We are 211,254 members in 82 forums discussing 151,395 topics.

Help with Abbreviations

Topic: Budwig diet/Flax oil

Forum: Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment — Complementary medicine refers to treatments that are used WITH standard treatment. Holistic medicine is a term used to describe therapies that attempt to treat the patient as a whole person.

Posted on: Jun 8, 2009 04:58PM

janeylena wrote:

Just wondering if anyone had any experience with the Budwig diet. Would appreciate any experiences as I am awaiting diagnosis and am definitely drawn to alternatives to radiation etc.  Thanks.

Log in to post a reply

Page 3 of 6 (161 results)

Posts 61 - 90 (161 total)

Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 08:13AM - edited Feb 14, 2010 08:16AM by Beatis

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Budwig diet does anything against cancer. Going on a Budwig diet and forgoing standard treatment can be very dangerous and may cost you your life.

Stef2day and others on this blog claim that cancer cannot survive in an acidic environment and so they advise trying to lower your body pH with an "alkaline" diet, to cure cancer. This is not only nonsense, it is impossible as well, as you can read here.

It is also claimed here that cancer cells thrive on sugar and consequently, that a diet without sugar would cure cancer. This is not correct either.

It is true that cancer cells feed on sugar, but so do all the normal cells in our body.

The problem arises when your intake of sugar is so high that your body starts to produce too much insulin. This is bad for your health and there is some evidence indicating that too much insulin can stimulate cancer growth.

However, in a normal, healthy diet, this would not happen. It is always good to lower your sugar consumption, but there is absolutely no need to ban all and any sugar from your diet; as most foods contain sugar, this would limit your diet to such an extent as to become unhealthy.

Also, there is no reason to deny yourself the incidental joy of ice cream, chocolate or a sweet dessert.

  Smile

  

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 09:53AM mollyann wrote:

What have you read about the Budwig protocol that makes you an expert? 

Look it up. Ask questions. Question authority. Respect other's choices.
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 10:48AM Beatis wrote:

Where's the evidence that shows it is effective against cancer?

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 10:54AM mollyann wrote:

You were the one making claims, not I.

I assumed you had evidence, not just opinion.

I assumed you had read Budwig before dismissing it. So you haven't read Budwig????

Look it up. Ask questions. Question authority. Respect other's choices.
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 11:10AM - edited Feb 14, 2010 11:16AM by Beatis

I am not making the claim, the proponents of the Budwig diet are making the claim, namely that the Budwig diet cures cancer, but there is no evidence that it does.

Sufficient intake of omega-3 fatty acids is part of a normal healthy diet. There is evidence that a diet with sufficient omega-3 fatty acids can offer some protection against heart disease and there are indications that it may (not: does) lower the chance of developing certain kinds of colon cancer. Hence the advice to include omega-3 fatty acids in your diet. All this can be found for example on the website of the American Cancer Society.

Given all this, I think it is a bad idea to use the Budwig diet as an alternative to standard cancer treatments.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 01:24PM - edited Feb 14, 2010 01:25PM by mollyann

Beatis, you wrote:

Going on the Budwig diet and forgoing standard treatment can be very dangerous and may cost you your life.

-----------------------------------------------

You are making a claim. You asserted the above as fact. Asserting something to be true is the definition of making a claim. So I asked you for evidence for your claim.

You ducked that question.

Then you dodged my question asking if you had actually read Budwig since you talk so authoritatively about it.

When you actually read Budwig I look forward to a discussion.

Thanks so much.

Look it up. Ask questions. Question authority. Respect other's choices.
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 01:43PM Merilee wrote:

Can someone give a nutshell description of the budwig diet? The onl thing I know about it is that you eat cottage cheese and flax seeds everyday.

breastcancerbeast.blogspot.com & downsyduderescueranch.blogspot... Dx 4/4/2011, ILC, 1cm, Stage I, 0/9 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 01:51PM Beatis wrote:

@Mollyann,

I said there is no evidence that the Budwig diet is effective in curing cancer. And there isn't.

I can read the diet until I am blue in the face, but what it all comes down to is this: does the Budwig diet cure cancer or does it not? There just is no evidence that it does. 

Having said that, it seems sensible to include sufficient omega-3 fatty acids in one's diet. 

