To post comments or questions into our discussion board, first log into Disqus with your account or with one of the accepted social media logins. Click on Login to choose a login method. Click here for help.

  • Filipe Coimbra

    Please, some of the great minds that I always see here can comment this study and declarations/conclusions? Based on my background knowledge I think this is so untrue, however I want to know your thoughts.

    • veganchrisuk

      Hi Filipe – every other day there is a new or continuing topic re adopting a healthy lifestyle and the benefits thereof, including eating healthier to reduce your risk of cancer and CHD, among many others.

      It might help the “great minds” if you gave your reasons for disagreeing with these conclusions.

      Playing devils advocate, there was an article today on the BBC Health site stating that the majority of cancers are caused by plain old bad luck – the results were published in the journal, Science, and the results showed that two thirds of the cancer types analysed were caused just by chance mutations rather than lifestyle. It went on to say that some of the most common cancers are still heavily influenced by lifestyle.

      • Filipe Coimbra

        Did you see the link that I posted? Your article is based on mine.

        • veganchrisuk

          No I didn’t – thanks for pointing that out as there’s some additional info in your link. I thnk you have also proven conclusively that I’m not one of the “great minds”.

          What a coincidence that we were both referring to the same report………

          Happy New Year…

          • mik

            How is it then that places like:


            An oasis of healing

            Hippocrates health institute

            All heal mosts cancers with lifestyle changes/adaptations and mainstream don’t even want to look at their positive results.
            Why you ask? We’ll the reason I would say is the same as for that article. The people who earns money by creating/selling allopathic medicine earns more money when the public believes they’re victims with no power/control over their own ability to control chronic illness. In other words – if holistic medicine is correct then the allopathic thesis falls apart. The biggest industry on this planet can’t have that.
            Everybody should know the place called – a great article is written here:

      • Alive and Laughing

        I think that bad luck story was designed to stimulate even more chemo, radiation and surgery as the only means of dealing with cancer. It also carries a heavy dose of helplessness for the patient, when research shows that cancer patients who take responsibility for their own healing fare much better than those who simply hand their lives over to oncologists. And why are Americans experiencing so much bad luck with regards to cancer? Many countries in the world have lower to much lower cancer rates than we do. And we didn’t always have those rates of cancer, either. It has become a growing epidemic in America. Calling it bad luck is actually bad science.

        • Janet

          I have just been diagnosed with breast cancer. Have been a vegetarian for 50 years and vegan for 5 years. Never smoked, hardly ever drank alcohol. No history of breast cancer in the family. I am puzzled so thought perhaps it is luck.

          • Dominic

            Hey Janet,

            Sorry to hear about your diagnosis. It’s unfortunate that some women develop breast cancer even after living a healthy lifestyle for many years. Because of this fact, I was compelled to write the following article:

            Susan Voisin , in addition to being dismayed, was also shocked to hear her physician tell her that she had breast cancer. You see, Susan is the creator and administrator of the “Fat Free Vegan” web site and she has followed a low fat vegan diet for 20 years. A breast cancer diagnosis would be traumatic for any woman, but it must cause a special psychological torment for health conscious women who promote low fat, whole food plant based diets (WFPB).

            Whenever I discuss the health promoting powers of WFPB diets, I always try to mention that there are no guarantees in life, but that a WFPB diet along with reasonable exercise and avoidance of bad habits give us the best chance to avoid chronic diseases. I am aware of other women who have followed WFPB diets who also have been diagnosed with breast cancer so Susan’s story does not shock me by any means. There are always going to be outliers. However we must never make the mistake of identifying an exception as the rule.

            We must remember that there are many examples of cigarette smokers that never develop lung cancer and there are many examples of lung cancer victims who never smoked a cigarette, cigar, or a joint. Avoiding smoking will not guarantee that you will not develop lung cancer. But avoiding smoking will cut your risk of developing lung and other cancers in addition to reducing your risk of developing our # 1 killer – Coronary Artery Disease (Heart Disease).

            Dominating your diet with fruits, veggies, whole grains and legumes will not make you impervious to developing chronic diseases, but it will provide protection against them.

            Women like Susan may have such a strong genetic predisposition for breast cancer, that its development may be inevitable. It’s likely that a healthy, plant-based lifestyle delays its development. In her wonderfully written article, Susan explains how she went through periods where she blamed herself. Were there certain cancer protecting foods that her diet lacked? Did she not exercise enough? Did her failure to reach her goal weight increase her risk? Eventually she realized that it’s never a good idea to blame any woman for developing breast cancer, regardless of her lifestyle habits. Once diagnosed, the focus should be on working with healthcare professionals to make the best treatment choices.

            After receiving her diagnosis, Susan did not question her WFPB diet. In fact she believes it helped her withstand her chemo treatments as she suffered only minimal side effects.

            Robin Quivers, from the Howard Stern show, came to the same conclusion about how her WFPB diet allowed her to suffer very few effects from the powerful chemo treatments that she received for her endometrial cancer. She said that her Doctors were shocked!

            I wish I could tell people that a healthy lifestyle could provide full protection against the scourge of cancer. If I did, I’d be lying. However in the “2012 Cancer Facts and Figure Report “ the American Cancer Society stated that “scientific evidence suggests that about one-third of the 577,190 cancer deaths expected to occur in 2012 will be related to overweight or obesity, physical inactivity, and poor nutrition and thus could be prevented”. That’s over 192,000 people who didn’t have to hear the terrifying words “you have cancer”.

            Cancer is such a complex and mysterious disease that comes in many forms. We still have a lot to learn. However, we do know that a WFPB diet can help save lives and reduce human misery. The evidence is very clear about this. We should all do what we can to prevent this insidious monster from wrecking havoc.

            I wish you the best in your battle.

            Link to Susan;s article –

            Link to 2012 Cancer Facts and Figure Report –

          • Janet

            Thank you Dominic that is very helpful. I will certainly be continuing my vegan lifestyle.

          • Thea

            Dominic: I just wanted to say how impressed I am with your reply. It is so helpful and full of good information. Thanks for your post.

          • Janet

            Almost two years on I am still here. My oncologist said the tumour was not the type she would expect to return. Maybe the lifestyle helped there. On reflection, I had a lot of chest X-Rays in my life because I had TB as a child. Every time a Dr. heard that, I was sent off for an X-Ray until I commented on how many I had already had.

          • Joseph Gonzales

            Hi, Janet. What a puzzling question indeed, and my goodness how frustrating when we seem to do everything right and still develop cancer! The American Institute for Cancer Research responded to this study about “bad luck” in a nice blog post (1). I’ll attach a link at the bottom if you are interested. I agree with everything Dominic said in her post about blame. One book I find incredibly helpful is The Cancer Survivors Guide by Neal Barnard MD (2).

            Here are a few lines from his book pertaining to your comment:

            [If foods can affect cancer risk, they ask, does that mean I am somehow to blame for my illness? Did the foods I ate as a child cause this problem? Is our culture causing these problems?

            It is natural that concerns like these will cross our minds. However, let us encourage you to set blame aside. The fact is, some people do their very best to follow health-promoting lifestyles and still develop cancer. And you may have known people who smoke, drink heavily, and eat with abandon and yet manage to live to a ripe old age. Unfortunately, it is easy to get cancer, and we cannot predict with certainty who will be affected by it and who will not. So let’s focus not on blame but on what foods can do for you. As Jack Nicklaus said, “You can spend all day trying to fig- ure out why you hit your ball into the woods—or you can just go in and get it out.”



