natural cancer cures

A positive attitude does not cure cancer, any more than a negative one causes it. --Siddhartha Mukherjee*

Google "natural cancer cure" and you'll get about 54,000,000 results ("cancer alternative" brings up 316,000,000). I didn't need to do the math to know that I couldn't review all these natural cures unless I lived another one or two hundred years. At the top of the heap is Webster Kehr's Cancer Tutor. He says there are more than 20 ways to turn cancer cells into normal cells. Though there are millions of people with cancer and thousands of scientists treating cancer patients and doing cancer research, Kehr claims that "Inexpensive, safe and gentle cancer treatments (with 90% cure rates) have existed for decades, but very, very few people know these treatments even exist." Wow. I didn't know that very few people knew that. "The reason the media blacklists the truth about the 90% cure rate treatments is that the media is owned by multi-billionaires and the treatments that have 90% cure rates are not profitable enough to satisfy their lust for profits." Naturally. Another thing I'll bet you didn't know is that a dentist named William D. Kelley cured cancer in thousands of patients. He's unknown because he "used products that cannot be patented." Such as? "He used treatments designed by God." Such as? "God put His cancer treatments into Mother Nature for free for His children." Such as? "Orthodox medicine refuses to use treatments that cannot be patented!!" Such as? Proteolytic enzymes. Really? Evidence? That's what Dr. Kelley the dentist used to cure cancer. Oh.

Proteolytic enzyme therapy is also known as digestive enzyme therapy, pancreatic enzyme therapy, and systemic enzyme therapy. According to the American Cancer Society, "There have been no well-designed studies showing that enzyme supplements are effective in treating cancer. Experts question whether enzymes taken by mouth can reach tumors through the bloodstream, as the enzymes are broken down into amino acids before being absorbed in the intestine." One of the more popular promoters of enzyme therapy is Nicholas Gonzalez, whose study on patients with pancreatic cancer treated with pancreatic enzymes was published in Nutrition and Cancer in 1999. He claimed that patients survived longer than typical with his enzyme therapy.  An independent study published in 2010, however, found that among 55 patients who had inoperable pancreatic cancer, the 23 who chose chemotherapy survived more than three times as long (14.0 versus 4.3 months) and had better quality of life than those who chose the Gonzalez protocol. (In addition to pancreatic enzymes taken from pigs, the Gonzalez protocol includes taking vitamin and mineral supplements, coffee enemas, and special diets allegedly tailored to the patient's metabolic system.)

Cellect and the Budwig diet

Another natural cancer cure touted by Kehr is a "nutritional powder called Cellect." As far as I can surmise, Cellect is a vitamin and mineral supplement that includes natural shark cartilage, algae, hydrolyzed collagen, and milk thistle. We're advised to combine the Cellect with the Budwig diet. "Budwig believed that cancer was caused by the lack of polyunsaturated fatty acids, and that a combination of flax oil and cottage cheese would improve cellular function. The diet consists of a mixture of flax oil and cottage cheese as well as vegetables, fruits and juices. It prohibits consumption of sugar, animal fats, shellfish, processed foods, soy and most dairy products, and encourages daily sunbathing." The evidence? Not mentioned by Mr. Kehr, but the American Cancer Society has this to say: "Most of the evidence for an anti-cancer effect of flaxseed and flaxseed oil comes from research using laboratory animals or cells grown in laboratory dishes....More research in humans is needed to determine the usefulness of flaxseed in cancer treatment and prevention. Animal and laboratory studies show promise, but human studies are conflicting."*

Johanna Budwig (1908–2003) was a German biochemist and author. She based the diet that bears her name on her research on fatty acids, but no clinical trials on the diet have been published in any peer-reviewed medical journal. Evidence for the effectiveness of this diet in curing cancer is anecdotal, though Budwig did provide arguments explaining what she thought would be the biomechanism involved.*

cesium chloride

Another natural cancer cure is cesium chloride. The American Cancer Society says: "Proponents claim the pH level inside of tumor cells is usually very low, or acidic, compared to normal cells, and that cesium chloride supplements raise the pH level of tumor cells to a normal level, which slows the cancer's growth....Available scientific evidence does not support claims that non-radioactive cesium chloride supplements have any effect on tumors. A few people have had life-threatening problems with heart rhythm, seizures, loss of consciousness, and electrolyte (blood chemistry) imbalances after taking cesium chloride." In other words, scientists don't think too highly of this natural cure for cancer:

Available scientific evidence does not support the claim that the pH inside cancer cells in the body is any different than that of normal cells, or that the pH inside the body can be changed in any significant way. Thus, the underlying principle behind high pH therapy remains unproven.

Cesium chloride has been linked to the death of a 61-year-old Colorado woman being treated for breast cancer.

Photon Genius

The next natural cure described by Mr. Kehr doesn't seem that natural: a large machine with lots of lights--it's an infrared energy sauna--called the Photon Genius. This device has a price tag of $25,000 (not including shipping and handling). It's recommended by a "certified Olympic chiropractor." This cure is one of many detox treatments that are synonymous with quackery.

