Categories
Cancer Medicine Naturopathy Quackery

NORI protocol: The fruit diet that doesn’t cure cancer

Mark Simon is the founder of the Nutritional Oncology Research Institute. He has neither an MD, DO, nor PhD. (He doesn’t even have an ND!) Yet he claims to have discovered a dietary protocol that can cure cancer. Can it? (I think you know the answer to this question.)

I’ve been blogging for well over 14 years now. So you’d think (or at least I do much of the time) that over all those years I’ve covered pretty much every form of dubious cancer treatment there is. Sadly, every so often reality disabuses me of this notion. Over the weekend, I was perusing what I like to call my Folder of Woo, basically a folder of links to potential blogging topics, when I noticed something called the NORI Protocol. I forgot when I had come across it the first time, but obviously I had meant to write about it sometime or another. After all, it was in my Folder of Woo! Given how much I write, though, I couldn’t remember if I had ever covered it. A quick search of both my blogs disabused me of this notion. There was one hit here, but only because someone mentioned the NORI Protocol in the comments. Damn, I thought. How could I have failed to write about this one, given that it shows up all over the place?

So it’s time to take a more in-depth look at the NORI Protocol.

NORI Protocol: Red flags for quackery galore

So what is the NORI Protocol? Basically, it’s a high-fruit diet coupled with selenium supplementation It helps to know what “NORI” stands for, and it stands for the Nutritional Oncology Research Institute, home of the NORI Protocol. If you visit the website, the main page of NORI regales visitors with this description of the “institute”:

NORI is an independent research organization that has developed non-conventional methods for cancer treatment that do not rely on toxic drugs, surgery, or radiation. Cancer patients who choose to avoid conventional therapies or who have exhausted all other options may wish to explore this revolutionary and unique approach to cancer treatment and management offered exclusively by NORI. The NORI program is designed to be the most cost-effective alternative cancer treatment available. NORI represents the future in treating cancer in a safely and holistically, in the most health-promoting, effective, and scientifically sound manner possible.

So. Many. Red. Flags. And all of them right on the entry page. There’s the quack trope about cancer treatment that “does not rely on toxid drugs, surgery, or radiation.” There’s the statement about using this treatment instead of conventional therapies. There’s the claim that NORI is the “future of treating cancer in a safely and holistically, in the most health-promoting, effective, and scientifically sound manner possible,” whatever that means.

Then there’s this:

NORI is an organization focused on research and development of nutritionally based, nontoxic, drug-free cancer treatment methods. NORI has created a unique treatment protocol that may be utilized along with conventional therapies, or utilized alone for the treatment of nearly any form and stage of cancer. The NORI protocol is based on a specialized plant-based diet as a foundation while administering safe and effective natural compounds that selectively kill cancer cells. The NORI protocol has been proven effective for a wide array of cancers at all stages.

I love it when alternative medicine sellers claim that their treatment has been “proven effective for a wide array of cancers at all stages.” Whenever I see that, I ask: Where’s the beef? Where’s the science? Where are the randomized controlled clinical trials? As you will soon see, there is, to put it kindly, a paucity of these things supporting the NORI Protocol, although if you look at NORI’s page on its protocol, you’ll see lots of cherry picked studies, most in vitro, with only a phase I and phase II trial, the latter of which was not randomized. (Phase I trials by definition are not randomized.) You’ll also see lots of testimonials. I’ll discuss these later, with one exception, this testimonial from Amy H. in Los Angeles:

I was diagnosed with DCIS, stage 0, breast cancer in January of 2014. A surgeon wanted to give me a mastectomy and flap, and felt no other way would ensure my survival, or an attractive appearance. Shell shocked, I chose to treat it with a Naturopath, who guided me to healthier living on all levels. While I felt the results of that, I had developed a growth. I was told that it was a biopsy scar, but in late 2016 it grew significantly. I suspected it was not scar but tumor and started researching more about cancer, which made me doubt the effectiveness of what I was doing to heal. Sure enough, I went for an ultrasound and was told I had stage 4 breast cancer. Through a series of events I was told about the NORI Protocol and put into contact with Mark Simon. He presented what sounded to me like a very clear understanding of cancer and how to treat it. I had been facing unavailable doctors and practitioners, and he was available and supportive, and put me on a path that honored my instincts, calmed my fears, and made me feel like an active participant in my healing. While new to the protocol, I feel hopeful and aptly guided.

This testimonial is horrifying on so many levels, and I can’t believe that any hawker of an alternative dietary cure for cancer would include a testimonial like this. Those of you who’ve read this blog for a long time know that I’ve often questioned whether we overdiagnose and overtreat DCIS. However, that doesn’t mean that DCIS is benign, only that, because we don’t know which DCIS lesions will go on to turn into invasive cancer, we feel obligated to treat them all. However, as a breast surgeon, I can read between the lines here. If the surgeon seeing Amy H. recommended a mastectomy, that means that the DCIS took up so much of the breast that breast conserving surgery was not possible. That’s high risk DCIS. It’s therefore not surprising that Amy’s DCIS progressed to invasive cancer. (It might well already have been invasive at the time of diagnosis.) As for having stage 4 cancer, it’s not clear to me how that could be diagnosed with just an ultrasound, unless maybe she had metastases in her liver that could be evaluated by ultrasound. Be that as it may, this testimonial shows a woman with high risk DCIS refusing standard-of-care treatment, seeing her cancer progress under the care of a naturopathic quack (even watching a mass grow and attributing it to scar tissue from her previous biopsy!), and then choosing another dubious treatment, with no outcome other than “hope” and being “aptly” guided being listed.

Time to discuss the NORI approach in more detail. First, let’s look at its creator, Mark Simon. Then we’ll look at the protocol itself, which involves a high fruit diet to “starve” cancer cells of the amino acid methionine, which, it is claims, sensitizes cells to selenium. Of course, it can’t be just any selenium. It has to be a special form of selenium. Nothing else will work.

Mark Simon: “Nutritional oncology expert”?

Perhaps the best introduction I could find to Mark Simon is this 2015 interview with Chris Wark of Chris Beat Cancer fame. As I’ve described, Mr. Wark has the typical anecdote in which he misattributes his cure to the wrong treatment. Basically, he had stage 3 colon cancer, underwent surgery, but refused the recommended standard-of-care chemotherapy afterward. As is all too often the case, he sought out all manner of quackery, and when he did well he attributed his good outcome to the quackery, not to the surgery that removed his cancer. Now he runs a website and an alternative cancer cure Internet business in which he sells books and “coaching,” and uses all manner of dubious testimonials to hawk his wares. It’s a perfect match.

