Update on March 24th:
A few days ago my Dad learned that the FAA reinstated his pilot's license. To refresh memories, he lost it a year ago and was told that he would have to have a stint put in if he wanted his license back. He instead took the smallest dose of cholesterol medication prescribed, along with a plant-based diet and voila, he got his heart back in shape after just one year with NO operation.
Also, my friend who had colon cancer is still in remission. It's kind of funny because just minutes after my Dad told me about getting his license back, a commercial came on t.v. saying that colon cancer had the second highest death rate of all types of cancers.

Here’s another update on my friend:

“Hey John,
Good to hear from you; I am doing well as a matter of fact; finally got my cancer "stabilized"
so my chemo routine (frequency) has been cut in half- chemo every other week for 1 month, then
one month with no chemo at all. Nice for a change. I believe this routine will continue until one
of the quarterly PT scans indicates otherwise.”


Alright, some of you remember I posted about this earlier, but now I offer you first-hand proof. For those that don't know, I touted the virtues of a plant-based diet based on reading the book "The China Study" by Dr. T Colin Campbell. To give the unaware a VERY brief synopsis, this man's life's research was inspired by a study where 100 rats were given a cancer-causing agent (aflatoxin), then half were fed a diet of 20% animal protein (similar to an American diet), and the other half got 5%. EVERY single rat with the 20% diet got cancer or the beginnings of it AND EVERY SINGLE RAT WITH THE 5% DIET DID NOT SHOW ANY SIGNS OF CANCER. It doesn't get any more clear cut than that. Further, the Doctor headed up the world's largest dietary study ever done (The China Study) and yet his book hardly references it. instead, he cites over 700 other sources that support his research. Dr. Campbell is a research scientist at Cornell University and has helped set dietary guidelines for the Department of Health, been on many national and international dietary committees, etc., He is well respected in the field, he is the real deal, and this is not the Atkins Diet or some other popular money-making scheme drawn up by someone with a fancy imagination and quick wit who likes to prey on the uneducated. if you read the book, you will see that the diet is equally beneficial for heart disease, reversing Type 2 diabetes, etc.

Anyway, Tom, the keyboard player in my old band had to drop out due to cancer. He was a life long smoker and the prognosis did not sound good. No one said as much, but it sounded like he was in the 6 months-to-go phase. If you know me, I'll try just about anything (within reason), so I took him the book and told him about the basic premise of it. At the time he did not look or act well, and couldn't even remember how many cancers he had. I honestly didn't think anything would happen, but, well I'll let him tell you. Here's an excerpt of a recent email he sent me.

"I'm doing good, thanks for asking. The last PET Scan I had (around 2 months ago) showed ALL
of my tumors are shrinking and the big daddy tumor (Colon) actually has some dead tissue which
the Dr. say is really unusual as Chemo therapy kills cancer cells when they are "born" i.e. when
a healthy cell divides into 2 cancer cells, rather than when they are "mature" and existing as a
single cancerous cell. So the China Diet may be working. I follow it fairly religiously M-F but on
Weekends I usually have animal protein (beef, pork, poultry, fish) a couple of times."

Yes, he does eat some animal protein, as do I. If you read the book, although the author does not advocate it, most of his research indicates that if you keep your consumption (of animal food products) to 10% or less, you'll be okay. My wife finally read some of the book and admitted that it is indeed an interesting read, not at all like she thought it would be. anyway, this is for all you that may be in search of a cure, I hope this may help someone else.

[This message has been edited by countach711 (edited 03-24-2011).]

Or maybe it could be attributed to eating unprocessed foods vs processed foods (and the preservatives and additives thereto). Innuit people have low rates of heart disease and live forever too... off seal blubber.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Or maybe it could be attributed to eating unprocessed foods vs processed foods (and the preservatives and additives thereto). Innuit people have low rates of heart disease and live forever too... off seal blubber.

no offense Mr. Hess, but you really ought to do more research if you are going to throw around speculation like it was fact.
"I found a a mortality table from the records of a Russian mission in Alaska (compiled by Veniaminov, taken from Cancer, Disease of Civilization), which recorded the ages of death of a traditionally-living Inuit population during the years 1822 to 1836. Excluding infant mortality, about 25% of their population lived past 60. Based on these data, the approximate life expectancy (excluding infant mortality) of this Inuit population was 43.5 years." http://wholehealthsource.bl...fespan-of-inuit.html I googled the info and found many more facts supporting just the opposite of what you portend to be true.

http://www.diseaseproof.com...e-inuit-healthy.html

You can find anything you like if you search long enough on the idiot net.

