Raymond Francis - We are what we eat

First topic message reminder :



Raymond Francis, D.Sc., M.Sc., RNC, was at the height of an international consulting career when his health began declining rapidly. What began as chemical sensitivities and allergic reactions to almost everything ended up as chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, lupus, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Sjogren’s syndrome, digestive problems, skin rashes, headaches, brain fog, dizziness, and ultimately liver failure. At age 48, his imminent death was considered a medical certainty. “There is nothing more we can do for you,” his doctors said.
Believing that the medical interventions had only made things worse, Raymond decided it was up to him to bring himself back to health. A chemist by training and a graduate of M.I.T., he began taking massive doses of vitamin C, which revived him enough to conduct extensive research and direct his own care. It took him two years to fully restore his health. During this period he developed his revolutionary Beyond Health Model, a theory of health and disease that is so simple it can be taught to a child, yet is so powerful that many have cured themselves of terminal cancer relying on its truths.
Now 78, Raymond enjoys an extraordinary level of health. In the last 28+ years since his recovery, he has not taken any medications or had any surgeries, and he has not been sick except for two minor colds. He is on a mission to reach as many people as possible with the message that you don’t have to get sick, that “health is a choice.”

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ranking Roger had immunotherapy for his cancer. It didn't seem to help him.

It's in the early stages of trial and error, I guess, and only some cancers respond to it.  A person's lifestyle and age is probably key too.   If you've not looked after your body for decades, it's going to succumb to the inevitable unless you're really lucky.   Again, it's all about prevention rather than cure.   Though a cure would be good.    

I'm not convinced that makes a difference. He seemed to be bursting with good health even when he was having treatment, and it still got him - way before it was expected to as well. In fact, I wonder if a healthy immune system actually fights cancer or assists it to develop.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's in the early stages of trial and error, I guess, and only some cancers respond to it.  A person's lifestyle and age is probably key too.   If you've not looked after your body for decades, it's going to succumb to the inevitable unless you're really lucky.   Again, it's all about prevention rather than cure.   Though a cure would be good.    

I'm not convinced that makes a difference. He seemed to be bursting with good health even when he was having treatment, and it still got him - way before it was expected to as well. In fact, I wonder if a healthy immune system actually fights cancer or assists it to develop.

Sounds like to me he suffered from many forms of ill health



http://www.slicingupeyeballs.com/2019/01/21/ranking-roger-cancer/

https://www.cancerresearch.org/immunotherapy/cancer-types/lung-cancer

I would also say the immuneotherapy, no doubt was able to keep him living longer. Due to the fact he had this treatement for 2 years

Its not a cure for everyone and maybe his immune system was in poor shape Rags

Its still the best known method for tackling lung cancer

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not convinced that makes a difference. He seemed to be bursting with good health even when he was having treatment, and it still got him - way before it was expected to as well. In fact, I wonder if a healthy immune system actually fights cancer or assists it to develop.

Sounds like to me he suffered from many forms of ill health



http://www.slicingupeyeballs.com/2019/01/21/ranking-roger-cancer/

https://www.cancerresearch.org/immunotherapy/cancer-types/lung-cancer

I would also say the immuneotherapy, no doubt was able to keep him living longer. Due to the fact he had this treatement for 2 years

Its not a cure for everyone and maybe his immune system was in poor shape Rags

Its still the best known method for tackling lung cancer

Does he look ill to you? I saw him in concert and he was extremely fit then.

He didn't have immunotherapy for two years. He was supposed to have it for two years but he didn't get that far.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Sounds like to me he suffered from many forms of ill health



http://www.slicingupeyeballs.com/2019/01/21/ranking-roger-cancer/

https://www.cancerresearch.org/immunotherapy/cancer-types/lung-cancer

I would also say the immuneotherapy, no doubt was able to keep him living longer. Due to the fact he had this treatement for 2 years

Its not a cure for everyone and maybe his immune system was in poor shape Rags

Its still the best known method for tackling lung cancer

Does he look ill to you? I saw him in concert and he was extremely fit then.

He didn't have immunotherapy for two years. He was supposed to have it for two years but he didn't get that far.

This article claims he did

You dont necessarily have to look ill, when suffering cancer Rags

He does look very thin to me in the video

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Does he look ill to you? I saw him in concert and he was extremely fit then.

He didn't have immunotherapy for two years. He was supposed to have it for two years but he didn't get that far.