One website promoting far infrared sauna therapy proclaims that "Infrared saunas are clinically shown to help fight cancer." What has been shown is that far infrared has had an anti-tumor effect on human cancer cells in the petri dish and on cancer cells in mice. There have been no clinical trials that would support the notion that infrared saunas cure cancer in humans. Whatever health benefits there are to infrared saunas, curing cancer isn't one of them.

Joe Mercola

Number two on the Google hit list of 'natural cancer cures' is Joe Mercola. No surprise there. Here's Mercola's cure:

Without a doubt the most powerful essential strategy I know of to treat cancer is to starve the cells by depriving them of their food source. Unlike your body cells, which can burn carbs or fat for fuel, cancer cells have lost that metabolic flexibility. Dr. Otto Warburg was actually given a Nobel Prize over 75 years ago for figuring this out but virtually no oncologist actually uses this information.

You can review my recent interview with Dr. D'Agostino ... for more details but integrating a ketogenic diet with hyperbaric oxygen therapy which is deadly to cancer cells debilitated by starving them of their fuel source would be the strategy I would recommend to my family if they were diagnosed with cancer.*

The evidence? It's not in Joe's favor. Otto H. Warburg trumpeted the idea that "the root cause of cancer is oxygen deficiency." He claimed oxygen deficiency creates "an acidic state in the human body." Cancer cells "are anaerobic (do not breathe oxygen) and cannot survive in the presence of high levels of oxygen, as found in an alkaline state, according to Warburg.

Warburg's Nobel Prize, awarded in 1931, had nothing to do with his views or work on cancer. He got the prize "for his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme."Furthermore, his views on cancer cells being anaerobic have been shown to be wrong. Peter Lechner cites G. N. Ling:

Because Warburg was able, experimentally, to initiate malignancy by reducing oxygen supplies to fetal sheep cells in vitro, and because of high lactic acid output by malignant cells, he became convinced that malignancy must be a state of anaerobic (fermentation) metabolism, which he likened to that of lower life forms. The Warburg generalization, which understandably persisted for many years, has since been disproven. (In Search of the Physical Basis of Life. NY and London: Plenum Press; 1984:701.)

According to the American Cancer society:

Claims about alternative uses of HBOT [hyperbaric oxygen therapy] include that it destroys disease-causing microorganisms, cures cancer, relieves chronic fatigue syndrome, and decreases allergy symptoms. A few supporters also claim that HBOT helps patients with AIDS, arthritis, sports injuries, multiple sclerosis, autism, stroke, cerebral palsy, senility, cirrhosis, Lyme disease, and gastrointestinal ulcers. Available scientific evidence does not support these claims.*

Two of the more vocal promoters of the ketogenic diet with hypebaric oxygen treatment for cancer are physiologist Dominic D'Agnostino and biologist Thomas Seyfried, who have found some positive results working with rodents, but not with humans who have cancer. Both D'Anostino and Seyfried seem to think that the genetic component of cancer can be ignored because, in their view, cancer is a metabolic disorder. Most oncologists and cancer researchers recognize this is false dichotomy and understand that both the genetic and the metabolic elements of cancer are important to undertstanding how to treat the many different kinds of cancer that there are. Cancer scientist David Gorski, M.D., writes:

Indeed, a “chicken or the egg” argument continues about whether it is the metabolic abnormalities that cause the mutations observed in cancer cells or whether it is the mutations that produce the metabolic abnormalities. Most likely, it’s a little of both, the exact proportion of which depending upon the tumor cell, that combine in an unholy synergistic circle to drive cancer cells to be more and more abnormal and aggressive. Moreover, cancer is about far more than just the genomics or the metabolism of cancer cells. It’s also the immune system and the tumor microenvironment (the cells and connective tissue in which tumors arise and grow). As I’ve said time and time and time again, cancer is complicated, real complicated. The relative contributions of genetic mutations, metabolic derangements, immune cell dysfunction, and influences of the microenvironment are likely to vary depending upon the type of tumor and, as a consequence, require different treatments. In the end, as with many hyped cancer cures, the ketogenic diet might be helpful for some tumors and almost certainly won’t be helpful for others.*

So, we've got some good anecdotes and a few petri dish and rodent studies to support this natural cure. A reasonable conclusion at this point seems obvious: the evidence is preliminary and weak, but that could change with further study. (I might add that were I a person with an inoperable brain tumor, I would consider a low carb diet. I wouldn't recommend this diet, however, to those with other types of cancer who are doing quite well on chemotherapy or after surgery. embolization, or ablation treatment. People with different kinds of cancers are very unlikely to benefit from the same diet, as recommended by the likes of Mercola, D'Agnostino, Seyfried, and others.)

Mike Adams

Number three on the Google hit list for 'natural cancer cures' is Mike Adams, who knows of at least seven natural cancer cures:

1. Rife machines.
2. Antineoplastons.
3. Gerson therapy.
4. Hoxsey herbal therapy. Available scientific evidence does not support claims that the Hoxsey herbal treatment is effective in treating cancer, and there have been no clinical trials of the treatment published in conventional medical journals.
5. Medicinal mushrooms like reishi and chagacan [chaga].
6. Marijuana.
7. Hydrogen peroxide.