I am a firm believer in that the additives we put in all of our foods here in the US are the reason for most peoples medical problems.

Do a search of food preservatives and additives. You will be amazed at the amount of poisons we consume in our foods in the name of making them look good and have longer shelf life’s.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

If he is basing this on ONE study, then I call BS. My degree is in the biological sciences and I worked with a toxicologist from a very large corporation and if they had to prove something it took hundreds of thousands of dollars (plus), and multiple tests using standardized animals and conditions. Then, the subject had to be researched and supported by other studies.

For this study, who is to say that the "cancer causing agent" was interacting with an additive in the animal protein?

If you can reproduce this test over and over, then I will believe, otherwise, it is faith and coincidence.

"Known to cause cancer in the state of California"

...anways, I also agree a one-off experiment does not prove anything, it has to be repeatable - although if he has published this, then there could be something to it, however there are also many forms of cancer...

http://www.ted.com/talks/wi...ent=ted.com-talkpage

it is 20 min video
not exactly the same thing - but - it is diet based, and getting results like the opening post, and has much science behind it
Antiangiogenetics
the idea the the key to fighting cancer is to NOT allow the body to feed the cancer thru blood flow. seems one of the ways cancers grow is to trick the body into rerouting more & more blood flow to itself.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: If he is basing this on ONE study, then I call BS. If you can reproduce this test over and over, then I will believe, otherwise, it is faith and coincidence.

You should really re-read my first post, this all covered there. And yes, it is repeatable, THEY ARE ABLE TO ACTUALLY CONTROL THE STARTING AND STOPPING OF CANCER BY THE AMOUNT OF ANIMAL PROTEIN THEY FEED THE SUBJECTS.
But please don’t believe me, read about it for yourself. You can find him at CORNELL UNIVERSITY, or more specifically, his book is here: http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html

[This message has been edited by countach711 (edited 10-19-2010).]

Updated first post.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: You can find anything you like if you search long enough on the idiot net. I am a firm believer in that the additives we put in all of our foods here in the US are the reason for most peoples medical problems.

So, you're saying "don't bother doing any research, just believe whatever you believe"?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: So, you're saying "don't bother doing any research, just believe whatever you believe"?

Lol

Part of the problem is that the guy is selling a book (it sounds like). If this was a true study, then it would be in the scientific journals and can be reproduced by any standardized lab. I am guessing this isn't the case.

Selling a book is the point of this "study"... it isn't about research, discovery and helping others.... at least that is what it seems. Sorry... my degree is in the sciences and I have worked for one of the largest chemical companies (within their toxicology departments)... I am skeptical of these claims.

quote Originally posted by countach711: You should really re-read my first post, this all covered there. And yes, it is repeatable, THEY ARE ABLE TO ACTUALLY CONTROL THE STARTING AND STOPPING OF CANCER BY THE AMOUNT OF ANIMAL PROTEIN THEY FEED THE SUBJECTS. But please don’t believe me, read about it for yourself. You can find him at CORNELL UNIVERSITY, or more specifically, his book is here: http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: "Known to cause cancer in the state of California"

Almost all of the chemicals I use in model building say that! If I stay out of California I'll be fine!

[This message has been edited by tutnkmn (edited 10-20-2010).]

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Part of the problem is that the guy is selling a book (it sounds like). If this was a true study, then it would be in the scientific journals and can be reproduced by any standardized lab. I am guessing this isn't the case. Selling a book is the point of this "study"... it isn't about research, discovery and helping others.... at least that is what it seems. Sorry... my degree is in the sciences and I have worked for one of the largest chemical companies (within their toxicology departments)... I am skeptical of these claims.

The China Study has been debunked by many in peer review. The author only used a very small sample and only selected a few common cancers and diseases, which were known to be genetic prone. There is so many holes and contradictions and obscured medical data and selectivity in his study that his claim is only a generalization with disclaimers. Basically he is promoting and selling an ideological and religious vegan lifestyle.

Study after study has shown that vegans don't live longer, are not more healthier and get the same rate of cancer and diseases than the rest of the population.

And people have been selling cures for cancers since forever. From coffee enemas, to vegan diet, to starving yourself, to no-carb meat diet, to whatever.