We learn from this interview that Mark Simon that he had been interested in alternative medicine for a long time, but details on his actual professional background are maddeningly vague. We’re told that he has a background in neuroscience and biomedical engineering, which is nice, but finding out what that background actually is wasn’t too easy. It took a fair amount of Googling to lead me to pages like this one, where I learned that Simon’s credentials include being a “health coach” and having a Clinical Nutrition Certificate from Natural Healing Institute. His LinkedIn profile only shows his positions at NORI dating back to 2011, when he founded NORI. Elsewhere, on Facebook Gene Fuss posted on The Truth About Cancer page that Simon “is trained in Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering and nutrition, and has been a vegan for 32 years,” while attributing to him “DEEP knowledge about the biology of cancer tumors, more so than anybody I have encountered to date.”

If the claims made in the video above, and this video below about the NORI Protocol are any indication, I would be willing to contest the claim that Mark Simon has anything resembling “deep knowledge” about anything having to do with cancer or nutrition.

It doesn’t take too much knowledge to realize that the scientific claims in both videos and the NORI Protocol website are, at best, rather fishy and, at worst, downright quacky. As for Simon’s background, if he’s such an expert in neuroscience and biomedical engineering, why doesn’t he trumpet that background by including his degrees and what he did? He clearly doesn’t have an MD, PhD, or even an ND (the naturopath’s degree that I like to call “Not-a-Doctor”), and you know that if he had any of those degrees he’d include them, in his bio. Instead, he’s maddeningly vague. My guess is that he got an undergraduate or masters degree in some science-related field and/or worked as a technician in a neuroscience and/or biomedical engineering lab somewhere. Simon can, of course, prove me wrong by listing his degrees and his pre-2011 employment history somewhere prominent.

On to Simon’s protocol!

NORI Protocol: Methionine deprivation and selenium cure cancer!

In both videos above, we learn that Mark Simon was inspired by the work of someone named Dr. Daniel Epner, a faculty member at Baylor College of Medicine, who published an article on methionine deprivation in 2001. It was this article that inspired Mark Simon to look into methionine restriction as a treatment for cancer. A PubMed search reveals 36 articles from Daniel E. Epner, 41 if you leave out his middle initial. The last article Dr. Epner wrote about methionine and cancer dates back to 2003. It’s a study that found that methionine restriction targets synthesis of thymidylate synthase, an enzyme that plays a crucial role in the early stages of DNA biosynthesis. His article is interesting, because it summarizes the studies in cell culture and animals showing that methionine restriction can have antitumor effects in a number of cancer cell lines and animal models. Of course, we all know how hard it is to translate such findings to humans, and Dr. Epner notes that a phase I trial had been carried out to show that methionine restriction plus chemotherapy was achievable and safe.

Interestingly, Dr. Epner does not practice medical oncology any more. He’s moved from Baylor to M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, whose website states:

Dr. Epner is a palliative care physician at MD Anderson Cancer Center who practiced medical oncology for several years before moving to the Department of Palliative Care in 2012. He began his faculty career at Baylor College of Medicine as principal investigator of a basic science lab, but he now focuses on psychosocial aspects of oncology. His primary academic interest is communication skills training for medical oncology fellows, palliative care fellows, and a variety of other providers.

Interesting career trajectory.

So, basically, with Mark Simon, we appear to have an overenthusiastic evangelist glomming on to one interesting finding with respect to cancer cells and running straight off the cliff with it, as you can see by the claims made by Simon for his NORI Protocol. Basically, these claims involve massive oversimplifications of the science and as yet unproven (and therefore unjustified) extrapolation from cell culture and animal studies to humans, with none of the valid research being done by Simon himself, just cherrypicked from the literature and based on nonsense like this:

There are two types of DNA in human cells, nuclear and mitochondrial. Cancer appears to be the result of damage to mitochondrial DNA while nuclear DNA damage is “after the fact”. Mitochondrial damage prevents the normal process called apoptosis or natural programmed cell death which shuts down the cell so that it does not continue to divide without end. Cancer is the same condition regardless of the site or organ of origin. Cancer is not 200 different diseases. It is a process defined by common metabolic abnormalities within malignant cells that can be effectively exploited without toxic drugs. It is generally the side effects of conventional therapies that take a cancer patient’s life, not cancer itself.

Whenever you see someone say that it is the toxicities of conventional therapies that kill most cancer patients, it’s 99.99% likely (at least) that you’re dealing with a quack. Also, yes, there is a metabolic component to cancer. Cancer cells, in addition to having their genomes messed up badly, also have messed up metabolic pathways. (I do so love using scientific terms.) That does not mean that cancer is all one disease, nor does it mean that the mutations driving cancer are unimportant.

Then the NORI website claims:

The key difference between the NORI approach and other nutritionally based cancer treatments is that NORI attempts to limit the availability of essential nutrients necessary to cancer cell survival while supplying adequate nutrients to healthy cells. The NORI approach to cancer nutrition is not designed to build or enhance the immune system. Cancer cells, like normal cells, have built-in means of defense against immune system attack, what separates conventional from most alternative cancer therapies is selectivity, meaning that conventional treatments destroy healthy cells while alternative therapies attempt to spare them.

Well, that’s a new one, an alternative therapy that doesn’t claim to “boost the immune system”!

The idea behind the NORI Protocol is this. Because many cancer cells are sensitive to methionine restriction, first you restrict methionine using a fruit-heavy diet. (Fruit doesn’t contain much methionine.) The length of time for this diet is “individualized,” of course. Also of course, he declines to discuss what criteria are used to determine the length of time recommended for each patient, just this:

Methionine restriction is individualized for each patient according to weight, nutritional status, disease progression and past dietary preferences. A methionine restricted diet may be continuous or cycled on and off depending on individual circumstances. Methionine restriction involves the elimination of many foods and a focus on mostly fruits. The natural sugars in fruits will not feed cancer cells or cause tumors to grow. It is a common misconception that fruit equals sugar and that fruits raise blood sugar. Fruit can be a problem if there is a high fat intake (greater than 10% of total caloric intake) which will cause insulin resistance.

That’s nice. Give me the protocol and the evidence base behind its specifics.

I’m particularly amused at how Simon gets past the “sugar feeds cancer” woo by claiming that the “natural” sugars in fruits don’t feed cancer unless you also eat a lot of fat and develop insulin resistance; so, yes, his NORI Protocol involves low fat diets as well. It’s also rather interesting that Simon focuses on fruits so much, given that vegetables are also low in methionine. Also problematic is the observation that normal cells need methionine too, as it’s an essential amino acid that the body can’t synthesize, which means that methionine can’t be eliminated from the diet entirely.

The next step after the methionine restriction, the patient can then eat a high methionine diet. The idea is that the methionine restriction will cause the cancer cells to stop growing, to arrest their cell cycle, and then adding methionine back, which supposedly causes them, to grow again and undergo apoptosis (programmed cell death). Layered on to this core idea is the claim that methionine restriction sensitizes the cancer cells to selenium, as well as the claim that the digestive enzymes in fruits also combat cancer.