I've already debunked Rife machines and vibrational medicine, Gerson therapy, and marijuana as a cancer cure. David Gorski has ablated and embolized Burzinski's antineoplaston nonsense. What about mushrooms and hydrogen peroxide? The hydrogen peroxide idea, like the hyperbaric oxygen idea, can be traced back to Warburg's notion that cancer cells can be killed by suffusing them with oxygen. Hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) has many uses, but infusing the body with it to kill cancer cells isn't one of the wiser choices. The fact that white blood cells create hydrogen peroxide to fight infection is irrelevant to drinking or infusing the stuff in the hopes that it will kill cancer cells. The evidence doesn't support either the notion that oxygen kills cancer cells in humans with cancer or that hydrogen peroxide therapy increases cellular levels of oxygen in living human beings.* "Hydrogen peroxide injections can have dangerous side effects. High blood levels of hydrogen peroxide can create oxygen bubbles that block blood flow and cause gangrene and death. Destruction of blood cells has ... been reported after intravenous injection of hydrogen peroxide. A few people can ... have serious allergic reactions to hydrogen peroxide. A 1993 review article ... found some research evidence that too much oxygen in the body's tissues may damage genetic material and promote abnormal growth."*

Most of us who respect science also respect its limitations. We know that what happens in a petri dish or in a lab rat when a substance is introduced isn't necessarily duplicated when given to a living human being with cancer. Every one of the defenders of natural cures that I've come across jumps to grand conclusions based on one or two small studies involving cells in the lab or in lab animals or on ideas that sound promising but haven't been tested or have been tested but haven't produced strong evidence in favor of the natural cure. The lack of strong evidence in clinical trials is almost always due to the number of subjects in the trials being too small or not randomized or the trial not having a control group or being a single study with no replication.

mushrooms

As for the mushrooms, well, let's just say that I can't find any scientific studies on humans to back up the many claims made about the magical powers of various kinds of mushrooms, claims that have apparently been repeated for thousands of years. Anyway, this is what I found out about reishi, chaga, and other mushrooms.

Animal studies have shown some positive results regarding the antitumor, cholesterol-lowering, and virus-inhibiting effects of several active compounds [e.g., lentinan] in shiitake mushrooms.* The shiitake extract Active Hexose Correlated Compound (AHCC) is used by some cancer patients, but there isn't enough data to support claims that it works as a cancer cure.* 

Reishi mushroom is a fungus ... used as an immunostimulant by patients with HIV and cancer. The active constituents are thought to include both beta-glucan polysaccharides and triterpenes....Reishi has shown some anticancer potential in in vitro and animal studies....further research is needed to establish use of reishi as an anticancer agent.*

Chaga has demonstrated anticancer properties in vitro but no clinical trials have been conducted to assess chaga's safety and efficacy for disease prevention or for the treatment of cancer.*

Maitake mushrooms were used in a small clinical trial to try to stimulate the immune systems of breast cancer patients. The scientists found that "Oral administration of a polysaccharide extract from Maitake mushroom is associated with both immunologically stimulatory and inhibitory measurable effects in peripheral blood."*

The fact is that mushroom research is in its infancy. Very few human trials have been conducted. Many things kill cancer cells in the lab but that doesn't mean these killers will do anything beneficial for a cancer patient.

herbal cures

Many advocates of natural cures for cancer focus on herbs. CancerActive, for example, lists twenty herbs that "fight cancer." It is difficult to know exactly what a vague expression like 'fights cancer' means, but it seems that one of the more common meanings among the natural-cure folks is 'boosts the immune system.' Before discussing herbs, I should note that all oncologists recognize that herbs can interact with medicines in adverse ways (likewise for vitamin and mineral supplements). If you have cancer, you should let your oncologist know of any herbal supplements you are taking. (Culinary herbs need not be a concern since the amounts used are usually going to be too small to have an adverse interaction with your cancer treatment.)

astragalus

One of the more popular herbs for 'fighting cancer' is astragalus, a traditional Chinese herbal medicine taken from the root of Astragalus membranaceus, a type of bean (legume). "Animal studies and preliminary human clinical studies suggest that astragalus may improve immune system function and boost the effect of conventional immune therapy for some cancers. But available scientific evidence does not support claims that astragalus can prevent cancer, cure cancer, extend survival, or reduce side effects of conventional cancer treatment. There is some suggestion that it may enhance the effects of certain chemotherapy drugs, but this theory needs to be tested more thoroughly."*

curcumin

Another herb touted by CancerActive is curcumin, an ingredient in turmeric. "Curcumin can kill cancer cells in laboratory dishes and also slows the growth of the surviving cells. Curcumin has been found to reduce development of several forms of cancer in lab animals and to shrink animal tumors."* But so far the scientific studies showing that curcumin kills cancer cells in humans haven't hit the marketplace.

milk thistle

How about milk thistle seeds, which contain the antioxidant silymarin?

