This archived forum used to be called 'Peatarian' (in reference to Ray Peat).

Jess Ainscough a.k.a. the Wellness Warrior has died

Has anyone been following this?

Jess was an Australian blogger who was diagnosed with a rare cancer (epithelioid sarcoma) at age 22 and rejected conventional medicine (which would have had her amputate her entire arm - however I'm still unclear if this would have cured her).

Instead she did Gerson therapy, green juices, etc. (unfortunately nothing Ray Peatish).

Her mother got breast cancer a few years ago and also rejected mainstream treatments, and she died in 2013. That stress probably contributed to Jess's death last week age 30... but she lived for 7 years with the cancer.

This vile blogger has been on deathwatch for a while now - posting about it with glee:

The comments are also shocking to me - as if doctors know everything and this girl was "dangerous" for simply writing about what she was doing.

Seems to be a huge blow for alternative health world...??

asked Mar 4, 2015 by ilovethesea

Well it just shows the sad state of western medicine that people feel amputating an arm is no big deal.

Jessica did in fact give conventional medicine a chance because she had chemotherapy injected into her arm and the cancer came back after a year. Her only options after that were amputation and full body chemotherapy.

I can understand why she did not want to do that to her body.

It is possible that she would have died a lot sooner without the Gerson therapy. It's funny how the supporters of the conventional "cut, burn, poison" form of cancer treatment ignore the vast majority of cancer patients who die in spite of receiving conventional cancer treatment. In fact, studies show that people who receive no conventional treatment live longer and have a better quality of life than people who don't. And conventional medicine is taking credit for curing many "cancers" that aren't really malignant or would have been destroyed by the immune system.

I believe Jessica had a better quality of life following the Gerson therapy than if she had amputated her arm and received full body chemo.

I am sorry to hear of her passing but none of us came here to stay forever. Some people are going to get diseases and die young no matter what they eat or what treatments they use.

May she rest in peace.

"In fact, studies show that people who receive no conventional treatment live longer and have a better quality of life than people who don't"

Show me these studies, because that's a bold claim and the majority of clinical trials testing common chemotherapies show improved or no worsening of survival. I find it fairly possible she had a better quality of life spurning traditional chemo and turning to the Gerson therapy but I think for most people doing so spells a shorter life.

I think Peat had a great deal of respect for Gerson and knew him personally. Peat's concern is that his own copy of Gerson's book says "NO OILS!" and yet the book that was published, Peat thinks, fraudulently under Gerson's name, inserts a reference to something called the Budwig protocol that uses toxic linseed oil, when Gerson had never mentioned Budwig when he was alive.

I'm guessing Jessica didn't know any of this when she put her trust in the Gerson institute, and might still be alive now, had she used the actual Gerson protocol for "NO OILS!" and not been deceived by the fraud of altering the book.

I wonder if the many victims of this fraud may have a cause of action against those who perpetrated it by altering Gerson's book?

Hi ms, thanks for posting! I think Seyfried believes that most brain cancer victims die from the standard of care they receive, not from the cancer. I mention Seyfried because it takes a great deal of courage to speak out against the HMO/pharma cartel when your academic position can be taken away for such opposition, and Seyfried is one of the few who has.

And respectfully, No, there will never be any clinical trials disclosing to you any truth that the nanny state and its corrupt wardens don't want you to know, and that even people like Seyfried who have devoted their lives to this field are unable to say openly.

Granted, he's talking about radiation and not chemo as you do, but at least by implication, he says (at 19:30) that the Institutional Review Board prevents any real progress in "clinical trials"; and that "the reason why we have so few people surviving is because of the standard of care." (at 20:10 to the end.)

ms, Can you say if you are working or studying in the field in some way? We all very much need someone like you, with your training and skills, not to be swayed by "clinical trials".

