For His Glory

Monday, February 7, 2011

The Old and the New Covenant: A Brief Study.

IT IS WRITTEN: 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”

The Covenants:

The covenant with Abram was 3 fold (Based on Genesis 15)

God promised him a son from his own loins
He (God) promised Abram descendants as the stars of the sky; uncountable
He promised them the land of Canaan a.k.a. “the promise land”

In this Genesis 15 God confirms this promise to Abram by “passing through the animals, i.e. staking His (God's) own life as the assurance that the promise will be true.

Genesis chapter 17: establishes in more detail other aspects of the covenant. There will be kings from the line of David. God calls for circumcision as an act of obedience. If they do not obey the covenant is broken. Exodus 34:28 establishes the Ten Commandments as the words of the covenant.

Exod 34:28 “So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”

Deut 4:13 once again establishes the Ten Commandments as His covenant Stipulations that what He spoke is His covenant.

“And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.”

God spoke the Ten Commandments. Contrast it with verse 14 and you see the difference between the Ten Commandments of God and the other laws God gave to Moses.

Deut 4:14 “And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.”

Deut 4:13	Deut 4:14
“And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.”	“And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.”

In verse 13 God declared to the entire people the ten commandments and then wrote them Himself on two tables of stone.

In verse 14 God commanded Moses to teach them statutes and judgments. Later we’ll see Moses wrote those himself.

Deut 5:2,3 Establishes the covenant with the nation, as opposed to the individual personalities, the fathers (by implication Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” with that current generation. Just like you and I do when we accept Christ and come into a covenant relationship with Christ.

Deut 7:9-11 Key verse is 11 notice how afterwards He speaks about the other laws as well but there is a distinction between the groups.

Deut 8:16-18 if you read the context we see a direct correlation that it is God who gives us the power to keep the covenant just like in Philippians 2:12, 13 Salvation has and always will be by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Deut 9:9, 11 & 15 Tables of the Covenant refers to the Ten Commandments

Verse 9	Verse 11	Verse 15
When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:	And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.	So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire: and the two tables of the covenant were in my two hands.

Deut 10:5 Establishes where the book of the law, given to Moses, was placed. Contrast the locations.

“Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.”

Note that the book of the law was placed in the side of the ark of the COVENANT, a.k.a the Ten Commandments.

Deut 29:20-21 tell us what the curses/punishments are for breaking the Ten Commandments/Covenant

2 Kings 18:12 & Jeremiah 11:3 and onward establishes later on in Israel’s history that the covenant is God’s words spoken at Mount Sinai.

2 Kgs 18:12 Because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them.

Jer 11:3 And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant,

Jeremiah 31:31ff refers to a new covenant but we shall see that the only thing that has changed is the location of the law; from tables of stone to the hearts of the people. The law remains the same; the Ten Commandments.

Jeremiah 31:35-37 & 33:19-26 God says His covenant will never cease as long as there are heavens and earth or day and night.

Luke 1:72 speaks of God remembering His Holy covenant, remember we have established it is His Ten Commandments.

Luke 22:20 The New Covenant spoken of in Jeremiah is instituted at the death of Jesus. The continual blood of bulls and goats replaced by, the once and for all time sacrifice of Jesus. Yet the commandments or covenant stipulations stay the same. Jeremiah 31:33

“But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

1 Corinthians 11:25 establishes that His Blood makes the covenant new. Cf. Jeremiah 31:31

1 Cor 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

2 Cor the entire chapter 3 the chapter must be understood by the fact that the law, is written in our hearts by the Spirit and that the sacrificial system is done away by Christ’s sacrifice. Verses 15 & 16 indicate that the old covenant had to do with Moses’ writing of the book, that stipulated the curses for breaking the law. However this chapter does included the ten commandments only in the sense that the Ten Commandments CANNOT AND NEVER COULD SAVE US! Paul is fighting people who thought the commandments can save us. ONLY JESUS CAN KEEP US FROM THE CURSE OF THE LAW BUT THE LAW STILL STANDS.

We need to look to Jesus who did away with the veil of separation. Now because of Jesus we can come boldly to the throne of grace, no longer needing an earthly priest on our behalf.

Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 7:22 Jesus makes the covenant better because it is based on HIS promises, not man's. And He remains forever and is perfect

Hebrews chapter 8 and onward summarize the changes from Old to New the covenants:

Old Covenant	New Covenant
Written on Tables of Stone	Written in our hearts
From blood of bulls and goats (needed daily/yearly)	To the blood of Jesus Christ (Sacrificed once and for all)
From earthly Sanctuary	To the heavenly Sanctuary
From promises of an earthly promised land	To a promise of a heavenly promised land
From earthly priests	To Jesus our heavenly High Priest

Both covenants still based on the Ten Commandments.

For example God wrote the Ten Commandments Himself, Moses wrote the book of the Law

God writes the same Ten Commandments in our hearts now.

The promise of the New Covenant is based in the Old Testament promise found in Jeremiah 31:31

Hebrews 10:9, 10 Jesus came to take away the continual need of sacrificing animals and once and for all made Himself the perfect Sacrifice.

Hebrews 13:20 indicates the covenant is eternal;

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord.

Revelation 11:19 states the ark of the covenant is in heaven; the covenant stipulations never changed; they were made better by Christ’s death and are still valid even when John is looking in vision to the last days.

Now those who try to say God’s eternal moral law is love are correct but lets see how God’s moral law is the same as the Ten Commandments.

“When Paul praises God’s Law as being “Holy, and Just, and Good,” and the Psalmist David exclaims that “The law of the Lord is Perfect,” we learn from the Pen of Inspiration that God’s moral Law of Ten Commandments is no mere checklist of rules! It’s a TRANSCRIPT of God’s character, reflecting its divine Author in every respect. Compare the attributes of God with inspired descriptions of His law:

God Is:	ATTRIBUTE	God’s LAW Is:
1 Peter 1:16; Isaiah 6:3	Holy	Romans 7:12
Revelation 15:3; Deuteronomy 32:4	Just	Romans 7:12
Psalm 25:8; Luke 18:19	Good	Romans 7:12
Psalm 11:7	Righteous	Psalm 119:172
1 John 4:8 & 16	Love	Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:8-10
Deuteronomy 32:4	Truth	Psalm 119:142, 151
1 John 3:3	Pure	Psalm 19:8
1 John 4:24	Spiritual	Romans 7:14
Malachi 3:6	Unchangeable	Matthew 5:18
Matthew 5:48	Perfect	Psalm 19:7
Psalm 90:2	Everlasting	Psalm 111: 7-8

God’s Law of Ten Commandments is an expression of His thought, an embodiment of His very Nature! Therefore, we should no more expect it to be changed than we’d expect God to change. It is written:

1. God says, “I am the Lord, I change not.” Malachi 3:6

2. He is “the Father of lights, with whom is NO variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James 1:17

3. “Jesus Christ is the SAME yesterday, today, and forever.” Hebrews 13:8

May this brief study be of help to you.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Epigenetics: Taking Comfort In Our Genes

For years we have been taught that our genes are determined and that the diseases we develop are the result of bad genes. There seems to be nothing we can do but just accept our fate and hope someone finds a cure for the diseases we inherit. We have even taken a sort of perverse comfort in this, throwing up our hands and saying that it is not our fault. There is really nothing we could have done differently to avoid our diseases. But is this really comforting? Would it not be more comforting if we could affect our genes in such a way to prevent the development of disease?

Darwin introduced the idea that genes take millions of years to change based on natural selection. Genes are supposedly set in stone and produce whatever disease or beneficial trait that they encode and cannot be changed, at least by the inheritor. While we as Christians who believe in a Biblical creation do not accept Darwin’s millions-of-years idea, we have all been influenced by his thinking that the gene and gene product cannot be changed except by natural selection and changes in the gene pool.

However, scientists are discovering that while genes themselves do not seem to change, what a gene produces is highly influenceable so that even if you have certain genetic weaknesses or programming, given the right conditions, you do not have to express those genes. That is, certain genes seem to be able to be turned on or off based on our choices.

