My fiancee had hodgekins lymphoma (cancer) and tried western medicine ( radiation, chemo and a bone marrow transplant) but the cancer kept coming back. So we both went vegan together and now he's been in remission for 1 year and 2 months (*knock on wood*). Do I credit veganism? I sure do! Not only that, it changed our lives. The doctors said he had a 20 percent chance of recovery, and treatments were likely to not work...but here he is, healthy, alive and happy. I feel that with our vegan diet we are in control of what we put in our bodies. Go Vegan!!!

Posted by: Reshina | June 13, 2008 12:58 PM

Paul McCartney's wife Linda died of breast cancer and she was a vegetarian so maybe it doesn't work for everyone.

Posted by: Rex's Mom | June 13, 2008 05:39 PM

A very similar story to the famous vegan runner Ruth Heidrich who stopped her breast cancer dead in its tracks by adopting a vegan diet. Says Ruth, " I’ve got over 800 first-place trophies from all the races I’ve done—all since the diagnosis of cancer and all since changing to my vegan, low-fat diet!"

This jibes with the research cited in The China Study that found that a plant-based whole foods diet slows down or inhibits cancer (as well as preventing it in the first place), whereas an animal-based diet accelerates it.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | June 13, 2008 06:20 PM

Does meat really cause impotence?

Posted by: S.Q. | June 13, 2008 07:42 PM

Hi. Linda Mccartney ate a lot of dairy. They had their own cows they got milk from.

Not knowing all the answers, I just wanted to clarify that. She was not vegan.

This is really interesting because this coincides with "The China Study" that ground breaking book by a conventional scientist who discovered that it was animal protein that fed cancer and no animal protein caused cancer to recede. It's almost hard for me to believe...but he says the results are conclusive...and this scientist, T. Colin Campbell was a "pro animal protein" kind of person his whole life. Amazing read and perhaps really all we need to do to control cancer is to refrain from animal products. Check out www.thechinastudy.com

Posted by: Soliel | June 14, 2008 01:04 PM

Rex's Mom,

I think you have to actually go full-on vegan (and whole foods) to reap the benefits. A card-carrying lacto-ovo can still consume a big whack of animal products.

There's no 100% money back guarantee, but if a vegan diet might inhibit the growth of a pre-existing cancer, it's certainly worth a try.

S.Q.,

Anything that can impede blood flow to the penis (like clogged arteries) could cause impotence. So I think meat would be suspect.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | June 14, 2008 02:22 PM

To the person who mentioned Paul McCartney's wife: Think about it this way. Regardless of what the actual links of meat consumption to cancer are, consider the hormones, pesticides, and physical torture inflicted on animals raised for the meat industry. The chemical, stress and pain and suffering present in their systems and flesh is in turn consumed by people who eat that meat. It's horrifiying on so many more levels....morally and health related.

Posted by: christina | June 14, 2008 03:57 PM

You don't have to go vegan to get rid of cancer. Just use holistic medicine which has been proven to work, like a juice cleanse or the Bugwig diet (which uses cottage cheese)...

Posted by: anonymous | June 16, 2008 06:27 PM

being vegetarian rocks! and i do believe it kills cancer but also studies show that seaweed kills cancer and some believe it comes from a different planet because its nutrional value is off the chart.

Posted by: elishars | June 16, 2008 07:43 PM

Very well said by Christina.

We should not be giving people with cancer false hope and we should not tout this idea without many studies and real evidence.

I DO beleive that a vegan diet may be great to avoid or beat cancer! However, we need studies to prove it before we go tossing around rumors like this.

I would love for PETA to fund REAL SCIENTISTS WITH REAL DEGREES to do studies on this. I guarantee you, people WILL respond and change their diet if studies prove that it can save their ass from one of the most feared diseases anywhere.

That money would be more well spent than millions possibly spent on that freaky, nasty, disgusting genetically engineered crap.

Cancer indeed.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | June 16, 2008 11:03 PM

Maya,

Read The China Study. It contains 35 pages of scientific references.

Look at the experience of the first poster (or the person mentioned in the blog who studied the scientific journals). And, of course, Ruth Heidrich is a very famous example of a person who kept/keeps her cancer in check with a vegan diet. I think a whole foods diet is a very key component of this treatment.