Hey VoS, I've been studying to enter the oncology field but am not working in it. I think the foremost way clinical trials are subject to corruption is through the termination of (and subsequent failure to publish results from) studies with "disappointing" results (say, industry funded studies on chemotherapy drugs). However, there are still a number of clinical trials reporting benefits on cancer patients taking chemo drugs and I'm dubious that researchers would be able to or willing to forge that data, except in rare circumstances. Anyway, it's hard to summarize here but I simply disagree with the broad claim that cancer patients are more likely to die using most conventional treatments.

Dr. Seyfried has produced some interesting research, but I think he makes some questionable claims while advocating for his ketogenic diet approach to brain cancer.

I agree that cancer treatment today is not enviable and I think there is a lot of forces stagnating advancement but it's disappointing to me that the loudest voices speaking about this ultimately advocate for cancer treatments I don't find compelling (The current Gerson therapy, ketogenic diet, laetrile, antineoplastons, etc.)

You're in med school and have time to help us out by commenting! Thanks so much!

I do agree that Peat's voice is not loud, but he feels that some "chemo"-like drugs are useful, namely, that anticholinergic drugs such as scopolamine, belladonna, or atropine could be helpful; and that aspirin and cyproheptadine are other safe drugs that inhibit cancer promoting signals. I think he's considering adding urea to this list.

A quick patent search seems to show that these molecules are open source, meaning anyone can manufacture them. Question, are there any clinical trials on these molecules?

I think an oncologist cannot use these molecules without clinical trials?


Do your own research. It is out there. I don't care if you believe what I say. If you can't find it, too bad, I am not interested in convincing you. If conventional cancer treatment were so effective, people would not go looking for "alternatives".

If you want to trust the clinical trials, go ahead. Clinical trials typically don't last for years. So just because a chemo drug appears to be effective in the first few weeks of usage means nothing. What usually happens is the cancer goes into remission in the few weeks or months of the clinical trial and returns weeks or months after the trial is over. The person is declared cancer free during the trial but when the cancer returns or spreads, that information is not included in the statistics for the drugs.

There are only a couple of rare cancers that are known to respond well to conventional therapy. Conventional cancer treatment is simply for profit and nothing more. About 35% of cancers go into remission with no treatment of any kind and many people are misdiagnosed with cancer. Hence the high success rate that conventional medicine likes to boast about. Those people were going to get better even without the treatment.

Boy, if only I had a dollar for every time someone made highly questionable claims said "whatever, the studies proving I'm right exist I just won't show you them, it's not my job to convince you".

I have done my own research and actually number of clinical trials have gone on years, 5, 10, even 15 years and survival risks have been frequently shown to be better in patients receiving certain chemotherapy drugs and/or radiotherapy. This is true in non-rare neoplasms including breast cancer. And I'd be happy to provide some of these references if asked.

"I think Peat had a great deal of respect for Gerson and knew him personally. "

Max Gerson died in 1959 when Ray Peat was about 23 years old. Ray Peat got his science degree in the 70s. I doubt Peat personally knew Max Gerson.

I have a copy of the original Gerson diet. It is VERY anti-Peat. Almost everything that Gerson recommends goes against Peat's recommendations. If anyone is a fraud, it is Ray Peat for trying to claim that he knew Max Gerson.

Originally the Gerson therapy did exclude all oils and fats. But his daughter Charlotte says that Dr Gerson added flaxseed oil later on because he believed it was helpful for heart disease. I have no reason to question her. Ray Peat has the nerve to call Dr. Gerson's daughter a liar.

Max Gerson would most likely laugh at Ray Peat's recommendations to ingest animal fat, white sugar, milk, coca cola as a substitute for fruit, etc. The Gerson protocol banned all animal products and included lots of grains, vegetables, apples and beta carotene rich foods. Gerson also banned added sodium in all forms and gave his patients potassium supplements. Gerson used niacin (not niacinamide) and was against the use of aspirin (except in rare cases when pain was intolerable) and all hormones. In addition, Gerson used large amounts of iodine in the form of Lugol's solution.