This field of research, called epigenetics, had its beginnings in northern Sweden where the winters are harsh and the growing season can be either extremely abundant or very bleak. The data collected from generations of families who lived here during these conditions has shown that abundance versus near starvation can turn on or off certain genes and lead to disease or early death in the grandchildren of those who experienced these conditions. A couple of examples: grandchildren of those who experience near starvation in childhood had more trouble with obesity and diabetes, grandchildren of those who experienced years of plenty and overate lived significantly shorter lives.

Another example of changing gene expression is that of agouti mice, born with a yellow coat and a genetic defect that results in obesity and diabetes. These mice while pregnant can be fed a special diet rich in B vitamins that turns their bad genes off so that their offspring, while born with the same genetic defect do not express it but instead are born brown, slender mice that have no weight problem or diabetes.

Even the genetic expression of brain function can be changed, it seems. Epigenetic studies have been done with mice that have a genetic memory problem. These mice have been exposed to an enriched environment with toys, games, and more stimulation and interaction, and their memories have shown some improvement. However their offspring, while having the same genetics, have displayed improved memory without any added stimulation which seems to be the result of the stimulation of their parents.

Data is also being collected on identical twins which have the same DNA and should also have the same epigenetic marks. However, scientists are finding that one twin will develop a genetic disease later in life and another will not. We still have much to learn but it seems possible that our individual choices in our own lifetime may turn on or off certain genes so that the gene expression of twins with the same genes diverge as they make different choices in life.

Our human genetic code, called DNA, is a set of code that consists of about 25,000 genes, mapped by the Human Genome Project. That code produces proteins that have certain functions in the body. Epigenetic marks are the marks above the DNA that tell it how to express that code. This is necessary since every cell has the same DNA code, yet each tissue expresses it in different ways so that we have a body with many functions and different parts such as skin cells, hair cells, brains cells, and hearts cells. We do not yet know the total number of epigenetic marks but it is estimated to be in the millions. Once complete, the Human Epigenome Project is predicted to make the Human Genome Project look “like homework that 15th century kids did with an abacus (1)”

In Time magazine’s article on Epigenetics, the author concludes that there is good news and bad news to these new findings. The bad news, he says, is that bad lifestyle choices can have bad effects on our children and grandchildren, while the good news is that epigenetic scientists will be working on drugs that can target these specific epigenetic marks to combat the problems we cause by our bad choices (1). Wow! Is it just me or is there something missing in this logic? When I read that I felt like there was an elephant in the room that no one wanted to acknowledge. While it surely is bad news that our offspring will suffer from our bad choices, what I see here is good news in that if we change our lifestyle and make good choices our offspring will benefit and perhaps we can eliminate entire diseases from future generations of our family tree by creating good lifestyle habits. Can you imagine how thankful our children and grandchildren would be to not struggle with the genetic predisposition to obesity, diabetes, some forms of heart disease, or certain genetically linked cancers? Once again, medicine and science continue to look for answers to our poor lifestyle choices not by changing our lifestyle but by inventing a drug so we can continue to make the same poor choices and not reap the same consequences. Well I don’t really think it is going to work. That is just too simplistic of an approach. With millions of epigenetic marks that affect our 25,000 genes why don’t we stop trying to find the magic pill and start making good lifestyle choices? I think it makes a lot more sense.

1. Cloud, John. “Why Your DNA Isn’t Your Destiny.” Time Magazine. Jan 6, 2010.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951968-1,00.html

2. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigenetics.html

--------------------------- The information on this site is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. All content, including text, graphics, images and information, contained on or available through this web site is for general information purposes only. For His Glory makes no representation and assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of information contained on or available through this web site, and such information is subject to change without notice. You are encouraged to confirm any information obtained from or through this web site with other sources, and review all information regarding any medical condition or treatment with your physician. NEVER DISREGARD PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ADVICE OR DELAY SEEKING MEDICAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF SOMETHING YOU HAVE READ ON OR ACCESSED THROUGH THIS WEB SITE. For His Glory does not recommend, endorse or make any representation about the efficacy, appropriateness or suitability of any specific tests, products, procedures, treatments, services, opinions, health care providers or other information that may be contained on or available through this web site. FOR HIS GLORY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE NOR LIABLE FOR ANY ADVICE, COURSE OF TREATMENT, DIAGNOSIS OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION, SERVICES OR PRODUCTS THAT YOU OBTAIN THROUGH THIS WEB SITE.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Homosexuality: Predispositions