This article claims he did  

You dont necessarily have to look ill, when suffering cancer Rags

He does look very thin to me in the video

He was only diagnosed with it last August. He was prescribed two years' treatment, but he lasted six months or so.

He's always been thin - he was very fit and active. I've rarely seen someone run around a stage so much.

Anyway, the point is that there's nothing to suggest he wasn't healthy before he got cancer. He possibly smoked, I don't know, but that didn't seem to slow him down.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

This article claims he did  

You dont necessarily have to look ill, when suffering cancer Rags

He does look very thin to me in the video

He was only diagnosed with it last August. He was prescribed two years' treatment, but he lasted six months or so.

He's always been thin - he was very fit and active. I've rarely seen someone run around a stage so much.

Anyway, the point is that there's nothing to suggest he wasn't healthy before he got cancer. He possibly smoked, I don't know, but that didn't seem to slow him down.

Well there clearly is conflicting accounts here Rags

The reality is he was in poor health to have suffered a stroke and two forms of cancer

Whether that was down and influenced by lifestyle choices is open to question

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


There are no confk
He was only diagnosed with it last August. He was prescribed two years' treatment, but he lasted six months or so.

He's always been thin - he was very fit and active. I've rarely seen someone run around a stage so much.

Anyway, the point is that there's nothing to suggest he wasn't healthy before he got cancer. He possibly smoked, I don't know, but that didn't seem to slow him down.

Well there clearly is conflicting accounts here Rags

The reality is he was in poor health to have suffered a stroke and two forms of cancer

Whether that was down and influenced by lifestyle choices is open to question

There are no conflicting accounts. It's clear that he was starting two years' immunotherapy, but it didn't work and the cancer killed him within six months.

I'm merely saying that previous good health doesn't necessarily indicate a good outcome if one gets cancer. Prior to his cancer he was obviously in good health - until the stroke and the cancer. The brain tumour possibly caused the stroke.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Well there clearly is conflicting accounts here Rags

The reality is he was in poor health to have suffered a stroke and two forms of cancer

Whether that was down and influenced by lifestyle choices is open to question

There are no conflicting accounts. It's clear that he was starting two years' immunotherapy, but it didn't work and the cancer killed him within six months.

I'm merely saying that previous good health doesn't necessarily indicate a good outcome if one gets cancer. Prior to his cancer he was obviously in good health - until the stroke and the cancer. The brain tumour possibly caused the stroke.

Okay

Well clearly his cancer was too far gone for it to be effective and I would garner a guess again that his immune system was shot

As it has been effective for people. So maybe the point is how bad the immune system haas become and shut off from fighting illness in the body.

To have two tumours in the brain and also in the lungs. Shows to me, the immune system was simple not working

The immune system can work just fine and you can still get cancer. In fact, cancer can trick the immune system into ignoring it, and even worse, it can hijack part of the immune system to actually help the cancer grow.

Raggamuffin wrote:The immune system can work just fine and you can still get cancer. In fact, cancer can trick the immune system into ignoring it, and even worse, it can hijack part of the immune system to actually help the cancer grow.

I understand that it can trick the immune system rags, but strokes have an increased risk factor from poor immune systems. He may have suffered from an autoimmune disease. Which could have been causing in an earlier than expected age to have suffered a stroke.

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The immune system can work just fine and you can still get cancer. In fact, cancer can trick the immune system into ignoring it, and even worse, it can hijack part of the immune system to actually help the cancer grow.

I understand that it can trick the immune system rags, but strokes have an increased risk factor from poor immune systems. He may have suffered from an autoimmune disease. Which could have been causing in an earlier than expected age to have suffered a stroke.

There's no suggestion that he had an autoimmune disease. I think it's more likely that the tumours caused the stroke. He may have had lung cancer even longer because that commonly metastasises in the brain.

Anyway, he didn't appear to have any symptoms or ill health beforehand, which was my point. I'm just not convinced that previous "good health" improves your chances once you have cancer.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I understand that it can trick the immune system rags, but strokes have an increased risk factor from poor immune systems. He may have suffered from an autoimmune disease. Which could have been causing in an earlier than expected age to have suffered a stroke.

There's no suggestion that he had an autoimmune disease. I think it's more likely that the tumours caused the stroke. He may have had lung cancer even longer because that commonly metastasises in the brain.