If you look at the full NORI Protocol list of “chemotherapeutic agents,” you’ll find sodium selenite, selenomethionine, vitamin K3, shikonin (derived from the bark of the Gromwell root), vitamin E succinate, pine bark and grape seed extract, green tea extract, and a number of others. Basically, if you listen to Simon in his video above and read all the scientific claims on the NORI protocol website, what you’ll hear and see is what I like to refer to as “woo babble,” which is basically like Star Trek technobabble, only with woo.

But is there any evidence that methionine restriction combats cancer in actual humans? The answer is: Not a lot. If you look at recent review articles (e.g., this one, this one, and this one) about methionine restriction and cancer, you’ll find that, 18 years later, scientists are still working on it, and there is a huge paucity of clinical data supporting methionine restriction as a treatment for cancer. You’ll also learn that there’s evidence that methionine restriction could extend lifespan. You’ll also see authors recommending clinical trials, which appear not to have been done yet. You’ll also learn that there is a compound, Methioninase, which breaks down methionine and can be used to restrict methionine. There’s evidence from patient-derived xenografts (tumors from humans clinical specimens grown in mice), but again little in the way of clinical evidence.

To Simon, however, the reason is obvious:

Why are alternative treatments like the NORI protocol not practiced by oncologists and researched through clinical trials? The answer is simple economics and excessive control by the pharmaceutical industry. Money and profits has become the primary driver in medical science in general. Medical science must serve all of us rather than the bottom line of multi-national corporations. NORI is a grassroots alternative cancer research institute that is carving out a path towards medical sanity within oncology.

It couldn’t possibly be because doing dietary studies of this sort of treatment is very difficult, could it? Oh, no! It has to be the big pharma conspiracy. So that’s why NORI sells a line of nutraceuticals, including—of course!—CBD oil. Not surprisingly, the protocol itself contains a disclaimer:

All statements regarding NORI nutraceuticals have not been evaluated by the United States Food and Drug Administration. NORI nutraceuticals are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. NORI nutraceuticals are provided as a component of a nutritional support program and are not intended as a substitute for conventional medical care.

Yep, it’s a quack Miranda warning! As is the case with so much cancer quackery, Simon has taken interesting scientific observations that aren’t ready for prime time yet treating patients and extrapolated mightily with them.

Testimonials galore!

So if all the science Mark Simon has is cherry picked science, does he have anything else? Like all good alternative cancer treatment advocates, he has testimonials! The most famous NORI protocol testimonial comes from Candice-Marie Fox, who claims to have cured her thyroid cancer using the NORI protocol:

We learn that Ms. Fox was diagnosed with thyroid cancer a few days before her 28th birthday in 2011. She claims it was stage III. Doing a bit of Googling reveals several things. First, she had papillary thyroid cancer, which is the most common and most treatable form of thyroid cancer. Indeed, there is controversy over whether papillary thyroid cancer always requires treatment given how much of it is overdiagnosed by ultrasound. (I doubt that applies here, because Ms. Fox states that she had a lump in her neck.) Also, there is no such thing as stage III papillary thyroid cancer in a 28 year old. If you look at the staging for this cancer, the highest stage a 28 year old can be is stage II, even with distant metastases. The survival rates are very high as well, with near 100% 5-year survival for localized and regional disease and 78% for even distant disease.

Also, Ms. Fox underwent standard-of-care surgery, a total thyroidectomy and what sounds like a central neck lymph node dissection, for the tumor. So at around the two minute mark, when she claimed that the cancer came back and had metastasized to her lungs, lymph nodes of the neck, and elsewhere. According to her, the doctors told her to come back in 6-9 months for more radiation and, if that doesn’t work, chemotherapy. That, too, caused my skeptical antennae to start twitching, because although radioactive iodine is used for metastatic papillary thyroid cancer, chemotherapy is not.

I’m not the only one who noticed holes in Ms. Fox’s story. Auma, a self-described “evil troll, Big Pharma employee and government spy,” noticed a lot of issues:

Based on these articles and her own writing on Facebook, there are several impossible or misleading claims about her diagnosis and “natural cure”:

  1. Having cancer spread to liver. After those pesky cancer surviving trolls started asking her questions on Facebook, she admitted liver tumors referenced in Daily Mail were benign.
  2. Being stage IV. A few days back she claimed on FB that she had never called herself stage IV. How did the journalists get the idea of stage IV (in one article – grade IV) cancer then? Also, papillary thyroid cancer in people younger than 45 can only be stage I or II and 5 year survival is almost 100%.
  3. Mark Simon being an oncologist instead of a quack nutritionist without a medical degree. This she also later admitted on FB and Daily Mail actually made a correction.
  4. Rejecting chemo – in different sources Candice mentions having rejected radioactive therapy or chemotherapy. This sounds strange, because chemotherapy usually is not the first line of treatment for papillary thyroid cancer, but she makes it sound like she was certainly offered to do chemo and absolutely rejected it.
  5. The biggest claim of them all is her terminal diagnosis and being given 5 years to live. I am not sure if she actually believes that herself or exaggerated her claims to get attention and embellish her money-earning cancer story. This is what I want to explore the most. Please keep in mind that I am not a doctor, just a patient myself who remembers the process of treatment well. If a medical specialist reads this, please add your perspective. Also, because I am not from an English speaking country, I constantly call thyroglobulin TGB, because that is how we abbreviate it. In English documentation it is usually abbreviated as Tg.

Auma also took a bunch of screenshots of Ms. Fox’s Facebook page contemporaneous with her actual treatments that show she left out a lot of stuff. It’s worth reading both posts, as long as they are, because of the level of detail. The bottom line is that Ms. Fox was cured by conventional therapy, not the NORI Protocol, but attributes her “cure” to her dietary intervention.

But what about the other testimonials? Most of them are similar in that it’s clear that the conventional treatment was what cured the cancer. There are patients with colorectal cancer who underwent surgery but turned down chemotherapy (like Chris Wark). There’s someone with recurrent Hodgkin’s lymphoma who underwent chemotherapy and the NORI protocol but attributes the good outcome to NORI. There are a couple of prostate cancer testimonials that aren’t particularly convincing because of the highly variable and often indolent courses that prostate cancer can take. There was another one of metastatic pancreatic cance that regressed with the NORI protocol—and, of course, chemotherapy. Particularly distressing is that the the man and his wife totally attribute the man’s good outcome to the NORI protocol. I wonder if they’ll blame it when the pancreatic cancer recurs, which it almost certainly will if it truly is pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

NORI Protocol: An idea oversold

If there’s one common theme in cancer quackery, it’s the co-optation of preclinical science (i.e., science that hasn’t been tested in clinical trials yet) or inadequately tested clinical science, and running with it. In other words, this sort of quackery involves taking the gray areas of science and unjustifiably eliminating the gray in order to sell a treatment. Will the NORI protocol hurt cancer patients? Probably not, but it’s hard to tell. Nutritional manipulations are not without risk. Will it treat their cancer? Based on my reading of the literature, who knows? It’s unproven, and the track record of translating cell culture and rodent studies into treatments is littered with the wreckage of promising-sounding ideas.

