Absolutely. The trouble is mainly research funding, and then publishing and marketing the research that's already happened (there's more scientific research on alternative treatments than is commonly known.)

Pharmaceutical companies aren't likely to invest millions studying turmeric, spirulina, chlorella, sunlight, etc. There are credible studies if you intentionally go looking for them, though.

You made a claim that changing your lifestyle cannot possibly cure cancer. Surely the burden of proof is on the claimant? How do you reconcile the growing body of evidence to the contrar?

My intended claim, which I admit could benefit from more precise wording, is that lifestyle changes are not more effective than conventional treatment.

Shouldn't you have to back up a bold claim like that with proof though? Conventional treatment is often marginally better than placebo.

No, I don't have to back up it up. That's the whole point.

Explain?

Decades of the scientific method have established the status quo. You, as the outsider of convention, have the burden of proof. You intuitively know this -- if there was such compelling proof, you would be able to convince a lot of people of the potential, rather than saying "no, I don't have to prove it, you need to prove science." Science is already proven. I'm not denying the potential of alternative treatments, but for now, I expect you and I both would take the chemotherapy over making ourselves guinea pigs.

Saying that something is better than something else would surely merit a single clinical trial, showing large effect low p outcomes in favor of chemo vs lifestlye? Can you point to a single study since it is already proven? :)

Here are a few that may change your mind: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/137/1/233S http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/lifchancline.html http://bastyrcenter.org/content/view/913/

Surely you must admit that your claim that lifestyle change cannot reduce mortality rate is premature. It's only recently being studied, and with the great early results we will see many more such papers investigating the effects.

My money would be on a combination: Lifestyle change + aggressive supplementation + chemo.

I've said that all along -- supplementation + diet change + chemo is better, and certainly no worse, than chemo alone.

Agreed, but read your post again: ...But prevention is not a treatment. You can't raw food your way to a cure to cancer. It just doesn't work. People die because they become so deluded....

"It just doesn't work" is a statement of fact. I showed you some research that refutes this (lifestyle change alone can cure in certain cases). What more do you need to change your opinion?