And while it's true there are never guarantees for all, if someone is willing to undergo chemo and radiation, simply changing your diet to a whole foods, plant-based one is an easy and benign thing to do.

Of course, from a medical and pharmaceutical standpoint, there is a lot more money to be made in treatment, rather than in prevention. This is one reason you have to do the research yourself (or find a doctor who understands lifestyle medicine).

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | June 17, 2008 04:42 AM

Hi Mike! ;)

When you say The China Study, do you mean the actual study, or the BOOK that was named after that study? The book has been heavily criticized for misinterpreting the actual China Study.

I only read part of the actual China Study, but I did not see anything which demonstrated that a vegan diet would help with cancer issues.

Please, if you have time, show me where in the original study it shows this. I would also like to see the other 20 or so published articles, because I don't see them listed anywhere when I google the China Study book.

It's important to know if the author misinterprets the scientific studies, because this would obviously void the validity of the claim he's making.

Again, I'm not saying that I don't beleive him, just that it's so convenient for us here to beleive that a vegan diet would be a help for cancer - I have to be naturally skeptical and see real proof. ;)

Posted by: Maya, CVT | June 17, 2008 06:43 PM

Hi Maya,

I am referring to the book The China Study, which covers far more than the ongoing China Project (The study itself was jointly funded by the Universities of Oxford, Cornell and the Government of China. Professor T. Colin Campbell of Cornell led the first two major studies in the 1980s and 1990s. - Wiki)

The China Study book also goes into depth about Dr. Campbell's early research, the health status of North Americans, the machinations of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, and much more. Since Dr. Campbell led the original studies, and co-authored the book The China Study with his son, he is very familiar with the stats, science and data relative to the actual original study. What would be his motivation for misinterpreting the studies he spearheaded?

He also explained near the beginning of the book concepts such as correlation versus causation, statistical significance, mechanisms of action, and metanalysis to show how the study was, in fact, interpreted. The book itself, though, is far from dry, and hard to put down.

There are numerous references to cancer throughout the book (Dr. Campbell was also former Senior Science Advisor to the American Institute for Cancer Research). Regulating the gene expression of cancerous cells through the amount and type of protein is covered in Chapter 3: Turning Off Cancer (pp. 43-67 with 55 references).

Common human cancers are covered in Chapter 8 (pp. 157-182 with 102 references). These references don't necessarily cite the original study.

You said, "I would also like to see the other 20 or so published articles, because I don't see them listed anywhere when I google the China Study book."

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

I would fully expect this book to be heavily criticized, misinterpretations or not. By the way, who are the people you refer to doing the heavy criticizing?

This is the kind of information that can cause major financial headaches for industries that benefit from the unhealthy status quo. These lobbyists are well aware of the power of the internet in influencing and confusing the public.

Nonetheless, the book still garnered 4.5 stars with 421 reviews on Amazon. Please read it and then give your criticisms of his interpretations of the study.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | June 18, 2008 02:18 AM

Hi Mike! ;)

Unfortunately I am in graduate school and I have not a single second to spare for reading a book, but I would be interested in reading the studies upon which the book was based.

If he based his book on the studies, then the studies will absolutely have the same information and I will be able to agree or disagree based on the facts.

The thing about a book is that it is not peer reviewed before it is published, whereas scientific journal articles go through scientific rigor before they are allowed to be published.

I'm not saying I disbeleive the book, just that the studies upon which it is based will give me a crystal clear idea of if the claim is true.

;) More later!

Posted by: Maya, CVT | June 23, 2008 12:13 PM

Maya, thanks for getting back.

I'm not sure if a book itself can be peer-reviewed, but rest assured the studies and journal articles quoted within are. The book contains numerous different studies apart from the China Project, which to me lends it more validity.

Actually, it's a very easy read, and I think you'd enjoy it (if/when you get a chance, lol).

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | June 23, 2008 04:07 PM

I'm hoping for a beautiful winter home in Costa Rica one of these days after I graduate, then I will be reading lots of books! LOL

;)

Posted by: Maya, CVT | June 24, 2008 04:32 PM