Here is Peat's response to Charlotte Gerson's claim that "during the last year of his practice, after the first edition of his book was published, Gerson added linseed oil to the diet of his cancer patients with excellent results" (which on its face is implausible, since he could not know with so few patients in less than a year what his results were):

I agree with your recent remarks about
directing criticism mainly toward the errors
of conventional medicine, because the
biggest problems exist within the orthodox
and government-established medical
system. As you said, people should not be
put down because of their degrees, and for
that reason, I avoid putting letters after
name, except where there is a reason for it.
However, I got a letter from Charlotte
Gerson criticizing me for failing to mention
Budwig's degree. Since the other degrees
(including mine) were editorially added to
my letter, it wasn't my intention to slight
Budwig for being degree deficient.

However, Charlotte Gerson also says
that I made "a number of statements which
are not defensible," but doesn't seem to
understand what I said. I am aware that
linseed oil has been used by Mexican
physicians to treat cancer at least since
1939, and that it can be toxic to cancer cells
(though probably less toxic than to normal
cells*), and that its laxative action is
plausibly effective in treating constipated
cancer patients. My primary criticism is
that people who get on the big marketing
bandwagon(whether the product is linseed
oil or germanium or iron supplements) so
often -- as in the Udo Erasmus book -- appear
to systematically lead attention
away from the possible dangers of their

The "deleterious effects of unsaturated
oils" have been clearly established and are
recognized by everyone working in the
field. They are not "supposed" and are not
merely "discussed" subject to disproof "by
others." Many people are now investigating
a variety of theories that attempt to explain
the specific nature of the toxicity.

The opinions credited to Budwig by
Erasmus suggest ignorance of organic
chemistry and biochemistry. If someone
takes Dr. Budwig's ideas seriously, TLfD
should invite her to explain them herself.

Without knowing more about the
publication details of the new version of
the book, Fifty Cases, and the letter that
Max Gerson supposedly wrote to
Schweitzer, I wouldn't want to analyze all
of the ideas ascribed to him. The original
book, which I believe was reprinted several
times without changes, even after his
death, was a coherent scientific document.
Posthumous "new editions" always raise

Raymond Peat, Ph.D.
Eugene, Oregon 97403

*Cancer cells are rich in antioxidants which protect
them against free radicals. J. Duchesne, Nul. BioL
XVI (5-6), 1977, discusses this and gives references.


IslandGirl, you strike me as someone who is very passionate about this topic, which I certainly appreciate. I would just ask you to consider Peat's response here with an open mind, and to consider that at best, Gerson considered all but a very small amount of flaxseed oil to be toxic. His own purported letter said: "1- 2 tablespoons daily for 3- 4 weeks; then 1 tablespoon for some time. After good improvement, 1-2 times daily, 2. teaspoonsful; later 2 times 1 teaspoon." Of course, he died before he could ever determine whether any patients of his had actual results.

Island Girl I agree with your thoughts on Jess and cancer treatment in general. (Not the part about Max Gerson - Ray has helped my health more than any other living person, so I tend to trust him more than other people.)

I think this quote is highly relevant:

"Q: Do you have any comments to make on metastases that haven't had surgical intervention?

RP: They are great for business... because now they're starting that breast cancer starts in utero. The idea of metastatic little aliens... it's good for business because you can never prove that they are not there. If you injure a person enough.

100% of people over age 50 had some form of abdominal cancer (autopsies from car accidents). People over 35 are likely to have cancer in prostate, breast or uterus.

Be careful about getting a diagnosis."

From this interview:

This is so true, be careful getting a diagnosis. With thyroid cancer for example it's very good for business - the rate of finding it has climbed like 1000%++ and they just love doing the surgeries and radiation, must make a lot of $$$. I am pretty sure I could have lived my entire life with thyroid cancer as they find it all the time in autopsied bodies. Now I am f*cked for life in terms of having to take thyroid supplement.

6 Answers


I had never heard of her before, but I thank you for introducing me to the life of this lovely and brave woman.

Some things were stated in the other thread that I would characterize as grossly inaccurate and inappropriate, and I'd like to address them here. I am neither an expert in Ray Peat's work nor the Gerson protocol, but I think I'm a pretty good BS detector.