A few studies have suggested that silymarin, an antioxidant, may be useful for treating certain types of liver diseases in humans such as cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis. Most of the studies did not show improved survival, although laboratory tests showed an improvement in liver function in some. One small study found that it seemed to help protect liver function in children getting chemotherapy for cancer. Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to determine whether these effects are reliable. Early studies in test tubes and laboratory animals have suggested that silymarin may help with cancer prevention and treatment. Human studies are needed to find out what role silymarin may play in preventing or treating cancer in people.

So, milk thistle looks promising for liver cancer, but more study is needed to establish that there is a safe and effective dosage of this substance for treating cancer.

wheatgrass

I'll consider one more herb: wheatgrass. A discussion of wheatgrass treatment must start with a quote from the Bible because this seems to be the origin of the belief that eating grass of any kind is healthy for humans.

...a voice came from heaven, saying, 'King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: sovereignty has been removed from you, and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes.'--Daniel 4:31-32

According to William T. Jarvis, Ph.D., the belief that wheatgrass can cure serious disease was promoted by Ann Wigmore (1909-1994). Wigmore's belief in the healing power of grasses was based on the Bible story of Nebuchadnezzar, the insane Babylonian king who supposedly spent seven years living like a wild animal eating the grasses of the fields. "Because he recovered, Wigmore presumed that the grasses had cured his insanity."

The common observation that dogs and cats nibble on grass, presumably when they feel ill, also strengthened Wigmore's belief in the healing power of grasses. Wigmore theorized that rotting food in the intestine forms toxins that circulate in the bloodstream (aka, the intestinal toxicity theory) and cause cancer. She taught that the life span of the wheatgrass juice was less than three hours, so it had to be cut from growing plants, juiced and consumed fresh. She speculated that the enzymes found in raw wheatgrass were alive and could "detoxify" the body by oral ingestion and by enemas. Wheatgrass is prepared by sprouting wheat berries and growing them until they form chlorophyll. It was the chlorophyll in wheatgrass that enthused Wigmore. She called chlorophyll "the life blood of the planet." Wigmore believed that cooking foods "killed" them because this deactivates enzymes. She held that the moment the "sacred" 7.4 acid-alkaline balance (the same as human blood) is "killed" that its effectiveness would be reduced.*

The American Cancer Society has this to say about wheatgrass:

Although most people use wheatgrass juice as a dietary supplement or as a serving of vegetables, some proponents claim that a dietary program commonly called "the wheatgrass diet" can cause cancer to regress or "shrink" and can extend the lives of people with cancer. They believe that the wheatgrass diet strengthens the immune system, kills harmful bacteria in the digestive system, and rids the body of toxins and waste matter...Although there are individual reports that describe tumor shrinkage and extended survival among people with cancer who followed the wheatgrass diet, there are no clinical trials in the available scientific literature that support this claim. (emphasis added)

Wheatgrass is widely used by people who believe it has proven medicinal value. Yet, "there have been almost no clinical studies in humans to support claims made for wheatgrass or wheatgrass diet programs. One very small study suggested that it may help people with colitis, a bowel problem."*

The lack of scientific evidence regarding the health benefits of wheatgrass has not deterred Webster Kehr, though:

If we look at oxygen as a bullet to kill cancer cells, then we should look at wheatgrass as a shotgun blast at treating cancer. The number of ways it deals with cancer is incredible. First of all it contains chlorophyll, which has almost the same molecular structure as hemoglobin. Chlorophyll increases hemoglobin production, meaning more oxygen gets to the cancer. Selenium and laetrile are also in wheatgrass, both are anticancer. Chlorophyll and selenium also help build the immune system. Furthermore, wheatgrass is one of the most alkaline foods known to mankind. And the list goes on.

I'm sure it does...endlessly. Chlorophyll is not identical to blood in structure or parallel function in plants. "The fact that grass-eating animals are not spared from infectious or degenerative diseases despite their large intake of fresh chlorophyll attests to its limitations." Furthermore, "chlorophyll cannot affect the human body internally because it is not absorbed. There is no reason why products containing chlorophyll should be considered 'natural.' Chlorophyll is extracted by exposing plant materials to chemicals such as acetone, hexane gas and copper."* Studies on selenium in cancer treatments have produced mixed results.

Dichloro Acetic Acid (DCA)

Although DCA is promoted as 'natural,' dichloracetic acid and sodium dichloroacetate (a "buffered", non-acidic form of dichloracetic acid) are man-made chemicals that have not been found in nature.

In 2007, a Canadian study found that rats with cancer that were given DCA in their drinking water had much slower tumor growth than those not given DCA. They also found that DCA killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells, in tissue cultures (laboratory dishes).