In this case, the gray area is methionine restriction as a treatment for cancer. It’s a dietary intervention that shows promise based on preclinical studies in cell culture and in rodent models but as yet has not been convincingly demonstrated to work in humans. Might methionine restriction have a role in treating human cancer? Possibly. One thing I can say for sure, though, is that, if methionine restriction is ever validated in randomized controlled clinical trials as an approach to improving the efficacy of chemotherapy, the science-derived protocol will almost certainly look little like what Mark Simon’s quackery-derived NORI protocol. Simon has both oversimplified the science (e.g., his claim that cancer is a single metabolic disease) while adding unnecessary complexity to the protocol (e.g., selenium and all the additional supplements, the mystical “individualization” of methionine restriction) to produce a protocol that is being massively oversold to desperate patients with cancer.

No wonder naturopaths love it so much.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

100 replies on “NORI protocol: The fruit diet that doesn’t cure cancer”

“Cancer is the same condition regardless of the site or organ of origin.”

This statement, along with the claim that a single intervention can treat all cancers, makes it 100% likely that one is dealing with quackery.

Plus eating fruit won’t raise your blood sugar! I’m not sure what would happen if I told our diabetic educators that, but my guess is that it wouldn’t be pretty.

Tell them to reduce the fat in your body and in your diet so you can eat healthy fruit without causing insulin spikes. You might make a big difference in the quality of many lives. Research it, it is science.

There are most certainly enough deaths daily from those that used standard treatment alone, to know this to be true.

hi orac..mate would be interested to get your take on …the truth about cancer team…who i have noticed of late have had a lot too say about your favorite subject here …..hhmmmm i await your response….thank u in advance..cheers …happy bob down under from oz

Use the search function of this site and become enlightened. You might even try the same thing at sciencebasedmedicine.org; I understand that one or two people over there have made posts involving that.

Cancer is not 200 different diseases. It is a process defined by common metabolic abnormalities within malignant cells that can be effectively exploited without toxic drugs.

I guess that gets to the heart of the matter.

Bob, I suggest that you invest in some appropriate majuscule letters and get a handle on sarcasm, although my comment was seriously intended.

“Will the NORI protocol hurt cancer patients?”
Almost certainly, if anyone is foolish enough to believe that using the NORI protocol exclusively (ie no conventional treatment) will sure their cancer.

Not to mention that it’s expensive. Fresh produce, even if you live in a climate where it is available locally year-round (ie California, I don’t know about specific parts of Australia) is expensive, especially at the volumes they’re talking about for this protocol.

It is not expensive. Meat is expensive. You should speak from facts or maybe not speak at all. We all have always known that fruits and vegetables should be a big part of our daily diet. We have all known that chemicals and toxins cause imbalances in our physiology. Eating organic fruits and vegetables is a nurturing and satisfying way to eat for health. Vegetables are also a big part of the NORI protocol…..fruit is just the star.

Eating organic fruits and vegetables is a nurturing and satisfying way to eat for health.

Organic produce is absurdly expensive where I live. It’s also pointless, as has been pointed out here many times. I buy two organic items: bananas (because of the workers) and tubs of baby spinach/kale/etc. (because that’s the only way they come).

NORI will not hurt the person with cancer. NORI with Mark Simon works hand and hand with Doctors and clients and the protocol enhances results of treatment.

Sylvia, the NORI webpage says that Cancer patients who choose to avoid conventional therapies may choose to use this protocol. In which case, while it might not harm them directly, it won’t help them (& so could ultimately be said to harm.

the protocol enhances results of treatment.
And presumably there are clinical trials that demonstrate this, published in high-impact journals? In which case, please provide the links. Otherwise that’s a baseless claim.

It is unfortunate that you have chosen to speak so harshly concerning your opinion of NORI. It is oblivious you know little about what all is involved in Nutritional Oncology Research Institute. For those of us that have chosen to implement the NORI protocol it has been profound in our management of cancer and slowing down the possibility of metastasis. There are no promises of healing and magic cures only a better understanding of the processes of cancer and the possibilities of foods and nutraceuticals and the role they play in helping the body stabilize and function in a way of correcting and healing the systemic cellular function. I was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer and have worked closely with Mark Simon from the day it was found on my mammogram. I found Mark, he did not pursue me and does not Market aggressively to attract clients, they most often find him through referrals of clients who have experienced phenomenal improvement and quality of life. My progress has been amazing, my diet is satisfying and energizing and Mark is compassionate, caring and there for me. I don’t like to imagine what this past year of my life would not have been if I did not have Mark by my side in this cancer journey. This year has been one of peace, good health healing and progress. Mark works hand in hand with my Doctors, they talk, he requests certain blood work and all my labs are sent to Mark monthly. Mark and I have consultations concerning all my labs, what they mean and what modifications to my individual protocol , if necessary. As one would expect all my numbers were abnormal in the beginning but after only one month they began to go down.in my second month my numbers fell into normal range and have remained there. There are many of us Noritians ( NORI clients) and many of the stories are of people who have exhausted every aspect of conventional cancer treatment with cancer returning with a vengeance. These patients are now improving and making progress. You misinform your readers when you state Mark is Quackery that claims he over simplifies cancer treatment by the healing of fruits and self made supplements. Mark works hand in hand with any Doctor with a mind open enough to entertain the notion that the human body, body soul and spirit has the miraculous ability to take part in its own healing and bringing disfunction back to proper function with balance and nutrition. Mark often suggest clients speak with their Doctors concerning adding conventional therapies along with their NORI protocol. Those of us that have had the opportunity to work with Mark are thankful for his devotion and research. Mark is 100% devoted and makes himself available to us 6 and often 7.days a week, sacrificing his own personal time if we need him. It is true that NORI is a home based affordable protocol and it is clear to all of us who know him and have been helped by him that his mission is not to extort and take advantage if desperate cancer patients, actually it is completely the opposite. I am saddened by your unfair review on Mark Simon and the NORI protocol, he does not deserve your harsh self imposed opinion that is based on your uneducated speculation. There could be others out there like me who need a Mark Simon to help them navigate the anything but simple,,,,,very complex circumstances of cancer.

For those of us that have chosen to implement the NORI protocol it has been profound in our management of cancer and slowing down the possibility of metastasis.

Then perhaps Mr. Simon can show us the data from his clinical trials that demonstrate that his protocol works to show cancer progression and prevent metastases. That’s where the rubber hits the road. Until he can do that, all my criticisms stand.

