The reason I started this new diet is because my identical twin brother started it first, and he got excellent results. He didn't have allergies anymore, he didn't get sick much anymore(never for more than a day or 2 and very rarely), he got thinner(despite eating all of the stuff that mainstream health says makes you fat), got noticeably better skin, and he has more energy. Basically- the definition of good health.
But this is not a controlled experiment, so it's not science. No one is monitoring this rigorously. When people go on diets it's because they're in a mood to change their life. They usually make several other changes at the same time, not things you or anyone close to him would notice because you're not looking for them. Without a neutral observer you have no way of knowing whether his health improved because of the diet or because of something else he did that neither of you even realizes. I have spent three decades with a wife who has been on more diets than I can count, so I know whereof I speak.
This is what distinguishes science from just "fooling around and hoping it works."
First of all, mainstream cancer treatment options kill millions of people every year.
Cancer is (in the majority of cases) a fatal disease. The reason they call people who have lived for five years "survivors" is that they're not especially optimistic that they'll last another five years. So signing up for a risky treatment is just a gamble, a matter of personal choice: Sure, the treatment might kill me, but if it doesn't, I might live longer than I will otherwise.
But the risk must come with a potential benefit, or else it's stupid to take it. The treatment in question must have some evidence of potentially fighting the cancer--
scientific evidence, not the kind of majestic arm-waving evidence you're talking about with your brother's diet.
There's a multi-billion dollar conglomerate of industries trying to discredit the man.
This isn't the Soviet Union. Big Business may have a lot of power, but there are always voices speaking out freely in opposition. Which respected scientists have lined up on his side?
Besides, if anybody has died while in his treatment, don't you think there was an underlying cause for it- not the treatment itself.
What a strange question to ask on a science board! We're not supposed to jump to conclusions, we're supposed to
examine the evidence.
Be a proper scientist and start with Occam's Razor, one of the cornerstones of the scientific method: Test the simplest solutions first. The simplest solution to this question is that the treatment did indeed kill the patient. This does
not mean that it is the
correct answer, it just means that it's the
quickest and easiest to test. If it's the wrong answer you'll know quickly, and then you can spend more time testing the complicated answer. But if you start with the complicated answer first, it could take years to discover that it's wrong, and you've wasted all that time.