Since that time, several studies have been done in the lab looking at the effects of DCA on cancer cells in a dish or in animals. Prostate cancer cells seemed to be easier to kill with radiation if they had been exposed to DCA. Breast cancer cells implanted into rats' tails spread into fewer areas if the rats were given DCA. Cancer cells from the endometrium (lining of the womb) were more likely to die with DCA exposure, although this only held true for the mildly to moderately invasive cancer cells. The very aggressive cancer cells were not affected by DCA....[As] of late 2009, no studies in humans have yet shown that DCA can help treat cancer. Available evidence does not support the use of DCA for cancer treatment at this time.*

It should be noted that DCA is not legally available as a drug or supplement in the U.S. other than through clinical trials. This fact, no doubt, has led to the suspicion among natural-cure folks that the FDA and the drug companies don't want us to have this inexpensive cancer cure. Defenders bring in our old friend Dr. Warburg to explain how DCA might work to cure cancer:

Patients often ask how DCA targets or impacts cancer in the body. It appears that a large part of how DCA works to kill cancer cells is by affecting their mitochondria function which is the “battery” center. DCA may interfere in the way the cancer cells use energy leaving them somehow more vulnerable. This effect is a newer way of targeting cancer cells from a metabolic point of view which stems from some very old research by Dr. Otto Warburg (i.e.the noble prize winner in 1931). Basically, he had shown that cancer cells use sugar to grow (i.e. the Warburg-Effect) and so by interfering in that metabolic energy process could potentially disrupt more sensitive growing cancers.*

All cells need sugar (glucose) to grow. Cancer doesn't have a sweet tooth.

Baking Soda (sodium bicarbonate)

Naturally, Webster Kehr thinks baking soda to treat cancer is a great idea, especially since baking soda is about 300,000 times cheaper than chemotherapy (Kehr's numbers, not mine). The creator of baking soda therapy is Italian oncologist Tullio Simoncini. The treatment is based on the notion that cancer is caused by a fungus. Simoncini believes the candida fungus causes cancer despite the fact that the "available scientific evidence does not support claims that cancer is caused by infection with a type of yeast known as Candida albicans. Available scientific evidence also does not support the idea that sodium bicarbonate works as a treatment for any form of cancer or that it cures yeast or fungal infections. There is substantial evidence, however, that these claims are false."*

calcium and vitamin D

Like baking soda, calcium is touted as a cancer cure because--what was it Dr. Warburg said about oxygen and cancer cells?--"cancer can only survive in an acidic environment. So to cure any form of cancer, you must boost your pH level to the maximum to kill off all acid in the body. Once you take acid out of the body, cancer cells begin to die very quickly. This is a proven fact. And one of the best way's to boost your pH level is with calcium. Commit these three words to memory and never forget them… calcium kills acid."* That's the truth according to the natural cures religion, but the science doesn't jibe with this faith in calcium. "While further research is needed to clarify the role of calcium in preventing or reversing cancer growth, there is little doubt that adequate calcium intake is required for preventing bone shrinkage and weakening. For people who have cancer, calcium and vitamin D intake may help keep bones strong."*

Laboratory and animal studies and observational epidemiologic studies suggest that higher levels of vitamin D in the body may be linked to lower cancer risk. Observational studies only record information about people without changing anything they do. These studies cannot confidently predict the effects of increasing a person’s intake of vitamin D.

These studies suggest that the risk for some forms of cancer is lower in those who get more calcium and vitamin D (which may include vitamin D from foods as well as sunlight). Higher vitamin D levels in the blood have also been linked to lower risk for some types of cancer, especially colorectal cancer. One researcher who analyzed 60 such studies noted that calcium intake appeared more protective than vitamin D against colon and rectal cancer. Because of the way vitamin D works with calcium, it may be hard to separate these effects....

Well-designed clinical trials are needed to confirm whether low levels of vitamin D raise cancer risk and to find out if taking more vitamin D (with or without extra calcium) reduces cancer risk. Until such studies are completed, it is too early to advise people to take vitamin D supplements for cancer prevention alone.*

[T]here are no placebo-based clinical controlled trials linking vitamin D with any disease other than osteoporosis.*

[Studies] suggest that people with melanoma or bowel cancer might benefit from increasing their vitamin D levels, either through diet, supplements or UV exposure.  But it’s important to note that vitamin D supplements (and excessive amounts in the diet) can potentially cause harm if taken in large doses without medical supervision.*

So, calcium and vitamin D are essential to good health but to proclaim them as natural cancer cures seems premature.

the raw food diet

Once again, Dr. Warburg's oxygen-kills-cancer belief emerges as the prime player in a proclaimed natural cure for cancer. One of the leading proponents of the raw-food diet as a cancer cure is Paul Nison (whose website www.rawlife.com goes directly to his online store for your shopping convenience). In his essay "Diet for Cancer Patients," Nison writes:

Cancer can only come alive and grow in a body that is lacking oxygen. The average person today, especially someone with cancer, is walking around with a serious case of insufficient oxygen. The following tips are musts if you are serious about overcoming cancer.

First, you must eliminate the bad stuff: processed foods ("Every bite taken from foods that come in a container, box, can, bottle or bag contributes to cancer"), new foods ("If it wasn’t food one hundred years ago, don’t consider it food today"), dead foods ("Foods that lack enzymes are known as dead foods and support death....cooking destroys all enzymes in foods and a person trying to heal from cancer should consume a 100% raw, live-food diet."), and sugars ("avoid all sugars, even sugars found in fruits").