I recently had a conversation with my sister and her boyfriend on the topic of homosexuality and whether or not one is born gay or chooses to be gay. What do you believe? Are homosexuals born with same sex attraction or do they choose to be attracted to the same sex? The topic intrigues me because as a minister I have to be prepared to give an answer according to the word of God. Many churches are being asked to answer these types of questions. As I contemplated on the conversation this is what I believe the word of God has to say.

I personally believe sin has caused certain people to be born with a gay predisposition. It is sin and not God that has caused all predispositions to evil. Nevertheless God’s word promises everyone the power to change our sinful nature/predispositions.[1]

How then do I explain that many who claim to be gay say, “They have always known they were gay and God made me that way.” I believe I have a probable, plausible, persuasive and biblical explanation. Yet before we begin I build on the premise that the Bible clearly condemns a homosexual lifestyle.[2] With that being said I go on to my explanation.

We are all born with certain predispositions/temptations to sin for our natures are sinful[3]. To some food may be their vice, to others money, to others still it is a predisposition/temptation to lie, towards laziness, towards lust, the list is endless. I personally know men whose predisposition is to have many sexual partners. However a person’s disposition/temptations do not justify his/her actions when they contradict the word of God and this is where homosexuality enters the mix.

If we examine our lives carefully we all have certain temptations that strike each of us “closer to home.” Satan is always trying to find in us the path of least resistance and we all have those avenues we need to guard. Yet we also have avenues Satan does not seem fit to tempt us with. For example the enemy never tempts me with alcohol because he would be wasting his time. Nothing in me is in the least bit tempted on that avenue. The same goes for homosexuality that does not resonate with me. Yet there are individuals that it does and this is where Satan attacks.

Temptations[4] are real. Gay and straight people are both severely tempted. Yet temptations should not justify sinful choices. Nevertheless temptations are powerful. Early on Satan begins to whisper to a child that they ought to be gay. Any sign of giving in to that suggestion will be followed up by more gay suggestions. Satan will beat that temptation like a drum until it seems the constant temptations are who we are “supposed” to be. Combine that with society now applauding gay behavior and certain ministers coming out and you have the excuse there desire crave[5]. However, that tempted individual should continue to resist the temptation to gay behavior because it violates the direct teachings of the Bible. If you read the scriptures the Bible condemns the action of homosexuality not the temptation/predisposition towards it. Just like a husband is not condemned as an adulterer simply because he was tempted to it, the condemnation comes when he gives in to the temptation/predisposition and does not repent.[6]

Condemnation for giving into temptations applies both to gay and straight individuals. A heterosexual young man engaging in premarital sex[7] is condemned as well. Yet some would say, “at least a heterosexual young man has the hope of marriage, gays are told to live solo for life.” That may be the case but wouldn’t you rather obey God and allow His grace to sustain you[8]? Living without sexual intimacy could be part of God’s calling on your life. Jesus, Paul, and others[9] have done so for the sake of the gospel. We are all born with a predisposition to certain temptations yet giving into them is not the solution; trusting God’s word is the answer.

Heterosexual men and women should not give in to their temptation to premarital sex. Thieves should not give in to their temptation to steal. Pedophiles should not give in to their temptation to molest. A spouse tempted to commit adultery should not give in to their temptation to an extramarital affair. We are not to carry out every predisposition we are tempted to, simply because we are tempted. We are called to “crucify the flesh with its passions and desires”[10] We have been given the power of choice and the grace of God to empower that choice.

We all have been called to carry our cross[11] and you might feel celibacy is one you cannot bare yet God can give you the strength to endure all things.

“No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.” 1 Corinthians 10:13

[1] Romans chapter 6 and 2 Cor. 5:17

[2] Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26, 27

[3] Romans 7:14 …but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

[4] 1 Cor. 10:13

[5] James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

[6] John 3:19-21

[7] Hebrews 13:4

[8] 2 Corinthians 12:9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness."

