MovieChat Forums > Food Matters (2008) Discussion > Had to turn it off when . . .

Had to turn it off when . . .

posted 11 years ago by jay_brown71
11 replies | jump to latest

The stupid old bat said a healthy body would not, could not develop cancer.

I had much higher hopes for this film after just watching "Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead" which I really enjoyed. But I would have to agree with much of the sentiment here that this film is unbalanced and unsupported. I would also add that it is repetetive and not very informative.

I was tolerating it, hoping to glean some small amount of useful information, and then the old bat that came on and implied that if you followed their advice cancer simply wouldn't exist - well, enough was enough.

The history of cancer pre-dates our bad diet and lifestyle habits, and the pharmeceutical industry, and the chemical industry . . .

[–] didomusic 11 years ago

Actually I have been trying to search for numbers online and they are hard to come by without being obviously biased but it seems that at least in Japan, cancer incidence has nearly tripled since the 50's. The most "westernized" countries seem to have the highest cancer rates by far.

[–] jay_brown71 11 years ago

And here you are making a rational statement - you mention you have been "trying" to find the relevant information. You qualify your response with the word "seems". And you point out a statistical incidence without drawing a conclusion. You are a better documentary than "Food Matters" - they make grand claims that sound like statements of fact, and offer no evidence or support.

By the way, I would in no way argue that our diet is not a great (perhape the greatest?) contributor to the climb in cancer deaths in human history - but the "old bat", as I have christened her, claims that diet alone would eradicate the disease.

[–] didomusic 11 years ago

Unfortunately I am not as popular as Food Matters, and however inaccurate it is, at least it's core message of the importance of a good diet is a very positive one that really needs to be heard more, even if it's sugar-coated with BS like the cancer cure thing. In that sense, it is similar but less balanced than An Inconvenient Truth.

[–] flickfix 10 years ago

You simplified what she was implying. It's not just good dieting habits as we know. It's dieting habits going all the way back to our natural way of eating, before agriculture and hunting.

Also, the point, is not really about dieting per se, but getting our body's immune system to be at 100%. And it's that modern food is damaging our immune system.

Are there cancer found in other herbivorous primates in their natural habitat? And if cancer were introduced into test subjects, how do their bodies react? I don't know, but that would be the first place I would look.

The film did give a lot of correlation. And they all stated clearly it's correlation. Which means, they can't yet establish firmly a causation. But the correlation in data is just astonishing. So if I were her, and were able to reverse what medical society deem incurable, I would believe my own theory too. And what she's saying is actually based firmly on science. But that's science, constantly curious, and constantly questioning, affirming, refuting, reexamining.

There are many science that we take for granted now that seem ridiculous when those ideas were first introduced. Keep that in mind.

[–] jay_brown71 10 years ago

Are there cancer found in other herbivorous primates in their natural habitat? And if cancer were introduced into test subjects, how do their bodies react? I don't know, but that would be the first place I would look.

As with the other poster here, you pose rational questions that I would also like the answer(s) to, and then state you don't know the answer(s) but you would look.

Again, if you made a documentary I would watch it.

I am sorry, but the word "scientific" should not be used in reference to this film.

If the people involved with making it and those interviewed have changed their diets and feel better, thats great. Can most of our diets be improved - no doubt!

I don't mind ridiculous ideas, and I agree that novel thinking quite often leads to new discoveries - but the ideas should be presented as theory or hypothesis, not fact. And supporting evidence can help us understand why someone holds a certain opinion or view.

There are many differences between modern societies and third world nations that go far beyond just diet, so to see a disparity in cancer rates and conclude that the different diet is solely responsible is not logical, and to disseminate it to the public as fact is irresponsible.

[–] flickfix 10 years ago

I think they mentioned a 50 year data collection of the same nation, China, having disparity of cancer risks correlating to each regions diet. And they did point out it's still a correlation, but one worthy looking into.

For me, it's David Wolfe sounding like an informercial sales that kinda put me off. But all in all, a lot of very good info, for the general public. The filmmakers could have done better editing by consulting hardcore scientists and skeptics.

[–] edrebber 8 years ago

Cancer was much less common in ancient mummies, where a major difference was their diet.

Cutting out processed foods and taking vitamins isn't going to kill you like radiation and chemotherapy will.

[–] reggers20 10 years ago

You know what else "westernized" countries have... good record keeping. also Japans numbers are clearly skewed by the fact that WWII was going on in the 40's im sure meticulous record keeping was not a top priority at that time. I'm not trying to dispute your findings I just want to put them in perspective. Facts without context are meaningless.

[–] adrienewsom 7 years ago

LMAO!! You summed up everything about this terrible "documentary" perfectly. Plus, the record keeping comment literally made me laugh out loud, excellent point. I don't know how to use emoji on here but [applause]!!!

~I wish we'd had a laugh but you're just not funny~

[–] bruce-129 9 years ago

I think you might enjoy and get something out of "Forks Over Knives" if you have not already seen it.
They do talk about how they can turn cancer on and off in rats by increasing certain kinds of proteins,
i.e. ones found in animal foods. That is pretty interesting.

[–] onlinesteel 8 years ago

Out of curiosity, why do you believe that it's impossible that she is correct in her statements? I'm struggling to understand why that would irk you so much, unless you had clear evidence that she was wrong. I don't in any way claim that I know everything on the matter, but what was said in this documentary made me at least very curious to learn more about the subject of nutrition and the power of a perfectly healthy body. Simply from what I've seen in the documentary, there seems to be a correlation between the rise in unhealthy eating habits and the rise in cancer cases. I say "seems to be" because I can't prove a direct correlation, but it's hard to refute that they are connected in some way. The fact that a complete change in lifestyle and eating habit can reverse cancer is very very curious.

If a healthy life can reverse cancer that already exists in our body, what's to say that it can't prevent it from ever showing up in the first place? It seems to me that it's much more difficult to reverse the effects of something rather than prevent it from beginning. Usually if something harmful is already present, basic options are to either stop it or slow it down, but reversing is an entirely different matter and a much more powerful effect.