyone died no matter what they did or did not eat. If nutrition 'worked' . . you would actually see people cured in this way . . you don't . . they don't exist because those who have 'tried it out' have died. Where are all the people treated with nutrition and have survived to tell about it . . non existent. People want to desperately believe that they can control what happens to them . . and cancer is something that cannot be controlled no matter how desperately we try. If cancer could be prevented or cured by using nutritional therapies it would have worked long, long, long before today.

    Source(s): Experience. Lost teenage son to rare abdominal sarcoma. Have known many, many patients with rare cancers who have 'tried out' alternatives or nutritional therapies and all failed to halt the progression of disease (and they all believed in it).
  • 1 decade ago

    NO. In my opinion, nutritional food or otherwise that is connected to nutrition has no more effect in treating cancerous cell. It should either be undergoing radiation therapy or surgery to remove the cancerous cell. Because to me a cancerous cell has no more capability to repair itself or regain full recovery once a tumor has attach to it.

    IMAGINE A CAR with a broken axle or a wore out pin in the carburetor. Do you expect this car will repair its own self by driving around the block or the highway in due time? I guess not. As long as you prolong the problem, it will add more problem to the present problem. You get my point here? A body like they say can heal itself yes but it depends on the problem concern. Like a cancer I doubt if our body can heal the cancerous cell by eating nutritional food only. So you expect in due time the problem can easily solved by just eating nutritional food or drinking herbal medicine? I myself believe in herbal medicine but once the cancer is detected its a different story all together.

    I DON'T KNOW if you heard about cancer patients going to China for cryo something surgery for cancerous cell. The Chinese doctors freeze the cancerous cell only not the entire body of the patient and remove it through surgery. In chemo therapy method the entire body submerge into the medicine and even the healthy cells are affected by the therapy while in China they delicately fixed the cell which has the tumor only. But the treatment is very expensive, an accommodation and the surgery cost one patient $20,000. If I'm not mistaken this is in Guandong China. I have seen it through a video report from our own channel network. It is an eye opener for cancer patients world wide, most of the patients there are Europeans and Asians which I guess can pay for the treatment. Everybody is desperate I guess once a person is diagnose as having a cancer he or she will move mountains or even heavens just to stay alive even for one more day isn't it?

  • 1 decade ago


    No this whole holistic crap is a gimmick and people are making lots of money off of it. Cancer is not treatable, preventable or curable via fruits, veggies and herbs. While I don't exactly agree with chemotherapy either I just definitely don't believe in using nutrition for cancer.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I like Katrina's answer.

    I don't like most of our 100+ chemotherapy drugs either,

    and I was a cancer chemotherapy specialist doctor for 20 years.

    Non-specific poisons are not what we really want to treat advanced malignancies,

    it is just the best we have right now for many of the 200+ types of cancer we see..

    But nutritional remedies for the treatment of advanced cancers simply do not work.

    Prevention - maybe.

    Cancer prevention is best handled by not smoking cigarettes and not becoming obese.

    Source(s): MD medical oncologist - cancer specialist physician
  • dave
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Treatable? No of course not.

    Preventable? Only if you're replacing hot dogs with carrot sticks.

    (Utterly terrible reply from Paddy, but useful to show how people are so easily swayed by silly websites).

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago


    Though I am sure it wouldn't hurt to have a healthy diet to help prevent cancer, or recover from chemo.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Of course not, otherwise animals that have an "exclusive diet" (ie they eat only one thing all the time, like pandas & koalas do) would either ALL get cancer or none of them would....and in reality, these critters get cancer at about the same rates as humans and all other animals do.

  • 1 decade ago

    Lots of vitamin C in industrial side effects, boosts immune system that maybe can fight back...

    But anyway there is a lot of money to be made around cancer so i think the cure won't be found any time soon...where would you send all the people or the drugs or the facilities that work around it.

  • 1 decade ago

    Absolutely, and I am the one providing the link to the "questionable online health magazine", as referred by a drug industry proponent here. Average people, that is, those who are not on this forum to sell something, generally still assume that nutrition plays no role whatsoever in promoting health, and preventing and treating disease even as they also state that its crucial to eat healthy, lol. Quite a contradiction, obviously public nutrition educational programs still have a long way to go. If certain foods cause diseases like cancer, then logically OTHER foods will prevent or cure illness, just don't expect the industry advertisers to acquiesce. See these links.

    EDIT - lo_mcg - If you believe the magazine is questionable ( while citing Quatchwatch as a reliable source, lol ) , then why are you continually taking my lead here , and verifying meat as a cause in at least three major cancers ? Here you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    EDIT - lo_mcg - Do you keep a straight face putting up the Quatchwatch link, probably not. That is industry propaganda in its most extreme form. Barrett is closely aligned with the FDA, has launched a dozen libel suits against critics and won not a single case, and holds no credibility whatsoever outside drug industry circles. This is an admirable attempt at disinformation though.

    Why mess about, you know that cause and risk factors are one and the same. If a drunk gets behind the wheel of a car and promptly crashes it into a wall, by your "logic" it was not his inebriated state that caused the crash, that was just a risk factor, lol. You must be familiar with the concept of probability . You intentionally ignore diet as a probability factor in cancer, not surprising since in conventional medicine prevention ( of diseases through lifestyle changes ) is a dirty word.

    While I am sincerely amused that you back-peddle on your cancer claims after I reference low Asian colon cancer rates, as for your statement " I'mnot reporting it because I too think it's useful and I want people to see it (sic)", you would have done that long ago if it was feasible. And regarding your "invite" I have no patience for your histrionics, so I will let you continue to play solitaire with your roast.

    lo_mcg - re-"You seem to have some difficulties with reading, or perhaps it's with comprehension, or maybe it's simply delusions of grandeur. Who knows or cares...

    YOU care, for reasons that should be obvious to any perceptive person familiar with this section, and as for Barrett's "defence" once again you are providing industry advertising as evidence. Please don't try to bully me away from this forum, as it will not work!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think it can prevent and even cure cancer.Max Gerson was a doctor that was curing people back in the 1940's in Germany.His daughter is in Calif and you can checkout or Gerson Institute.They have been curing cancer and other things naturally.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.