[9] Matthew 19:12 ...and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.

[10] Galatians 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

[11] Luke 14:27 "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Cancer and Nutrition

The purpose of this article is to present encouraging evidence regarding cancer prevention which also may be integrated into a plan for cancer treatment. You and your physician work as a team and need enough evidence to make informed decisions.

You won’t commonly hear this from the medical profession, and there are several reasons for this. One reason is that physicians receive very little nutrition instruction in medical school. Hence, most nutrition instruction in our society comes from the media and government organizations which are both heavily influenced by big industry and government lobbies. Unfortunately this represents a serious conflict of interest.

A second reason the medical profession is often silent on true prevention is that physicians tend to be focused on symptoms. We as physicians are taught to think about the underlying cause of disease, but in practice we get very used to treating symptoms with a pill or surgery. In cancer treatment there especially tends to be a disconnect when it comes to thinking about treating the cause. Most physicians tend to view cancer as a local disease that needs to be surgically removed, unless it spreads; then if it spreads, each of those components needs to be destroyed either by radiation or chemotherapy. It may seem logical to focus on a medication cure since antibiotics cure infection, and thus it would be natural to hope a medication could cure every disease.

A third reason you do not hear about nutrition and lifestyle is that there is no financial gain in this method for the researchers. The major drug companies fund most of our research. They do not profit from, nor fund, lifestyle education—they profit from drugs, so that is what they fund. Medicine is a business, like anything else, and has been greatly influenced by the drug business, and the drug-influenced research which it has produced.

A final reason diet and lifestyle as prevention or treatment is not discussed by most physicians is that it does not seem like a pleasant option, because it is not a quick fix like a pill or surgery but instead a complete lifestyle change. Physicians are paid little for the time it takes to teach and motivate. When they do take the time to teach proper lifestyle it can be disheartening because most patients tend to believe what the media says and what they have heard all their lives over what the doctor says.

However, research on the link of nutrition and lifestyle to cancer is significant. Many do not want to acknowledge the studies because they are not the ideal study of the medical profession which is the double-blind randomized placebo controlled trial. I agree that this is the ideal study design, but there are many treatments that cannot be blinded because it would be impossible, such as certain types of surgery, and yet we still have respect for these interventions. There are also things we cannot perfectly study since we cannot randomize people to certain things because of ethics, or because the study subjects are unwilling. But that does not mean the research done should be ignored.

There have been numerous studies over the years linking diet to cancer. The most extensive review of all these individual studies was seen in the following:

Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: a global perspective, released by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and the American Institute of Cancer Research (AICR) in 1997. This report by a panel of experts chaired by Dr John Potter based its findings on over 4,500 credible scientific studies, and details patterns of diet and cancer throughout the world and examines the effects of various aspects of diet on 18 cancer sites. From these studies the above panel concluded the following to be obvious:

Vegetable and fruit consumption is associated with lower risk of cancer at almost every site
Alcohol is highly detrimental for cancers of many sites (not just the liver)
Meat and animal fats are detrimental.

Some of the most significant and recent research is from the China Study, recognized as the largest epidemiological (population study) study ever done (called the Grand Prix of Epidemiology by the New York Times). This study, lasting over 20 years surveyed the diets of the Chinese people in various regions and the diseases in those same regions. While they found thousands of correlations, in general what they found regarding cancer was that meat and dairy intake were directly related to cancer. That is, the areas that ate more meat and dairy had more cancer, and to a predictable degree. Likewise studies have shown that when individuals moved from an area of low cancer risk to an area of high cancer risk, within two generations they had the same cancer risk of the area to which they moved.

Another interesting study was done by Dr Campbell prior to his work on the China Study, in which he injected aflatoxin, a known carcinogen linked to liver cancer, into rats, then fed them varying levels of animal or plant protein diets. What he found was that the rats fed virtually no animal protein did not grow tumors, while those fed more animal protein had more and faster growing tumors. When fed plant protein at any level the rats did not grow tumors and when those with tumors were fed a diet at any level of plant protein (and no animal protein) the tumors largely arrested growth or regressed.

