Tragic, but before commenting consider:
http://strawpoll.me/5755156

While i wouldnt wish cancer upon anyone, i wouldnt actually really miss the blubbering idiot

He's far from an idiot. He actually stands for something, doesn't take any bullshit and does what he loves. Doesn't seem like an idiot to me. If he does succumb to the cancer, it will be really sad.

[-]

Fuck off shitcunt

Charming

He's still one of the last people in gaming to deserve this and one of the few big media personalities that actually care for the consumer.

as i stated nobody deserves this awfull disease not a fan of his videos thats all.

Haven't you learned anything boy, when someone is about to die, we act all compassionate and take the moral high ground, even if the person we're now appreciating is the same bloke that we used to bash a week ago, prior to knowing he's about to die.

Like all those confused 14 year old facebook kids shouting how they want Bieber dead, but as soon as that fuckhead hits a truck on a highway and gets his head split up, each and everyone one of them would be like "oh he was actually quite talented, RIP benben, u will be miss"


Although TB is a cool guy in my book, but I just wanted to comment that I notice people being really too faced when it comes to someone dying on the interneters.

Im sorry that im no hypocrite.

tldr


*two

That's because next to being a video maker (or "singer" in Bieber's case) he is also a human being. In the end the latter still outweighs the first, and that is not a bad thing.

I can hate someone for his profession or opinion, but that does not mean that that person stops being a human being to me. Unless I am a sociopath in the first place or whatever. What the heck am I even explaining here #autismonesr

This is really sad news, I hope he can make the best out of his remaining time. While I know how he must be feeling I can only imagine how hard this news hit his girlfriend and family.

Just sucks how he has a family and a pretty good life and then something like cancer has to pop up. Really unfortunate.

I actually watched a lot of this guys vids .

He makes videos called 'WTF Is...' on youtube and reviews games that look interesting.

Seems like a good guy. I really hope he can beat this.

Radical diet change and daily exercise with no exceptions, and he'll have a solid chance. There are foods which fuel cancer (90% of what your average supermarket sells), and there are foods which fight cancer (the other 10%).

solid chance? the cancer spread to his liver. he has a chance but it doesnt look that great...

i was never a fan of his but hes a good guy with quality content benefiting the gaming scene.

feelsbadman

Yea that worked so well for Steve Jobs indeed.

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2011nl/nov/jobs.htm

That was sarcasm.

Didn't seem like it but yea whatever.

Beside of that, the writer concludes that Job's vegan diet did not cause his cancer which is not the same at all as it preventing cancer or even killing it. That is the whole point of the article.

Random article on the internet must definitely be true and totally scientific.

I know exactly where you're coming from, I do take random articles with a grain of salt, or rather a bucket of salt. However this isn't one, you should look up who Dr. McDougall is.

It doesn't matter who he is, because truth cannot be based on authority. He doesn't provide or link to any scientific data supporting his claims in this article. Some of his claims in the article are just pulled out of his ass. For example, definite and undoubdting "Lead (Pb) and Other Carcinogens from Computers Caused Jobs’ Cancer" headline.

His website is just selling commercial products and describes the effects of his diets as personal anecdotes not backed up by scientific research. Most current research actually is in favour of low carbs diet, which is pretty much the opposite of what this doctor proposes. Who to believe? His anecdotes or scientific studies?

If his diet is so cool and cures many diseases that researchers are struggling to find cure for, then why doesn't he publish any papers? Why other doctors don't start following his approach?

His website is just selling commercial products and describes the effects of his diets as personal anecdotes not backed up by scientific research. Most current research actually is in favour of low carbs diet, which is pretty much the opposite of what this doctor proposes. Who to believe? His anecdotes or scientific studies?

Actually a plant-based high carb diet is backed up by an enormous amount of scientific studies. I'm not going to get into a pointless 1on1 dietary argument though. Just do your own research. Watching Forks Over Knives is a good start.
There are dozens of other doctors who support and apply the dietary plant-based approach. I'll name a few notable examples for you:
Neal Barnard - focuses on reversing diabetes
T. Colin Campbell - China Study
Caldwell Esselstyn - heart disease specialist
Kim A. Williams - president of the American College of Cardiology
Michael Klaper
Michael Greger - from nutritionfacts.org, recommend checking out his channel, amazing information. all he does is process studies into youtube clips and also gives public speeches.
The scientific evidence is overwhelming, you just have to do your research - I have.

You are referring to movies, people and websites, not scientific research papers where results of experiments are published. Nothing that you suggested can be considered as a scientific source.

I have already made my research based on articles in medical journals and came to certain conclusions. You can continue to make your research based on websites and youtube clips and stick to your conclusions.

EDIT: I just randomly watched some video from nutritionfacts about how egg consumption increases risk of type 2 diabetes, and in addition to studies which confirm what's said in video I could easily find many studies which had the opposite results (decrease of t2d with egg consumption), so at least we can say that the relation is currently not definite and probably depends on other factors than just pure egg consumption, but for some reason video author decided to take one-sided view and hide everything else from the viewers. Just FYI. Amazing information for you, some shady manipulation with data designed to look authoritative for some others.

Nothing that you suggested can be considered as a scientific source.

Now you're just being dense in order to try and discredit my sources of information and make it seem less valid than yours. I have just told you that, for example Dr. Greger makes short clips summarizing data gathered from scientific studies. Not too difficult to understand I hope? Documentaries also just summarize information into a more easily digestible form for the viewer, that doesn't mean they can't be based on facts/science. All these people still work with peer-reviewed data, and/or get their own data using the scientific method.
Seems like you just want to shut it out and shrug it off and pretend it's less valid than your information, or somehow un-scientific, but that's simply not true. Like I said, start by watching Forks Over Knives, featuring Esselstyn and Campbell, and read Campbell's China Study, the largest dietary study in history. IF you are actually interested in this topic.