            Best wishes,


          • Janet

            Thank you Joseph I have had a quick look at the attachments and will read them. I am currently reading a book by Janette Murray-Wakelin, “Raw can Cure Cancer” which is very interesting.

          • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

            Thanks for sharing, Janet. Warm positive thoughts during this time. I don’t think anything is “set in stone”. We can take many precautions and still end up with a scary diagnosis and it is totally frustrating and puzzling! I can empathize as I’ve worked with women with breast cancer. In our comprehensive study at MD Anderson we helped women understand the importance of “mindfulness.” Whatever that word meant to them. To me, it means simply being mindful of our situations, our day-to-day lives, what we eat, how we move our bodies, what kind of social support is around us, how we deal with anger and stress, etc., all factor into survivorship. So much to consider forgive me for saying too much. Just let me know if you’d like more information about survivorship I think there are some wonderful groups that can help.

            Warm wishes,

          • Janet

            Thank you Joseph. I would be grateful for any more information about survivorship.


          • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

            Certainly! I worked hard to publish this review on diet and cancer. There is nothing ground breaking here, but something that may be of value? Applying the precautionary principle to nutrition and cancer.

            It’s best to discuss diet with your health care team. I always suggest a personal consult with a registered dietitian, especially one who is certified in oncology, known as a CSO (certified specialty in oncology) credential. I can help you find one if interested, or visit the oncology dietitians group, here.

            The American Institute for Cancer Research has some good literature. I suggest utilizing their website, especially their page “foods that fight cancer”.

            There are over 140 videos and blogs on cancer and survival by Dr. Greger. See what stands out.

            Another great book I can suggest is Dr. Barnard and Jen Reily’s “Cancer Survivor’s Guide.” Don’t feel like you need to buy it unless it speaks to you. The entire purpose of our website is to be helpful and let folks decide what’s best for them. I am sure Dr. Barnard feels the same way as he offers a free PDF to his book and lots of other information, as well.

            Lastly, a few links I posted on my blog page about the work I performed at MD Anderson Cancer Center. I worked closely with stage 3 breast cancer survivors in a comprehensive lifestyle study.

            ​Phew! ​Forgive me I am not trying to
            ​overwhelm. I’ll
            ​stop here. I hope to continue this discussion in the future. I think it helps others who may be in a similar boat? At least that is my intention. Don’t hesitate to ask more questions or post comments.

            Best regards,

          • Janet

            Thanks for this Joseph. I am working with an oncology dietician at the local hospital. She wants me to eat high fat foods and more biscuits and chocolate as I am underweight. I have currently lost my appetite I think due to the radiation treatment which has just finished. I will be looking up some of the reading you recommend. Thanks again.

          • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

            That is great! Continue to work with her. I encourage transparency and would never want to go against her advice. Putting on weight is important if underweight, but I may suggest healthful higher-fat foods (or simply eating more calories) and not just flooding the body with tons of saturated fats and cholesterol.

        • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

          Great points! Have you seen this blog post by AICR and their response to the “bad luck” study? I feel it explains the errors in that study very well.

    • rkngl

      I think the study is saying something very true and very important… Cancer is caused by random mutations, and is a matter of bad luck in individual cases. However, there are tons of things present in the standard american diet (Meat, Eggs, Dairy) that have high levels of hormones, pesticide accumulation, fecal contamination, etc that cause a dramatic rise in the number of these bad mutations (the luck part is if they happen to be one that leads to cancer). Conversely, Plant based diets rich in fruits and vegetables not only don’t promote these mutations in the first place, but they actively assist and aid your body in detecting and fixing them before they turn into cancers (if you are lucky, your body will catch and fix an extra mutation that would have lead to cancer).

      If getting cancer is like “winning a lottery”, where the prize is disease and possibly death and not $100 million, eating a standard american diet, is like buying a bunch of extra lottery tickets 3 times a day plus snacks, while a whole foods plant based diet (and exercise!) is basically like not buying tickets, and even tearing up and invalidating some of the tickets you already have, 3 times a day, plus snacks.

      The study seems to be promoting the idea that on the individual level of risk, your lifestyle is only ~34%, and bad luck ~66%. Since they don’t make mention of it, I imagine they studied a group of standard people eating normal diets… in which case The effect on cancer of “whole-foods plant-based vegans who get daily exercise” wouldn’t really be accounted for in their estimates.

      The real nail for me is that they excluded Breast cancer and Prostate cancer. That’s a huge omission when you are generalizing about all cancers. I am also fairly confident that they failed to account for the fact that your lifetime cell replication rate can be heavily influenced by growth hormones from food.
      I think they have produced a not very useful paper that pushes the idea that cancer is less under your individual control than it actually is. I think it is important to remember that cancer does have a substantial “bad luck” component, and it might still get you despite doing everything humanely possible to prevent it. However this study seems be overstating the bad luck effect, possibly simply due to a design philosophy that left out some important factors.

      TL;DR This study has some basic flaws and large omissions that make the results not very useful, It does nothing to contradict the prevailing theory that a whole-foods plant based diet will dramatically and beneficially impact your cancer risk.

      • Filipe Coimbra

        Exactly! I agree with you! So, in the end, we can say that this study doesn’t add anything to help the improvement of science and can even have detrimental effects for lay people that read this article. I feel upset that a prestigious jornal like Science publish articles with such large omissions and flaws.

        • Han

          imho it is not flawed, it is simpy stating the obvious and thus superfluous.

      • Panchito

        Cancer promotion (eating animal products) is more significant than random mutations. For example, cancer needs its own blood supply (promotion) in order to grow and become dangerous. In my opinion, the article is based on simplistic suppositions like from math class.

      • Gary O’Reilly

        Well put, my thoughts exactly. I would like to know the group assessed. I think this is a very harmful paper as it will be used by many to abdicate responsibility for their bodies.

      • Alive and Laughint

        Check out for a refutation of that bad luck cancer report. It wasn’t even a study – but was based on the studies of others.

    • Darryl

      The study, which found two-thirds of cancer initiation events to be beyond our control, strikes me as a reasonable figure. However, to become dangerous, cancer cells must also be promoted by growth factors, further mutations, and a pro-inflammatory/angiogenic environment, and our lifestyles can make a major impact on that promotions.

      Everyone who lives long enough gets cancer, in the sense that some stem cells will accumulate enough oncogene mutations to start outcompeting their untransformed neighbors for nutrients and space. Most Japanese elderly men who die of other causes have microscopic prostate tumors, and the incidence of thyroid cancers determined by autopsy approaches 100%. Most cancer initiations don’t result in fatal metastatic disease, however, because our tissues usually provide an inhospitable environment for uncontrolled growth. If those microscopic tumors grow slowly enough, due to lack of hormonal growth stimulation, culling by immune surveillance, or a less inflammatory environment that prevents them from securing a blood supply, then we may never know about them, due to dying of some other cause before the tumor is detectable.

      • Filipe Coimbra

        Well said!

      • guest

        That is probably, the best, most concise and well explained truth of the whole picture as I have ever heard. It should be in the forward of every nutrition and cancer prevention book or guide.

