|
Noted.
In general terms the same test comments must apply to drugs, which are trialed in the same manner, but have rather less well known wider impacts on both animals and humans than dietary items.
But if you follow research on omega three you will find a wealth of trials supporting the positive impact of omega three, and the importance of balancing the omega threes and sixes, particularly to HER 2. (see other posts)
I am not suggesting miracles, or abandoning traditional therapies, but as an accessible affordable dietary consideration it has to be worth serious consideration. As previously suggested go on to NCBI and type in breast cancer and omega three. Here is a natuaral dietary factor that appears to work along several pathways, has been trialed for millenia, has very few side effects, and does not cost a huge amount.
There is significant evidence based on various trials relating biopsy results to outcome of a high level of protection from omega threes.
Why is natures pharmacy so demeaned. It has taken us a very long time to evolve in response to our environment and food sources. Foods are a chemical arsenal to which we have adapted to survive. The bodies mechanisms are hugely complex, and chemical single magic bullets are on the balance of probabilities unlikely to be more than partially effective.
Why should it be beyond credibility that dietary factors are significantly responsible responsible for the growth in breast cancer in western societies.
Why is much so much research put into new avenues and so little into determining what changes are producing increase in complex diseases based on internal mechanisms rather than external stimuli.
Why is diet as part of a total strategy for disease prevention treated by such disdain by many in the profession.
RB.
|