You might just change your mind if you were diagnosed with cancer and all mainstream medicine tells you is that you will be dead in 6 months and tell you how ignorant you are for even considering taking control of your health. If we are not “obedient little puppies” they even fire us a patients. We should each be able to choose how we treat ourselves and extend our life beyond what your modern, cut, burn and poison techniques are.

Ethically, a physician is obligated to offer standard-of-care treatments supported by as high a level of evidence as possible. He is not obligated to offer treatments that are not supported by evidence. Indeed, he is obligated to try to talk the patient out of such treatments. Failing that, he is not obligated to continue to treat a patient who rejects his recommendations. You are free to choose how you treat yourself, but the physician is also free not to go along with it when you reject his best counsel and decide to use treatments not supported by sufficient evidence. You seem to think that a physician is just a technician or servant who should do what you want, but a physician is a professional. His duty is to give his best advice based on his knowledge and existing medical science. If you refuse to take it, he is not obligated to go beyond that.

Sylvia, please use paragraph breaks.

It is very, very hard to read what you have written here because it is a giant wall of text. Your story would be more persuasive if I could actually read it.

JustaTech, please just move along and feel free not to read my giant wall of text. It was not written to impress or persuade you. It was not written to debate standard care verses Alternative care. It was written from my personal knowledge and experience with NORI and in response to unfounded remarks made by Orac. I know my emittance of taking the time to impress you with my literary abilities opened a door for your over inflated ego looking for superiority. If you cannot understand my response you may be having some comprehension issues. I would highly recommend you contact Mark Simon he can help you with that. Mark can be reached at NORIprotocol.com or you could just get a life, sounds like you need one.
( this response was intentionally written to be in one paragraph).

What about requesting paragraph breaks for improved readability indicates that I have an “inflated ego looking for superiority”?

I was trying to be polite and helpful. I made exactly zero judgement on the content of your comment.

Sylvia, I am not here to give you a dose of sarcasm or even a lecure. The service that Mr Simon provides to you is invaluable to you overall well-being, and medicine would do well to pay attention (if they had the time perhaps), but let’s be clear–that service is psychological and suppotrive. It does not, in and of itself, treat your cancer. I am happy to read that you are not rejecting standard of care therapy.

I am doing well, the treatment is addressing my cancer and I have rejected chemo, surgery and radiation. I have many friends and family that did not address diet and lifestyle changes, they had all the standard treatment and they are no longer with us.Thank You foryour concern.

you have some of your own qualifying to do Mate. Your bias against any alternative is obvious. If you are being an advocate for health one would expect a more neutral reporting and like someone else said a lot less sarcasm.
I am not pro or anti Nori, Just saying matey.

Suuure you’re not “pro or anti NORI.” You’re just really annoyed by this post, to the point where you commented here for the first time ever.🙄

Actually, it is mainline science that accepts the possibility of alternatives. The fruit diet people are the ones who don’t listen; they substitute unproven supposition for science. If you want to explore alternatives, it is science you want. The fruit diet people operate instead on the maxim ‘because I say so’. I prefer open-minded examination of the evidence.

Will it may not work for everyone but it worked for me.
I was diagnosed in Nov 2017. I followed the Nori diet along with a few other alternative well-known treatments ( well known in other countries) and today I’m cancer free. No surgery no chemo and radiation.
and btw.. there is a lot of research going on in this sort of area if you care to research dr. William Li.. he is putting a food against Pharmaceuticals in the lab and food is found better in many circumstances. Before you lable someone as quackery, instead of just perusing the site, maybe do some actual research so you won’t look like such a quackery yourself to those who know a little more.

I was diagnosed with cancer in 2016. My surgeon carved a small piece out of me. No silly diets, no coffee enemas, no chelation therapy, no black salve. Now I am cancer free.

Had I chosen quackey, I could be well on my way to death by now.

Glad you’re doing well, but what kind of cancer do you have? What subtype? What stage. How was it diagnosed? What other treatments?

My wife has made good progress on NORI and two lesions have gone so far (without surgery). As a surgeon it’s clean that your article is written out of fear. You fear that NORI works, you fear losing customers, you fear losing all the bribes you get from big pharmaceutical companies. I have spoken to a retired Oncologist and he admitted that he’s had many many lunches and several holidays paid 100% by big pharmaceutical companies… You’ve not spoken to Mark and you don’t know how knowledgeable he is yet you expect us to believe the words (your words) of a bribed man and financially baised man who uses medical procedures invented in the 1800’s … Honestly what you do is a crime against humanity I have no idea how you sleep at night…. maybe that’s why you have so much time to write BS articles like this!

Funny thing, a lot of alt med boasts about how ancient their treatments are, but surgical techniques that have been honed over centuries are suspect?

About Big pharma – tell me would you take an antibiotic if you had severe pneumonia, or were going into septic shock? Would you take anti thrombolitic treatment to prevent permanent disability if you had a CVA? Because my dear that’s all down to “big pharma”.

Another thing, how does Mark make his living? Does he give his books away free? Not charge for his talks? Orac makes a living off a skill he has honed over years of long hours of hard, difficulty surgeries and probably 12+ years of university education. So should he work for free or does he have the right to earn a living?

I’ll finish by asking you where is the research that proves Marks claims, come on all he has to do is follow up his patients or clients after they leave his care. Real research showing that Marks patients live significantly longer than those treated by SBM, published in a gold standard peer reviewed health journal would shut Orac and the rest of us up. 🙂

If the marks are so sure a magick treatment works, why get upset when it’s labeled quackery?

Or are they concerned that if the slightest doubt exists in their minds, it won’t be effective?

I’m happy you’re wife is OK. What kind of cancer does your wife have? What stage? How was it diagnosed? What are all the treatments she’s undergone?

They rarely answer these questions. Over the last few years, I followed three women (via their blogs) who chose natural\alternative therapies instead of conventional to treat -early- stage BC. All of them are dead. As far as I’m concerned, NORI and other alternative treatments is the same as choosing no treatment at all, followed by very bad outcomes.

Of course they rarely answer these questions. I suspect that, deep down, even they sense that if they told the whole story it would reveal that perhaps the woo didn’t do as much as they claim.

In any event, breast cancer produces a lot of alternative cancer cure testimonials for two main reasons. First, it is one of the most common cancers. Second, its clinical course can be highly variable. I like to cite a paper from the early 1960s that examined data on patients who never received treatment for their breast cancer in the late 1800s through the early 1930s. The median survival was 2.7 years, but the tail went out to 10-15 years. Remember, too, that this was long before the age of mammography; so these cancers were all diagnosed from lumps. Likely the median survival now of untreated breast cancer is longer. That means it is not that uncommon for a woman to reject treatment and do well for several years before biology finally catches up with her. She’ll think that whatever quackery she chose, rather than biology, is the reason she’s still alive. Then, of course, there’s survivorship bias. Women who reject conventional treatment and whose tumors rapidly progress to kill them don’t give testimonials.