I'd also like to point out that peer-reviewed material isn't necessarily the be all end all as it is not exempt from corruption, and can often be misinterpreted, or for example have a very low subject sample size.
So, what are your conclusions, and based on what? I am really curious, since you claim that research is in favor of low carb. Which I of course fundamentally disagree with. Since carbohydrates are the most efficient and main source of energy for our body, moreover, excess fat and protein have been shown to cause various health problems long term - this IS based on scientific data. I have never witnessed low carb being health-promoting and sustainable IN THE LONG TERM. It is usually a fad diet - all of them being a variation of Atkins(RIP, make sure to check out his autopsy report that his widow tried to cover up) - usually goes hand-in-hand with calorie restriction, use of stimulants, supplements, and the marketing of these items. And obviously, promised rapid short-term weight loss that is of course not going to be healthy nor sustainable. I am actually vegan, so I kind of walk my talk and have first-hand experience, just to be clear, also have been researching nutrition for many years.
But feel free to show me your research that indicates low carb diets being healthy and sustainable long term, I am really looking forward to it. Oh and by the way, we're talking strictly health considerations here. When it comes to low carb, the ethical AND the environmental aspects take it to a whole new level of unsustainability - but that's for a different discussion.

In the meantime, since you tried discrediting my information, I'll give you just a couple of links to, you know, peer-reviewed scientific data, that show the adverse effects of a low carb diet.

To make an objective choice you need to search not only for articles that support your opinion, but also for ones that contradict it. I don't see where in that list are articles that say carbs are bad, etc. Is it because your search returned zero results or is it because you take one sided view and afraid to see what the opposition has to say?

Like I said, feel free to show me your research on low carb being healthy and sustainable long term. While at it, you can also show me why 'carbs are bad, etc.' Otherwise I'm done here.

I am not here to change your opinion. If you found a paper about an experiment of looking at horizon and concluding that it's a straight line, and you think that it is enough to conclude that Earth is flat and there is no need to search for reports of circumnavigation or photos from space, then okay, it's your problem.

I don't need to show you anything, because if you aren't searching for it yourself, then you have no goal of objectivity and I can't help you with that. I can only recommend to take this approach: if you want to truly convince yourself of something, first try to convince yourself of the opposite and prove that it's impossible.

BTW, thanks for the links, I will be definitely examining those articles.

Of course you want to shape opinions, otherwise you wouldn't be here, commenting. I'm sorry but your horizon example is a false equivalency, that's not comparable to these dietary researches.

You said, I quote:

Most current research actually is in favour of low carbs diet

So, it would be easier if you just cited your sources for that conclusion, and get this over with, but you're not gonna do that, are you? Why not? I can only guess.
No, you'd rather play these games. First my sources were not scientific, and now that I've shared some of those which point out the adverse effects of low carb - which I had specifically said I'd do - now I'm somehow not objective enough. That's a strawman. You made a claim and it's on you to deliver, not on me. It's not like I began my research with a biased stance towards any one diet, absolutely not the case. If anything, I disliked vegans initially, probably because they made me uncomfortable intellectually. No, but It's simply been such a long time, that by now I know what works and know what's bullshit. I'm in contact with dozens of other vegans providing me with anecdotal evidence, which has great value TO ME personally, it is NOT there to replace science, but to complement it.

Here, doing your job for you, I've just found this: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/...85967697f7

Higher egg intake was associated with a lower risk of T2D in this cohort of middle-aged and older men.

Not gonna hold my breath though, since the egg industry has been doing a tremendous job to bullshit people and stay on top of business. Maybe it's true, who knows. The problem is, it doesn't fucking matter, for several reasons, one being that we already know that the saturated fat and cholesterol in eggs are harmful. Eggs are fucking disgusting, unethical, and unhealthy. Of course I'm not going to actively search for health benefits of animal products, I'm way past that point, but that does NOT mean I lack objectivity. That's my point.
I'm not even gonna go into detail on why eggs are horrible on every level. Here, somebody has recently made a great summary about it and I recommend everyone to check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utPkDP3T7R4

Keep making those vegan gains

I just ate 4 peppered and salted hard boiled eggs with a delicious buttered bread (even tho I'll turn into a farting machine after eating dairy products :( ). Additionally I had two cups of pure black coffee probably handpicked by some underpayed Ethiopian child XD

Am I going to die now?! Is this morally reprehensible? Guess I'll have to sin in hell. Fml. Anyway it was fucking good tho. Keep eating grass XD

Okay.

Btw. great study from the 80s. I bet eggs were the major cause for them 2000 grandpa fins to have bad blood levels :DDDD.

How do people like you and gstructor turn into nutjobs? Is it infantile brain damage, the lack of proper education coz third wolrd country?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-berardi-ph...99583.html

Check the studies in the linked post. What do I believe now?
Certainly not some grass eating vegan faggot like you)
And how come my blood levels are completely fine even tho I eat up to 15 eggs per week? I know morally wrong poor animals yadayada.

Wow, you're a prick.

I've already seen that article. It's entirely based on one study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23021013 - which was done on a handful of subjects who had metabolic syndrome. It means very little.

If you try to spite me by telling me what you had for lunch, then you'll need a new strategy. I've been dealing with hateful and ignorant individuals like yourself on a daily basis, you don't phase me in the slightest. You're in the Denial/Anger stage, and that's ok, it's better than apathy. :)

You shouldn't need stimulants to function.

So, it would be easier if you just cited your sources for that conclusion, and get this over with, but you're not gonna do that, are you? Why not? I can only guess.

Maybe because I don't care that much about you and can't bother to spend more than a couple of minutes for this topic?

You made a claim and it's on you to deliver, not on me.

My claim is that I made a conclusion for myself that low carb diet is the best. It's not my mission to prove it to you. It's not my trouble if you're not convinced. Actually, I might be completely wrong and you might turn out to be correct! I just want to point that you seem extremely biased to me and it's really strange that before you put a list of actually scientific articles, you tried to advertise some very anti-scientific sites which just try to push certain opinion, picking only data that support their views and ignoring all other. And some of them even go as far as to make extraordinary claims that their diet cures some diseases, which from current scientific view are incurable. Surely if you were objective you'd notice that they're highly biased and never used those sites as an example of good sources.