It was stated:
"Almost everything that Gerson recommends goes against Peat's recommendations."

and that:

"The Gerson protocol banned all animal products...."

Here are a few things that Peat and the Gerson Therapy have in common:

Both extol the healing properties of a fat-free diet.

Both emphasize the desirability of a fast metabolism and a fast pulse.

Both make liberal use of animal-sourced thyroid hormone.

Both consider lowfat dairy to be a superior food. In the case of serious illness, the Gerson protocol prohibits the use of dairy for at least the first 6 weeks of therapy, because Gerson considered temporary protein restriction to be beneficial in such a state. However, when protein replenishment is called for, nonfat dairy is highly valued:

"In his anti-degenerative disease diet, especially as it involved cancer, a desirable protein repletion with nonfat, enzyme-predigested dairy products often occurs. Therefore, enzyme-modified defatted milk such as yogurt or unsalted nonfat cottage cheese is allowed as part of the dietary therapy."
The Gerson Therapy: The Amazing Nutritional Program for Cancer and Other Illnesses

On page 3 of the same book, it states:
".....the diet is largely fat free but includes some nonfat an unflavored yogurt, nonfat and unsalted pot cheese, cottage cheese, and churned buttermilk when available."
The book also includes many recipes incorporating nonfat dairy.

Both consider meat in general to be an inferior food source, but highly value the nutrients in liver. (The Gerson Therapy calls for supplementary liver powder, tablets, or injectable liver extracts).

Both highly value fruit and recommend the daily consumption of orange juice.

They certainly have their differences. But I think that any objective and intelligent person can see remarkable commonality as well.

answered Mar 5, 2015 by kapow
edited Mar 10, 2015 by kapow

Thank you for that analysis. I see Peat said this when asked about Gerson and Budwig in an interview:

One of the oldest treatments for cancer was enemas. Thousands of years
ago, doctors were recommending regular enemas to treat cancer and a
few hundred years ago laxatives became a standard feature of cancer
treatment. Just about 60 or 70 years ago Max Gerson cured his own
migraines with a change of diet. In the 20th century, he was the most
famous advocate of a mostly vegetable diet, but he did use liver -
liver juice was one of his components - and typically a good dose of
thyroid was part of his program. And so it was a nutritionally
rational program, but he twice in his book in capital letters said
'absolutely no oils'. His followers have changed the book and I think
they were influenced by Johanna Budwig and her flax oil and cottage
cheese diet. In 1954, before Budwig had started writing about cancer,
a Mexican professor had an article in Prevention magazine advocating -
I think it was - a cup of linseed oil a day as a purge, in the
tradition of getting the intestine as clean as possible. And when you
drink that much of a highly unsaturated oil, the unsaturated fatty
acids are converted to prostaglandins and cause intense contraction
and secretion of the intestine. So it's a very quick {through?
thrill?} kind of laxative. That was changed in Budwig's writing
several years later to think of the linseed oil as a nutritional
factor rather than as a laxative. And to the extent that it works as a
laxative, it's very likely helpful. But the rest of her program was
curds - cottage cheese, basically - and that's a very soothing, safe
diet that happens to be less able to promote endotoxin than other
proteins. I think there are reasons that the vegetables, when you
juice them, you get lots of minerals that allow you to assimilate the
sugars that are present in leafy and other vegetables. So the Gerson
diet and the Ludwig diet had some very rational factors. Basically,
keeping the intestine clean and keeping the thyroid function up I
think are the most important.

Great quote!

This is such sad news. I'm sorry to hear Jess passed. I first learned about her journey back when she interviewed one of my favorite authors, Anita Moorjani. Anita overcame her own battle with cancer after her near death experience.

I don't think it's a blow for the alternative health world because plenty of people are dying from cancer with mainstream medical approaches. Unfortunately, we can do all the right things and still pass. In the end, Jess did what she felt was right for her which I believe gives a person some personal power in a time when they can easily feel powerless. I won't be checking out what that blogger has to say. People shouldn't let their need to be right get in the way of their humanity and compassion.

answered Mar 5, 2015 by Jennifer
edited Mar 5, 2015 by Jennifer

Many of the more prominent bloggers work in the field or have undisclosed financial interests. They are in effect paid trolls for the HMO/pharma cartel and your idea of not "checking out what that blogger has to say" is the better practice if in search of truth.