Funny that the small invasion of Noritians (is it a cult?) share typographical peculiarities.

Oh, Simon himself has emailed me to argue that I’m wrong. I haven’t had a chance to do more than skim it because I’m at work, but I’ll answer later. What surprises me is that the Norites didn’t notice the version of this I posted a week ago on my not-so-super-secret other blog, but, boy have they noticed this version! I wonder where it was posted that caught their attention…

Damn it! I thought this was the not-so-super-secret other blog and Orac’s true identity was the “worst kept secret on the internet.” Could you clarify this, or is it a deliberate “Schroedinger’s Blog” and whichever one the visitor is reading makes the other one the “not-so-super-secret” one? Inquiring not so clever people want to know.

Questions would be – Diagnosed by who? What actual SBM DID you have rather than telling us what you didn’t? Also, why are you defending NORI so vehemently? Are you getting paid to do it? Perhaps a reduction in medical costs in return for testimonials? Who pointed you at this blog post?

I was diagnosed by a Oncologist, mammogram, PET, MRI, ultrasounds, genetic testing, surgeons. I went looking based on wanting a science based alternative option. I choose NORI based on the difference it has made in so many. It was a good choice and I am happy with my progress. Mark does not even know I have responded to these comments unless he is following the tread. There are no kick backs, we are not crusading for more Cancer followers. We are dedicated to our protocol, how it gives us energy and feeling the difference it makes as well as blood work and diagnostics that back it up.I find it interesting that you all accuse actual cancer patients that know the NORI protocol, when we speak of positive results in alternative treatment choices. We are not focused on tearing down standard treatment, we want standard treatment to be effective. Yet, you tear down and seek to discredit anything other than what is in your own personal interest. This is destruct to finding harmony in an effective more effective way to approach cancer and treatment for a higher quality of life. In my opinion, You all are using your power to influence to do harm.

OK, a few questions:

  1. How was the tumor biopsied to establish the diagnosis?
  2. What was the diameter of the primary tumor in cm?
  3. Were axillary lymph nodes positive, and, if yes, how many were positive?
  4. Was the tumor estrogen receptor-positive? Progesterone receptor-positive?
  5. Was the tumor HER2/neu positive?
  6. Did you undergo any surgery for your tumor, such as a lumpectomy or mastectomy?

Answers to these will help us understand.

Sylvia,
I favour the Carl Sagan quote “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.

If you want to claim that your protocol has better survival rates than current best practice in EBM you need to prove it.

Perhaps you have found a cure but perhaps you haven’t, just telling us you have been cured of a disease proves nothing. If you care about your protocol then push for properly conducted research and keep pushing till it gets done and published, then you will have bragging rights.

Finally and personally, if you did have cancer and you have only used the NORI protocol to treat it please, please, please, go back to an oncologist and get yourself checked out again. It will cost you very little and the results of the examination will give you a chance to reassess your choices.

F68.10
I’m not in the US but I’m pretty sure you can ask any questions you want. Wether you get an answer is, of course, another thing.

Orac asked Sylvia about her diagnosis not her health care provider. Had he asked her doctor it would most certainly be illegal for them to answer without her written consent unless he was involved in her health care on a professional basis: that is unless he was her current surgeon.

@Orac: Is it legal in your country to ask such questions publicly???

Is it illegal in your country? Something resembling a legal citation will do.

@Narad: Depends what you mean by legal. There is an interaction between law and medical boards in my country that makes almost any complaint only the domain of the medical board and almost never the judicial system. (Not even sure Farid Fatah would have been tried in my country… only his license revoked, I believe).

The disciplinary code (along with relevant legal articles) is here:

https://www.conseil-national.medecin.fr/sites/default/files/codedeont.pdf

I believe that the article 30 is often wielded (rightly or wrongly) against physicians who enquire about diagnostic details on the net, which is what Orac just did. I’ve never seen a physician do that in my country, and I believe their fear is pragmatically justified.

Orac’s behaviour, potentially violating article 30 would perhaps be offset by his behaviour that is “moral” according to article 44. But is nevertheless opposite to article 64 and 73. And by using a pseudonym, he violates article 75 explicitly.

Oh! And by criticising homeopathy, Orac would be violating articles 31, 56, 68 I believe.

(But this disciplinary code is almost unenforceable in practice, so your mileage may vary…)

I am not going to be as long winded as Orac is. Suffice to say 2 things, first that he says things like

“It’s also rather interesting that Simon focuses on fruits so much, given that vegetables are also low in methionine.”

Which show that he has a very surface acquaintance with that which he is criticizing so vehemently. If he doesn’t even know that then maybe he should just keep his big mouth shut.

Second is that he argues for standard of care as a christian argues about christianity. He believes in it. I bet he doesn’t turn his toxic mockery’s discrimination on his own belief.

If he did he might notice that standard of care has very little say about diet’s influence on cancer. At least very little that is put into practice. They would rather cut parts out, burn you with radiation and poison the whole body with chemo than to come up with a diet component of cancer care. Why? Because there is no money to be made from it. Who would fund the research? So if you think that diet is irrelevant follow the true believers like Orac. You might get to eat whatever you want, but you might get effects that you wouldn’t wish for, if you knew they were there. And you will never know they are there if all you subscribe to is standard of care, because there is no money to be made studying such things.

Science doesn’t study radical remissions either. Go figure

I see a market opportunity for a new self help book: “Trolling for Dummies”. If trolls are going to continue spewing all over science blogs they should do it with at least a quantum of competence.

So why doesn’t he advocate vegetables more? I assume you know the reason but don’t want to seem like a smart arse by lecturing us?

‘Standard of care’ is an evolving concept. Every time trial data shows a better drug or combination of drugs or dosing regimen or surgical technique, ‘standard of care’ changes. Sometimes slowly, but it does change. It’s not something you believe in. Every part of ‘standard of care’ is backed up by the best knowledge at the time. If the alternative medical field can’t prove their treatments work then stop sulking about it and try actually doing some science for a change. If your evidence can’t stand up to scrutiny, then you don’t have evidence. You do realise that there’s a lot of money in the alt med industry don’t you? Plenty of scope for a few choice trials.

Also try to realise that America isn’t the centre of the world. There are plenty of countries with universal health care that subsidise the drugs prescribed by doctors. In other words, they would give their eye teeth to be able to cure cancers with cheap alternatives like diet instead of spending a fortune on pharmaceuticals. As an example, I looked up the cost of Lamictal in the US. First search result says $1302 for 98 tablets. Guess how much that costs my partner? Less than £10 for over 100 tablets. The rest of that cost comes out of the NHS operating budget. You really think they wouldn’t jump at a lower cost alternative?

Australia here. My mother was on cetuximab for over a year for stage 4 metastatic rectal cancer. 1 1/2 bottles each treatment (can’t remember the exact dosage).