Of course I'm not going to actively search for health benefits of animal products

Okay, then at least search for possible adverse effects of the diet you are eating. Don't you agree that it's important to check not only for good effects of your diet, but also see if it causes some bad effects?

Most current research actually is in favour of low carbs diet

Study from 1980 to 2006 on ~130.000 participants, full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989112/

Conclusion:

"A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates."

It's a comparison of two low-carb diets, and one is better than another, so?

Doesn't really matter that the other one is 'low carb' as well, they put the emphasis on comparing animal fat and protein vs. plant-based fat and protein - that's the point.
When you use the term low carb in a real world situation, that means animal products.

You have strange interpretation of "low carb". In my world, low carb means "low carb".

Uh, no, I'm talking about real life vs. you riding semantics and daydreaming about low carbers who live on avocados, nuts, and seeds. The reality is, low carb = meat, dairy, eggs in 99% of the cases.

Still waiting for your research data btw that favours low carb. I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

I did not check your article but the part you quoted together with the 130.000 participants (so obviously not a lab experiment) showed that a plant-based low carb diet is quite possible in real life? Unless the groups (animals vs plant-based) were of very unequal size.

Of course it's possible(avocados, nuts, seeds, cooking with a lot of oil, and then some whole grains and veggies, you still keep overall high fat/higher protein - and almost nobody eats high fat vegan like this), just very uncommon, as most plants are simply high carb, so you go out of your way to do it. Carbs are also a much more efficient source of energy than fat, so there's no reason to do it. p4r4 is just being dense like last time around, missing the point deliberately.
Again, the emphasis was on comparing animal fat/protein vs. plant fat/protein, hence their choice. The plant group could've been any macro ratios, it simply doesn't matter.
When anybody uses the term low carb, they mean a Fatkins or Fatkins variation diet - meat, dairy, eggs - of course that's gonna be my interpretation. When p4r4 said low carb, he sure as hell didn't mean those 10 high fat vegans that may exist somewhere in the world. Just google low carb meal plan or something like that, lemme know if you find one without animal products, lmao.

Ok I read that article now and there are not really groups. Instead, every person was assigned an animal-based low carb score and a plant-based low carb score (and an overall one). The scores are all relative to the rest of the cohort it seems. So I am not sure how low carb the people with a high vegetable low carb score actually are (which was the discussion between you two I guess?).

But this is the relevant part here:

Low-carbohydrate diets from animal and vegetable sources may have similar major macronutrient content, but the source of the macronutrients can result in large differences in dietary components that may affect mortality, such as specific fatty acids, protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals, and phytochemicals. Therefore, the associations that we observed are more likely to be mediated by these bioactive components rather the carbohydrate content.

Also the results were mixed for the different types of cancer etc and it might be that if you just avoid large amounts of red meat for example you will be fine.

A good diet and exercise don't work alone but help a LOT.
You don't need to be a doctor, that's just common sense.

They work on lowering the risk to get cancer in the first place. They do not work to actively kill existing cancer cells. Quake is potat referred to the latter.

More like the other way around, imo... e.g. sugar feeds cancer.
And, obviously, if you got a 3rd stage metastasis, raw peppers can't save you.

Sugar feeds all cells and research is mixed on whether or not running a low-carb diet slows down(!) cancer cell growth. Which would be awesome on its own of course, but is by no means a cure.

If you got valid sources stating that cancer cell growth can actually be stopped or even reversed using a low-carb diet, feel free to share.

Well, cancer cells have a fast metabolism and, thus, require more sugar (as you said, all tissues which require high energy) and that's all. My point is there's some correlation between large amount of sugar and risk of diabetes, obesity (which both increase the risk of getting cancer) and some digestive apparatus cancers.
And yes, results on low-carb diets are mixed, I was just trying to say that eating healty food cannot be bad.
My point is to avoid any food which contains too much sugar and cancerogens (even if not ill).

From what I read, the correlation is mainly due to sugar causing obesity.
Sugar can cause obesity
Obesity can cause cancer
-> Sugar intake correlates with cancer

So yes, limiting your sugar intake is a good idea in general and a cancer patient who ate shit before will profit from a healthy diet just like any "normal" person.

But there is no evidence saying that going from an already healthy diet to a no-carb diet will kill your cancer and heal you.

Sadly you have people like gstructor who mix everything up and people who believe it die because they think they do not need meds if they just stop eating flour and sugar. It does not mean that those people are dumb, they are just scared of chemotherapy and try to make up a way for them to avoid it.

I know of at least two cases where people died because they relied on some guru. When they decided to finally get a medical treatment, it was too late. That is why I find it important to be honest and clear about what helps and what doesn't.

But there is no evidence saying that going from an already healthy diet to a no-carb diet will kill your cancer and heal you.

asyyy, I'm the typical italian who loves pasta and pizza... how could I even think of a low-carb diet ?
EDIT: that said, i don't like coffee enemas :)

pretty sure there is no chance for him at this point.

...seriously?

Sorry but this sounds too much like GStructor babble.

smoke da blunt and eat healthy fights cancer like nothing man

[citation needed]

Okay. If you know that what you're saying is true, then tell me which substance in the food that fights cancer binds to which protein in a cancer cell and what conformation changes it causes to "fight" it. Or if it indirectly asks on cancer cells, then tell me which proteins it acts directly on. If you don't know, then why do you yourself think it's true that it fights cancer?

Try to eat boiled vegetables and meat while on chemo, then tell me which one you're gonna barf.

Lots of meats cause it, especially red-meat.

It's why I consume mostly beans and white fish for my protein sources.

Sort of a vegan/vegetarian hybrid.

