Role of food in ‘disease’/cancer creation, and why is food seen as ‘CAM”

Whilst well aware of the topic at hand, I have been busy trying to get my head around STILL why oncologists do not look to the what may well be obvious to the unmedically trained.

The first post in this series addressed the ‘what we make ourselves with’ issue. (We are what we eat).

Forget about a magic herb or vitamin – what about just helping the body to be?
(The province of a natural therapist). (Coulter and Khorsan, 2012)

The oncologist may be using a telescope and focusing in the cancer, not the person, BUT the rate of malnutrition that will happen as the patent is unable to process food must have to be alarming.

Added to this, the rate at which some drugs rip further specific nutrients out, thus initiating other disease states, through vast imbalance surely needs addressing if the person is to survive the cancer treatment – whether or not that intervention even ‘works’ on the cancer.

I run into the nonmalificence issue. (First, do not harm).

The fact that this seems not to be a priority undermines my faith in the process of seeking help in oncology.

Hence my questioning as to the cancer’s cause – as without eradicating that, surely all resources are misspent (we will come into this one from tomorrow)?

‘CAM’ as substances or therapies – it may be the ‘breakthrough’ in this debate.

As food as medicine is not a concept in WOM although is prevalent in at least acupuncture philosophy, and is the basis for naturopathic medicine, it is worth noting that in the straw poll I have performed this week in clinic of those who have had cancer none of them were advised of what to eat or not do to enhance their life post treatment.

Yet it is no drama to find all manner of connections between the role of diet and disease. In cancer treatment itself

As CAM is so ill defined – maybe anything not used in conventional medicine – we also have yoga, Tai Qi and Reiki – to say nothing of prayer and forgiveness blessings – where could it end?

As I mentioned in the first discussion – where does the idea that ‘medicine’ is about attacking disease and alleviating symptoms put food, and especially supplements, to enhance what should be in the food?

The role of diet is well known in researching cancer prevalence and avoidances.

There are plenty of online sources for this.


“Can something as simple as the foods you choose reduce your risk of cancer? The answer is an overwhelming yes. By eating a predominantly plant-based diet that includes a variety of vegetables, fruit, whole grains and beans, you can strengthen your body’s natural defences against disease’. So why are oncologists not at least mentioning the role of diet in recovery and during therapy?  Seeing a naturopath would ensure this would be addressed.

They further state –

‘Only two decades ago, the notion that cancer was a preventable disease was flatly rejected by many in the scientific and medical communities. Even researchers whose work showed tremendous promise remained conflicted about the wisdom of devoting further time and expense to the study of a diet-cancer link.

‘Shortly after the founding of AICR, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report called Diet, Nutrition and Cancer, which invigorated the discussion by revealing a clear relationship between diet and incidence of cancer. The report went on to propose simple, everyday steps people could follow to reduce their risk. It became apparent that a few small, positive lifestyle choices about diet and exercise offered individuals a real chance to stop cancer before it started.

‘This is the bold new initiative in scientific thinking that AICR has pursued for the last 18 years. In 1997 the Institute added its own unique voice to the ongoing discussion with the publication of Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective.

‘This report represents the latest and most comprehensive examination ever undertaken of the diet-cancer connection. Authored by an international panel of experts, Food, Nutrition and Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective reviewed over 4500 studies and offered its own series of recommendations for everyday cancer prevention. The AICR report, and the educational efforts it has inspired, have helped to move the study of dietary influences upon cancer from the scientific “fringe” to its current place in the national — even global — spotlight.

‘The focus of AICR’s education programs is summarized in the AICR Diet and Health Guidelines for Cancer Prevention, summarized here.

  1. Choose a diet rich in a variety of plant-based foods.
  2. Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits.
  3. Maintain a healthy weight and be physically active.
  4. Drink alcohol only in moderation, if at all.
  5. Select foods low in fat and salt.
  6. Prepare and store food safely.

And always remember…Do not use tobacco in any form”

I have replicated this within the text for a reason . . Can we improve the person who is also undergoing what is destroying their cancer hopefully faster than killing off the rest of themselves?

We may ask – are we all in a state of relative malnutrition as the inherent nutrients are challenged due to farming practices and thus soil degradation?

Is this exacerbated by the pesticide and the fertilizer usage?

Sources to various to mention within WOM usually state that ‘vitamins are unnecessary if there is an adequate diet’ – what is that?

The effectiveness of oncologists is being measured not in quality of life, but in being still alive five years later with no mention of the substantial fear and anxiety, and with substantial body problems (let alone the after effects of the chemo and radiation killing them even though the cancer is no longer present).

From having had the oncologist’s ministrations, it seems to me that they could be looking at what else would help, rather than upset their chemical war, with a more open mind.

To look at why patients choose CAM generally as Crystal et al found in their 2003 study, it will be as a healthy living enhancement – there may be no disease as such, just a sense of dis ease.

Here the patient may well have a natural health team already in place, and may start with them as a counterpoint to the oncologists and as somewhere to use a sanctuary, between and after WOM interventions.

We could equally ask why then would an oncologist who is only interested in the disease interfere with what the patient has in place as their life support?

The role of what is eaten and the toxicity or otherwise of the body is not mentioned in any literature on ‘cancer’ as it seems the seed is more important than the soil.

In the vaccination discoveries, on his deathbed, Pasteur recanted as he had realised that the soil was the key.

The idea that the medication depletes vital nutrients causing side effects is also well known.

We could ponder –

  • How well is the body (now)?
  • How then can it be strengthened (after the shock of diagnosis the trauma of ‘correction’)?
  • Why just focus on the cancer and not the person who grew it?

If these are not addressed (and this is the province of CAM), this may determine whether the person actually lives well, or at all, after any cancer treatment.