OTC Cost was approximately $2700 Au per dose. She paid $12.20 Au. Also her oncologist bulk billed her so she paid nothing for her visits (she was a private patient but if she had been a public patient she wouldn’t have been billed at all).

The icing on the cake (not a nice cake) – as she had private health insurance she didn’t even have to pay the $12.20, the insurance covered it. It also covered her surgery and initial radiotherapy costs. The Cancer care centre where she received treatment offered dieticians, social work, physiotherapist etc all free and a 24 hour emergency call line staffed by oncology specialist nursing staff. Her port was implanted and maintain without cost too.

God I wish the alt health crowd would stop bashing oncologists.

Mums oncologist was well paid, but he works long hours, is regularly on call weekends and after hours and treats very sick and dying people every day. He didn’t lie to her ad tell her he could cure her and when that cure didn’t materialise blame her for it not happening. In other words he wasn’t cruel like so many of the alt health lot who promise a full recovery they know they can’t deliver.

Whatever made you think we do not ear vegetables? We do eat vegetables, they are a big part of our diet protocol. This is why this tread of discussion is so offensive to those of us that practice the NORI alternate healing approach. You don’t know the protocol and what you are speaking about. Fruits and vegetables is the majority of our diet…we eat as low fat Vegans.

Gee, Mark. You don’t really think I haven’t heard all your cancer quack tropes a hundreds, if not thousands, of times before, do you?

First, please do enlighten us and explain why the emphasis on fruit rather than vegetable’s in Simon’s protocol. (I suspect I know and sort of alluded to it indirectly in my post, but if I’m right it’s a reason based every bit as much on pseudoscience.)

Second, nice “your science-based medicine is a religion!” gambit. Yawn.

Third, nice “you don’t study diet and cancer because all you want to do is make money cutting, poisoning, and burning!” gambit. Seriously, dude. Be more original. Yawn. Also, there are literally thousands of studies of diet and cancer in the peer-reviewed medical literature. You just ignore them because they don’t show that diet alone can cure cancer without other treatments.

Finally, science does study radical remissions, only we don’t use the term “radical remissions.” That’s more a marketing term for a book than a scientific term. Instead, we refer to patients who undergo unexpected remissions “exceptional responders.” The NIH even has a major study of these patients ongoing.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/research/exceptional-responders-initiative-qa

Sorry, Mark, but you don’t know what you’re talking about, and you’re parroting cancer alternative medicine talking points rather mindlessly.

They would rather cut parts out, burn you with radiation and poison the whole body with chemo than to come up with a diet component of cancer care. Why? Because there is no money to be made from it.

Really? Are you telling us that Mr Simon does it all for free? If not, then he’s making money from it.

Of course he doesn’t do it for free, why would he? Do any of you do your work for free? Do any of you Doctors do your work for free? What does Mark charging a fee have to do with the understanding of NORI? He just happens to do his work with compassion and integrity in a home based affordable program. Most cancer patients go to a health food store and buy supplements and pay more for them than our monthly cost to have professional, science based support with our cancer treatment.

Most things I do, I do for free, like writing book-reviews and composing music.
I suppose promoting quackery brings in the money, judging from the amount of posts made by Sylvia Benevides.

^ For that matter, way back when I was a proofreader/editor/para-paralegal at a giant law firm, the associates doing pro bono work got the red-carpet treatment without billing for the time in the library upstairs.

Shit, my PCP could be making a lot more money if she hadn’t decided to work in a low-income clinic. My shrink could be all about his private practice, but he also devotes time to a similar clinic.

In short, you’re not just trolling and shilling, you’re either a dumbfuck or an asshole.

If a patient comes in with a tumor impinging on their airway, do you have the tumor removed before beginning the diet protocol, or does the diet protocol work quickly enough to resolve the tumor before the patient is unable to breathe?

Orac’s minions can gain insight into how believers in diet/ lifestyle as a cure for cancer cogitate by reading a new article on Natural News ( yesterday, Vickie Batts):

*Quack scientists now claim cancer to be caused solely by bad luck, not cause and effect; confirms lunatic belief in “spontaneous disease” * ( scientists at Johns Hopkins)

the authors suggests that epigenetics and nutrition are the answer.
Between NN and prn, I can understand how followers are mal-educated by continual articles like these and hatred for SBM. It sounds so easy and so pure. Unfortunately, life’s most difficult issues are – by definition- neither easy nor pure.

I spend a lot of time listening to testimonials of customers at “health retreats” ( courtesy of prn) tell how diet, exercise and the right psychological attitude/ thoughts have cured their “end-stage” disease- including various cancers, MS, AD, diabetes etc.
It reminds me of descriptions of religious conversions at revival meetings ( Persuasion and Healing) where followers’ beliefs are transformed through repeated emotional “instruction” – all other ideas are “of the devil”
.
Unlike SBM, proselytisers of either alt med or old time religion don’t have to provide figures concerning outcomes such as cures, deaths or ascension to heaven.

@Denice Walter: I guess you meant this article:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-05-20-quack-scientists-now-claim-cancer-caused-solely-by-bad-luck.html

They way they just keep jumping over and over on lifestyle and diet when discussing “randomness” in cancer can only be described as obsessive compulsive disorder with potentially homicidal consequences.

“It would also seem reasonable to hypothesize that what one’s parent eats may cause an egg or sperm cell’s DNA to change, and possibly become more apt to undergo another change later in life that would initiate cancer.”

Sigh… Talking. Out. Of. One’s. Ass.

@Orac: You wrote “Interesting career trajectory” when discussing Epner’s career trajectory.

I’d really love to know if you could just expand on what kind of professional experiences and reflective thoughts you believe would push someone to move from oncology to palliative care. Do you need to loose faith in the research process? Do feelings of medical helplessness play a role? That kind of stuff. I’d really like to know what you believe on the topic.

“It would also seem reasonable to hypothesize that what one’s parent eats may cause an egg or sperm cell’s DNA to change, and possibly become more apt to undergo another change later in life that would initiate cancer.”

That’s neat. You can follow a life-style following the current AltMed orthorexic guidelines, and still die of cancer, and they will explain it away as your parents’ diets. Pure Living can never fail. It can only be failed.

As I have said of another quack often mentioned hereabouts, if this guy really has good evidence that this protocol works and cures cancer, then if he fails to publish the supporting data and the details he should be regarded as either thoroughly despicable or simply greedy to retain the profits for himself.

Presumably he is completely reliant on some unknown agency(s) outside of his “institute” for actual evaluation of the progress of the cancers in the people he is treating. I suppose the institute might posses a portable ultrasound instrument, but I rather doubt if it has any other imaging equipment. Can the unqualified “order” things like CT scans, MRIs, biopsies, etc. from private labs in his neck of the woods?