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 14, 2010 08:42PM - edited Feb 14, 2010 10:04PM by CrunchyPoodleMama

Merilee, in a nutshell, the Budwig protocol is very similar to what many of us are doing anyway... fresh, whole, organic vegetables and fruit, eliminating non-organic animal products from the diet, getting exercise and fresh air and sunshine every day... that kind of thing. The flax oil/cottage cheese blend is important not just for the omega 3, but for the ability for those omega 3's to be absorbed quickly and efficiently by the body. The basics are at this link and here is info on why the strange-sounding combination of flax oil and cottage cheese or quark.  

Beatis, you're correct that there is not currently a Cancer Industry approved study of the Budwig protocol in a current peer-reviewed journal, and I doubt there ever will be, for reasons I've posted below (quoted from the site linked above). Does that mean it doesn't cure cancer? Absolutely not! Based on the science behind the diet and the scientific studies that do exist around various other elements of the program, I am staking my life on the Budwig protocol (with a few very minor additions/modifications).

I'm personally not big on anecdotal evidence, but there is indeed overwhelming anecdotal evidence that supports Budwig... both during her decades of working with patients, and on the Budwig/flax oil forum where daily I read posts by people who now have no evidence of disease after following this protocol. There are certainly many more thousands of patients that BP has "cured" (NED) than are typically examined in a controlled scientific study.

Keep in mind, the Budwig protocol is an entire diet/lifestyle change, not just eating a flax oil mixture. The current medical industry isn't very good at assessing an entire host of variables. But, as I said, science does support the individual components of the Budwig protocol having direct or indirect cancer-fighting effects. So why on earth do you think it so outlandish that, together as a whole, the Budwig protocol would be anything but an aggressive program to fight off cancer naturally?

When scientific evidence (to the extent it exists) and theoretical science and overwhelming anecdotal evidence and logic/common sense all line up and point to the same conclusion, that's a good indication that it works.

Dr Willner, M.D., Ph.D. writes in The Cancer Solution: "Numerous, independent clinical studies published in major medical journals world-wide confirm Dr. Budwig's findings....Over 40 years ago Dr Budwig presented clear and convincing evidence, which has been confirmed by hundreds of other related scientific research papers since, that the essential fatty acids were at the core of the answer to the cancer problem...You will come to your own conclusions as to why this simple effective prevention and therapy has not only been ignored-it has been suppressed!"

Cliff Beckwith, a 13 year prostate cancer survivor "thanks to flax oil and cottage cheese", writes: "For the most part one cannot expect the doctors to place any real credibility to the use of flax oil/cottage cheese. It seems incredible that anything could be successful other than what they are taught in Med school. Imagine the blow to one's ego if it became official that something with which he or she is not familiar would be found to be much better than the things that were studied 10 years to learn. ... Dr. Budwig to my knowledge had over 1000 documented successes. However, her work was not popular with the Oncology Industry in Europe. Her ideas would have meant a lot of losses in the Food Industry [too]; especially in the fats industry. My cousin, Richard Beckwith, called her probably eleven years ago and talked to her about forty five minutes. She told him that American doctors had come to Germany and been impressed with her work. Then they wanted to try to work out some way to have exclusive rights to her methods in the United States and make a lot of money and she wouldn't do that. She believed her work was very important and was anxious to see it carried on but no one seemed interested unless they could make a lot of money.

I had Advanced cancer and I could not wait for scientific confirmation and began to use these ideas immediately. One thing led to another, none of it planned, and we have seen many folks recover from cancer or have lives greatly extended. A lot of that information is at www.beckwithfamily.com. That is all based on anecdotal evidence. Other than the evidence in Dr. Budwig's records that is all there is. No one is doing any scientific testing. That is done to prove the value of drugs for profit and one cannot patent Flaxseed Oil. ...In my view there should be enough on those lists [the evidence reported on Budwig discussion lists] and what we have seen to at least cause someone really interested in human welfare to be curious."

