Sooo... there was this totally bogus rubbish article in the Irish Times recently, from a cancer patient's views on nutrition and diet. I have some thoughts about it and thought I'd share, because...you know, freedom of speech and all 👍.... 1/
Starts with a bang! The TAILORx trial….good news indeed! Notably, though, this study had NOTHING AT ALL to do with nutrition for cancer patients, but helped determine which patients may be able to safely forego chemotherapy (YAY science!) 2/ 
Huh. So why does this piece lead off w/an unrelated bit of sensational science clickbait to draw the reader in? It’s almost like the author is saying “HEY! HEY! LOOK AT ME - I *do* read science! See?” 🙄Here's what an ACTUAL expert says about it though respectfulinsolence.com/2018/06/05/tai… 3/
Head-first into fearmongering w/ Poisoning the Well fallacy, emphasizing how debilitating” chemo is. Yep, chemo sucks, but docs carefully weigh risks vs benefits before prescribing. Patients who decline conventional treatment may statistically suffer devastating consequences. 4/
Next, we abruptly switch subjects.
Wait, what??? How did we go from comparing chemo to asbestos (?!) to nutrition and dietary cancer prevention? 6/
Wait, what??? How did we go from comparing chemo to asbestos (?!) to nutrition and dietary cancer prevention? 6/
Umm… I’m not sure how she arrived at this conclusion, but judging by active clinical trials, recommendations from leading cancer agencies, etc.. seems there’s a LOT of interest in oncologyl nutrition. 7/
Yep, seems there's a lot of oncology diet / nutrition info from legit sources. 8/
Do most experts recommend “one-size-fits-all” diet approaches for cancer pts? I don’t know, but if @DominiKemp can point out any specific factual errors or omissions she should make them known... 9/
Or National Cancer Intitute... cancer.gov/about-cancer/t… 11/
Or @CR_UK... 12/ cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/c…
American Cancer Society... 13/ cancer.org/treatment/surv…
Australian Cancer Council... 14/ cancer.org.au/content/about_…
Kind of remarkable, how the nutrition advice is pretty consistent and not a single one of these expert orgs recommends taking advice from cookbook authors or randos on social media. Huh. 🤔 15/
<STRAWMAN ALERT> Literally NOBODY is arguing in favor of processed junk food. Interestingly, re “nutritionism,” respected academic @BenGoldacre calls it "bollocks du jour", and that it is "driven by a set of first year undergraduate errors in interpreting scientific data." 16/
Ah, Domini "Let them eat cake" Kemp... 🙄 17/
Kemp, who sells golden tonic turmeric shots, itsa bagels and blaa and carbtastic meals, promoting alcohol brands, etc. No hypocrisy there, nosiree. 18/
No LCHF rant is complete w/out “industry shill” accusations. Do they ever point out specific errors or better evidence? Cop to potential conflicts in their own circles? Nope. Affiliate-marketed keto / low carb crap, amazon links, cross-promoted woo conferences galore tho! 19/
Here's a small sampling of potential conflicts of interest that somehow get swept under the keto rug... sci-fit.net/investigation-… /20
Also interesting that it seems Marion Nestle isn’t a big fan of demonizing single nutrients: npr.org/templates/stor… /21
And more name dropping to hammer home the COIs of the "other side" while completely ignoring the #KetoBrigade COI elephant in the room /22
Wait, what?? Is Domini confusing cancer with diabetes? **Surely** she’s not implying that “reducing obesity” or even reducing the RISK of cancer is somehow synonymous with prescribing cytotoxic drugs… is she?? 🤦♀️/23
Oh dear, not the “truth about carbs” "beige carbs" debacle on BBC. Seems experts weren’t too impressed with scientific accuracy there... /24
Here we go again on a diabetes tangent? I know, I know 🙋♀️…. the diabetes-cancer- insulin connection, right?? Huh. Turns out that’s not so simple either… /25
Facts...they're SO darned inconvenient for the low carb crew. Not necessarily the “guidelines” or the food pyramid that’s causing problems, when data shows people aren’t following them anyway. DERP. /26 ers.usda.gov/webdocs/public…
Maybe, just maaaayyyybeeeeee cancer patients would be best served by seeking advice from qualified experts including oncologists and registered dietitians instead of #nutribabble bloggers and toothyologists? /27
Hey, I'm a cancer patient too! I have to say I’ve never been “mocked for being interested in nutrition and lifestyle interventions,” but I've also never insisted my oncologist knows less than Dr Oz or Goop 🤪. Persecution complex, perhaps? quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela… /28
Let’s be very VERY clear. The problem is NOT re personal choice or belief. The problem-and it’s a HUGE one-is cranks and phonies luring vulnerable people into alternative medicine with unsupported medical claims. @campaignforKate 👏corkskeptics.org/2018/01/07/hel… via @corkskeptics /29
Sure it's possible to work together, but a healthy relationship involves HONEST COMMUNICATION, and Kemp seems to keep forgetting important details... /30
Hmmm, more disingenuous name dropping. What does this have to do with cancer and nutrition again? Or is the aim again simply to cling to the coattails of respected oncologist @VinayPrasadMD, hoping to artificially prop up a self-serving agenda? /31
Pithy platitudes aside, nobody is shutting down conversation, dismissing patients’ needs, or “fearing” lifestyle recommendations. That’s just silly disingenuous piffle. What cancer patients NEED and DESERVE is reality-based, honest information. /32
In fact, this info from reputable, credible experts is what patients really need to know: via @gidMK @DrRobertOConnor /33
🐂💩HUGE difference between a “cancer patient speaking publicly about cancer” and a self-serving, medically unqualified business person offering potentially dangerous unsupported medical advice and misinformation to cancer patients in order to promote biz interests🤑 /34
Sorry, but when wifey is a regular contributor to the Irish Times, it’s a bit disingenuous to claim she’s being silenced, dontcha think? In reality, it’s rather a disgrace that @it_healthplus @irishtimes @damian_cullen give a platform to such misleading health misinfo. /35
Because public health is at risk. Patients are harmed---->>> /36
/37
Let’s also be very clear that there are indeed trolls, liars, and people who are abusive to cancer patients, and it’s NOT those of us pointing out scientifically accurate facts. /37
Now that I've wasted FAR too much time on this #nutribollox bullshit, I’ll end with the most accurate concise summary I've seen, courtesy of @Leicnut ----->