If you want to be a vegan, then that's fine, but understand that it is an ideological lifestyle choice like yoga or subscribing to a religion. Meat eating is a basic human activity because we humans have been doing it since the beginning of our species and heavy animal protein consumption has been directly responsible for our evolutionary development for advance intelligence. All I'm going to say is "Just do what you want."
The truth about the China Study
http://www.cholesterol-and-...com/China-Study.html
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/...tudy-fact-or-fallac/

quote Originally posted by tutnkmn: Almost all of the chemicals I use in model building say that! If I stay out of California I'll be fine!

Everything in California causes cancer.... heck, even being there causes cancer. Talk about chicken little....

If it was the cure for cancer, I'm not sure we'd have to decide anything right?

Thank you for posting though, I just reread my post and it sounds a little harsh. Since you are only posting to help anyone interested.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-20-2010).]

from what Ive read,there are plants that are cancer preventers.Ide post that info, but my modem died and all my info is on my other computer.Eat coliflower,brocoli, and drink tea,the green tea has antioxidents that protect you cells.

quote Originally posted by countach711: To give the unaware a VERY brief synopsis, this man's life's research was inspired by a study where 100 rats were given a cancer-causing agent (aflatoxin), then half were fed a diet of 20% animal protein (similar to an American diet), and the other half got 5%. EVERY single rat with the 20% diet got cancer or the beginnings of it AND EVERY SINGLE RAT WITH THE 5% DIET DID NOT SHOW ANY SIGNS OF CANCER. It doesn't get any more clear cut than that.

This is FANTASTIC news...for rats.

Unfortunately for me, I am a human and not a rat. And THOUSANDS of studies over the years have looked promising in rat models and then turned out to not be the same in humans.

I don't care WHAT university he works at. If he wants to REALLY be helpful to people, he would take his model and do what all other helpful research does. He would do the same study with other animal groups that more closely approximate humans.

Oops. Those are EXTREMELY costly, and much LONGER term since the life expectancies of those animals are much longer.

Thats explains why that rat,ate 3,three inch sections of wire, includeing the copper core on my engine compartment (one must have got loose).

[This message has been edited by James Bond 007 (edited 10-20-2010).]

I wont discount anything that is possible but in my own experience the best bet is early or lucky detection and several operations with extremely talented dedicated doctors.

Dilaudid every 4 hours is nice too.

If it is too good to be true... it probably is.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: This is FANTASTIC news...for rats. Unfortunately for me, I am a human and not a rat. And THOUSANDS of studies over the years have looked promising in rat models and then turned out to not be the same in humans.

Exactly. I work in research myself and this is a well known fact. The rat model is an affordable stepping stone to clinical trials or other more accurate models... not a substitute for them.

[This message has been edited by GraterFang (edited 10-20-2010).]

But.......the book says...

Correlating cause and effect. One case up close:

Hepatitus C. Infected 1973, went chronic 1990, dead or bed in 5 notice given 2004.

2008, weight stabilizes after losing 70 # (235 to 160), liver enzyme start 'coasting' neither farther up nor down, same with joints, diabetes, blood pressure, etc. Everything went on hold after 18 years of logrithmic acceleration of symptoms.

Hmmm, why me? If I were excellent with words I could write a book celebrating a new approach at curing Hep C using myself as an example.

Collaborating with my dentist, I would explain eastern philosophy and how acceptance of death and rechannelling my qi allowed my energy to engage the enemy rather than myself. Winning by not wanting to win, very zen.

But this being america I would collaborate with Jeff, showing how my servant's heart has done the Lord's work since I was young and my acceptance of the good news that I need not sacrifice as the Son is the sacrifice has left me blessed.

Living one with nature here in the wilderness I use a vegan diet with a combo of milk thistle, tumeric, and various homeopathic medicines to be cited in detail later. These have stopped the disease cold in its tracks, and soon reversing all the effects.

Fill in the extra chapters with universal platitudes that are true for most people, anecdotes showing humility, family ties and faith. Nothing new or real needs to be included, good humorous prose, easy to read, that's all that's needed. Remember Jonathan Livinston Seagull? I thought you might.

My disease just went on hold two years ago and sometimes cancer dissolves itself and leaves. These things happen to the oddest variety of folks, no pattern discernable at all. And nothing there to help anyone else yet either.

