Re: Have We Finally Discovered The Food Components Causing Most Disease?

Enrico,
I'm glad to see what I have written has interested you. Welcome to
the party.
At this point in my thinking, my goal has been to document publicly
what I have observed about diet's impact on cancer as I battled 4
cancers over 5 years. I agree from hindsight that some of my word
choices in this thread could have been better, but these flaws should
not mask the message here that animal food sources stood out (by
perhaps by an order of magnitude) over all other food intake as a
facilitator of cancer in my body.

I would like to see research investigations established to prove or
disprove my theories about Animal Food Sources. I want to see this
research done as we in Engineering would do it: Monitor food intake
versus human health resultant response. We need to document and
evaluate (assign weights to) the qualities of foods we eat according to
how human health responds over time to each food. This effort I want
to see done independent from other efforts investigating WHY the foods
react in the body as they do. If we learn that certain foods are ten
times more likely than others to harm our health, then it becomes our
choice not to eat them, rather than spend a fortune on cures for their
symptoms - - or die prematurely.

You asked:

Quoted message said:

How do you know that other age-onset diseases are caused
by excessive animal protein intake?

Answer:
1) I watched my wife's cholesterol drop from 314 to 165 between
11/27/02 and 5/12/03 eating the much the same modified diet I was
consuming to successfully keep all my cancers in remission. We can
produce the medical records to establish proof of her body's response
to an estimated 90% reduction in our rate of consumption of animal food
sources.
2) I watched my mother, once a school dietician, battle for 10 years
2 major cancers, osteoporosis and Parkinson's. I know for a fact
that her diet included significant amounts of animal food sources and
hydrogenated oils - - the only two food components she never removed
from her diet - - as she never suspected they were a problem.
These are two of several observations that lead me to suspect that
more diseases than cancer are likely caused by years of excessive
animal foods consumption. I will grant you that we have also removed
all hydrogenated oils from our diet, so a more accurate statement for
the record is: "I believe most age-onset diseases are caused by a
combination of excessive animal food sources and hydrogenated oil
dietary intake." Which indicted food does what in causing other
diseases should be sorted out in the study which I have proposed
herein. What I do know is that animal food sources alone triggered my
2004/5 prostate & basal cell cancers to flourish (come out of remission
and require professional treatment by oncologists).

I believe excessive simple carbohydrates in our foods (especially,
high fructose corn syrup - HFCS) are factors in disease, but as I
virtually never consumed HFCS in my life, nor did the people I observed
closely, it plays no role in my experience, and I thus leave it for
another thread to deal with.

You asked:

Quoted message said:

In fact, you gave up all animal protein except for a morsel now and
then, is that so?

Yes. I have butter every other day or so on toast, an ounce of sheep
milk feta cheese every other day in salad, fish about every 10 days, a
few ounces of beef about once per month. Hopefully, my honest response
to this question will help you assess what I have said above.
By the way, as Max has pointed out elsewhere in his blunt style,
perhaps I/we should be using the term "animal food sources" instead of
the term "animal protein". Max is correct in pointing out we really
don't know what the specific toxin is in the animal food sources - - it
could as Max says be the cholesterol or anything else in the animal
food sources. THE POINT IS - - my message here does not sink or swim
on which toxin in the animal food sources had so effectively nourished
my cancers out of remission, causing my 2004/2005 flare-up of prostate
and basal cell cancers.

Thanks for some good questions.
- - Bill

Nothing on my web site
http://naturalhealthperspective.com
is about treating cancer. It is strictly 100% about preventing cancer,
and other lifestyle diseases. I think it best to leave the treatment
of cancer to the professionals. Therefore, I have nothing to say on
this subject. Treating versus preventing are two totally different
topics, IMHO.

However, I have in fact downloaded Bill's e-book. Bill has a much a
right to express his opinion as anyone else does. If Weston Price
could do it, so can Bill. He at least has set up his own web site,
which is certainly a step in the right direction. Bill has certainly
accomplished a lot more than what TC, Mad Max, or Montygram has done.
I challenge TC, Mad Max, or Montygram to put whatever they are yacking
about constantly into an e-book and/or a web site. After all, you have
to have something to say before you can write a book. Any fool can
complain on these ngs like these 3 fools do all the time.

