JL:
>> 1) People died of cancer before any cancer treatment existed."

Carlo:
> Of primary importance is the correction of any habit inimical
>  to health. Without this change in "lifestyle" people will
>  continue to die of cancer regardless of treatment.

I agree with you that, since cancer treatments are far from being fully
satisfactory, it is important to correct diet and lifestyle. However (as you
have propably already noticed when talking with people about raw food and
natural hygiene), not everyone is willing to do so. For those who are not
aware of the importance of lifestyle, or who are not willing to change their
lifestyle, the only hope is that their treatment will work (if they are
sick), or that cancer treatments will be improved in the future (if they are
not [yet] sick).

JL:
>> 2) Clinical studies show that statistically, treatments *reduce*
>> mortality, i.e. people who have cancer treatment are less likely to
>> die than people who don't."

Carlo:
>  It is fallacy to believe that because someone didn't actually
> die, the treatment saved him.

Of course, statistics never prove anything in particular cases. But suppose
that without treatment T, 1% of patients having disease D survive, and with
treatment T, 99% of patients having disease D survive. Would you use that
treatment? Personally I would.

Another example: suppose that with airplane company "FlyHigher", 0.00001%
die on a flight, but that with airplane company "Wherearemybrakes", the
mortality rate is 50%. Of course, statistics don't prove anything, there is
no way to know whether deaths were actually caused by accidents.
Nevertheless, which plane company would you prefer?

JL:
>> 3) Carcinogenicity of chemicals are routinely tested on mice. These
>> mice die, although their cancer is not treated by drugs or surgery."

Carlo:
> It is no wonder that carcinogenic material would cause cancer
> in laboratory animals. To artificially violate the defenses of the
> body with filthy foreign substances beyond its capacity, then
> expect health to suddenly be restored is wishful thinking.

Modern humans are like these mice, they are exposed to far too many
carcinogens:
 - air pollutants
 - cigarette smoke
 - radiations (UVs, radioactivity)
 - artificial carcinogens in food (pesticides, preservatives...)
 - ...

It is also wishful thinking that someone who has lived "unnaturally" for
several decades will heal suddenly from cancer. This certainly CAN happen,
but don't expect natural hygiene to heal everyone.

> A body debilitated and weakened by bad habits that develops cancer
> needs a change of lifestyle not more poisons and enervating
> 'treatments'.

If someone who has been stabbed in the street lies unconscious on the
sidewalk, would you leave him there because you think he should change his
lifestyle (live less dangerously), or would you bring him to the emergency
room, hoping that AFTER the surgery he will change his lifestyle?

> The idea that disease isn't an invasion by some
> malevolent outside force, but simply a remedial effort
> on the part of the body to correct or adjust to some
> form of wrong living, is a demonstratable truth. I have
> proved it over and over again, to myself, over the last 35
> years. So far correcting some bad habit or negative thinking
> has always, for me, led to the dissolution of the symptoms.

You have proved that bad habits or negative thinking were the cause of the
disease, not that the disease was a remedial effort of the body.