With everyone looking for the cure, any pattern of recovery at all will be big news spread everywhere, every medium, every country.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: And people have been selling cures for cancers since forever. From coffee enemas, to vegan diet, to starving yourself, to no-carb meat diet, to whatever.

OK even though this is not a funny topic - and believe me I know it is not a funny topic - this did make me chuckle. we were sent many many many many many "cures" and had many many many many many letters/phone calls/emails with "cures." One of the well meaning packages had an enema bag - the ones that look like they were made in the 1920s and instructions for a coffee enema. i always asked tyler if anything we were sent or heard was something he was interested in and this was no different. he looked at me like i was completely nuts but then decided that his dad should test it out first! we laughed so hard, it was great.

here's the bottom line - coming from a person who has been there with someone dying of cancer - sometimes one person will respond to one thing and sometimes they don't. sometimes they don't respond to anything even though they should. it has to be the person with cancer's personal choice which treatments are for them and it is a VERY PERSONAL choice. i would have fully supported tyler doing whatever he felt he wanted - it so happened he wanted to die with dignity in his own home instead of in a hospital dying of a treatment that wasn't working. every person and situation is different. if something works for you and cures you - God bless you.

------------------
Nellie - forever Tyler's mommy

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: He would do the same study with other animal groups that more closely approximate humans. Oops. Those are EXTREMELY costly, and much LONGER term since the life expectancies of those animals are much longer.

[sarcasm].....and we can't have those evil pharmacuetical companies recoup the cost of the research by charging an appropriate price. It makes much more sense to just let people die by not giving the incentive to do the research in the first place. We want to live, but we want it to be free.[/sarcasm]

Jim

you know, you doubters are problably all right. I guess I should call Tom and tell him his cancer hasn't stabilized cause the guys on Pennocks said so!!

the rats of nimh!

Wow, that movie is older than I thought.

Ahhh the cycle of this is bad for you do this...use this...eat this... always revolving.

So don't eat animals because they have additives and weren't naturally raised...
So don't eat fruits and veggies because they were grown with pesticides and herbicides...
So dont' eat organic food because they have a high chance of being diseased since they weren't protected....
So don't drink tap water it is polluted....
So don't drink bottled water, the plastic contaminates it.....

I could make a huge list of stupid reasons not to eat or use a lot of things, but I'm going to do just one more.

Better not breathe because of all the pollutants in the air from our factories, vehicles, and aerosols will give you cancer.

[This message has been edited by dn69141 (edited 10-22-2010).]

quote Originally posted by countach711: you know, you doubters are problably all right. I guess I should call Tom and tell him his cancer hasn't stabilized cause the guys on Pennocks said so!!

Let me ask, what else has Tom stopped doing? What medications/supplements is he on? Is he exercising? Has anything within his environment changed? Does he use the same exact formulation for the chemicals he uses to clean and laundry with? Is the water he drinks the distilled, or does it come from the tap? There are a ton of variables that can contribute to his stabilized state.

If you can tell me that all of these other variables have not changed, then you can begin to look at his diet. This is why it is important to perform the research in a controlled environment. As I said, I worked in a toxicology department for a very large and very well know chemical company. If you have any variables not accounted for, then the study loses credibility.

I am glad your friend is doing well, but would he be doing better with a different diet or a different set of medications? It is hard to tell and to state that cutting out protein has made an impact, it just may be coincidence. Now, he could go back to his old diet, but he may feel the risk is not worth it and because of this the connection to diet and cancer can not be determined.

(I know... I sound like a jerk, but I have degree in science and I worked in an environment where they performed these exact studies.... I am very skeptical of generalized claims. If you can test it, and reproduce the test with the same results over and over, then I will be a supporter)

quote Originally posted by countach711: you know, you doubters are problably all right. I guess I should call Tom and tell him his cancer hasn't stabilized cause the guys on Pennocks said so!!

Well, in thier defense, he is also on chemo right?

quote Originally posted by countach711: you know, you doubters are problably all right. I guess I should call Tom and tell him his cancer hasn't stabilized cause the guys on Pennocks said so!!

I never said he shouldn't try whatever he could. And I'm not denying the results he is getting. And it isn't that I am not glad for him he is doing well. I think you are making conclusions about what I said that are not anything related to what I said.


You put in your thread title, "Cure for Cancer, you decide!" And the researcher wrote a book about his research.

Well, as I said. The guy discovered a cure for "intentionally researcher induced with one specific agent" rat cancer.