You don't need nearly as much protein as you think you do, it's simply not possible to have too little protein unless you're not getting enough calories aka starving.
Fish are loaded with mercury and other contaminants, and the practices fuck up our oceans too, not to mention the general pollution in the first place. And it's still animal fat and protein. You're better off without it.

"You don't need nearly as much protein as you think you do, it's simply not possible to have too little protein unless you're not getting enough calories aka starving."

Every person is different and the amount varies depending on a person's intensity of training. I've always made the best gains from following close to 1.5 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight, yet I know people who need much less than I do and are still making gains steadily.

I agree that a lot of the fish you buy is mercury contaminated, that's why I pay close attention to the fish that I do buy for that reason.

"And it's still animal fat and protein. You're better off without it. "

Let's be fair, everything you eat, even fruits and vegetables have been tampered by man. You'll never eat the best of anything, even if it's organic as the soils were by far a higher quality decades ago than they are now. Exercise is the key and your body will adapt to any kind of food you throw at it (within moderation).

Every person is different and the amount varies depending on a person's intensity of training.

Not that different to need huge amounts of protein :) and that's the thing, IF you are very active you will be eating higher calories, and hence total protein will be higher. Like I said if you're not starving, there's no need to worry about protein at all. There's never been a case of protein deficiency, ever.
This video references a study on protein intake of different dietary groups: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m4p8s7xskQ

I've always made the best gains from following close to 1.5 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight

There are a lot of factors to gains, that's just your perception which doesn't necessarily mean you require that amount. 1.5g is way overkill. Check out this article: http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1...ybuilders/
Conclusion is 0.82g/lb as an upper limit safe number so probably less than that. Studies are referenced at the bottom. And don't forget, the #1 thing that fuels this myth is supplement sales, it's just business man.

Let's be fair, everything you eat, even fruits and vegetables have been tampered by man.

Correct, produce today all has been modified to our needs, they don't even resemble their wild versions anymore. However, that is actually a positive thing. And my point is, if you compare clean fish vs. clean produce, plants are health-promoting and meat is not. Then if we look at contamination, sure some of the conventional produce will have varying amounts of things like pesticide residues on them, but then look at fish, and it's not even fair, plants win out again.

Exercise is the key and your body will adapt to any kind of food you throw at it (within moderation).

Sorry but that's a gross oversimplification. :D Exercise is awesome no doubt, but what you put into your body is infinitely more important.

"Not that different to need huge amounts of protein :) and that's the thing, IF you are very active you will be eating higher calories, and hence total protein will be higher. Like I said if you're not starving, there's no need to worry about protein at all. There's never been a case of protein deficiency, ever.
This video references a study on protein intake of different dietary groups: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m4p8s7xskQ"

I wouldn't put too much faith in "studies". One tomorrow will debunk the current one. I'm going by what gains I made best with. Not what some study or cycling man who likes durian has told me.

Fact is, I track macros, I track calories, protein, fats, carbs etc and when I increased my protein intake from 120 grams to almost 200 grams (some days I couldn't hit that) I saw better and faster muscle gains and that wasn't coincidence. My calories stayed the same, but my protein didn't. As I said, you can spew as much science as you want, but I'm going by what works for me.

There are a lot of factors to gains, that's just your perception which doesn't necessarily mean you require that amount. 1.5g is way overkill. Check out this article: http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1...ybuilders/
Conclusion is 0.82g/lb as an upper limit safe number so probably less than that. Studies are referenced at the bottom. And don't forget, the #1 thing that fuels this myth is supplement sales, it's just business man.

As I said, don't go by studies, every person is physiologically different.

"Correct, produce today all has been modified to our needs, they don't even resemble their wild versions anymore. However, that is actually a positive thing. And my point is, if you compare clean fish vs. clean produce, plants are health-promoting and meat is not. Then if we look at contamination, sure some of the conventional produce will have varying amounts of things like pesticide residues on them, but then look at fish, and it's not even fair, plants win out again."

That's cool, but the fact is that the majority of people who have lived the longest life ate cheese and meats as their dietary staple amongst olive oil. I'm not a low-carb guy nor would I ever recommend it, but you can't bash meat and say "It's bad" when most of the people who lived the longest amount of years followed a manipulated mediterranean diet.

"Sorry but that's a gross oversimplification. :D Exercise is awesome no doubt, but what you put into your body is infinitely more important. "

Oh really? Oldest living woman right at this very second eats bacon and eggs EVERY SINGLE DAY but the key to her long life was a positive mindset and being active every single day. No food is perfect for you, none.

"Oh really? Oldest living woman right at this very second eats bacon and eggs EVERY SINGLE DAY but the key to her long life was a positive mindset and being active every single day. No food is perfect for you, none. "

How you know if she wouldnt even lived longer and healthier without so much bacon? Eggs are super cool tho.

You're implying that she's dead but she's alive mate.

longer than she will live mate, she doesnt needs to be dead for that comment to make sense

You implied in your comment that she wasn't living "How you know if she wouldn't even LIVED longer and healthier without so much bacon?"

OK, so you don't like scientific evidence. Great. Keep wasting your money on protein powders and shit, all the same to me.

That's cool, but the fact is that the majority of people who have lived the longest life ate cheese and meats as their dietary staple amongst olive oil.

CITATION NEEDED.
The Okinawans ate plant-based, sweet potato, rice and veggies, not sure what you're talking about.

but you can't bash meat and say "It's bad"

Of course I can, it has been proven bad by science and logic.

Oldest living woman right at this very second eats bacon and eggs EVERY SINGLE DAY but the key to her long life was a positive mindset and being active every single day.

I'm sorry but who cares? That's one person, do you understand statistics? And foods are risk factors like any other environmental factor, noone said that you eat a slice of bacon and die.

Cue marijuana studies.