Anyway, he didn't appear to have any symptoms or ill health beforehand, which was my point. I'm just not convinced that previous "good health" improves your chances once you have cancer.

It seems more likley to me, based on the numereous tumours and that he suffered a stoke. That he had either a weakened immune system due to lifestyle choices or autoimmune disease rags

Sometimes people can go without any symptoms. My sister in law's mother found out she had stomach cancer and was dead in two days

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no suggestion that he had an autoimmune disease. I think it's more likely that the tumours caused the stroke. He may have had lung cancer even longer because that commonly metastasises in the brain.

Anyway, he didn't appear to have any symptoms or ill health beforehand, which was my point. I'm just not convinced that previous "good health" improves your chances once you have cancer.

It seems more likley to me, based on the numereous tumours and that he suffered a stoke. That he had either a weakened immune system due to lifestyle choices or autoimmyune disease rags

Sometimes people can go without any symptoms. My sister in law's mother found out she had stomach cancer and was dead in two days

Are you suggesting that anyone who gets cancer or has a stroke has either a weak immune system or an overactive one?

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:


It seems more likley to me, based on the numereous tumours and that he suffered a stoke. That he had either a weakened immune system due to lifestyle choices or autoimmyune disease rags

Sometimes people can go without any symptoms. My sister in law's mother found out she had stomach cancer and was dead in two days

Are you suggesting that anyone who gets cancer or has a stroke has either a weak immune system or an overactive one?

Of course not, as with some people its genetic. So can you show to me a history in his family of lung, brain crancer and strokes?

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting that anyone who gets cancer or has a stroke has either a weak immune system or an overactive one?

Of course not, as with some people its genetic. So can you show to me a history in his family of lung, brain crancer and strokes?

So you think it's either genetic, or caused by an overactive or underactive immune system?

My view is that his stroke, brain tumours, and lung cancer were all linked, they weren't standalone health issues.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Of course not, as with some people its genetic. So can you show to me a history in his family of lung, brain crancer and strokes?

So you think it's either genetic, or caused by an overactive or underactive immune system?

My view is that his stroke, brain tumours, and lung cancer were all linked, they weren't standalone health issues.

Well, if he had a weakenss of his immune system or an autoimmune disease. Then they would be linked Rags

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think it's either genetic, or caused by an overactive or underactive immune system?

My view is that his stroke, brain tumours, and lung cancer were all linked, they weren't standalone health issues.

Well, if he had a weakenss of his immune system or an autoimmune disease. Then they would be linked Rags

I don't mean linked in that way. I think the lung cancer came first, then it spread to his brain, which then caused the stroke. I can't see that it was anything to do with his immune system.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Sounds like to me he suffered from many forms of ill health



http://www.slicingupeyeballs.com/2019/01/21/ranking-roger-cancer/

https://www.cancerresearch.org/immunotherapy/cancer-types/lung-cancer

I would also say the immuneotherapy, no doubt was able to keep him living longer. Due to the fact he had this treatement for 2 years

Its not a cure for everyone and maybe his immune system was in poor shape Rags

Its still the best known method for tackling lung cancer

Does he look ill to you? I saw him in concert and he was extremely fit then.

He didn't have immunotherapy for two years. He was supposed to have it for two years but he didn't get that far.

I had a friend who died of brain cancer. She had a half dozen tumours in her brain and didn't look ill until she had the chemo. You don't always look as though you're at death's door with cancer. And it can take you really quickly. So he may only have looked really ill in the last few weeks/days.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Well, if he had a weakenss of his immune system or an autoimmune disease. Then they would be linked Rags

I don't mean linked in that way. I think the lung cancer came first, then it spread to his brain, which then caused the stroke. I can't see that it was anything to do with his immune system.

"I tell my patients that if we didn’t have an immune system, we'd all get cancer," says Alan Tan, MD, Medical Director of Hematology and Immunotherapy and Medical Oncologist and Hematologist at our hospital near Phoenix. "There's a fine balance between the burden of cell mutation and how well your immune system can fight it off. It is always alert to threats. It's when the immune system is overwhelmed by a tumor that it fails to identify and respond to the threat."

https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2017/10/how-does-the-immune-system-work-when-it-comes-to-cancer-its-complicated

"The immune system is absolutely critical in fighting cancer," Dr. Lynch says. "Immunotherapy is not going in there and killing the cancer cells. It's simply pulling the disguise off the cancer cell that's trying to hide and allowing the immune system to recognize it and do the job it’s designed to do."