One day, I plan on converting my web site into an e-book.

Just my opinion, but I am NEVER wrong.

On 11 Mar 2006 15:22:50 -0800, dakikos wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

I have read Bills book, and find his theories worth studying. Most of
the people posting here have expressed their opinion based on what they
have read our there, while 'Bill bases his in facts related to his own
experience with cancer.

What do you think medical research is based on?

Quoted message said:

I think the problem in this whole theme is the
lack of respect that Max, TC and others have for opinions which do not
agree with their own agenda. I think Bill has the right to tell people
about his own experience with cancer and how in his case reducing
substantially animal protein intake has prevented cancer from coming
back,

As long as he makes clear that that is guesswork, not scientific
"findings".

Quoted message said:

There are millions and millions of vegetarians out there and they
lead total normal lives, the have chosen to substitute animal protein
with vegetable protein.

So what? Lots of vegeterians, by the way, drink milk, eat eggs, and so
on, let alone "vegetarians" who even eat fish! 🙂

Quoted message said:

The same right that max and TC have to eat
steak, fish or chicken every day these people have of eating whatever
they wish.

Tell Bill.
Lots of vegetarians do eat and drink animal protein.
Bill argues that animal protein, such as in milk, can be bad for you.
Who is right?

Quoted message said:

So I think than instead of bashing somebody like Bill who
has chosen to share his experiences, and to assume like max did in his
first posting that Bill was a spammer and was trying to sell his book,
which both were only assumptions proven to be wrong, people should b
more respectful and op-en about different points of view. It is really
sad to see a group of know-it-all posters not only in this group but
other related groups bashing and offending people, just because they
present information they do not like. Bill has the right to be heard.

Bill has the right to be heard, and other posters have the right to
ask questions and discuss or even criticize his hypotheses.

Quoted message said:

I
think that a study related to what he proposes makes all the sense in
the world, specially in US where almost 600,000 people die every year
from cancer. I will gladly accept opinions that are different from
mine, but lets keep them in respectful and adult tone.

[...]

Agreed. But, until a peer-reviewed study provides some scientific
evidence that confirms Bill's hypothesis, also tell cancer patients to
stick with their prescribed medical treatment.

Enrico,

You said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed. But, until a peer-reviewed study provides some scientific
evidence that confirms Bill's hypothesis, also tell cancer patients to
stick with their prescribed medical treatment.

I want to make it very clear here that I agree with you: In every
case of my cancers over 5 years, I accepted the oncologist's treatment
when I had a cancer that warranted immediate action. I have the $300K
plus bills to prove this. Fortunately for me, 90% was insured. And on
my web page and in my book (www.curemycancer.org,) I make this history
and my position clear.
But the conclusion I have drawn from my experience is that I
successfully delayed my prostate and 12 basal cell cancers by about 14
months by going off animal food sources for 14 months prior ro these
cancers. Please look at the graph of my PSA Medical record on page 6
of my book. The lower (2.8) PSA for the year 2003 was uniquely driven
lower by elimination of animal food sources (except white fish). As
soon as I want back on whole raw organic milk, the PSA and both cancers
went wild, and I had to take medical treatment. Multiple family
members had died of prostate cancer, so I wasn't taking any chances.
The evidence is in the PSA graph straight from my oncologist's
medical files as plain as day.
This evidence is a strong basis to proceed with controlled studies, the
results of which are highly likely to help all mankind.

- - Bill

Enrico:

The tone has changed from agreesive to respectful. That is a good
start.

Again, this forum is for people to voice opinions. I think everybody is
smart enough to perform due dilligence and make their own decisions
about their cancer or other treatment. All Bill was doing here was
telling his story and showing the evidence in his personal case, and
the US constitution gives him the right to say whatever he pleases here
and everywhere else. The same way you and the others do.

What Bill proposes, and I agree is to tst his theory. there are
multiple published paper that suggest that excesive fat in the daily
diet may be a trigger for cancers such as prostate.

The mainstream of cancer research has a long way to go before they can
say they are succesful. There are cancers that are 99% incurable: GBM,
Pancreatic and Metatastatic melanoma to name a few. Nutrition should be
a factor to consider during treatment.