To be fair, there have been studies that have shown no benefit on cancer from adding plant foods to the diet, but these studies in general have had so little difference in the animal protein and plant components that they can not be considered a fair test. It would be like studying the difference in lung cancer caused by smoking filtered cigarettes compared to regular cigarettes and upon seeing no difference claiming that cigarettes are not harmful at all. Hardly a fair conclusion!

We can clearly see that current research implicates lifestyle and diet as major contributors to cancer. Particularly, animal protein seems to be at least a significant cofactor that allows cancer to grow, while plant foods inhibit this growth. While there are many possible causes of cancer such as radiation, chemicals, toxins, viruses, and genetics, perhaps it is not so simple as an outside source invading us and taking over, or simply the inheritance of bad genetics over which we have no control. We are complex creatures and cannot afford to ignore the interaction of our own physiology with cancer and also with everything we do and eat and even think. So the most logical approach would be to think carefully about the fuel we put in our bodies, one of our most intimate interactions with our environment. Does it matter what we put in a car for fuel? Would it run as well with water or corn oil or ketchup? How much more important what we put in our bodies! How can we worry about the environment around us and how it impacts our health (a valid concern) and yet not worry about what we put in our bodies? Cancer is complex and I will not try to make it out to be simple. What we need is to take a comprehensive approach to prevention and treatment by curbing behaviors that contribute to the development of cancer and starting new behaviors that help prevent it or increase the body’s natural abilities to fight it.

Now for a word about the cancer industry. There are many great doctors and individuals working hard to solve the problem that is cancer. And they are very sincere, but despite the best of intentions research does not support that we are “winning the war” on cancer. While there have been individual treatments that have been introduced showing some benefit, treatment outcomes for most cancers really have not changed much in years. Outcomes that have changed can quite possibly be attributed to earlier screening plus the fact that all “cure” outcomes are based on 5-year survival, so that if you get screened earlier there is a good chance you will live longer regardless of treatment. And also keep in mind that the benefit of cancer treatment drugs are usually presented in terms of relative numbers which sound significantly better than the absolute numbers. An example of this is a study done with 1000 participants, half of which are put on a treatment drug X. If 2 people are expected to get a disease and now with drug X they find that only 1 person gets the disease, that is a 50% improvement with the drug, whereas the absolute benefit is only 1/1000. This is statistical terminology that most people do not understand that could make the treatment sound better than it is in reality.

What I have argued for is diet and lifestyle as prevention of cancer, which a large amount of evidence supports, but I also want to argue that diet and lifestyle should be at least part of treatment for cancer. Admittedly I have no solid evidence for this based on double blind randomized human studies because there are no large scale studies of this nature for treatment of cancer. So in making this argument all I have to go on are five things: (1) cancer risk is highly associated with diet; (2) in animal studies growth of cancer has been affected dramatically by dietary change, especially showing growth with animal protein, and showing arrest or even reversal with a plant based diet; (3) there have been numerous case studies in which individuals have had resolution of their cancer by dietary and lifestyle change; (4) traditional chemo and radiation, in terms of absolute numbers, is still not that great. I’m not saying that you should not take chemo or radiation, since this is a personal choice you make along with your physician, but I do think you should thoroughly understand the benefits and side effects of such treatment, and get the absolute numbers to help you make your decision. And I do worry that we try to fight cancer with treatments that destroy our immune system, which could help us fight it (chemo) or treatments that tend to create cancer (radiation). (5) Finally, adding proper diet as a component of cancer therapy will certainly not harm and it very well might help.

I do have hope that some day the medical profession, my profession, may catch the vision of lifestyle prevention and treatment of disease. If they do, it will not be because of any financial gain, and it will take much effort and years of swimming against the flow of the drug companies, big food industries and government lobbyists which influence government policies and education. For now I feel that I cannot ethically wait to share this information with you, for the motto of my profession is this: “FIRST, DO NO HARM.”

References

1. Melina, M.S., R.D., and Davis, R.D. Becoming Vegan, 2000: 26-27

2. Campbell and Campbell II. The China Study, 2006.

3. Anderson. Healing Cancer From Inside Out, 2009.