Yes, you read right. Fruit is bad for you and everybody else on the planet. Why? Here is Nison's explanation, which may seem reasonable to you if you know nothing about nutrition:

[Sugar] leads to fermentation in the body that feeds and promotes yeast growth and negative bacteria. Overeating sugary foods causes constipation and gas, and this gas can back up into the bloodstream. This is where most diseases originate–from candida to cancer and everything in between.

Fermentation, you may remember from your biology lessons, is a good thing to happen in muscles, not a bad thing. If you want evidence that sugar causes cancer, you will be disappointed. Sugar doesn't cause cancer but "there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer."*

Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.*

If you remember some basic logic, you'll realize that the only foods left to eat on Nison's diet are raw vegetables, raw nuts, raw fungi, and a few other things. According to Nison:

If you have cancer you must treat your body the best way possible. This means only consuming food raw, ripe, fresh organic and live. Once you are healed, you can cut back to 80% of your foods meeting this criteria,  but 100% is still best.

I would say that you should treat your body the best way possible even if you don't have cancer. I'd like to see the evidence that this means consuming only raw, ripe, fresh, organic, and live food. Nison says

The main part of your diet should be raw vegetables and sprouts, such as leafy green vegetables, wheatgrass, algae, sea vegetables, and sunflower sprouts. The reason these green foods are so beneficial for the body is that they contain chlorophyll: the blood of plants.

I went over misconceptions regarding chlorophyll in the section above on wheatgrass. According to Nison, nuts and seeds (soaked in water for 12 hours) are good because they contain enzymes. How enzymes cure cancer is not discussed. Certainly, a healthy diet should include foods that provide a variety of enzymes.

If there is any evidence that the raw food diet cures cancer, Nison forgot to mention it. And if he and others promoting this diet seem like evangelists, that's because they are. Nison is a teacher at the Hippocrates Health Institute (HHI), which he describes as the "world's foremost health institute that specializes in healing people with cancer."* The founder of HHI was the wheatgrass lady mentioned above: Ann Wigmore, who thought that the story of Nebuchadnezzar in the Bible was a divine lesson in nutrition. Nison also believes his diet plan is sanctioned by divine guidance as found in the Bible:

It was our Creator who first separated the salt water from the fresh, made dry land, and planted a garden. He made animals and fish before making even one human being. He provided what we needed before He even created us. If he designed our body and he knows every single hair on our heads, I'm sure he knows what we should eat and when we should eat it.

He created the heavens and the earth, including humans, food, sun, and the moon. The sun and the moon set the schedule we have been designed to follow....When the sun is up, feel free to eat; when it is down, stop....This is the number one rule of the Daylight Diet. If you stick to this important principle, you will see excellent results in your health, energy, sleep--your whole being--because this is how we have been designed to eat. Nighttime is for resting and sleeping.

The current leader of the HHI is Brian Clement, who was in the news recently (Nov 14, 2014) for treating two young Ontario First Nations girls with leukemia using "cold laser therapy, Vitamin C injections, and a strict raw food diet." Oddly, the "world's foremost health institute that specializes in healing people with cancer" is called a "health resort" and is licensed as a “massage establishment.” No doubt this peculiar labeling is for legal reasons since none of these people at HHI are legally licensed to treat cancer. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) investigated Clements when he came to Canada to promote his cancer-healing diet.

CBC News is looking into the claims and credentials of Clement.

He’s been giving lectures in and around both girls’ communities in recent months....

In a video obtained by CBC News, Clement says his institute teaches people to “heal themselves” from cancer by eating raw, organic vegetables and having a positive attitude.   

“We've had more people reverse cancer than any institute in the history of health care,” he says.

“So when McGill fails or Toronto hospital fails, they come to us. Stage four (cancer), and they reverse it.”

The evidence for Clement's claims about reversing cancer? You'll have to take his word for it or the words of testimonials posted on the HHI website. "According to the Florida State Health Authority, Hippocrates Health Institute is a licensed massage establishment. It says Brian Clement is not a licensed doctor or naturopath."* His degrees are from diploma mills.* Even so, it is difficult to understand where he gets some of his ideas. According to Clement, "In cooked meat, the fat molecules burst and are carcinogenic. That is true for vegetable oil also, including olive oil. Meat is not a complete protein. There are 8 times the protein deficiencies among meat eaters compared to vegetarians."* In a video, Clement proves that he can speak gibberish with the best of them:

Photons come down in the secondary stage, they hit the earth. They transmute into different frequencies. Those frequencies are what create the physical body or the energetic body we really are. When you and I are talking and thinking and people are listening, that’s the energetic body. The physical body that you’re sitting watching us here now, that’s created by the microbial effect in the soil, which are still the protons but recycled or re-cached protons.

I think that's enough of Mr. Clement.