That's really shitty news...
At least we can say now SC2 gives you cancer.

sc2 is a great game. you get cancer playing medal of honor

Did anyone played this game? D:
I mean... CoD is better.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cur...93601.html

Sadly we live in a world where scientists are in a constant struggle to get their research funded while talentless bimbos like Justin Bieber got 200 million $ on their bank accounts. So chances are high that you won't ever hear of that "cure" again.

tbh there is some decent research being done into actually cloning/growing organs from the original owner to replace the ones damaged... which would be awesome :D
It's in a fairly decent stage as well and it's also well funded. (don't have a link atm though)

besides my above point, livers can re-grow by themselves really good (best organ to do so). So as long as there are healthy parts of the liver... Could be operated...

It's called capitalism and false democracy.

People are more obsessed with looking good on instagram/facebook when they're oblivious to the fact that over 5 billion people don't own a smartphone and will most likely never own one due to immense poverty.

1st world problems

There will never be a cure for cancer. (c) scientists

This is true. Labeling cancer as one disease is great for funding and awareness, but it's not actually the case.

There're news on cancer/aids/whatever cure like every week

so nice

inoperable colon cancer metastases to the liver is pretty bad. i wonder a transplant is an option.

That sucks, I always felt like he gave honest reviews even if I didn't always agree with his opinions.

yeah, he might not always have the best opinions, but honestly he's the best popular "gaming journalist" with any pull in the industry.

Cannabis oil. Cured. Done deal.

Cured!

I did find him to be a dick, but hey, wouldn't wish cancer on anyone.

Just curious, why do you think he's a dick?

he loves getting into arguments and telling people they shouldn't talk because they haven't contributed enough to esports/gaming

I see. I don't know anything about that, I just follow him on YouTube for the most part, and the stuff he does there is awesome IMO.

This is what happens to 97% of people that allopatic medicine "cures" of cancer, they just attack the symptoms with nuclear warheads, and some time after a much worse type of cancer appears. They kindof want to turn off a fire with gasoline, chemoterapy destroys your immune system and kills your hunger so while the cancer is eating you from the inside, you stop feeding yourself. Using radiation, a known cancerigen, to attack cancer is the epitome of allopatic medicine stupidity.

+Cannabis oil
+Curcuma
+High doses of Vitamin C
+fruits
+more fruits, apple is a must with liver cancer
+Read "The amazing liver and gallblader cleanse" from Andreas Moritz

-processed foods
-sugar, flour and dairy
-chemoterapy
-radiation

best of luck TotalBiscuit, hoping you make a full recovery.

lmao that book you recommended

Did you read it?

Yes, it gave me cancer.

I repeated the process to get it removed, but then when I re-did the last step and I got cancer again.

sorry to hear, get well soon, esreality needs u

Reading Esr gave me cancer.

ahahahaha

To this day chemotherapy and radiation have the biggest success rate out of all methods for various types of tumors. My grandmother and my 2 aunts successfully beat cancer with chemotherapy andthey are all still going strong 10+ years later.

Edukat pls

So because your relatives were in the lucky 3% that chemo cures, it proves its the best cancer treatment possible?

Edukat pls

One example:

"A study published in August 2003 revealed that of adult cancer in the USA and Australia, the use of chemotherapy, when looking at adjuvant and curative use, provided a cure only 2.1% of the time in the USA and 2.3% of the time in Australia."

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/1...-the-time/

It turns out that this is not such an impressive study. Indeed, it appears almost intentionally designed to have left out the very types of cancers for which chemotherapy provides the most benefit, and it uses 5 year survival exclusively, completely neglecting that in some common cancers (such as breast cancer) chemotherapy can prevent late relapses. There were also a lot of inconsistencies and omissions in that leukemias were not included, while leukemia is one type of cancer against which chemotherapy is most efficacious. Indeed, the very technique of lumping all newly diagnosed adult cancers together is guaranteed to obscure benefits of chemotherapy among subgroups by lumping in patients for whom chemotherapy is not even indicated.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemotherapy-doesnt-work/

And btw your sources are hilarious

My source is a serious study from a reputable source in two big countries like usa and australia, your rebutal is a comment from a pharma shill protecting their $$$ income.

Plus, if you look at the actual article, you will see that the range of survival due to chemotherapy goes from 0 to 42%, depending on the sort of cancer.

And as the therapies took place from 1998 to 2003, these numbers are very likely to be higher today.

Beside of that, with that kind of correlation study I wonder if the type of people who received chemotherapy are the same as those who didn't. Maybe those for whom surgery + radiotherapy wasn't enough were in general in a more fucked up state already?

cannabis can be used as an alternative for anti-vomit and that's all.
that book rants about 1wk apple juice + using repeatedly magnesium salt to "cleanse" your cholecyst stones. REALLY ? (LOL-link)

Clueless, thc and cbd are great for battling cancer and other bad cells, they induce the cell suicide switch that fails on cancerous cells.

Theres a very easy way you can experiment it yourself, chose any ugly mole, the uglier the better, and put a tiny ammount of cannabis oil on it and band aid it for 4 days, then repeat, in 1 month max it will have shrkined or totally dissapear. Been there done that.

Bob Marley died of cancer.

Funny enough, melanoma is among the types of cancer that are best cured with chemo :D

And tell me, what exactly does this isolated case proves?

The absence of a causal relationship between cannabis and the death of cancer cells?

Bob smoked, a lot. Smoking too much of anything induces cancer because hot air damages your tongue, throat, etc.

Cancer cure is via oil which you ingest, not smoke.

Marley mainly only smoked weed. That would help to prevent lung cancer. Not much else. Eating is 100% the way to use it to cure cancer from the patients I've helped.

cofe enemas ar efektiv to

Good point, coffee enemas are awesome for people with cancer or liver issues, Gerson was one of the first to use it succesfully to cure people with cancer (apart from fruit and vegatable juices, enzymes, etc). And he was sent only the people that was nearly dead already, in cacechia state, and he was able to cure a lot of them. You give the body what it needs to fight and it does the rest.

Lets assume your "research" is true. Well, that despite the fact the vast majority of moles are noncancerous, and that your hypothesis, method and conclusion makes no sense.