      • largelytrue

        “The study, which found two-thirds of cancer initiation events to be beyond our control…”

        Not so. The authors say that “65% (39% to 81%; 95% CI) of the differences in cancer risk among different
        tissues can be explained by the total number of stem cell divisions in those tissues”, and even this seems on dodgy footing to me since they are quoting based on a linear correlation between logged data. The most salient point here is that this is variation in cancers between tissues for the ‘general’ population which has been investigated by research. The absolute numbers of cancer initiation events was not assessed in this association. To give you an example of the difference between these ideas, consider a world in which the rates of almost all cancers follow a linear relationship with the number of cell divisions, except for one cancer X which is the most prevalent by far but is many times more prevalent than the line predicts. The correlation is nearly perfect and almost all of the variation in rates of cancer by tissue is predicted by the variation in the number of stem cell divisions in the tissue. But we’d say that X is an outlier and that probably the rate of cancer X is mostly explained by other factors. But since the vast majority of all initiation events are for cancer X, the fast majority of cancer initiation events are not well explained by the number of cell divisions.

        Now, the point about correlations between logged variables is important. Just eyeballing Fig. 1, the idiosyncratic variation in the risk for the various tissues is about one order of magnitude — or maybe a little less, like 4 or so. This means that about a factor of 4 in the relative risk of each of these cancers is explained by other factors than “dumb luck”. If these are mostly environmental risk factors and they all can be consistently reduced by a particular kind of change in the environment, then it would not be unreasonable to suppose that you could reduce the risk of each cancer by around a factor of 4 or so, which is a lot more than a reduction of cancer by 33% through primary prevention.

        You could also have other modifiable risk factors which act on the number of cell divisions overall. Even if the number of cell divisions were the sole determinant of cancer initiation risk, if you could find a way to reduce the number of stem cell divisions per year without sacrificing health in other ways, you would lower the risk. Similarly, if we systematically raised the number of cell divisions, we’d raise cancer risk. For example, there are chronic risk factors for various cancers which cause actual injury to the relevant tissues, and the increased rate of regeneration may necessitate more stem cell divisions per year.

      • Plantstrongdoc M.D.

        Actually not much new information in the study besides BIG HEADLINES (telling people that they can live and eat exactly as they want – and thats what people want to hear – but it is untrue). It shows what we have known for many years. Namely, that we do not know the cause of approximately two-thirds of cancer forms. That’s why scientists are doing research. I dont think that their research can deny that it is possible to find the causes.

      • Filipe Coimbra

        It’s amazing how you putted every word in the right place

      • Antinutrient

        The study was pretty much debunked here

        using some of the same arguments as largelytrue.

        • largelytrue

          Neat. I’m glad I’m not the only one who was appalled by the level of statistical analysis in this paper, which relied very heavily on statistical analysis in order to make its central claims. Given the broad importance of statistical understanding in the sciences, we can’t really attribute this weak publication to Science’s multidisciplinary nature. A top-tier journal should have a peer review system which prevents such weak statistical studies from getting through very often.

          Still, that day-of blog post is really just the tip of the iceberg. It does not pinpoint all the major problems in the paper’s statistical analysis and interpretation, nor does my comment below.

    • Plantstrongdoc M.D.

      Just to put it in perspective. T. Colin Campbell showed that rats given aflatoxin and fed 20% casein were dead or near death from liver tumors at 100 weeks, but rats given aflatoxin and fed 5% protein were alive and active at 100 weeks. This is 100 to 0 score! As good as it gets! This highly suggests that diet plays a major role in tumor formation. Did it hit the headlines? No. Why? People dont want to hear this.

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      Agreed! Very misleading. Have you seen this blog post by AICR and their response to the “bad luck” study? I feel it explains the errors in that study very well.

  • Stephen Albers

    I’ve requested clarification from AICR on how they measure one recommendation that is perhaps the most demanding (minimal weight without being underweight). The institute confirmed they measure this guideline using Body Mass Index. If we eliminate bodybuilders and other special minorities, that means that the great mass of humanity is being advised to reduce there weight to just above BMI 18.5 which is considered under weight. This means a lot of us have a lot of weight to lose to minimize our cancer risk. Do you interpret this recommendation the same way?

    • Jim

      My wife was underweight all her life. She was underweight while she was pregnant (twice) . She was not a vegan constantly, but would eat animal products -mostly fish – an year or two and then would be a vegan an year or two. She never drank, smoked, or did drugs. Well, she died of breast cancer in her early forties ten years ago.

      • Valerie

        Jim, my condolences. I’m a 48-year-old healthy vegan who drinks high nutrient green smoothies every day. Oh, and who was recently diagnosed with breast Cancer. I start chemo next week. It’s frustrating to be the “healthy minority” with cancer.

        • Thea

          Valerie: I’m so sorry to hear this. It so sucks to do everything right and find out that it wasn’t as protective as it should have been. I’m hoping that your healthy lifestyle helps you beat the cancer and thrive afterwards.

          You may already know that this site has a *ton* of videos on cancer. Some of those videos won’t be applicable to you because they are about prevention. But some of them might help assist with your traditional treatments (chemo, etc) by focusing on foods that have been shown to be particularly helpful in fighting cancer. So, maybe this site could help you tweak your diet for quicker and longer lasting recovery. Just an idea. I’ll keep my fingers crossed that thigns go well for you.

          • Alax Neiswonger

            That is good advice for Valerie, and I am too sorry to hear about your diagnosis. I am an outpatient Oncology Clinical Dietitian and can say that, though you may not be eating to prevent the disease since you’ve already been diagnosed, continuing to eat healthy during and after treatment makes a difference in your treatment success as well as helping you stay in remission. Good luck!

        • I hope you win the fight Valerie. May I ask how long you have been eating a WFPB diet?

        • 7in1

          I would like to know is there anyone who came across a RAW vegan person getting the same kind of a problem?

          • Bruce Cropley

            Even if there isn’t a RAW vegan who has “this kind of problem”, that doesn’t make it a fail-safe prevention method – maybe it reduces the odds, maybe not. We can do studies to help reduce cancer rates in the future, but unfortunately, we can’t change the past.

        • Gary O’Reilly

          Sorry to hear this Valerie. My father in law is having chemo at the moment for bowel cancer and is doing well. I do hope it’s succesful for you. Stay positive and keep doing the right things.

        • Bruce Cropley

          I also have cancer – brain cancer. I’ve been vegetarian for 20+ years, never smoked, drank, or took drugs, eaten mainly plant based for many years, so I can relate to your situation. It just isn’t fair. ;)

          • Matthew Smith

            I am so sorry to hear you have cancer. Would you examine this link? “More importantly, rosehip extracts may serve as an alternative or compliment to current chemotherapeutic regimens for glioblastomas.” Rosehips were effective at treating one kind of brain cancer. You can buy some rosehips tea here: This site does not recommend anything specific for brain cancer, but the basics recommended for illness are a vegan diet with beans, nuts, cocoa green tea, whole grains, berries, fresh fruits, and vegetables. Particularly powerful for cancer were white button mushrooms, two sheets of seaweed, amla, strawberries (cancers of the throat), flax seed meal, and tumeric with pepper. The class toppers according to this site, at least in vitro, were apples, cranberries, lemons, tumeric with pepper, cloves, ginger, rosemary, hibiscus tea, white tea with lemon, matcha, green tea, dandelion tea, chamomile tea, beets, garlic, red onions, tomatoes, carrots, spinach, kale, collards, broccoli, pecans, walnuts, and peanuts. I hope to live as cleanly as you did. The story “Death Be Not Proud” by John Gunter is about a child with brain cancer. This story is inspirational to us all, as is yours. You have much better chances with your illness because of your choices, according to science.