Finally, one of the more common tropes among the raw-food advocates is that cooking food robs them of their nutritional value. "Contrary to the propaganda of raw-food advocates, cooking actually can help you absorb more nutrients."*

intravenous vitamin C

Intravenous vitamin C has been considered an alternative medical therapy for cancer since the 1970s, but the treatment has not been investigated by science-based medical researchers since clinical trials in the '70s and '80s at the Mayo Clinic with oral vitamin C found no anti-cancer effects.* Things are changing, but before going over them, remember this caveat put forth by David Gorski, M.D.: "A good drug for cancer is, at the very minimum, active at low or reasonable concentrations against the cancer cells being targeted, and vitamin C fails miserably on that count. Worse, there are at least indications that in some cases vitamin C might interfere with chemotherapy."*

Studies suggest that high levels of vitamin C may cause the death of cancer cells in the laboratory. High levels of vitamin C can't be achieved by oral ingestion and must be introduced intravenously. The University of Kansas (KU) has an integrative medicine department that has recently published the results of a study on intravenous vitamin C and ovarian cancer. Their infusion center has been offering this therapy for some time. In a press release, KU stated: "Scientists at the University of Kansas Medical Center have determined that high doses of vitamin C, administered intravenously with traditional chemotherapy, helped kill cancer cells while reducing the toxic effects of chemotherapy for some cancer patients." The results of their study were published in the journal Science Translational Medicine. "The researchers' clinical trial involved 27 patients with newly diagnosed Stage 3 or Stage 4 ovarian cancer. All of the participants received conventional therapy with paclitaxel or carboplatin, while some were also treated with high-dose intravenous vitamin C. Researchers monitored the participants for five years. Those patients who received vitamin C tended to experience fewer toxic effects from the chemotherapy drugs." This is a small study and the expression 'tended to experience fewer toxic effects' is damning with faint praise. On the other hand, we know from other studies that high doses of vitamin C can kill cancer cells in the petri dish and in lab rats.

A co-author of the KU study, Dr. Jeanne Drisko, is director of integrative medicine at the University of Kansas Medical Center. Understandably, she is enthusiastic about IV vitamin C therapy. "If you can get your blood levels of vitamin C very high, it gets driven into the space around the cancer cells," she explained. "In that space, it's converted into hydrogen peroxide. It's very similar to what our white blood cells do. They create hydrogen peroxide to fight infection."*

Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, advises caution. We need larger studies. "You also have to make sure these treatments don't interfere with the treatments we're giving currently," she said. The efficacy of this therapy isn't proven yet. Dr. Michael Seiden, chief medical officer for The US Oncology Network, agrees. "It is important to emphasize that many vitamin therapies have shown interesting results when applied to cancer cells in test tubes yet, to date, these approaches typically are not effective and occasionally prove harmful in human studies," he said. "At this time, there is still no evidence that high-dose vitamin C should be part of the treatment for women with ovarian cancer." Dr. Gorski thinks that the study "suggests there might be some utility for ascorbate (vitamin C) against ovarian cancer," but there is much work to be done before we can say this is a safe and effective treatment for cancer. Dr. Gorski offers a very detailed technical analysis of the problems with the KU research and reasoning. He concludes:

So what we have here is a small clinical trial with a 19% dropout rate that wasn’t even blinded. It reported zero difference in overall survival (both were, as one would expect for ovarian cancer at this stage, abysmal), and zero statistically significant difference in time to relapse/progression. In all fairness, there would have had to have been an enormous effect to produce a statistically significant effect on survival or progression in such a small study, but these are the two “hard” endpoints that would be least affected by the lack of blinding, although one notes that time to progression could be affected by lack of blinding when the definition depends on interpreting scans. It’s also hard not to note that the differences in toxicities are all in the mildest reported toxicities, grades 1 and 2 (out of a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 1, which denotes mild toxicity that requires no intervention to 5, which is death). There were no statistically significant (or even close to statistically significant) differences in toxicities graded 3 or 4, which are the most troubling kind.

The benefits of non-IV, non-supplemental vitamin C are well known, but in case you didn't know:

Many scientific studies have shown that diets high in fruits and vegetables (many of which contain vitamin C as well as other vitamins, fiber, and phytochemicals) reduce the risk of developing cancers of the pancreas, esophagus, larynx, mouth, stomach, colon and rectum, breast, cervix, and lungs. Many of these studies show people who eat foods to get a high level of vitamin C have about half as much cancer as those who have a low intake of these foods. Likewise, people with higher blood levels of vitamin C tend to have a lesser risk of developing cancer than do people with lower levels, although this likely reflects better overall nutrition rather than supplement use.*

conclusion

What should we conclude from this brief review of just a few of the more popular natural cures for cancer? The obvious conclusion is that the evidence for any natural cure for cancer is very weak. Most of the natural cure folks blame this lack of evidence on the fact that there's no money to be made from natural cures, which is obviously false because most of these advocates are making a living by selling others on treatments that do not have strong scientific backing. It may be true that there is no money to be made by Big Pharma from non-patentable natural cures and that thus there is no incentive for Big Pharma to invest in large clinical trials on things like mushrooms or hydrogen peroxide as cancer cures. But Big Pharma is not the only place where such research can be done. Many universities are testing natural cures. Our own NIH has poured millions into testing a variety of folk cures--with nothing to show for it, I might add. The idea that Big Pharma and the "medical establishment" have systematically conspired to suppress knowledge of natural cures because if word got out it would cut into their profits is attractive to many people, though there is little evidence that this has happened or is happening now. Some of these natural treatments are tolerated by science-based medicine because they do no harm. Some are opposed because they interfere with science-based treatments and may harm patients when used in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiation treatment. Some are opposed because they are useless and some are opposed because they are harmful.