In any case, the key issue at hand is that there are better alternatives than using cannabis for fighting the various types of cancer. That's why doctors don't promote it as medicine, whether curative whether for dealing with pain, because in every single case there's treatments that are more effective, that are less harmful and are less addicting.

In your example, what is recommended by actual doctors is to surgically remove the mole and then go with chemo, because that works 99999999999999999999999999% better than your solution.

Heck, I've read you here recommending everyone to take sunbaths, when that's what causes skin cancer in first place.

I don't know why I try to talk with a wall.

CHILE 2015 COPA AMERICA CHAMPION

Sun causes skin cancer? Oh how crazy, taking into account the sun is the life giving force of the solar system. Also crazy taking into account we have non hairy skin so the rays reach our skin to produce the very important vitamin D that has so many benefits, including being a potent anticancer itself.

Could it be that the sun scare, is to sell more sun filters, dak glasses, etc? Could sun filter be what produces the cancer? For example those with Vitamin A? (not to mention all those other chemical ingredients derived from petrol that you put in your skin and you skin absorbs into your system, which have absolutely 0 health value for your body and lots of potential to create diseas as they were never intended to be on your skin or enter your system)

"Scientists have found that vitamin A can spur excess skin growth, known as hyperplasia, and that in sunlight retinyl palmitate can form free radicals that damage DNA (NTP 2000)." source

Fuck off clueless shill! Make your pro chemotherapy posts instead of coming with your clueless, pro system, pro sheep replies to me.

After reading this post of yours, that not only makes no sense whatsoever but also doesn't address the core of what I wrote, all the while including a quote that has zero relationship with the unrelated one-liner let alone with the core matter, with that quote being out of your very own presented context and that most likely you didn't understand since it contradicts your very own unrelated point (damage requires sunlight); plus that your presented and unrelated point itself actually is contradictory to what you previously wrote in #52, is that I can only think of this.

Sorry to post things your shrinked awarness isnt able to face, keep yourself in your lalalal tidy land where you feel secure because out of the box research, study and involvement isnt for the close minded.

The best thing is that he calls it 'the sun' and believes it to be some magic life giving entity that lives in the sky and gives you Vitamin D.


It's like.

er... i saw lots of gstructor's rants, but for once he's right: direct sunlight promotes D vitamin production which helps integrating calcium into bones.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/uv-exposure.html

Cannabis also has other positive effects on patients with certain types of tumor and can be used as a complement to traditional medicine. Its not really effective as a sole cure but can contribute

agree, it is a good coadjuvant: i would have liked to use it while i was on chemo as it's an excellent antiemetic (and analgesic), if compared to ondasetrone and such.
however, nothing has been proven regarding cancer regression due to cannabis, some tumors even seem to accelerate their growth if you make constant use of it; the only study showing cannabis is more effective than chemo/radiotherapy has been performed on moles.

He didnt invented that protocol, lots of authors and people tried it with success. Magnesium relaxes your ducts and the malic acid from apple softens the cholesterol stones. You prefer keeping them inside you or removing an organ from your body?

I've taken an ultrasound recently and, luckily, no stones.
Anyway, after having a discussion with a friend who believes in this, i made a small research.
It has been shown by several sources (see below if /care) that the things you call stones are just partial saponifications of oil.

Ultrasound dont show non calcified cholestrol rocks, which after years calcify and becomes harder to expulse. Nearly everybody has more or less rocks of different sizes, if you had cancer in the past you can be nearly 100% sure you have them.

Either it's a rock or it's not calcified.
Also, I'm posting again this link: Siesemail, Brooker: Could these be gallstones?. Fifth paragraph:

We conclude, therefore, that these green “stones” resulted from the action of gastric lipases on the simple and mixed triacylglycerols that make up olive oil, yielding long chain carboxylic acids (mainly oleic acid). This process was followed by saponification into large insoluble micelles of potassium carboxylates (lemon juice contains a high concentration of potassium) or “soap stones”. The cholesterol stones noted on ultrasound were removed by surgery.

Nice bias in selecting a specific case. I could also chose 97% of those that received chemo.

Sugar nor flour cause cancer nor fuel it.

Your body runs on sugar, every single cell.

Sugar from fruits has lots of minerals and other stuff, pure sugar is poison.

Do you not understand, glucose, fructose, sucrose, every cell in your body runs on them, wether that be from naturally occuring sources from whole fruits or refined sugar.

Refined sugar isn't bad for you if you add it to whole fruits or whole foods with the fiber intact.

"Refined sugar isn't bad for you if you add it to whole fruits or whole foods with the fiber intact. "

But youre using a very specific case where yes, sugar harm is nearly non existant. Most people dont use sugar for fruits tho, they drink soda, eat flour with sugar, etc.etc.

Sodas aren't inherintly bad for you either, myself and many other people who train hard use simple sugars after a workout to push vital nutrients quicker into the blood stream and muscle in combination with protein.

It just depends how and why they're used.

Reccomending fruits and weed to cure cancer while reading the ramblings of a madman.

I r8 8/8.

+fruits
-sugar

Fruits have the best filtered water, enzymes, minerals in organic form, antioxidants, etc.

Pure sugar lacks all those things.

Ok, but if sugar promotes the growth of cancer cells (which is highly debatable), then sugar from fruits is still sugar.

Are you trolling?

Do you even understand why fruit sugar is better for you than the plain old refined stuff?

You say "Do you even understand why fruit sugar is better for you than the plain old refined stuff? "

Are you retarded?

"Fruits have the best filtered water, enzymes, minerals in organic form, antioxidants, etc. "

You just said earlier that sugar promotes cancer cells, you get sugar from fruit aka fructose which is the exact same thing as refined sugar bar the presence of fiber which dramatically slows down the insuline response.

He is not. He is just confused because life is too complicated for him so he seeks out to people who give him easy answers about everything.

Best ESR post 2015.