          • Bruce Cropley

            Thanks very much for that, I am consuming quite a few of those already, but I’ll check out the rest soon :)

          • Matthew Smith

            Thank you! Congratulations to your health consciousness. I wish you the best of luck. In this video, Dr. Greger said that of vegans with slow growing prostate cancer treated by Dr. Ornish, not one needed surgery. This video shows that women who exercise and eat fruits and vegetables increase their survival rate by 4 times. “there’s a new experimental treatment that can cut your chances of dying in the next few years from like 16% down to just 4%” This is just true of breast cancer, however. If you beat cancer, and if you eat broccoli, you chance of getting cancer again is diminished by half in breast cancer patients. “For women on tamoxifen, for example, if one of their 5 daily servings of fruits and veggies was broccoli or cauliflower/collards/cabbage or kale, the risk of cancer recurrence may be cut in half.

          • Matthew Smith

            According to this video, Beets and Garlic are in particular the healthiest vegetables for anti-brain cancer activity. Thank you and good luck.

          • Bruce Cropley

            This looks very promising, so thank you VERY much :)

            My cancer is an anaplastic astrocytoma (grade 3), which in my limited understanding is “related” to glioblastomas. (?)

            I have taken a few rounds of temozolomide (=temodar), which is the drug that the study compared rosehips with (and rosehips won hands down!)

            I’d like to try it, but since this was an in-vitro study, I’m not sure how much I would need to take to get those sorts of levels in my blood stream. Also, would rosehips in my blood stream reach the cancer cells, or would they be blocked by the blood-brain barrier?

            Another concern for me is that both the drug and the rosehips only slow down the growth of the tumour; they don’t induce apoptosis. Do any plant-based foods enhance apoptosis in brain cancers (specifically anaplastic astrocytomas)? I have started taking black pepper and marjorum capsules that I make myself.

            Out of the foods that you list, I had already started taking (or was intending to take shortly) most of them, except: cranberries, white tea, chamomile tea, dandelion tea, collards and peanuts. Some of the others are recent regular additions to my diet. I will do some more “research” and will probably start taking them regularly too ;)

            Thank you again very much!


          • Klarissa Dresler

   Absolutely worth a look! It’s incredible that there are cures out there with herbs, but big pharma really tries to get rid of it.

          • Matthew Smith

            Dr. Greger shows that medicine can go hand in hand with good nutrition, and offers hope to people who are sick.

            The following foods are believed to induce cancer cell death, at least in vitro:
            turmeric with pepper
            Turmeric Curcumin Reprogramming Cancer Cell Death
            “the anticancer effects of curcumin mainly result from the multitude of ways it regulates programmed cell death.”

            Cancer Reversal Through Diet?
            “Eating a plant based diet made their bloodstream eight times less hospitable to cancer.”

            Which nut fights cancer better
            “which may explain some of the mechanisms by which nut components induce cancer cell death” Pecans and walnuts were particularly powerful.

            flax seed meal
            Flaxseeds for Prostate Cancer
            “…put them on a relatively low fat diet with three tablespoons a day of ground flax…they found significantly lower cancer proliferation rates and significantly higher rates of cancer cell death.”

            Boosting Natural Killer Cell Activity
            “The effect of blueberry ingestion on natural killer cell counts. Natural killer cells are part of our immune system’s rapid response team against cancer cells, taking them out through the activation of cancer cell suicide via death receptors.”

            Amla Versus Cancer Cell Growth

            “As you drip more amla on, the cancer cell growth rates cut in half and then stopped completely, and then amla starts killing the cancer off—the growth goes negative. By the end more than half the cancer cells dead.”

            Vegan diet


            “The blood of people on a vegan diet, though, knocked the cancer growth down 70%.”
            I believe Dr. Greger said the extra veggies kill cancer too.

            Anti-Angiogenesis: Cutting Off Tumor Supply Lines

            “Here’s the effect of fisitin, [shows death of cancer veins] a phytonutrient found in strawberries and other fruits and veggies. It just shrinks the beginnings of new blood vessel formation right down.”

            Amla, nuts like pecans and walnuts, blueberries, the vegan diet, tumeric with pepper, can induce cancer cell death. An ingredient in strawberries call kill unwanted new cancer veins, at least in human umbilical cords. Beets and Garlic were recommended for killing brain cancer cells. Good luck!

          • Bruce Cropley

            Hi Matthew

            I am taking nearly everything on your list regularly, most daily, as part of a Plant-Based Diet:
            – Curcumin
            – Black Pepper & Marjoram
            – Pecans & Walnuts
            – Flax Seed Meal
            – Blueberry
            – Strawberries
            – Beets
            – Garlic (raw)

            Also, most days:
            – Apples (inc. skin)
            – Beans
            – Cinnamon
            – Broccoli or Cauliflower
            – Baby Spinach

            …and a few other goodies here and there :)

            I have ordered Amla powder; it will probably arrive soon.

            So hopefully with all that firepower, the cancer will be doomed :D

            Thanks again,

          • Alive and Laughing

            Matthew, they are getting amazing results with many deadly cancers, including brain and pancreatic with the use of GcMAF. Check out the site: They have three clinics in Europe, but you don’t even need a prescription to order it online and use it at home because it is a chemical your body makes. It does two things. First, it gets rid of Nagalase, the enzyme which hides cancer and viruses from your immune system, and it supercharges your own immune system to go after the cancer or virus.

          • Thanks for your very helpful summaries, Matthew. New research suggests that people with cancer should avoid peanuts.

          • Klarissa Dresler

            Did you try cannabis oil? I heard it works good on brain cancers!

          • Bruce Cropley

            Thanks Klarissa. I have done some googling, and read a little bit about it. However, the evidence doesn’t look good enough to me:

          • Klarissa Dresler

            I thought about Ayurveda as well. And I would for the cannabis oil. I don’t think the side effects (being high) is too bad. Did you YouTube it? Some videos out there I find highly interesting!

          • Klarissa Dresler

            To be honest that article you posted about that guy… Well I found it very imprecise. It’s more about that guy than the oil. I would recommend to watch YouTube videos about and actually hear some real stories about patients who healed with it.
            I mean, what can you loose?

          • Bruce Cropley

            I could lose my mind. My family has a history of schizophrenia, and cannabis is known to often trigger schizophrenia. Having seen what it did to two of my relatives, I think I would rather die sane than live insane.
            Also, I much prefer scientific studies to anecdotal evidence, which is why I get my information from sources such as this. There is also the legal aspect, and the difficulty (and money) that would be involved in this potential treatment. It might work fine for some, but I’m not prepared to go down that path.

            Thanks again,

          • Klarissa Dresler

            I totally understand. Did you do some research on Ayurveda? It’s indian medicine based on whole plant diets and herb medicine. It’s very successful in detoxing the body. Or even juicing fresh juices for a couple of weeks. Mostly green juices and juices only.
            How about a 100% raw food diet?
            I think it’s all about detoxing when it comes to cancer.
            I hope you’ll find your way!

          • Bruce Cropley

            We were having a veggie juice daily until recently, when we converted to smoothies, mostly due to the info on this site – get more nutritional goodness (+fibre) out of the pulp that juicing discards. I’ve been eating more raw fruit and veggies recently. I think detoxing probably helps with prevention more than treatment. My focus is on slowing the growth of, and killing the cancer cells, while maximising my health. Thanks again :)

          • Klarissa Dresler

            I think you are on a good way! :) all the very best, Bruce!