Seriously!? The bloggers have someone in their back pockets too!? I should of listened to my mum when she told me not to leave my bubble. LOL

Are you trying to make me feel better with your still bubbly personality! LOL

Haha! Is it working?

Hmm, I am feeling a little bubbly, yes. You should bottle that!

Oh I have! It's part of our Mountain in a Bottle line. It's very fruity! :D

This is the protocol Jess was following:

"I swapped a lifestyle of late nights, cocktails and Lean Cuisines for carrot juice, coffee enemas and meditation and became an active participant in my treatment.

This research led me to Gerson Therapy which ensures you have a perfectly balanced diet for optimum health, assisting your body to flush out nasties whilst feeding it with all the goodness it needs to flourish.

The therapy involves drinking 13 fresh organic veggie juices per day (yes that’s one an hour, every hour of my waking day), five coffee enemas per day and a basic organic whole food plant-based diet with additional supplements.

For two years I devoted my entire life to healing, to the extent that I was effectively housebound."

I think she was following some quasi version of Gerson, definitely not the liver and dairy product one and I would be surprised if she took thyroid supplement. I read that she was vegan... so low quality protein and then all the raw veg and carotene suppressing metabolism. I think she used flaxseed oil as salad dressing. The only good part of her protocol seems to be the coffee enemas.

answered Mar 7, 2015 by ilovethesea

So her version of the Gerson therapy did not work because she did not drink milk, take thyroid and eat liver, LOl!

Gerson therapy was originally a plant based diet no matter what you claim. He did use a small amount of animal products. But there were different phases of the therapy and in the first few months most people were advised to avoid all animal products except liver extract and small amounts of dairy for some people. Later on, more animal products were added back to the diet.

The Gerson therapy is supposed to be a therapeutic diet not a maintenance one. I think people run into problems when they stay on it for too long.

No diet or supplement has ever been shown to cure cancer in clinical trials. Ray Peat can't save you from cancer. Keep deluding yourself that since you drink milk (grass fed!) with sugar and take aspirin (with the miniscule amount of deadly starch removed) progesterone and all the Peat supplements that you won't get sick. Keep looking down your nose at the uniformed, "stupid" people who have not discovered Ray Peat and are still eating chicken.

Ray Peat has been around a long time. Where are all the people that he has cured of cancer with aspirin and progesterone? Where are all the stroke victims that he healed with baking soda? Why are all his success stories afraid to show their faces? Why hasn't Peat been able to heal himself? He is not a healthy man.

You're contradicting yourself. First sentence, you ridicule the notion that Gerson did not work because she didn't have milk, thyroid and liver. (not that I ever said that was the reason Jess passed... but it could be) Then you go on to admit that these animal products WERE part of Gerson for some patients. Since Jess did vegan Gerson for 2 years, would that not cause problems and nutrient deficiencies?

Furthermore, I don't understand your position against thyroid supplement. What if the cancer patient has low thyroid (which I understand is very common and also related to bowel toxins)? You still think a person should suffer from hypothyroidism? That is inhumane. Why on earth do you think taking thyroid supplement is always a bad idea? And is the reason you always say "Ray Peat is unhealthy" because he takes thyroid supplement?

Have you read Broda Barnes book or McGavack's The Thyroid? I think you'd find them very enlightening.


You wrote:
"He did use a small amount of animal products. But there were different phases of the therapy and in the first few months most people were advised to avoid all animal products except liver extract and small amounts of dairy for some people."

So if you knew this, why did you erroneously assert that he "banned all animal products"?
Why did you also erroneously assert that he was against the use of "all hormones"?
Why did you also claim that he would laugh at Dr. Peat for recommending dairy?
What do you mean when you suggest that the "Gerson therapy was originally plant based no matter what you claim"? Did you really think that anyone is arguing that the Gerson therapy is not "plant based"? Oh, that's right: "Plant based" can pretty much mean whatever the user wants it to mean, which is why you used it, right? Because you can feel like you're making some sort of clever logical argument when you're actually not saying anything at all...