There is more important information and commentary I didn't have time
to include in my previous message above. So I'll add it here.

I Quote myself:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The lower (2.8) PSA for the year 2003 was uniquely driven
lower by elimination of animal food sources (except white fish). As
soon as I want back on whole raw organic milk,

My basal cell cancer history is of key importance during this same
period where I removed most animal food sources, then went back on 3qts
raw milk/wk,
During my year 2003 of no dietary animal food sources but white
fish, for the first time in perhaps 10 years I had no basal cell skin
cancer visible. So coincident with the significant drop in PSA, my
skin cancers were effectively put in remission. In fact, one spot that
I had on my chest at start of 2003, faded and disappeared during all of
2003. I wish to God I had photographed it in its three states: 2002,
a dime-size red spot; normal looking skin during 2003; then by Oct
2004, after 9 months of Raw Milk (3qt/wk), a big bright red spot which
my Mohs surgeon scraped/removed along with 11 other ugly skin cancer
spots, 10 on my left jaw area. I believe my Mohs surgeon still has
photos of all of them at the time of removal.
Another interesting note, my Mohs surgeon commented that my basal
cell cancers in 2000 - 2002 were 3 mm deep (when I was eating major
meat, milk, cheese, ice cream in quantity); but my 12 skin cancers in
2004 were only about 1mm deep. This tells me that the rate of animal
food consumption is directly related to the depth (severity) of the
basal cell cancer.

Can you all see why I am eager to see some key studies be defined
and completed as soon as possible.
Some will say we are all so different that what happened to Bill
bears no relation to the average person. My gut tells me this attitude
is dead wrong. I believe it will be shown clearly with appropriate
studies that the important difference between us is not our genes, but
the accumulated "effect" of our individual animal food source
consumption over time. I believe each of us has a limit - - perhaps
based on height - - for the amount of animal foods we can eat in a
lifetime. I hit my limit at age 59 because I ate animal foods at a
greater rate than my uncle who hit it at age 68 and quickly died of
prostate cancer. My mother lasted until age 80 before hitting her
limit (as evidenced by rapid onset of osteoporosis, Parkinson's, and 2
serious cancers).
Let's find the resources and the will to make the studies to
quantify the impact of animal foods in the diet. For once, let's focus
some resources toward quantifying food intake risks, not only expensive
cures for the sick. I tell people that I spent about $300 on my best
quality raw milk for 8 months and paid over $100,000 in medical
treatment of multiple cancers to repair the damage to my body caused by
the milk.
Following that episode, I've gone 14 months now, with no milk and
a few ounces per week total animal foods in my diet with no cancer
detectible anywhere on my body (I just had a full skin exam and
colonoscopy in the past month, and not a whisper of cancer or
pre-cancer anywhere.)

Looks like I'll be around a while longer - - hopefully long enough to
get these studies completed. - - Bill

I have now read/skimmed through the A Few Vital Diet Improvement Ideas
pdf file.

I found it very interesting reading and reasonable. I too have heard
bad things about milk protein.

But, I would imagine that a lot has to do with the particular cancer in
question. For instance, how about Lung Cancer? Which foods are bad
for Lung Cancer?

Bill said:

But the conclusion I have drawn from my experience is that I
successfully delayed my prostate and 12 basal cell cancers by about 14
months by going off animal food sources for 14 months prior ro these
cancers. Please look at the graph of my PSA Medical record on page 6
of my book. The lower (2.8) PSA for the year 2003 was uniquely driven

There might be an explanation around.
While eating an unbalanced vegan diet, your diet will lack most
probably several amino acids needed by body in order to make new
cells.

That means, cancer cells will stop dividing for a while or slow down
dividing, but at the same time, so do every other cell in your body,
so if you cut yourself on a knife or worse, get into a car accident
with lot of trauma, the trauma will neither get cured.
When you again start eating animal proteins also containing the
essential amino acids (which you also may get from a well-balanced
vegan diet), the cancer cells will of course again start to divide and
you experience a new, serious outbreak.

but unfortunately, at no poing you was or has been cured for the
cancer. The cancer cells are still there, waiting for more fuel and
building stones.

dakikos said:

What Bill proposes, and I agree is to tst his theory. there are
multiple published paper that suggest that excesive fat in the daily
diet may be a trigger for cancers such as prostate.