          • Sunshine99

            Bruce, Just saw this thread. Have you become aware of the work of Prof. Thomas N. Seyfried, a researcher at Boston College? He has published a book on the metabolic theory of cancer. He claims to have cured brain cancer in animals and in a woman with glioblastomas using dietary interventions to eliminate the “fuel” that tumor cells require to stay alive and grow. He is considered a maverick scientist although he publishes in peer-reviewed, respected journals. Here is a link to a recent interview in which he summarizes his latest research findings:
            You can search him and find his presentation to the 2012 Ancestral Health Symposium in which he presented the case study of the woman whose brain tumor regressed.
            Interestingly, in the newer 2014 interview he discusses the importance of a calorie-restricted diet combined with aspects of a ketogenic diet.
            I am not recommending him nor espousing his theories. I find them interesting but I am not scientifically knowledgeable to determine if there is a major flaw in his research ideas. Since he appears to have had some documented success in gaining remission of brain cancer in selected cases, there may be some validity to his dietary approach geared toward disrupting the metabolic pathway of cancer. You can read his work for yourself and consider contacting him. There was an email address for him on his facebook page, Cancer as a Metabolic Disease, which is also the title of his book published by Wiley in 2012.
            I find his approach fascinating. He argues that cancer is not just genetically caused, and that by ignoring cancer’s metabolic pathways, some traditional chemotherapy treatments inadvertently enable certain cancers to proliferate. If I were to adopt his ideas, I would probably try to do them with a plant-based approach but I don’t know if it’s possible to do a plant-based ketogenic diet. However, the calorie restriction aspect is interesting and may be the more important factor.
            Let us know how you make out. You have many options to consider in crafting your own life-sustaining protocol. Good luck!

          • Arjan den Hollander.

            I see you are in a tough spot between your brain and your fathers. While I’m not a schizophenic I can be pushed into psychosis. I have found magnesium and especially choline extremely helpful in regaining some measure of sanity. I now supplement 500 – 750 mg on a otherwise very low choline WFPB diet, I need it otherwise I’ll quite literally go insane.
            I took that tip from here and choline might benifit your father in the same way as it does me:
            Other mental strains tips and magnesium you can find in the map:

            Some caution!: Choline could prove very bad for cancers, so you watch yourself please :)
            Also this Paleo Psychiatrist Emily Deans has no regard whatsoever for the implications of a high fat diet on the circulatory system.

            But this might help you find some peace and quiet from the stresses of your own predicament, and maybe alleviate some of the stress you no doubt have to suffer dealing with your father.

            Good luck to you in your battles, Bruce Cropley.

          • Bruce Cropley

            It’s actually an uncle and a cousin, and since I’m over 40, I’m unlikely to get schizophrenia now. But I don’t want to risk it. I’m coping with the stress quite well – I’ve gone from thinking I’m going to die shortly, to not, and then back again, so many times that I just take another flip in my stride. Thanks again :)

        • Thule

          Valerie, a not insignificant number of cases are over diagnoses, that’s one of the problems with mammograms.

          (I only hope that that is your case too) But if you still didn’t, check for a second opinion. I wish you the best of lucks.

        • Ann

          Don’t forget the influence of environmental toxins on cancer. It’s not all diet.

        • Matthew Smith

          Dr. Greger says he recommends flax seed meal to all his breast cancer patients. He said the diet of prevention is useful in treatment here, including one half mushroom a day and one half or more cups of green tea. A sheet of Nori or other seaweed could be helpful. Berries, particularly black raspberries (not in season, maybe blueberries, strawberries or cranberries) could be helpful Amla would be very healthy for you. The best anticancer foods presented here include apples, cranberries, lemons, pecans, walnuts, peanuts, cloves, tumeric with pepper, ginger, rosemary, garlic, beets, broccoli, spinach, collards, kale, carrots, and tomatoes were very healthy. Garlic, beets, broccoli were cancer intolerant. So were tumeric, amla, and ginger. Walnuts and pecans were very anti-cancerous. Perhaps you could drink some cranberry juice with the juice of a lemon. I hope when you are in chemo you will consider drinking tea or taking some adaptogenic herbs like ginger or lemon balm to reduce your risk of damage to other cells. Please, my prayers and good luck.

          • Matthew Smith

            There are also some teas recommended including hibiscus, matcha, white tea with lemon, green tea, dandelion, and chamomile. Amla, as a tea, can be found at it’s also in Republic of tea’s Get Clean PM tea. Dragon Herbs sells the most stress responsive tea, according to them. Thank you, stay well.

          • AnnaRosse

            Flax seeds is said to act as fitoestrogens. ER+/PR+ breast cancers are fed with estogens/fotoestrogens. I don’t think it’d be a good idea to eat those seeds.

          • Matthew Smith

            To see the recommendation with your own eyes see this video:


            “I’ve previously discussed the role of dietary lignans in the reduction of breast cancer risk and improvement in breast cancer survival…”
            “A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial of flaxseeds, the world’s most concentrated source of lignans, in breast cancer patients found that flax appears to have the potential to reduce human breast tumor growth in just a matter of weeks.”
            “Similarly, high lignan intake was associated with reduced breast cancer risk”…
            Dr. Greger said he has been “recommending ground flax seeds to breast cancer patients,”

            Dr. Greger has an extensive list of references in this study, three of which are summarized here:

            In menopasual women, those with the largest intake of lignans had the lowest risk of all mortality in this five year study.
            This study summaries that their results suggest that higher lignan intakes may be associated with improved survival among postmenopausal women with breast cancer.

            S E McCann, L U Thompson, J Nie, J Dorn, M Trevisan, P G Shields, C B Ambrosone, S B Edge, H F Li, C Kasprzak, J L Freudenheim. Dietary lignan intakes in relation to survival among women with breast cancer: the Western New York Exposures and Breast Cancer (WEB) Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Jul;122(1):229-35.

            Lignans were effective in reducing cancer cell growth in MCF 7 and BT 20 cells lines, according to this study.

            S Abarzua, T Serikawa, M Szewczyk, D U Richter, B Piechulla, V Briese. Antiproliferative activity of lignans against the breast carcinoma cell lines MCF 7 and BT 20. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Apr;285(4):1145-51.

            Flaxseed was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer risk in this study.

            E C Lowcock, M Cotterchio, B A Boucher. Consumption of flaxseed, a rich source of lignans, is associated with reduced breast cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control. 2013 Apr;24(4):813-6.

            Thank you.

          • Alax Neiswonger

   Flax seeds have been shown to be beneficial for breast cancer prevention as well as the lingins ability to slow down or decrease tumor sizes. What’s not recommended is taking flax seed in supplement form or more than 2-3 Tbsp/day.

        • Alive and Laughing

          Valerie, I’m so sorry to hear of your diagnosis. I, too, developed breast cancer five years ago. It was an aggressive triple negative cancer, one standard oncology doesn’t have any drugs for. I, too, had done all the things I knew to do over the years to maintain health, but still, there I was with breast cancer. Fast forward three years: I met a new oncologist who read my chart notes, looked up and said, “We don’t meet many people with your diagnosis three years later.” She would have expected me to be dead by three years later! Well, the two other women I have met who followed their oncologist’s advice of chemo, surgery and radiation, did only live about three years. But did that oncologist want to know why I was thriving instead? Of course not! And here I am two years later. Wonder what she would say now…

        • jim

          Valerie: Thank you for responding to my post and i’m very sorry to hear that you have breast cancer despite having being health conscious. There appears to be this randomness to cancer. For example, we know what causes heart disease and how to prevent, even reverse it. Cancer is not like that. Some people eat junk food, smoke, abuse alcohol and drugs, never exercise, but never get cancer. Others who eat healthfully, don’t smoke,nor drink, nor do drugs, and exercise get cancer. Is it genes or environment or karma – who knows? My wife was diagnosed in 2000 and died in 2004. There was no nutrition then, nor were other great sites that have made cancer treatment a holistic process, not just chemo, radiation, and surgery. I wish you and your family all the best.