Finally: You put the word "stupid" in quotes, implying that ilovetheresa had originally used that word. Could you direct me to the original source of that quote?

I don't mean to start an argument, because I really value your input at times. How about you just take a few days and consider the possibility that peatarians are people, too? :-)

"Dr. Gerson wanted cellular metabolism, so he turned it on with large loading dosages of the iodide, iodine, and up to 5 grains of thyroid hormone too. With their ingestion, the patient's metabolism speeds up as manifested by his or her racing pulse, perhaps over 100 beats a minute."
The Gerson Therapy: The Proven Nutritional Program For Cancer and Other Illnesses

It is clear that thyroid hormone was an extremely important component of the therapy.

(Incidentally, it appears to me that Jess Ainscough may have used at least some animal products, because I see a comment from someone on her blog imploring her to give up all animal products, the same commenter suggesting that such products were at least partly responsible for the recurrence of Jess's symptoms).

There's nothing wrong in doing something to your own body on your own free will. The problem starts once you start hurting other people with it.

With that said, the problems began when this lady started to make a big media business about her personal experiment, suggesting several times her dietary therapy healed her cancer, which as we know now was not the case. The objections raised by Rosalie Hilleman and others are valid in my opinion, that there was a worrying amount of misinformation and obfuscation of facts done in her many media apparances and blog articles.

The gerson institute and several other people probably also had their hands in it, converting her story into a "product", that generates advertisement revenue, sales, attention and new clients.

On the positive side, she promoted a very positive and feel good attitude on her blog, which probably helped some people in this world of negativity.

answered Mar 10, 2015 by Bukowski
edited Mar 10, 2015 by Bukowski

What'a also wrong is trying to hurt people by suggesting them to use statins like you do

You are wrong 1. in implying I give out any broad recommendations of statins, which is not the case and 2. by suggesting that statins kill people, which is not the case either when they are taken with the right indication, which was what I pointed out several times earlier (which is not equal to a suggestion to take something, I hope you know the difference). 3. spamming the board with unrelated insults.

Statins are still appallingly performing drugs; probably since they're founded on a theory that's essentially bogus. And they have side effects that can kill people.

Experiments on rabbits and other animals proved there are far more effective ways of dealing with arteriosclerosis than statins. But they're not patentable.

This is all nonsense... This women if continuing the allopathic route of chemical therapy, radiation, and surgery may have died much sooner. How many people die of cancer using the allopathic route and there is not any negative response or mention of the failed treatments.

"This is all nonsense... This women if continuing the allopathic route of chemical therapy, radiation, and surgery may have died much sooner. How many people die of cancer using the allopathic route and there is not any negative response or mention of the failed treatments."

Exactly. I know several people who died within one to 2 years of using conventional treatment for their cancer. They had no quality of life during the course of their treatment. These people looked healthy and robust and actually felt good. They accepted the diagnosis of cancer, got treatment and spent the last few years of their lives in a living hell.

People know that conventional cancer treatment has a very low success rate and that is why they seek out "alternatives".

Exactly Islandgirl...the statistics are dismal

I knew people who suffered for several years with cancer, and after an operation they died in a very short time.

Guys, you cant just throw all cancers into one bin and say all chemo is crap and alternative treatment is the way to go - this is inappropriate. Several cancers, depending on the stage, have excellent curability chance with traditional therapy including chemo, i.e. hodgkin lymphoma, traditional breast cancer, colon cancer, testicular cancer, follicular/papillary thyroid cancer etc. Then there are other cancers for which curability or gain in life expectancy is very negliglible even with best traditional treatments. In such cases chemo can indeed worsen stuff in the end, when the last years of life are spent with nausea, fatigue and other chemo side effects. Notable examples are some lung cancers, pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma etc.