There is almost no doubt about certain fatty acids are dangerous and
cancer-cell growing rate (shorten time btw. each cell division because
all the signals needed to start a new round of cell divisions are all
around, or some receptors has been modified to be giving signals all
the time, like in a computer program to forget to set a key boolean
variable to false after turning to true).

But now it was about animal proteins and not vegetable proteins being
the culprit.

Alf said:

While eating an unbalanced vegan diet, your diet will lack most
probably several amino acids needed by body in order to make new
cells.

Alf, you are wrong on this assertion and I am not going to let what
you said stand without comment. When I went off most animal foods
(except white fish) from Dec 2002 through Jan 2003 (the first time), I
closely observed my skin day-to-day and watched it go from dry, flaky,
and basal cell spot producing, to a vibrant, self-lubricated,
exceptionally healthy look, I had never before experienced. My skin
cells were clearly growing and thriving on the limited animal foods
diet described. It may also be useful to know that I began consuming 1
to 2 tablespoons of coconut oil per day from Dec 2002 to the present.
In Jan 2004, I went back on the 3 qts/wk of most expensive raw,
organic, whole cows milk I could buy locally, and my skin over a few
months went back to its prior unhealthy state, and produced the 12
basal cell spots within 9 months.
Since November, 2004, I have had no milk, and my skin has grown back
to its wonderful healthy state as before the milk was added to my diet.

Alf also said:

but unfortunately, at no poin(t) you was or has been cured for the
cancer. The cancer cells are still there, waiting for more fuel and
building stones.

I completely agree with this assessment, Alf. As I have said over
and over in this thread and in my booklet at www.EndCancerNow.org, the
cows milk is not the initiator of cancer, it is the enabler of cancer
already in my body. By reducing animal food sources by 90+%,
especially cows milk, I am currently holding my cancer growth in check,
am thus fully functional, and in good enough health to think, write,
travel, split wood, etc.
And I know that if I chose to go back on the typical American 70%
animal foods diet, I would be soon consumed with terminal cancer. It's
too bad I have to die prematurely to prove my assertion. So I have
chosen to live longer by consuming a diet primarily from non-animal
food sources. It'll be interesting to see how long I can live with 4
cancers in remission and no cancer detectable, as is the case now.
I'll keep you posted.
- - Bill

Bill said:

Alf, you are wrong on this assertion and I am not going to let what
you said stand without comment. When I went off most animal foods
(except white fish) from Dec 2002 through Jan 2003 (the first time), I
closely observed my skin day-to-day and watched it go from dry, flaky,
and basal cell spot producing, to a vibrant, self-lubricated,
exceptionally healthy look, I had never before experienced. My skin

Anyway, no proof that the protein was the culprit, rather the huge
change in fatty acid profile which is known to give such effects.

Bill said:

I completely agree with this assessment, Alf. As I have said over
and over in this thread and in my booklet at www.EndCancerNow.org, the
cows milk is not the initiator of cancer, it is the enabler of cancer
already in my body. By reducing animal food sources by 90+%,
especially cows milk, I am currently holding my cancer growth in check,
am thus fully functional, and in good enough health to think, write,
travel, split wood, etc.

Animal meat contain lot of omega-6, also arachidonic acid which are
metabolized to form eicosanoids, important signal molecules in the
cell division cycle and it has been, at least using mice, that growth
and also initiallizing cancer cells are dependent on getting AA in
diet. But, if you quench the feed completely, also normal cell growth
will be hampered, so too little AA/omega-6 in diet is just as bad as
too much in diet.

Changing to plant diet, the omega-6 intake is lowered dramatically,
but not abolished, while proportion of omega-3 is increased, which has
an antidote against the hormone effect of PG-2 series and lipoxide
made from omega-6 acids. PGE3 and PGF3 is not the correct signal for
the receptors that is triggered by PGE2 and PGF2alfa, but they may
bind, more or less knocking out the effect of the omega-6 derivatives.

But, also EPA and DHA can form compounds that is speculated to be
slightly carcinogenic, the socalled isoketals and isoneurals that may
crosslink with DNA and form irreversible changes to DNA. But mostly it
is deadly for the cell if that occur.