That HARDLY extrapolates out to the wide variety of cancers that can happen for a variety of reasons, in HUMANS.

As I pointed out, I have been around for THREE DECADES hearing about the wonderful results of certain studies in rats. And thousands of them, unfortunately, not turning out to be any benefit to humans.


So I am glad for your friend doing better. A rat study and then an individual case study of one person improving does not give direction to the entire population of the planet on the best way to live ones life. That is what I was saying. Because that is what is the truth.

no offense to you guys, I'm sure you're all smart and certainly entitled to your opinions, but until you read the book, you have no idea what you are talking about. Here's another example I can remember from it. As I said earlier, which you all seem to be conveniently forgetting is that his book hardly references his work, but instead the work of others (there are approx. 700 mostly scientific references listed in the book). One such example was a doctor back in the 50's in L.A. (real doctor, he is used by name) who thought along these same lines and made up a diet for his heart patients. (This diet can improve many aspects of one's health.) I don't remember all the details, but in general, he way reduced meat and dairy for half the patients in his study, and let the others continue to eat what they always had. He goes on to list a chart of mortality rates for each group, after 5 years, so many were dead etc., after 8 years, blah blah. If I remember correctly, after 12 or 15 years, 19 of his diet group were still alive (out of 50?) and every single one that went back to their old ways was pushing daisies. Not rats, humans. There are a few more like this, and in most of them the doctors eventually cut dairy completely out of the diets. Why doesn't one of you actually read the book instead of relying on other people's opinions found on the internet then come back and we can discuss it intelligently. Until then it's all just hot air....

[This message has been edited by countach711 (edited 10-22-2010).]

My grandmother lived the ripe old age of 93... she passed away after complications of breaking her hip. She lived on a farm, ate the most fattening foods, including a lot of red meat, bacon, eggs, sugar, etc. She didn't have cancer. There are millions of people just like her out there... all living cancer free after eating animal protein for a decades.

There is nothing wrong cutting back on fat and dairy, but this is not the magic bullet. If it was, then someone could take this person's study and reproduce the results. I haven't seen that report, yet.

You sound like you really want to believe this and I understand, but to me, I need facts and reproducible results, otherwise, the study can not be accepted. Writing a book and quoting other's people work doesn't prove the study is correct for humans. Trials must be done. Would you let the FDA get away with such limited testing if this was a new drug?

sorry....

Yet another poster who can't read, surprise, surprise. his scientific, published experiments have been duplicated numerous times, okay? and there is no reason to be sorry, good for your grandma. animal protein doesn't cause cancer, it feeds it. there is a difference! next

quote Originally posted by countach711: Yet another poster who can't read, surprise, surprise. his scientific, published experiments have been duplicated numerous times, okay? and there is no reason to be sorry, good for your grandma. animal protein doesn't cause cancer, it feeds it. there is a difference! next

Really, duplicated by whom? In which national medical journals have then been published?

So, if someone gets cancer, they should stop eating animal protein and their cancer will stop progressing? Please explain how animal protein "feeds" cancer. All you have to do is start looking at the logic behind this "study" and you will see it lacks credibility. Just becuase you want it to be true, doesn't make it so. If this was the case then feed those same rats some donuts... and when their cancer doesn't kill them, I guess it is safe for humans to eat only donuts, right? That is what this "study" says.... if you don't eat one type of food, you will stop cancer, right? How about instead of donuts, maybe McDonald fries.... Pick and food and I bet you will see similar results, if you only look at one medical symptom.
.
As for reading this guy's book, it isn't worth my time because what you have told me. His study is flawed. Now I am off to produce some cold fission....

BTW, I can read just fine and I think you should also read something other than this person's study.... If you want answers, then talk to some people at cancer research centers.... You would think if the answer was this simple, they would all be talking about this report, yet I don't year it from anyone but you.

[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 10-24-2010).]

I wouldn't call this story proof, but I am glad your friend is doing well.

I've looked at the actual data/results from this 'study' and I'm not at all convinced that their conclusions are valid. Being an organic chemist in pharmaceuticals, I have been involved in very detailed studies and I don't think I would say that what they did was 'good' science. Not claiming to be an expert, but in my opinion, you could drive a dump truck through the holes in their research.

Found this in the news today about tofu..... So if you have breast cancer, or have a history in your family, then you should be careful about eating tofu.


Q: Should I worry about eating soy?

A: No. If you’re a healthy woman with no history of breast cancer or thyroid disease, soy can be part of a balanced diet.