      • Stephen Albers


        The AICR guidelines are based on huge volumes of statistics. Some individuals will always fall outside the statistics. The best plan seems to be to avoid as many risk factors as possible. Excess weight is one of them. But the AICR target of BMI 18.6 is an aggressive one.

  • Joyce

    How valid is this study?

    • rkngl

      You can see my reply to Felipe above about this same study.
      I think the study is “valid” in that the results it got are consistent with the results one would expect it to give. In terms of how accurately does the BBC’s article headline reflect a factual interpretation of the results that should be handed out for a lay-person to read about? Not very.

    • Christopher Harris

      I had the same question. The Hopkins study description says it measures the randomness involved in a cell mutating into a cancer cell, but the study appears somewhat/very dismissive about the role a healthy diet plays in preventing such a cell from developing into a larger cancerous mass. If as the article suggests “environmental factors” (diet) play such a minor role cancer formation, how do they explain the substantial difference in cancer rates between populations that eat a healthy diet vs. a Western/S.A.D. (as described in The China Study and numerous studies since)? I would love to hear Dr. Greger’s opinion.

      • Thea

        Christopher: I think you got to the crux of the matter with, “…the role a healthy diet plays in preventing such a cell from developing into a larger cancerous mass.” I haven’t read the study myself, so I don’t know how well or whether they adequately addressed this point. But I suspect that they are missing the key point that Dr. Greger brought to our attention years ago: That a single cancerous cell never hurt anyone by itself. We only actually get cancer when that single cell multiplies to about a billion cells.

        For anyone with a question about the study under discussion, I *highly* recommend this NutritionFacts video all the back from Volume 1:

        So, as long as our bodies are really good at killing single cells and/or growing cancer cells at an extremely low rate, then we are golden. Regardless of what the latest study shows, we have a lot of really good evidence showing that diet and other lifestyle factors *do* have a very big impact on whether that single (randomly mutated or not) cancer cell lives long and/or grows quickly.

        Some other videos related to cancer growth rates: (there are several others too)

        The China Study book is another great place to learn about the various stages of cancer and how diet can affect those stages – especially how diet can slow down cancer growth – so that we die *with* some cancer cells in our bodies (even those randomly mutated cancer cells), not *because* we actually have fully actuated cancer.

        (An aside: As others have pointed out, diet and lifestyle is no guarantee against cancer. So, I’m not saying that we can 100% proof ourselves again growing a cancel cell into a billion cancer cells. However, I believe the body of evidence clearly shows that diet and lifestyle do make a huge difference statistically. In other words, I fully understand that I could still get lung cancer even if I never smoke. I have heard the upsetting statistic that 20% of the people who get lung cancer do not actually smoke. But that doesn’t mean that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer… So, I do what I can to give myself the best outcome and then whatever happens, happens.)

    • veganchrisuk

      See the OP’s original link below.

      I would estimate that a few hundred reports are published every day, and quite often the results are conflicting. Add into the equation that we are all biased by our own personal views/opinions, and will normally cherry pick the information which best reflects our own viewpoint, and you will find yourself in what can only be referred to as paralysis by analysis. My conclusion from this report is that it is very likely that some cancers (if not the majority) are caused by bad luck, but this will not stop me from leading a healthy lifestyle to help prevent the others….

    • Hi Joyce, I read that article too. Whenever I read any journalism now, I’ve taught myself to sort out the catch-phrases that are designed to get you read or click as the writer wishes. So the title “Most cancert types ‘Just Bad Luck’ is a better hook than ‘Eat vegetables to promote health’. Although the article is loaded with little zingers that have no logical fit with the main theme, the message that comes across is consistent with the results of the study. I’m trying to suggest that we all need to re-learn for whom the written word is meant to serve. As my sainted mother used to tell me, “Paper will hold still for anything”.

      Also, If I can paraphrase what Pam Popper said, “If we blame it all on [bad luck and] genetics, then we are all helpless victims”.

      • We love your posts, Coacervate! Your wit and your reasoning is much appreciated by many on this site. In this study RANDOMNESS was the working hypothesis, the assumption, and the conclusion. The study did not in anyway test the effects of lifestyle or environmental toxicity on the likelihood of getting cancer. The conclusion that lifestyle and environmental factors influence only ⅓ of cancers is unfounded. This is not the finding of the study.

        The study did a statistical analysis that found a correlation. The existence of this correlation says nothing about causation.

        THE PRESUMPTION OF RANDOMNESS by scientists allows for so many leaps in conclusions! I see this all the time in my field, the understanding of the language of dreaming. Here, the biggest scientific press coverage has gone to those who claim that the bizarre, and to them, unintelligible imagery of dreams is due to random firings in the brain. Because they make this assumption they completely dismiss the body of research that (for example) shows how independent judges can identify the dreams of particular dreamers dealing with particular issues in their lives. Dreams use the language of metaphor, one that often makes sense only when the dreamer is interviewed about his life perceptions and experience. Greek would seem Random to those who fail to recognize it’s underlying structure in letters and grammar. Assuming Randomness SHORT-CIRCUITS openness to more subtle, complicated causes and influences. In nutrition research, we find correlations and sometimes causes when we look more deeply. Sometimes things that are not understood appear to be random, god’s will, or Voo-Doo!

        • Thea

          Gail: Fascinating post. Thanks for sharing that bit about dreams. The topic really interests me.

    • RonB

      Just wanted to raise the same question…
      The full paper is here:
      Basically, the main conclusion is that for most cancers prevention (though not all): diet won’t help.
      It’s all random in any case.

  • brec

    While the initial study discussed relates to breast cancer, taking around fifteen seconds, the rest of the video relates to other cancers and cancer in general. No problem, except I think removing “Breast” from the title of the video might increase viewership significantly.

  • Judy Fields Davis

    thanks so much!

  • Ignatius Turchi

    One of the recommendations was not to take supplements to prevent cancer. This is absurd. Check out The Vitamin D

    • Dommy

      You beat me to it by mere seconds. At (1:48) #8.”Do not use supplements to protect against cancer.”
      Why not? Are they saying supplements per se are antagonistic to being cancer-free? That they cause cancer? Makes no sense. As you say, Vit D, vit C, NAC (glutathione), etc, etc.

      • Ignatius Turchi

        These are all excellent recommendations. Thanks for adding them.

      • Alax Neiswonger

        “Foods first” has always been my motto. Supplements are not a quick and easy fix like everyone wants to believe. Taking too much can even be harmful. More research needs to be done before I’d recommend that.

        Here’s a quote from the news release of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on Oct 12:

        “In a trial that included about 35,000 men, those who were randomized to receive daily supplementation with vitamin E had a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer, according to a study in the October 12 issue of JAMA.”

  • A.K.


    “Both discourage alcohol and tobasco”

    I didn’t know hot sauce was so dangerous

    • jj

      That is funny. Does sound like tobasco. That’s good we all need a good laugh.

      • I did not have tobasco with that salad. And if I did I did not inhale.

  • jerrylamos

    Prof. Jane Plant, CBE, extensive scientific analysis “The No Dairy Breast Cancer Prevention Program”. She had breast cancer, surgery, chemo, all were failing. She was eating yogurt to replenish probiotics when she remembered rurual Chinese don’t get breast cancer. They call it “Rich Woman’s Disease”. She’s had quite a number of women in England successfully go on her program. More scientific analysis is in “The China Study” by Cornell nutritional biologist prof. T. Colin Campbell. Do note the high breast cancer (and prostate) regions of the world are exactly the dairy and meat regions. Duh.