When you smoke, drink, eat the wrong things to excess, you put tremendous strain on your immune system. And if that's not working efficiently, who is to say that isn't the reason why cancer can thrive in the body?

One in two of us will get cancer? That's scary.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Well, if he had a weakenss of his immune system or an autoimmune disease. Then they would be linked Rags

I don't mean linked in that way. I think the lung cancer came first, then it spread to his brain, which then caused the stroke. I can't see that it was anything to do with his immune system.

Its more likley the other way around

Being as I have shown that the immune system plays very much a part in some cancer cases. How can you even rule that out?

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't mean linked in that way. I think the lung cancer came first, then it spread to his brain, which then caused the stroke. I can't see that it was anything to do with his immune system.

Its more likley the other way around

Being as I have shown that the immune system plays very much a part in some cancer cases. How can you even rule that out?

Other way round? You mean he had the brain tumours which spread to his lungs? Clearly he had cancer before he had the stroke.

I know the immune systems plays a art, I'm just not sure why you think he must have had a dodgy immune system to start with.

HoratioTarr wrote: "The immune system is absolutely critical in fighting cancer," Dr. Lynch says. "Immunotherapy is not going in there and killing the cancer cells. It's simply pulling the disguise off the cancer cell that's trying to hide and allowing the immune system to recognize it and do the job it’s designed to do."

Exactly. You can have a perfectly healthy immune system which destroys dodgy cells initially, but later on it can't identify the cancer as something which should be eradicated. Also, as I said, cancer can hijack part of the immune system to help it thrive.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Its more likley the other way around

Being as I have shown that the immune system plays very much a part in some cancer cases. How can you even rule that out?

Other way round? You mean he had the brain tumours which spread to his lungs? Clearly he had cancer before he had the stroke.

I know the immune systems plays a art, I'm just not sure why you think he must have had a dodgy immune system to start with.

Where is the evidence that the cancer spread to the lungs and not formed independently?

If you know the immune system plays a part, which is blatantly obvious, then why are you in disagreement with me here?

Its clear his immune system failed and or more than one factor

HoratioTarr wrote:When you smoke, drink, eat the wrong things to excess, you put tremendous strain on your immune system.   And if that's not working efficiently, who is to say that isn't the reason why cancer can thrive in the body?  

One in two of us will get cancer?   That's scary.  

It also effects people that do not drink and smoke, because the genetic code and make up of the body at times goes rogue. Age is one of the biggest factors that increase the risk of cells turning rogue. Is part of how the body will develope cancer. That is why immuneotherapy, will be less effective on those much older. As with aging we see immunosenescence. Hence the immune system already becomes less effective with age. So the chances of Immunotherapy being effective on the elderly. More so how older they are. Will be greatly dimminished. Hence the risk increase goes up with age. In fact if every male lived long enough, all would develope prostrate cancer. I would say this shows more about evolution and the potential chances of defects occuring with every new offspring. Sadly its based on luck, or bad luck as the case maybe.

I mean some people go through life drinking and smoking and live to be a 100. Clearly healthy genes passed on is the key to maintaining a healthy immune system into old age. That has bugger all to do with healthly lifestyles but being born lucky to good genes passed on. So food diets will have minimal effects. Its the bodies genitic codes that really count here.

Hence why the success rate of using immuneotherapy against cancer has to factor in age. I imagine its really not the best treatment to use on people over 70 and is always going to be less effective. Being that people passed this age, have dimished immune systems.

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Other way round? You mean he had the brain tumours which spread to his lungs? Clearly he had cancer before he had the stroke.

I know the immune systems plays a art, I'm just not sure why you think he must have had a dodgy immune system to start with.

Where is the evidence that the cancer spread to the lungs and not formed independently?

If you know the immune system plays a part, which is blatantly obvious, then why are you in disagreement with me here?

Its clear his immune system failed and or more than one factor

So you think that the brain tumours were completely separate to the lung cancer? Lung cancer often spreads to the brain - you know what metasases are, right?

I'm merely saying that I'm not convinced that having a healthy immune system means that someone with cancer has a better prognosis. I don't know what you're arguing for tbh.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Where is the evidence that the cancer spread to the lungs and not formed independently?