Julia ~ Dear friends, do what you can to help your body fight/prevent cancer. 1. Supplement with iodine and vitamin D. 2. STOP taking hormonal birth control/HRT. 3. Eat organic real food, not chemical or fake food. Dx 11/13/2009, DCIS, 4cm, Stage 0, Grade 2, 0/0 nodes, ER+/PR+
Log in to post a reply

Feb 15, 2010 05:17PM thenewme wrote:

For another perspective on the Budwig protocol, here's what a  nutritionist from Dana-Farber has to say:

************************Quote from Dana Farber Cancer Institute******************

The Budwig diet is an example of an Alternative Diet and is not recommended for cancer patients during treatment. It is based out of a complementary medicine center in Europe. The main focus of the Budwig diet is organic cottage cheese and flaxseed oil. The diet recommends blending these two ingredients together and eating them two times a day. Meals consist of raw, organic fruits and vegetables and drinking a lot of water and fruit or vegetable juices. The diet also recommends cutting out all fats, meats, sugars, carbohydrates and dairy. The diet includes options of light exercise, if you are not too weak, and enemas using hot water and coffee.

While aspects of this diet are healthy, other aspects are considered harmful, especially during chemotherapy. Flaxseed oil contains omega-3 fats, a very healthful nutrient. In cancer patients, preliminary research suggests that diets that include omega-3s may protect against the development of cancer, reduce inflammation, help prevent muscle loss associated with cancer treatment, and may increase the potency of certain chemotherapy drugs. The high amounts of fresh organic fruits and vegetables also provide many phytonutrients in the diet.

However, this diet is extremely limited in protein and adequate calories. During chemotherapy, it is important to give your body adequate protein to prevent muscle wasting and maintain a healthy immune system. Your body also needs enough carbohydrates and healthy fats to meet daily energy and nutrient needs. During chemotherapy, you may also be suffering from side-effects, including diarrhea, nausea, appetite loss and change of taste. An extremely limited diet, such as this, may not be helpful when managing these side-effects. Also, coffee enemas are not recommended, because they carry a high risk for infection.

Adding variety to your diet and being able to eat what makes your body feel better, especially during chemotherapy, is important for health and wellness. You can however, add the flaxseed oil and cottage cheese mixture as a healthy part of your overall diet. It would make a great breakfast with some fruit added to it. Another point you can take away from the Budwig diet is the amount vegetables and fruits in your diet. A plant-based diet in combination with adequate lean proteins such as chicken or fish and whole grains will keep your energy levels up and help your body heal.

Dx 11/2008, IDC, 5cm, Stage IIB, Grade 3, 0/9 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 15, 2010 07:23PM CrunchyPoodleMama wrote:

thenewme, overall I don't think that's a bad assessment of the Budwig protocol for someone coming from a purely conventional vantagepoint, but the person who wrote this got some of the facts about Budwig wrong:

1. Coffee enemas have nothing to do with the Budwig protocol. This person is confusing Budwig with another alternative program (Gerson, I believe). 

2. Budwig certainly didn't recommend cutting out "all" dairy since the flax oil/CC blend is core to the program. 

Also, Budwig recommended that cancer patients NOT be treated with chemotherapy concurrently with her protocol, so the point about managing side effects is moot.

Julia ~ Dear friends, do what you can to help your body fight/prevent cancer. 1. Supplement with iodine and vitamin D. 2. STOP taking hormonal birth control/HRT. 3. Eat organic real food, not chemical or fake food. Dx 11/13/2009, DCIS, 4cm, Stage 0, Grade 2, 0/0 nodes, ER+/PR+
Log in to post a reply

Feb 15, 2010 08:51PM MBROWNING wrote:

Nan~ Thanks for the link on the surgery.....surgical mets have always been a fear, which is the reason I put the lumpectomy off far longer than the docs and my family had hoped.  I wish I would have given Budwig longer to do it's magic; then, I believe I could have avoided it.  But, there's no going back now, so all I can hope is that the protocol takes care of any rogue cells! 

Yaz~ I'm not concerned about the dairy connection on Budwig.  In the China Study, T. Colin  Campbell's research showed that dairy stimulated cancer growth in mice when the daily dairy (casein) consumption exceeded 5% of one's daily dietary intake.  A few people on the Budwig yahoo group have posted exhaustive calculations showing that the cottage cheese portion of the daily diet is below the 5%.....I try to eat even more calories per day from other foods (veggies, nuts for the protein, etc.) to get the dairy ratio even lower.  Also, there are some that say once the oil and the cottage cheese are completed mixed and bonded, that the dairy structure is changed.  I don't know that I can really believe this (it's not a Budwig statement, but others' theory), but again, I'm satisifed that the dairy component of the daily diet is low enough to not be an issue.  You are very smart for not starting a program that you don't have 100% confidence in.  I believe the emotional aspect (in having full faith in your protocol) is at least half the battle!