LOL youre describing a sheep, that conforms to all that the system tells them. THATS THE EASY DUDE! Everubody be like BEEE BEE BEE repeating exactly the same things.

Thats the opposite of what i am. My life is much more complicated, i read a lot more than most people and from a lot of sources, i buy expensive or hard to reach foods, im constantly monitoring my body and mind, how i feel, the bpm of the heart, energy, tiny body changes that nearly everydoy didnt even notice, etcetc and make my own experiments to test.

I have to endure constant bashing from people that is so dependant in the system, that they will fight to protect it, even while theyre handicapping your inocent sons with vaccines and hidding from you the reality of health by supressing the messages you body sends as symptoms with pills that dont cure and create problems in other parts of the body, for which in short time you will be getting a prescription for another drug, and the cycle continues will their pockets grow bigger and your health and the health of your family is far, far from what it could be.

Even very old civilizations were wiser and praised the sun, but here is megamen3 repeating the system programmed "sun is a bad boy" LMAO thats how they work, they scare you, they constantly scare you bc they know its the easist way to control close minded people.

You have no idea how hard its to get bashed from people that defends those that use them, and discard those that really care for other human beings.

/r/iamverysmart

> old civilizations were wiser and praised the sun
> Could it be that the sun scare, is to sell more sun filters, dak glasses, etc? Could sun filter be what produces the cancer?
> My source is a serious study from a reputable source in two big countries like usa and australia


This thread is a goldmine :D

This reddit culture is so beyond me...

Reddit is retard

What some people are however is beyond full retard

So basically reddit

So you are against vaccination too. Great.

And just so you know, The Matrix is not a documentary. Don't base your view of the world on that.

Of course he is. He knows of someone who got sick from it so it must be a conspiracy by 'them' to kill their own people.

bee beeeee

Got Polio?

Got brains?

Know your own graphs. Have you ever had Maths at school? Geography? Anything where you had to interpret graphs?

His comments should start with a disclosure saying that he hardly finished high school (no profession, no nothing).

#PJSalT #OpieOP #KappaPride

Such pride on being a good indoctrinated sheep.

I can donate 300 dolars for av3k while also feeding 2 kids, but no profession, no nothing kid. LMAO.

#studyingisindoctrination #$300wowsowealthy #icantinterpretgraphs

You cant perform even as a buffon.

Since you love offtopics so much, while also calling everyone a "sheep", I have to ask you this.

I remember that in Twitch you said you work for a multinational company, which is the complete opposite of your beliefs. So, how can you sleep at night?

lol kid, your constant ad hominem attacks are funny, you really must have some kind of cerebral disfunction, youre unable to understand other people can think different, and being a sad chilean 1 time LOL copa america winner doesnt grants you the truth at all. Its called agree to disagree, and you totally fail at it which shows your reduced cognitive level.

"Truth is a pathless land"

^Hypocrite dodging questions.

^Clueless sheep trying to look smart

LOLLOLOLOL

It should read 'Cancer' though.

some scientists already found the cure for cancer but the lizards took it away, and give it to the rich who pay the most / have connections with illuminati

he can order an online tombstone at my new company www.egraveyard.com

the inscription has to be chosen from this thread. dunno smth like:

He makes videos called 'WTF Is...' on youtube and reviews games that look interesting.

blubbering idiot

cannabis can be used as an alternative for anti-vomit and that's all.

gonna miss him :(

Unlucky for the guy, never paid much attention to his content but from what I've read up on the guy - he seemed like a good person which is sad.

People live. People die. People do not listen to gstructor.

Got many cases of people that listened to that nutritional guru and got better. most dont tho, not my fault tho if i show them the path and they select another one.

'Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.' Hippocrates

Unfortunately the universe don't care what type of person you are. This really hurts my heart to hear though. I can't even imagine how all of this must feel to you.

Stay strong people love you

Yes I know you're going to read this Totalbiscuit

Hah, it's funny to witness people bashing gstructor. I may not like him as a person, and I think he's overzealous, and not skeptical enough. But the fact is that he's got a good general knowledge of things, he's much more awakened and enlightened than the ignorant ones trying to mock him.

so whats your opinion on 9/11?

how about the moon landings?

What?

Maybe ur studies just say plants is good cuz they wanna sell more veggie-burgers. While you blindly bite into the grass, they fill their pockets. Ever thought about that??????

Yea man, those vegan restaurant profits are out of control.
#exposed

do you think 9/11 was an inside job?
do you think the moon landings were faked?

9/11 wasn't an inside job

Moon landing however I'm still on the fence about.

Your statement is very, very black and white.

At first you call him overzealous, not skeptical enough, then quickly switch to "awakened" and "enlightened"

What good is it to be awakened and enlightened if it's wrong?

You took that out of context. I said more enlightened than the ones mocking him.
Maybe he says stupid shit on other things, how should I know, but the fact is is that on this topic he was correct and the ppl who don't know jackshit trying to make fun of him was simply amusing to me.

He's very correct in what he says.

Let's take a look at some interesting gSTRUCTOR claims.

1. 9/11 was an inside job, and the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane.
2. We cannot be certain that it was a coincidence that Neo's passport in Matrix (1999) had the 11 September 2001 date on it.
3. Asked about when the world would end: "2000 and 2012 were psyops, [...] but I'd say before 2150".
4. Mankind is not responsible for global warming.
5. Egyptians did not build the pyramids.
6. A human civilization more advanced than ours used to live on Earth before our times, and they built the great pyramids (see the previous link).
7. Osama bin Laden died in 2001, or at least he was dead long before the U.S. pretended to have killed him in a raid in 2011.
8. The current situation with Syrian refugees was purposely engineered by European leaders in order to enforce multiculturalism.
9. You should avoid vaccines.
10. On gay rights: "gay rights is just another thing to divide us".
11. And now, chemotherapy virtually does not help against cancer.

Yes, clearly a "good general knowledge of things".