Her cancer was a slow growing one, very much different from malignant lung or brain cancer. Her death just fell in between the expected life expecancy period if she had done nothing. In other words, all her diet stuff probably did change nothing on the disease course in the end. Of course we never know because its just n=1.

You are completely missing the point here, which is the quality of the life that she led while she was alive. Conventional treatments typically lead to a greatly decreased quality of life, a kind of hostage mentality in which all free choice is removed, and ultimately the most horrible of deaths by cachexia.

This woman actually lived a great life. Carpe Diem! No feeling person would trade her life, a life she can be proud of, bravely knowing that she might die, with the hopelessness of being injected and radiated with conventional poisons. I hope everyone who has cancer takes note, and shuns these conventional treatments in favor of a life like hers, worth living out loud.

You make an unknown assumption claiming her quality of life was better while drinking vegetable juice and doing all those other interventions. Somebody who doesnt worry about what he should eat all day, without all that restrictions, has likely a very decent quality of life.

Also I find it quite offending how you try to label conventional cancer therapy with an overlying "hopelessness", which is absolutely not true. Under the caveats mentioned above, these therapies have been proven to be helpful and effective and provide hope and a chance for thousands of cancer patients each year and will continue to do so.

I'm also surprised the mainstream medicine advocates aren't even mentioning Kris Carr in all of this. If they want to "blame" someone for these so-called misguided ideas then look at Kris because she was the biggest thing in the alt cancer world since the mid 00s. With her movie, books, websites, Oprah and Dr. Oz TV appearances, she has been a HUGE part of the anti-sugar, anti-animal products cult. I notice she has since taken down her Crazy Sexy Cancer website and changed to a more general health angle now. But before, the implied message was definitely "cure your cancer through plant foods".

It's really tragic that Jess Ainscough got caught up in that. I identify because when you are diagnosed with cancer there is so much confusing bad information out there, and what Kris presents is very compelling. It's almost impossible to find Ray Peat (it took me years) and even when you do, his ideas sound crazy at first... Doesn't dairy cause inflammation? Sugar will kill me! Liver is a filter organ, etc etc. I am grateful everyday that I somehow managed to find Ray.

answered Mar 7, 2015 by ilovethesea

Kris Carr is still alive many years after her cancer diagnosis. Clearly plants are not as deadly as you want them to be.

You must sleep well at night knowing that you are immune from illness because you follow Peat's advice and take physiological doses of hormones, LOL.

What are you even talking about?

Kris Carr doesn't have the same type of cancer Jess had and I doubt her diet would have much of an impact on that either way. She implies that she cured herself with plant foods, but she still has cancer - it's just a type of cancer that can have no symptoms for 20 years or more. It's pretty rich of her to go on about "crazy sexy cancer" when she's never had to deal with surgery or chemo or radiation like her followers. She's not gambling with her life doing that, like Jess was.

As for me... where did I ever say I now think I am immune from illness? For fuck's sake, I take thyroid hormones because I had thyroid cancer and only have half my thryoid gland. Are you saying people without thyroid glands should not take hormones? LOL

Is there more worthy a sake than fuck's? I think not. However one must wonder if it is not for lack of its sake but lack of the action itself that brings out the troll in poor IslandGirl.

Thanks for the laugh peatón! I just feel compelled to set the record straight when she starts going on about "un-physiological doses of hormones". Hypothyroidism is the number one biggest silent epidemic on this planet with millions and millions of sufferers and consequences that can range from cancer to heart disease to depression. You don't have to be a 'Ray Peat follower' to understand that, Broda Barnes wrote about it in the 1970s. To suggest it's somehow wrong or unnatural to take a supplement to fix a low thyroid problem is just ghastly and inhumane. The Pottengers cats example shows that someone with a poor diet can pass on the physiological effects for many generations. Why should we suffer when the tools are available to help us?