Chances are you’ve heard confusing reports about soy. Some say it’s a healthy superfood; others claim it boosts cancer risks. Here’s what we know for sure: Soy foods are high in protein, fiber, calcium, potassium, and B vitamins. And a European research review found that soy could lower heart disease risk and relieve hot flashes. So, eating a little soy each day is OK for healthy women, experts agree. But there are caveats.

For starters, soy is most healthful when eaten in its most natural forms and limited to one serving a day, says Maria Romano, RD, an oncology dietitian at Montefiore-Einstein Center for Cancer Care in New York City. She suggests choosing edamame or tofu over refined items such as soy “meat.”

Health.com: 25 breast cancer myths and misunderstandings

Soy should be eaten in moderation because it contains phytoestrogens, which act like estrogen in your body—and too much estrogen can cause some breast cancers to grow. In fact, studies show that high-dose soy supplements might up breast cancer risks. “To be safe, women with a personal or family history of breast cancer shouldn’t eat soy or take supplements,” says Katherine Lee, MD, a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic’s Breast Center. Soy may also interfere with the functioning of the thyroid gland, which controls how efficiently you burn energy.

Bottom line: If you’re a healthy woman with no history of breast cancer or thyroid disease, soy may help you. If you’re interested in soy supplements for menopausal problems, ask your doc first about your personal risks.

Safest ways to enjoy soy
It’s OK to eat soy once a day in natural forms like edamame, and the foods below.

* Tempeh
* Miso paste
* Soy milk
* Tofu

The latest soy research:

* One study showed you can cut five points from your total cholesterol by eating soy foods instead of red meat.
* 30% of people eat soy foods at least once every month.
* Women who eat soy as children may enjoy a 60% decrease in breast cancer risk.

quote Originally posted by countach711: no offense to you guys, I'm sure you're all smart and certainly entitled to your opinions, but until you read the book, you have no idea what you are talking about. Here's another example I can remember from it. As I said earlier, which you all seem to be conveniently forgetting is that his book hardly references his work, but instead the work of others (there are approx. 700 mostly scientific references listed in the book). One such example was a doctor back in the 50's in L.A. (real doctor, he is used by name) who thought along these same lines and made up a diet for his heart patients. (This diet can improve many aspects of one's health.) I don't remember all the details, but in general, he way reduced meat and dairy for half the patients in his study, and let the others continue to eat what they always had. He goes on to list a chart of mortality rates for each group, after 5 years, so many were dead etc., after 8 years, blah blah. If I remember correctly, after 12 or 15 years, 19 of his diet group were still alive (out of 50?) and every single one that went back to their old ways was pushing daisies. Not rats, humans. There are a few more like this, and in most of them the doctors eventually cut dairy completely out of the diets. Why doesn't one of you actually read the book instead of relying on other people's opinions found on the internet then come back and we can discuss it intelligently. Until then it's all just hot air....

I suppse alot depends on ohow old these folks were in teh test, and what their health was like their entire life before the test, their family history, and what they died of.

Okay, here's another one. this is the last good one that sticks out in my mind, now I'll have to go buy the book again, not that any of you are actually capable of being swayed. In recent times a cardiologist made a deal with a dozen or so of his patients, that if they went on a structured vegan diet he and his wife would join them. between the lot of them, they had amassed maybe 50 cardiac events between the lot of them within the last few years. after a year of following the diet I think there was either one minor or NO ( read zero) events, I can't remember exactly what it was. one person got tired of the diet and stopped following it. after she had another cardiac event, she went back on the diet. But you guys will probably figure out that its all really just one big coincidence, there's no fooling you!
by the way, its been a year since my dad found the book as an alternative to having a stint put in so he could retain his pilots license. he got the results back from a heart test a few weeks ago and the doc was happy to report his heart looks great! so, go ahead and continue to mock and doubt and do absolutely anything other than checking it out for yourself, but keep it in the back of your mind when a loved one or cherished friend comes down with a life-threatening illness, that is assuming you are capable of putting your ego on hold long enough to try to make a difference. you can do it, I have complete confidence in you!
in all seriousness, I know there is a silent majority reading this that can see past all the bravado being thrust upon me and I also know I deserve a lot of it because of my less than sensitive responses, but what can I say, I enjoy a good argument, especially when its something I strongly believe in!

[This message has been edited by countach711 (edited 12-23-2010).]