A bonus from the 2014 world cup thread: "i think it was the italian player who with his elbow agression ended putting himsef in Suarez mouth".

Easy plus for the work put into the post alone, a worthy reply.
But I have to admit I'm also a bit skeptical about the Pentagon thingy (only that particular building tho, not the rest of the 911 events), and chemo sometimes is used for brute forcing against cancer, and that's indeed one of the worst kind of help.
The rest are just ":)"

[+]'ed for dedication

Best ESR post 2015.

Disagree, best ESR post 2015 was davis description of your mental illness.

Who?

I mean, beee beeeeeeeee

megaman3 perfect description by davis

Ah now I remember. The salty kid with the lousy fragmovies.

I know I should have shortened those messages up, but looking back (and assuming you watched Quakecon too) you have to acknowledge this very sheep happened to predict every single thing that ended up happening with them. Hopefully I saved someone some donation money.

#dontshootthemessenger #911truth #elitesgeneratingchaos #bestpost2017

Best ESR post 2016.

:-/

Good research bro, too much truth on those 11 points for the sheeple tho. Have a well deserved plus.

I was talking about comments within this thread, and 'general knowledge' on this topic.
I have not seen those posts as I rarely read ESR and very briefly at that. Except the Suárez one of course. :) And I agree most of those are just plain stupid. Hence 'not skeptical enough'. Let me put it this way: I guess you could say it's the other end of the spectrum from sitting in front of the TV all day being programmed by MSM and government bullshit, but he does pick up some valid information on the way, that's my point.

Oh and a few notes here:
9. While I'm not against vaccines, as I haven't researched this topic well enough yet, they are simply not needed when you have a working immune system. Which most people don't, because they eat like shit and are not physically active enough. I have no health insurance, I see no doctors nor get vaccines, and I haven't had so much as a cold in the past 10 years, while people around me are always fucking sick and dying.

11. I'm not saying that chemo can't be beneficial in some cases but it's just a really backwards way of trying to treat something. Prevention should always, always be #1. You have to understand that cancer is a defense mechanism from environmental impacts, and the most relevant one of those is... you've guessed it: what you put into your body.

Not sure why you'd bother to look for all those posts of his anyway, there are so much more important things that need attention.

"And I agree most of those are just plain stupid."

Could it be that you havent researched as much of those topics as you did about cancer, and so you think theyre stupid like you would think of the cancer issue if your awarness level were average? Its a possibility.

Damn, he predicted correctly that Germany would win the 2014 world cup. Maybe he is right with everything after all.

;)

Done :)

Something i find truly interesting, is how while modern society is more violent and sick than ever, with cancer records, autoimmune disease records, divorce records, fat pigs getting richer and richer while billions of people dont have covered their minimal necessities yet, BUT everything is right for them! Funny indeed.

The truth is exactly the opposite, this society is rotten to the core and the only god is $$$ for them. Thats why for example they still use chemo, its one of the most expensive ($$$) treatments of allopatic medicine. While for example iodine suplementation via Lugol, an inexpensive remedy created by a french medic that discovered its properties for curing a lot of ilnesses, was discarded when antibiotics were born because as with chemo, antibiotics creates better profits than Lugol solution. The difference is that iodine is a natural nutrient that your body needs and helps to fight infection and PREVENT cancer, while chemo are lab created, very expensive and never intended to be consumed by humans.

"Iodine is an essential element in human biochemistry. It has antioxidant, antiseptic, antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties, which alone may help in the treatment of cancer. But it is increasingly being acknowledged to be anti-carcinogenic and have cell differentiation properties as well as being capable of causing apoptosis (cancer cell death)."

Not only we are lacking iodine, but we are bombarded with toxic elements that compete with iodine:

"Fluoridation and chlorine: Both displace iodine in the body – so water supplies can deplete iodine levels as can a variety of in-home compounds from plastic packaging to toothpaste, mouthwash and flame retardants and perchlorates." (i make my own toothpaste without flouride of course)

random source google it from other sources if you want

So there you have it, a simple, clear example of how $$$ is more important than the health of you and your family, yet here youre all defending those fat pigs that hide real cures from you while selling overpriced toxic shit.

RIP totalbiskut, good thread, you will be in memory.


Wait what is this thread about?

Sorry i dont use twitter, this was posted by TB for another person, or other person posted this to TB?

He posted that to another person in October 2011. Later he apologized though.

turns out esr is crowded with biochemistry phd's

esr needs to setup a donation fund to cure this cancer of his. problem solved.

Donation for buying drugs and fruits? Come on man, there is a line.

Where? (rolls a bill)

not bad.

:*

From what I can read, he still has good chances to live much longer than 2-3 years predicted. So all I can say, is good wishes for him in his fight, not condolences of any kind.

I read a lot of positive posts on reddit/twitter too, but objectively Inoperable liver metastases half a year after remission is really the worst case. Fucking cancer is all about luck, and he did not have any.

So, WHO has just announced yesterday that processed meat causes cancer. Based on 22 international scientists reviewing over 800 studies. For some of us this isn't news but now it's more 'official' I guess.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/w...t-national
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621

Even in France food used to be good when i was young, now you have to go in the country side to get something that has actualy some taste... or have very good shops/connections. Even organic food is now in some cases as tasteless as non organic food, especialy if its organic food branded by big barkets like CARREFOUR = DO NEVER BUY THAT SHIT.

World is going to shit and overpopulation is the most serious topic yet noone wants to talk about it because this subject is linked to so many others.

I hope he will be fine. I will send him some positive waves :)

Total Biscuit I hope you fight with all your might which I am sure you will. As someone who is battling some digestive issues in the GI tract and having a family I can only imagine what your family IS going through right now.

Who cares what these guys have to say all that matters is your health and your life with your family. Gaming will be there focus on getting better and fighting the good fight! Bless you and may god (or whatever you believe in or don't believe) is on your side.

Anyone know if he started hash oil yet? Will easy get rid of liver cancer. Extremely healing to the organs. Liver especially.