People like Bukowski are scary and dangerous. I read another article about Jess and there was a quote from someone who thought she should have been criminally prosecuted:

A close friend of mine – cancer survivor and senior lawyer Mandi Chonowitz-Jacobson – goes even further, arguing that such “enablers” should be prosecuted.
In 2006, Chonowitz-Jacobson was diagnosed with colon cancer and doctors gave her a 50-50 chance of surviving past five years, even with medical treatment.
She bravely endured rounds of chemotherapy, radiation and countless surgeries. Now, almost nine years on, she’s officially been in remission for four years and is happily married with two children.
Chonowitz-Jacobson says while she respects every patient’s right to choose their own treatment, she’s disgusted that high-profile figures can propagate untruths to people while they are at their most vulnerable.
“They should face criminal prosecution, to be honest, because it’s almost manslaughter in a way,” she tells me. “All this stuff is misleading and deceptive conduct.”

Imagine! Putting a terminal cancer patient through criminal charges and a legal battle simply because she was writing about her own protocol and beliefs. Heaven forbid her followers get exposed to a different way of thinking about disease. No, everyone should put blind trust in mainstream medicine.

This world is seriously fucked.

answered Mar 11, 2015 by ilovethesea

Why it is so hard to find some kind of balanced middle ground? No need to revert into thinking in extremes, also not in this case. I agree that suing people with terminal cancer is a little bit too much, but on the other hand, Jess Ainscough wasnt the poor cancer victim. She was actively conducting an organized and widespread media campaign in support of an unfounded therapy using unethical ways to convince people of something and earning a significant amount of money while doing so.

CB, I think you know you're not trying to find a balanced middle ground. You are actively pimping and flame-baiting people here with what I can only think are your intentionally outrageous comments, posts and answers. I at first believed you must be paid as an industry troll to do this, but after reflecting on your profile I realized that you may be a well-intentioned contrarian like Charles Bukowski himself.

Please don't feign hurt feelings when the people here, who are real, feeling, sincere people, call you out for your pimping, flame-baiting behavior.

I guess an alternative might be that you actually believe that someone here could be persuaded by your, at best, brain-fogged arguments, in which case I would suggest you look around you and take count of how few people are persuaded by you in real life. It's not going to be a better result here.

You ad hominem attacks are unhelpful and are another sign that you are a highly dogmatic person.

Ad hominem attacks are against the person. My attacks here described "intentionally outrageous comments, posts and answers" and "at best, brain-fogged arguments" and praised you as a "well-intentioned contrarian".

Saying that "you are a highly dogmatic person" is literally an ad hominem attack.

Its pretty clear that the content of your message was focused on my character (thought I was an industry troll or contrarian, suggestion I dont persuade people in real life) rather than the content of my message which constitutes an ad hominem attack.

You are right that calling you a dogmatist is also an ad hominem attack.

I mistakenly thought you were an industry troll (you denied it). Being a contrarian like the late, great Bukowski is high praise, indeed.

It is simply a general truth (I find) that it is hard for you, me or anyone to persuade people in real life. And any failure here to be persuaded by your, at best, brain-fogged arguments is no proof of dogmatism.

But my point is, flame-baiters should expect to be flamed. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I think its a matter of interpretation whether my posts constitute flame baiting. If you see it from the viewpoint that this post is dominated by people who take a pretty clear position in favor of Jess Ainscough and against conventional therapy, then yes, my opposing position can be seen as disrupting that peace (peace of unity of opinion).

However, if you see it from the position that people in here are inciting themselves in their hatred against conventional therapy and their praise of alternative therapy, based on self-victimization, misrepresentation of evidence and facts and fear-speech, then my posts may actually have some kind of cooling and balancing property that helps to find a more objective position again (peace of balance/diversity of opinion).

Everybody should think about under what kind of peace he really wants to live.

Your flame-baiting here is just poorly worded rephrasing of the mainstream medical brainwashing that people here are trying to escape.

Everyone here already knows the dogma regurgitated in TV, magazines and newspapers, and (nearly all) doctor's offices. That is the poison that people here are (I hope) trying to escape. You bring nothing new to that effort.

Now if you could bring something new, something more than authoritarian vomit, that would be very Bukowski of you!

What about this guy who died relatively quickly using the mainstream route of cancer negative comments on the dismal failure of those treatments..