One of the woo-meisters I survey, relied upon enabling doctors with standard degrees and ability to order tests etc- one taught at a medical school. In addition, he had a facility in NYC for procedures like IV vitamins and ozone therapy staffed with people with RNs or MDs/ DOs ( perhaps DCs).One of the reasons he moved some of his operations to Texas is because “they have less regulation” – so there may be a “healing resort” soon because he has enablers nearby as well.

Mark Anderson: “(Orac) argues for standard of care as a christian argues about christianity. He believes in it. I bet he doesn’t turn his toxic mockery’s discrimination on his own belief.”

Alties are so very fond of “your science is just a religion har har har” but one wonders why they stubbornly conflate the two, seeing that evidence-based medicine relies on principles that are the antithesis of faith.

Mark is dead right about the money angle, though. Orac and all us other medical professionals would rather deny and conceal The One True Cure for cancer and die needlessly ourselves along with family and friends, rather than admit the Truth. The filthy lucre is just too tempting.

My brother died of lymphoma. Naturally, I was conflicted about revealing the One True Cure, because, hey, my brother’s life was at stake, but on the other hand, there was all that sweet sweet money rolling in.

Sorry, bro.

I’m not even in a medical or bioscience field and I get irritated by illogical though processes for free.

I invite you to have a mature, live discussion with Mark Simon and others you have labelled ‘quacks’. I assume that would include all of us who use methods other than the ‘standard care’. This would not be about converting you but to actually have you show up and see about having a conversation together. Are you open to this idea? I think it would make for a great listen/participate broadcast. What do you say.

Dawna, you really don’t understand the woo/science conflict at all do you? There’s no point in having this sort of debate unless both sides fully agree and stick to fixed points. Real life and science are more complicated than woo. So, evidenced based person turns up at the meeting. Woo person says that there is scientific evidence that doing X cures Y. Evidenced based person says ‘OK, let me look at that data’. A few hours later, evidence based person says ‘nope, the data says that one trial showed a tiny bit of improvement in Y due to X but the trial had poor methodology so you can’t trust the results’. Woo person and audience have gone home at this point. Woo person claims victory.

Since woo practitioners make it up as they go along and don’t require real evidence for their opinions they can pull multiple talking points out of their bottoms. Evidence based people then have to deconstruct every claim in order to check if the claims are false or exaggerated. In other words it’s much more time consuming to refute woo than it is to create it. Might as well argue with a flat earther. You have no idea what rubbish or misinterpretation they’ll come up with next.

Real-time debates are only for quick, unsupported claims and clever sound bites. It’s not a coincidence that science is never conducted by debate.

I invite you to have a mature, live discussion with Mark Simon and others you have labelled ‘quacks’.

“Invite”?

If you really have no-methionine diet, you would get kwashiorkor. This is a disease caused by lack of proteins or lack of an essential amino acid (some all fruiters have managed to get it).
It seems to me that idea is to prevent protein synthesis, methionine being an initiator. This would be a very bad drug target, all human protein synthesis inhibitors are very toxic.

We are not all fruiters. We do eat protein.

You’d better be following the standard vegan supplement routine as well.

Ok. So you’re vegan. In which case, if this diet cures cancer, you & Mr Simon should surely be able to present clear evidence in support of that claim. There’s some evidence that a vegan diet may reduce the risk of developing cancer, but that’s a separate issue.

I’m pretty sure someone linked this on an alt – med site, the cranks are just crawling out of the woodwork.

regarding your response Orac. There are solutions to your posed blocks to have a public conversation. Like a court process evidence is exchanged prior to the debate between the “professionals” and so one is prepared to discuss the exchanged data together at the time of the live debate. One comes prepared so time is not wasted.

When have wooists ever agreed to keep a “debate” evidence-based?

In this case the quack(s) would likely misinterpret experimental data, make up new claims on the spot and invoke a slew of unverifiable testimonials, while glorying in having gotten equal time with an actual scientist.

Nothing is stopping NORIphiles from posting a response to Orac’s article. They should, as we can use more laughs.

Like a court process evidence is exchanged prior to the debate between the “professionals” and so one is prepared to discuss the exchanged data together at the time of the live debate. One comes prepared so time is not wasted.

So, high-school Lincoln–Douglas? Brilliant.

You could start the discussion now, there. How would all fruit diet fix a mutation ? (One happened after the birth.)

I would add that science is a public conversation.

But, it is conducted by publishing data and results in journals where anyone can read and learn from them, evaluate their quality, compare them with results of similar research. Other scientists can attempt to replicate them or expand upon them to answer questions.

These results are also reviewed and discussed in meetings of professional societies and public agencies, as well as news articles and blogs like this one.

Mark Simon is free to participate in this process, but he hasn’t chosen to do so.

It is very apparent that you have not studied the NORI Protocol in depth.

You should educate yourself before making yourself appear so ignorant. You should also educate yourself on natural healing and things that ARE working for cancer.

Those of us that KNOW for a FACT that cut, burn and poison are NOT the answer for cancer are much wiser than you. We have done diligent research and we already know that the mainstream Doctors and their worshipers usually end up dead within 5 years of their toxic methods. I prefer to use the things God gave me to stop cancer in it’s tracks-ALL NATURAL….no poison…

Keep your eye on NORI….it WILL work when we limit the diet to fruit and veggies and give the body what it needs to heal like oxygen, hydrogen, magnesium, iodine and certain supplements that have been PROVEN to cause apoptosis.

ANYONE can repost an article and then destroy the wording. Try researching and find the truth.

I prefer to use the things God gave me to stop cancer in it’s tracks-ALL NATURAL….no poison…

This may be indelicate, but if you’re going to take this tack, didn’t G-d therefore give you cancer in the first place? The Tetragrammaton is shilling for Big Suppla? I’m confused.

Can you explain how all fruit diet would fix a mutation. Cancer cells have lots of them, ones happened after the birth. Can you tell one case of cancer caused by mitochondrial dysfunction ? Why you think that cancer cells differentiate to normal tissue cells ? They are cancer cells just because they not.
And if they were malignant report, you can of course post the actual NORI theory.

You haven’t done ‘diligent research’ at all. You’ve read a load of opinions that you don’t understand and puked them all over the internet.

In reality you are petrified of anyone more intelligent than you. So, in your head, you turn them into morally bankrupt demons who you can safely look down upon.

Try posting some actual science showing that the NORI protocol AS INSTRUCTED BY MARK SIMON, can cure cancer. I’ll wait.

Apop-Tosis was in fact a 25th-Dynasty Pharaoh, who died young of a surfeit of crocodiles, which is why he is not well-known.

Sylvia Benevides asks if any of us “do our work for free”

Not real work, counselling people- which is paid most of the time. Occasionally I mentor international students for free.
But all of my pro-SBM/ anti woo activity/ reportage is for free.

Comments are closed.