 Althea~ My cholesterol went down after starting Budwig; much of that was likely due to cutting out dairy (except the CC) and animal protein.  You absolutely must completely mix the FO/CC together, preferably with a stick blender or something like a magic bullett (I use the Tribest personal blender).  Those 2 ingredients must be completely bonded together (you shouldn't see any oil in the resultant creamy mix).  This is the most critical aspect of the protocol.  Once the oil is completed bonded witht he sulphurated protein in the cottage cheese, it is processed much differently by the body (becomes water soluble) and immediately taken up by the cells (as opposed to going through the digestion process, etc.).  The Budwig thread is very active, probably even more so than the Iodine thread, but for some reason, I find it easier to follow than the Iodine thread (I guess my format settings are different in the way I receive the 2).  It is so full of lots of information.  I find the people on the Budwig thread are alot more patient with questions, etc. than on the Iodine thread. 

Dx 2/17/2009, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 1, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 15, 2010 10:01PM - edited Feb 15, 2010 10:02PM by mollyann

Melissa, thank you for your detailed comments on Budwig. I had run out of oil and slouched off. You have re-inspired me :)

What were people on the iodine thread not patient about? You mean the iodine thread on BCO?

Look it up. Ask questions. Question authority. Respect other's choices.
Log in to post a reply

Feb 15, 2010 10:57PM - edited Feb 15, 2010 10:57PM by Leia

Budwig patients do not have Chemotherapy. That is the point. 

If you want to go the Chemo route, here are your odds.

 http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/chemotherapy-effectiveness.html

I will NEVER have chemo or radiation. EVER.  

Dx 5/5/2006, IDC, 2cm, Stage I, Grade 1, 0/3 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 16, 2010 01:07AM Beatis wrote:

@ Leia,

What do they mean with 'succes rate' in the oasis article? 

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 16, 2010 02:59AM - edited Feb 16, 2010 03:52AM by luv_gardening

Here's the actual study which should answer any questions.

www.cytotron.com/pdf/The%20Con... 

 And here is a link to the transcript of a medical radio program about the study, interviewing one of the authors.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2005/1348333.htm

Dx 7/2/2009, ILC, 4cm, Stage IIIA, Grade 2, 9/24 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 16, 2010 05:23AM - edited Feb 16, 2010 05:24AM by Beatis

Thanks. I know the actual study very well, I just wondered what is meant by "success rate" on the oasis website. In the study, they don't speak of "succes rate," but of "contribution." and that's not the same thing.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 16, 2010 11:19PM Leia wrote:

The "success rate" on the oasis website is being alive, after 5 years. 

And from the way that I read that web site, the odds of still being alive after having chemotherapy are pretty dismal.  

I'm a True Believer in the Budwig Protocol.

If chemotherapy has that little hope, why even bother with it. With all of those horrible side effects. 

Even if you think the Budwig protocol is bullshit, and doesn't do, squat, I'd rather die eating healthily and with all of my hair.  And have some quality of life, at the end. 

Dx 5/5/2006, IDC, 2cm, Stage I, Grade 1, 0/3 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 01:33AM MBJ wrote:

Leia,

I have triple negative breast cancer which is incredibly aggressive i.e. fast growing. The only thing it responds to is chemo.  I too thought I would never have chemo but you do what you can to continue living.   I have been doing complementary therapies throughout chemo but still have cancer.  I am now considering the Budwig diet to help the chemo to do it's job better.  My tumors are shrinking and hopefully everything else I am doing will assure it never comes back. Still, I am losing my breast and because of chest wall invasion having radiation.  I really would rather not but I am hoping that all of the other things I am doing will make it so I live past 5 years.  There are women who thrive after chemo and I feel it's a discredit to them and myself to suggest that we won't.

MBJ-Unilateral MX-METS ENTIRE LIVER, BONES Dx 2/3/2012, 3cm, Stage IV, Grade 3, 0/2 nodes, mets, ER+/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 02:23AM - edited Feb 17, 2010 01:30PM by Beatis

Leia,

I was afraid you would read it this way; it is suggested on the Oasis website that of all cancer patients who have undergone chemo, only about 3% survive for more than 5 years. That would indeed be dismal, but it isn't true.

The "2% chemo efficacy" comes from an Australian study into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival.

What the study set out to do was to find out what the contribution of chemotherapy would be to cancer survival, next to other standard treatments. The researchers claimed to have found that the average contribution of chemotherapy to survival was no more than about 2%.