  • Catherine J Frompovich

    If I may add to this conversation, I am a breast cancer survivor who did it without surgery, chemo and radiation of any type. Since I contracted breast cancer in my R breast (2 tumors) at 73 years of age in 2011, my last battery of tests in December 2014 indicate that I’m clean. I co-designed my protocol with my managing holistic physician. However, some day I will die from something, but in the meantime, I’ve not been sick a day and recently retired from research and writing books. My last book was published in Oct. 2013.
    Personally, I do not believe the genre/type of food, i.e., meat, dairy, plants, etc. is/may be responsible per se, even though some science is trying to blame cancer on foods rather than the chemicals that contaminate foods thereby causing foods to become suspect.
    It is my contention, and other science researchers indicate, that all the chemicals — man made, i.e., pharmaceuticals, vaccines with neurotoxins, food preservatives and processing chemicals, fluoride in drinking water, insecticides, herbicides, formaldehyde impregnating everything from clothing to scented products, chemtrails sprayed over our heads containing horrendous toxic metals, etc. — all act as and have become epigenetics impacting cells and hormones. How about BPA and its replacement BPS, which is even more problematic as a hormone disruptor.
    I’ve been a consumer health researcher since the late 1970s and demographics consistently indicate that cancers have escalated proportionately with the rise of toxic chemicals permitted into food, air, water, etc. by the very federal agencies that should have banned toxic/carcinogenic chemicals: CDC, FDA, EPA, USDA!!! OSHA designates chemicals as carcinogens, but no other agency in government listens to them nor takes them seriously AND chemical companies keep making and adding thousands of chemicals into agriculture, medicine, cosmetics, food processing, and the scent industries.
    Eating non-GMO foods and organically-grown foods are the key to keeping toxins out of our bodies! Yet very few in mainstream medicine promote that key factor for preventing cancer. Drinking non-fluoridated and non-chemicalized water is pertinent to good health, not drinking 8 glasses of chemicalized water or soda pop a day.
    Cancer can’t be avoided or beaten IF we don’t get away from the chemicals that negatively impact our health. My book, A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, available on, discusses how to beat cancer using dietary changes and other holistic modalities. It may not be for everyone, but it sure worked for me, and I’m sharing it for whatever it may be worth.
    Cancer is no fun, especially chemo and radiation! Cancer can be treated and cured without the patient being poisoned and fried. I have seen radiation burns on patients. Chemo changes the body into an acidic organism that too often succumbs. Many people are opting to go the unconventional cancer treatment route and are getting well. The most important KEY is to be found in the diet one eats; how the food is/was raised and cooked–sans chemicals of any kind.
    I wish everyone a cancer-free life.

    • Dommy

      Hear, hear! — Well done.

    • What does the research say about drinking water with/without floride etc? What is the best drinking water filter, osmosis machine etc? I have been unable to get a credible response from San Francisco, Marin County agencies who all reassure us our water is just fine.

  • Bruce Cropley

    Off topic: I’m interested in whether there is any research into treatment of Candida by (presumably plant-based) diet?

    • Arjan den Hollander.

      Plant foods rich in chitinase enzymes is probably your best bet.
      There should be loads of them everywhere otherwise the earth would be covered with chitin sediments much like coal or limestone.

      Quick wiki:
      Presence in food:
      Chitinase occurs naturally in many common foods. This is at least one cause of the cross-reaction phenomenon in latex-fruit syndrome. Bananas, chestnuts, kiwis, avocados, papaya, and tomatoes, for example, all contain significant levels of chitinase.

      But as I said its probably almost omnipresent otherwise there would be no resources left on the globe to sustain life ^^

      • Bruce Cropley

        Thanks :) I eat a few of these regularly, and my symptoms are not too bad – just a coated tongue, so I think it’s probably not worth my worrying about it. Thanks again for the info :)

    • Arjan den Hollander.

      Plant foods rich in chitinase enzymes is probably your best bet.
      There should be loads of them everywhere otherwise the earth would be covered with chitin sediments much like coal or limestone.

      Quick wiki:
      Presence in food:
      Chitinase occurs naturally in many common foods. This is at least one cause of the cross-reaction phenomenon in latex-fruit syndrome. Bananas, chestnuts, kiwis, avocados, papaya, and tomatoes, for example, all contain significant levels of chitinase.

      But as I said its probably almost omnipresent otherwise there would be no resources left on the globe to sustain life ^^

  • Alice Roose

    So how do you explain that the French eat cheese and drink wine and still have lowest heart disease than Americans??

  • Dear Dr. Greger, Thea, Toxins, and All the TEAM,
    We can never thank you enough for your work and for this site. My (then 58 yr. old) sweetheart and I (then 63) had adopted some of Dr. Fuhrman’s recommendations and bought a Vita-Mix after donating to PBS to receive his book and many CDs. Somehow, this led us to We first watched The Year in Review 2012 and were wowed. Immediately, we watched the 2013 video. At its end, we looked at each other and one said: “Well! That’s it for our healthy salmon, yogurt, and quart+ of milk a day. I guess we are vegans!” OMG! We never looked back; and we thank you for the research that we needed to convince us that vegans weren’t just too precious and picky! Done!

    Now for a suggestion I have been trying to get through to Dr. Phillip Tuso, Kaiser, and many others. The visuals most often chosen by our esteemed docs and their wonderful teams are extremely unappetizing, especially to those who don’t already know of the wonders of veggies. Look at this stock photo above of plain forks and bits of raw veggies.

    Stock photos in general are cold, lacking in cozy context and FAKE. The people in them are mercenaries and the fake-ness is palatable. How about photos of real WFPB eaters, revelers enjoying themselves? Who cares if the lighting, cropping etc. is not just right? Let’s have life in the photo! Photos that make the viewer WANT to be there! Above all, i think photos of food at a real table, and at banquet tables, and pretty dinner table with the docs and all the folks who love this food eating and enjoying dishes that show in the photo. Not un-prepared ingredients, but the finished dishes that look scrumptious as they do on so many sites of WFPB cooks, and on sites of restaurants like Millennium in San Francisco. Seduce people not just by the facts, but by the wonderful food and the results as in the before and after photos. IMHO.
    Thanks to every one of you here, including the members who add so much with your comments! You are a daily delight and inspiration to us and to our friends when we can get them to watch.


    • Thea

      Gayle: Thank you so much for such nice feedback. You have totally made my day. And I’m sure the others are equally happy.

      Your idea about the importance of good pictures is well received by me. A thought for you: I don’t know if you follow any of the vegan food blogs, but some of those people take a lot of time framing and dealing with lighting, etc for pictures of their food. I see people commenting on how great those pictures are. And some of the blogs are for healthy food (not just vegan). I can’t judge such things myself, so I won’t try to pick a blog as an example. My point is just that such pictures of awesome healthy food *does* exist. People at Kaiser, etc. could think about taking cues from or purchasing those existing pictures.


      The kind of change that you and your sweetheart made is a huge decision for many people. Good for you both on not just educating yourself, but actually taking that next step to put the information into action! It’s really inspiring. Thanks for sharing.