Even dinosaurs got cancer. How likely is it that they got cancer because their diets deprived them of oxygen? Anyway, at this point, despite its fallibility, I'm giving my support to science-based medical treatments for cancer. There are hundreds of different kinds of cancers and it is true that science hasn't found a cure yet. It is also true that the more we learn about cancer the more we realize that there is so much more to learn. The more we understand, the more we realize there is so much more to understand. I doubt there will ever be a cure for cancer in the sense of something that rids any body with any kind of cancer of every cancer cell in that body. Yet, I wouldn't be surprised if I were to come back from the dead a few hundred years from now to find that scientists have figured out how to make each cell in any body immortal and healthy.

There is a lot of uncertainty those of with cancer must accept. For some, the uncertainty produces unbearable stress. One of the main benefits I see from belief in natural cures is the relief of anxiety it produces. There are several natural biases, I think, that are at work here: the illusion of control, the illusion of understanding, confirmation bias, and communal reinforcement. Many people feel helpless when they are told they have cancer. They don't want to be at the mercy of a disease, passively accepting whatever the disease might bring. They want to take control of their lives. Belief in natural cures gives people the feeling that they are in control, that they do understand cancer and can cure themselves. One you believe in natural cures and that the medical establishment has suppressed vital information, it is easy for the believer to find evidence that supports their belief and to ignore or belittle all the overwhelming evidence against it. There is a whole community of folks out there led by the likes of Joe Mercola, Mike Adams, Webster Kehr, Brian Clement, and many more who provide support and comfort for beliefs about natural cancer cures that the scientific community finds lacking in sufficient evidence. The cognitive biases at work here lead many cancer patients to believe that they have found an absolutely infallible cure for their disease. They want to believe that there is a simple and relatively inexpensive and noninvasive procedure that will give them total control of their disease. There is comfort in believing you understand your disease and how to get rid of it. Many cancer patients experience great anxiety at the thought of dying from a disease they don't understand and have no control over. Such anxiety can disappear if you are given hope that you will not die, that you can control your disease, and that the cure is really simple and natural. Many of us diagnosed with cancer fear having surgery or undergoing chemotherapy or radiation treatments. We fear the procedures themselves, their potential side-effects, and the uncertainty of the results. Believing you don't need surgery or chemotherapy or radiation reduces fear and anxiety. It's comforting, but the feeling is based on illusions. The feeling of control and the relief of anxiety that comes with it are the greatest benefits of believing in natural cures. The one benefit I don't see from natural cures for cancer, however, is a cure for cancer.

See also SD Newsletter Nov 2014, integrative medicine, organic, vitamins & minerals, and Evaluating Personal Experience.

further reading

Society for Integrative Oncology Guide for Credible Internet Information

Cautions from Barrie Cassileth PhD, Chief Integrative Medicine Service; Laurance S. Rockefeller Chair; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

10 persistent cancer myths debunked

Junkfood Science: Do you fear sugar might causes cancer?
Contains a detailed take-down of a paper published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The paper is a meta-analysis of 37 published observational (epidemiological) studies that had looked for correlations between glycemic index/load and diseases. It was reported as having shown that low-GI [glycemic index] foods offer a "similar or higher level of protection as whole-grain foods or high fiber intake in the prevention of chronic lifestyle-related disease" and that foods with a high glycemic index increase risks of cancer. The authors achieved this conclusion despite the fact than not a single one of the 37 studies they evaluated showed a viable correlation between glycemic index and any disease. 

This article takes down another study claiming a causal connection between sugar and cancer.

This epidemiological study, was published in the International Journal of Cancer. Its data was from 120,852 people in the Netherlands Cohort Study, who’d also completed food frequency questionnaires in 1986.

After 11.3 years of follow-up, the researchers found no genuine relative risk for colorectal cancers related to dietary glycemic index or glycemic load among the men or women. They also found no clear associations between any cancer subsite and dietary factors. Relative risks for cancers associated with sugary, high-glycemic foods ranged from 0.83 to 1.20. The relative risks all hugged either side of null (RR=1) with none tenable, like the other observational studies. (emphasis added)

Enzymes make the world go round

Simply Raw: Making overcooked claims about raw food diets by David Gorski

Fact or Fiction: Raw veggies are healthier than cooked ones Do vegetables lose their nutritional value when heated? Scientific American. March 31, 2009. By Sushma Subramanian

The Cold Truth About Raw Food Diets by Joel Fuhrman, M.D.
"Contrary to the propaganda of raw-food advocates, cooking actually can help you absorb more nutrients."

When false hope leads well-meaning people astray by Orac
"I had never heard of the Hippocrates Health Institute (HHI) or the doctor, Dr. Brian Clement before; so, as is my wont, I went to the source, the Hippocrates Health Institute website. It didn’t take long for me to figure out that its programs were a veritable cornucopia of nearly every quackery on the planet, including at least one I hadn’t realized that people did."