If you know the immune system plays a part, which is blatantly obvious, then why are you in disagreement with me here?

Its clear his immune system failed and or more than one factor

So you think that the brain tumours were completely separate to the lung cancer? Lung cancer often spreads to the brain - you know what metasases are, right?

I'm merely saying that I'm not convinced that having a healthy immune system means that someone with cancer has a better prognosis. I don't know what you're arguing for tbh.

I am not thinking anything, other than rightfully being skeptical of your claims to the cancer spreading. So your view to automatically claim something is clear speculation

Of course someone with a healthy immune systems is going to stand a better chance of surviving than someone with a weaker immune system. Does not matter whether you are convinced. The stats back this up. Hence younger people have a far higher rate of survival than those older.

Highest rates of survival are between the ages of 15-40 and the lowest over 80 years of age. Which again is blatanatly obvious based on people over 80, have by then already weakened immune systems

Blimey, how can you not even look to understand these basic facts and why there is scientific understanding as to why.

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think that the brain tumours were completely separate to the lung cancer? Lung cancer often spreads to the brain - you know what metasases are, right?

I'm merely saying that I'm not convinced that having a healthy immune system means that someone with cancer has a better prognosis. I don't know what you're arguing for tbh.

I am not thinking anything, other than rightfully being skeptical of your claims to the cancer spreading. So your view to automatically claim something is clear speculation

Of course someone with a healthy immune systems is going to stand a better chance of surviving than someone with a weaker immune system. Does not matter whether you are convinced. The stats back this up. Hence younger people have a far higher rate of survival than those older.

Highest rates of survival are between the ages of 15-40 and the lowest over 80 years of age. Which again is blatanatly obvious based on people over 80, have by then already weakened immune systems

Blimey, how can you not even look to understand these basic facts and why there is scientific understanding as to why.

Why are you skeptical of my claims of cancer spreading? It's well known that cancer spreads, and in someone with lung cancer, it often spreads to the brain. How can you not understand that basic fact?

I already told you, cancer can hijack the immune system and use it to grow. How is having a healthy immune system going to prevent that?

Interestingly, at least one drug which is used to treat cancer is also an immunosuppressant.

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/from-cancer-to-rheumatoid-arthritis-treatment-the-story-of-methotrexate/11106439.article?firstPass=false

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I am not thinking anything, other than rightfully being skeptical of your claims to the cancer spreading. So your view to automatically claim something is clear speculation

Of course someone with a healthy immune systems is going to stand a better chance of surviving than someone with a weaker immune system. Does not matter whether you are convinced. The stats back this up. Hence younger people have a far higher rate of survival than those older.

Highest rates of survival are between the ages of 15-40 and the lowest over 80 years of age. Which again is blatanatly obvious based on people over 80, have by then already weakened immune systems

Blimey, how can you not even look to understand these basic facts and why there is scientific understanding as to why.

Why are you skeptical of my claims of cancer spreading? It's well known that cancer spreads, and in someone with lung cancer, it often spreads to the brain. How can you not understand that basic fact?

I already told you, cancer can hijack the immune system and use it to grow. How is having a healthy immune system going to prevent that?

I am not skeptical of cancer being spread but your claims that in this case that it did.

You are simple speculating and ignoring the main point here about the immune system

Cancers do not hijack the immune system, they fool the immune system, into thinking they are healthly normal cells. Your understanding of this is to say the least woeful.

Nobody claimed that having a healthy immune system prevents cancer. Where did anyone propose that? You are simple moving the goal posts.

Lets recap what you said

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm merely saying that I'm not convinced that having a healthy immune system means that someone with cancer has a better prognosis. I don't know what you're arguing for tbh.

Where I stated correctly, you are talking nonsense

As people with a healthy immune system have a far greater success rate of beating that cancer

In fact he survival rate of cancer of people younger, of 5 or more years with cancer is 84%

HoratioTarr wrote: "The immune system is absolutely critical in fighting cancer," Dr. Lynch says. "Immunotherapy is not going in there and killing the cancer cells. It's simply pulling the disguise off the cancer cell that's trying to hide and allowing the immune system to recognize it and do the job it’s designed to do."

It certainly is, and the paradox about methotrexate means you are both correct.
 
Methotrexate is unique in that it attacks both the immune system and also cancer cells.
  
The equivalent of a mercenary soldier who attacks both sides in a war.