      • Oh Thea, I have indeed suggested looking at certain beautiful WFPB blogs to Kaiser and the brave Dr. Tuso, lead author on the Permanente Journal (summer?’13 article featured by Dr. Greger about Kaiser’s decision to train their 15K docs and 9 million patients in WFPB). And I have contacted some of those bloggers/photographers asking them to contact, Dr.Greger et al. Eventually! Does anyone else dislike stock photos for their fake-ness when people are in them?
        Now let me and Kevin say that MANY if not most of Dr. Greger’s photos are a blast: funny and engaging. But look at the Kaiser blog photo provided by Kaiser. Would it not have been more engaging, ESPECIALLY for non-WFPB eaters to show a social scene with fun, conviviality and gorgeous plates of food? Sooo many people fear they will have to give up many dimensions of social interaction in our foodie culture. And let’s face it, looking with longing at plain raw veggies in a basket is an acquired taste for many!

    • JS Baker

      Check out Nakedfoodmagazine dot com. Gorgeous photos of food, plus recipes and WFPB diet advice.
      Next month I celebrate 2 years on WFPB diet, and my 60th birthday. Like you, I started with one of Dr. Greger’s hour long presentations. I was stunned at what I learned so I studied the videos on NutritionFacts further, reviewing source documents until I was satisfied that Greger was the real deal. I thought I was eating healthily but soon realized how damaging animal products are for humans. I cut out my yummy salmon, egg white breakfast sandwiches, and post work out chocolate milk. Later eliminated olive oil and bread snacks after reading Esselstyn.
      I have not looked back, either. It pains me greatly, though, to watch my friends and family continue to eat animal products and really don’t want to know what the research has to say. I am just astounded that so many people are more worried about being attacked by terrorists (or name any other other remote threat) than the damage they do to themselves everyday by what they eat. Best wishes to you and yours for vibrant health.

  • Matthew Smith

    Forty percent of Americans will get cancer and it is our second leading cause of death. One quarter of cancer survivors will attempt to begin a diet of intervention, according to this site, and for them, this is an effective treatment. Cancer survivorship is only about 50 percent at five years for some kinds of cancers. In this article here, “AICR recommendation #10 is that cancer survivors should follow the recommendations for cancer prevention.” What are those recommendations? This site in general would say that they including eating a diet rich in nuts, cocoa, tea, berries, whole grain, fresh fruit, and vegetables. There are some super cancer fighters like flax seed meal, mushrooms, amla, seaweed like nori, and matcha tea. The specific best foods recommended at this site include beets, garlic, red onions, tomatoes, broccoli, kale, collards, tomatoes, carrots, lemons, cranberries, apples, dandelion tea, chamomile tea, hibiscus tea, white tea with lemon, matcha tea, walnuts, pecans, peanuts, cloves, tumeric with pepper, rosemary, and ginger. According to this video, as it states at the end, the less meat you eat the better you do. A religion of vegetarians? The Adventists are America’s healthiest cultural group, with the more adherent they are to their vegetarian diet the healthier they are. I am glad to be in the company here of so many devoted vegetarians!

  • Frank Vegano

    I heard you say to avoid tobasco. Didn’t you mean to say tobacco? Hahahahaaa

  • Klarissa Dresler

    It’s not only he food, but the whole environment we live in. Maybe cellphones give cancer because of radiation, all the hygiene products are full of chemicals, cleaning products, maybe the water in the area, our clothes… It could be son many things!

  • I see that many comments here are surrounding the same report that we received here in Canada, from CBC News no less, ostensibly based on a report from the ‘esteemed’ John Hopkins University. A search shows that this ‘U’ is a private research facility . . . Surely this must be deficient
    science at it’s best, bordering upon wayward. Dr. Greger has spent much of the last several years since Nutritionfacts.Org came into existence, showing conclusively, along with work from Dr. John McDougall, the Forks Over Knives people and so many others in this factual nutrition pioneering work, that many of these western cancers are diet related. What controls would such a study set up? That this must involve some devious extrapolation to be sure is suspected. Who paid for the study in the first place? We now know that corporations are extremely complicit with their funding of university programs that extend their reach in society. One thing’s for certain: — follow the money.

    • Good one. There is a comment by Darryl further down that nails it. I think This kind of paper could have been done with dice and a scratch pad. “The probability of getting snake eyes is just bad luck”.

      This study, in my opinion is an example of an LPU, a “Least Publishable Unit”. In the science game you publish or perish so the Machine drives the literature to be peppered with thousands of low value publications. Then there is the interesting evolution in the way the “new” internet media snatches bits here and there, repulps it into attention grabbing blurbs along with a clickable “weird secret to turn bunions into six pack abs”.

      It is, as the French guy on Close Encounters said, an event sociologique. I do believe this is all a good thing because whenever truth and fiction collide in social media the truth always wins. No really, everytime. Mostly. More than somewhat. Eventually.

      I’m probably the only one old enough to remember but these “news” stories always remind me of Perry White on the TV superman show: “Olsen, get me a byline on cancer. Make everyone a helpless victim…and get me some pictures of Superman!”

      • largelytrue

        This study was published in Science, a top-tier multidisciplinary journal whose brand is big enough that a large portion of nonscientists either know about the journal, follow its affiliated materials (such as the Science podcast), or maybe even try to follow the journal directly.

        Science may be particularly plagued by a large number of weak submissions, but on the other hand probably has the financial resources to weed out most of them if they really wanted to. The problem is in part that even when they weed out the bad studies, they have far too many well-conducted studies to choose from when deciding what to publish. Accordingly they choose using other criteria such as the scope of the claim and general newsworthiness, which in turn can create editorial policy which starts to distort the peer review process itself. Once a journal becomes addicted to making a big splash, it may feel inclined to cut corners on peer review for a study that seems personally relevant and particularly timely (such as an argument to the effect that lifestyle can’t prevent cancer around the time of the New Year).

        You might be interested in some of the coverage on Randy Schekman, the Nobel-prize-winning cell biologist who has criticized the top-tier multidisciplinary journals on both grounds: humdrum research desperate for a place in a ‘luxury’ journal and a non-scientist editorial staff which tries to select studies which will have high impact in the media:

        • Good reading…sums it all up. I started thinking critically when the punny headlines seemed to become mandatory. Science is not about market share.

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      Good points! Forgive my delay but if you have not seen this post by AICR and their response to the “bad luck” study feel it give a great explanation.

  • I wonder what would happen if the participants in the study went with all of the recommendations instead of just 5. Either way, 60% is a HUGE decrease. Diet is incredibly important for overall health and the prevention of disease :). Great video!

  • LG King


  • Tina

    I disagree with recommendation #8 – don’t use supplements. Their reasons are very shaky and are not based on any scientific evidence. I’m curious as to why they put that in there. Hmmm…

    • Alax Neiswonger

      “Foods first” has always been my motto. Supplements are not a quick and easy fix like everyone wants to believe. Taking too much can even be harmful. More research needs to be done before I’d recommend that.
      Here’s a quote from the news release of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on Oct 12:

      “In a trial that included about 35,000 men, those who were randomized to receive daily supplementation with vitamin E had a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer, according to a study in the October 12 issue of JAMA.”

  • Mari
  • Studente di Biologia.

    Hi, how come some of the least animal consuming countries in the world, like india have such a high prevalence of diabetis compared with the rest of the world and europe, Australia from what i’ve head has probably the highest meat consumption per capita in the world yet its dibetis rate is very very low.
    African countries like Sudan have some of the highest diabetes rates in the world and i doubt they eat much animal products at all.

    This is a 2014 map from the Internationa Diabetis Federation…..i’m a bit confused.

  • Carmo

    Soy and thyroid problems..NOT a good combination.