After the publication of the study, a number of purveyors and proponents of alternative medicine claimed that the outcome of the study was that of all cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, only 2-3% survive for more than 5 years.

In other words: chemotherapy is supposed to kill an average 97% of cancer patients within 5 years! This sounds indeed horrible, AND IT ISN'T TRUE AT ALL!! as you can read here: http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/only-3-percent-survive-chemotherapy/

MBJ, I too have TN which was very fast growing. Next to the primary tumour, two other small ones were found and chemotherapy has improved my personal prognosis with about 15%.

It is simply not true that chemotherapy is always the worst choice for any cancer patient.

I can't understand why anyone with oasis or any other website posting this, should think that "information" so blatantly incorrect is of any benefit to anyone.

I think we have a right to honest information from both sides, be it conventional or alternative.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 11:34AM thenewme wrote:

Leia,

You said, "The "success rate" on the oasis website is being alive, after 5 years. And from the way that I read that web site, the odds of still being alive after having chemotherapy are pretty dismal."

Are you seriously saying that you believe that only 2.1% of patients survive chemotherap - Seriously??  Shame on that Oasis website for proclaiming such nonsense, but holy cow, doesn't that go against common sense? Over half of all cancer patients receive chemotherapy.  Have you ever noticed how many 5-year plus survivors are on this website alone? Ever seen the pink-shirt wearing race for the cure numbers? How many people do you know in your life who have battled some type of cancer? Of those, how many survived more than 5 years? 

I was trying to explain to my second grader last night that red flags should come up for her when her classmate claims to have 25 siblings.   I know, the kid SAYS it.  I know she really, really does SAY she has 25 brothers and sisters.  She even INSISTS it's true, but come ON. 

Of course you're free to make your own choices regarding treatment, but don't post utter crap like this without expecting to be called on it.

Dx 11/2008, IDC, 5cm, Stage IIB, Grade 3, 0/9 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 11:49AM thenewme wrote:

Oh, and by the way, the "can't patent such-and-such so nobody will study it" argument is hogwash.  There are patents created all the time for all sorts of vitamins, natural substances, processing methods, formulations, etc.  People made gazillions of dollars selling pet rocks, for crying out loud, so to say that nobody would/could profit from the "Budwig Protocol" is nonsense.

Maybe someone can explain why, exactly, there is no evidence for the efficacy/safety of the Budwig protocol...??? Crunchypoodlemama cited "The Cancer Solution" and www.beckwithfamily.com, but what evidence, exactly, do they provide?

Dx 11/2008, IDC, 5cm, Stage IIB, Grade 3, 0/9 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 12:09PM thenewme wrote:

Beatis has given some great links throughout this thread, but here's an old BCO thread discussing this same misinterpreted study:

Only 2.1% of patients survive chemo

Dx 11/2008, IDC, 5cm, Stage IIB, Grade 3, 0/9 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 12:51PM Yazmin wrote:

Beatis, you wrote: "..In other words, chemotherapy is supposed to kill 97% of patients within 5 years..." No, Beatis, No. What the study says is the chemotherapy DOES NOT (talking about chemo's contribution) help 97% of patients within five years, not that it kills them. Now, you are misinterpreting.

The fact is that the overall benefit from chemotherapy is appalling, there is no other way to put.

Please question more. And then more.
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 01:28PM - edited Feb 17, 2010 01:33PM by Beatis

Did you read my comment at all? I was only quoting what a lot of people think the study said.

Dx 10/22/2007, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 03:29PM crazy4carrots wrote:

The way I understand it, chemotherapy's prime goal is to kill any remaining cancer cells that may be wandering around, either through the lymph or vascular system.  Once it's out of these systems, there is little to stop our body from developing another tumour.  The initial chemo we get does not (by virtue of its primary goal) prevent a second breast cancer. 

So........I'm not sure why the statistics being quoted matter a great deal.  I chose chemo because, even though the pathology noted I was lymph/vascular negative, I wanted to make sure there weren't any nasty cells that had escaped and taken up residence somewhere else.

As many have said, we all have to do what feels comfortable for us alone. 

The demagogue preaches doctrine he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. Dx 1/10/2008, ILC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/4 nodes, ER+/PR-, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 03:42PM MBROWNING wrote:

Mollyann~ The Iodine thread I'm referring to is the yahoo group.  They are very informed and helpful, but I've noticed if you ask a question that's been asked before, the sr members seem to have little patience for that.  A very active thread that I just can't keep up with!

