RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:12:32 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)
I'll believe that eating raw can help cure cancer only when I see a
rigorous proof. The problem with such claims is that there are too
many factors involved. Almost every health guru/practitioner will
claim that his diet is effective against cancer. If that statement is
true, it could be due to only one or two of its features, and so
adopting the whole system might not be necessary.

Micaela Hoskins says:

>Eating raw, no salt, no sugar, no bleached flour, no
>pesticides significantly increases the chances of going into remission.

Well, imagine you have a population of raw food eaters, a significant
percentage of which having gone into remission. Suppose the true
reason is a decreased caloric intake (since raw food is less dense
calorically). That these people happen to avoid salt, (processed)
sugar, bleached flour and pesticides is then just an "accident". To
use the appropriate term, two correlated variables are not necessarily
linked by a causal relation (like wearing sunglasses doesn't cause
sunburns).

Ellie Rotunno:
>There is nothing mentioned in this article about whether the fats were
>processed or cooked. Don't you think it is too soon to judge diets such
>as high RAW fat diets that appear to be effective in reducing cancer and
>other diseases?

Perhaps. Researchers don't understand very well the mechanisms by
which some fats promote cancer (although a few have been
proposed). If "rawness" of the fat was important, then at some point
raw fat should be digested/metabolized differently (is that
plausible??).

Gerry Coffey:
>For arrested, well-documented case histories of many types of cancer as well
>and numerous other degenerative diseases, check out The Gerson Therapy at
>their website: http://www.gerson.org.

Case histories are not proofs. For each success, how many failures?
How many due to chance, or spontaneous remission? So far, there is no
scientific proof that the Gerson Therapy is effective. In fact,
specialists consider it as "questionable" (same thing for macrobiotic
diet and others).



--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2