Dx 2/17/2009, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 1, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 04:09PM MBROWNING wrote:

MBJ~ I had a low-grade tumor and my ONCO score was low enough as to determine that the chemo benefit did not outweigh the benefits, so luckily I didn't even have to make that choice. I know TN is a much different animal, and had I been faced with that dx, I'm sure my choices would have been different (I likely would have taken chemo WITH Budwig and a healthy diet).  A friend of mine who was recently dx'd as TN has just started metronomic chemo.....sounds much kinder and gentler than traditional chemo.  You've likely heard of it, but if not, I would encourage you to research it and ask your onco about it.  The thing that most frustrates me about patients put on chemo is that you often see them in the chemo chairs with  all kinds of sweets and treats around them (and traditional medicine does not deny that sugar feeds cancer!). I really wish the doctor's would encourage a healthy, immune system building diet alongside chemo treatments.  In that regard, I think you are wise to consider Budwig (or another healthy alternative protocol) while you are on chemo.  Dr. Budwig discouraged chemo while on Budwig, but I certainly think it could only help you....it may be that the Budwig won't be as effective with chemo as it would w/out. 

Another thing, I saw a clip on ABC News last night about the benefit of taking aspirin in greatly reducing the recurrence of breast cancer.  The story talked of the anti-inflamatory role of aspirin (the best results were when taken 2-5 times/week).  We all know that a primarily whole/raw foods diet has anti-inflamatory benefits (as do omega 3 oils).  So, it again amazes me that the medical community is so quick to recommend yet another pill to pop vs. making dietary recommendations that do the same thing, only better!  Of course, the foundation of the Budwig protocol is built on balancing omega 3's and omega 6's and is highly anti-inflamatory. 

So, forge ahead with the treatment that YOU are comfortable with.  I say it often, but I truly believe the most effective treatment is the one that you have complete faith in (even if it is a combination of treatments or protocols).  God blessed each and everyone of us with our own unique, complex body.  What works for one may not work for the other, but I know my own body sends me very clear signals of what is working and what is not.  I've customized my plan so many times....adding supplements, taking them away and trying all kinds of enhancements.  Luckily, each time, I come right back to the basic Budwig, which is a simple protocol once you're used to it and it is relatively inexpensive (the most costly aspect is buying as much organic, quality whole foods as possible)!

Melissa

Dx 2/17/2009, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 1, ER+/PR+, HER2-
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 04:16PM Yazmin wrote:

Beatis: sorry, I am looking at about 5 screens at once :-) Yes, I see what you mean. Still, I deplore the fact that chemotherapy offers so little benefit, after decades and decades of "fine-tuning" it.

Yeah, I was also put on chemo in the hope that it would "[zap] any nasty cells that would have taken residence somewhere else." Only: Chemo misses those, more often than not. I am in the best shape I have been since I was a teenager, because I turned my diet around 360 degrees immediately after diagnosis. Paying close attention to dietary issues took care of terrible allergies I had tried (for decades) to treat with all kinds of drugs, and going from ENT doctor to ENT doctor to no avail. All gone now, I breathe the easiest I remember breathing; diet and supplements also took care of my Irritable Bowel, which, again, I had been battling for decades with lots of drugs (Axid, Prilosec, Aciphex, you name it), and seeing scores and scores of Gastro-enterologists, AGAIN: to no avail. Today, I have perfect digestion. I also lowered my blood pressure to normal through diet and exercise.

So now, I am treating my ER+, PR+, HER- tumor the  natural way. Dropped off chemo in 2006, after 5 rounds, because that's when it was established (by the medical community) that chemo does NOTHING for the above-mentioned tumor type. Turned down Tamoxifen. Turned down AIs.

.....And after a recent evaluation at the Cancer Treatment Center of America in Philadelphia, was found to be in excellent health, no need for any preventive cancer medication, and congratulations for my excellent diet (verified by special blood works).  

Please question more. And then more.
Log in to post a reply

Feb 17, 2010 05:33PM - edited Feb 17, 2010 05:36PM by mathteacher

I'm really enjoying this that aspirin has better percentages than chemo.

When in doubt, read the actual studies and do the math.

Page 3 of 6 (161 results)