Today 4:55 am
I hope you mean IV drip. Feeding tube is **** caveman ****. Do you know how long it takes to starve? Or even domild damage for want of food?JohnnyYou » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Hey, thanks for the tip. They put the feeding tube in and we have the kangaroo stick here.
We may try and and hook it up today. I wish we had a pro to assist us and we are seeking coordination.
I know if I tell Mrs your advice she will disagree.
The AI God has not bought your advice yet..
It's very sad for you that you do not understand the world that you live in.JohnnyYou » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ While some studies suggest that fasting may reduce some chemotherapy side effects and potentially enhance the drug's effectiveness, there's no definitive proof that fasting is effective with chemotherapy for everyone. More research is needed to fully understand the potential benefits and risks of fasting in conjunction with chemotherapy.
There will NEVER be definitive proof of ANYTHING that does not profit big pharma, because under the law, "definitive proof" requires the gold standard of studies, involving thousands of people and double-blind methodology. These studies must not only be performed, but also independently replicated. This will cost millions of dollars. So there is no incentive to acquire "definitive proof."
The way that we get knowledge of these things - not "definitive proof" under the law - is through clinical trials. But these donot involve many thousands of people, and they are not double blind. So the evidence is not considered strong enough to make claims. It isn't anecdotal per se, but it is of low evidentiary value. There are actual protocols for rating clinical evidence, so when I say it is of low evidentiary value, I am not making a personal judgment. I am pointing you to a standardized evaluation which will receive the same grade from a thousand different observers.
And the way that we raise the value of such evidence is by collecting multiple clinical trials from multiple medical practices and collating the data in a meta-study. This method STILL does not meet the legal burden of "definitive proof." Because the big money boys want to OWN THAT DESIGNATION. It locks out the competition.
I have seen the meta studies on the topic and I can tell you two things. One is that fasting with chemo is better than chemo alone. The other is that you are never, ever, ever going to see "definitive proof" of this fact.
When you complain, your friends roll their eyes and your enemies smile
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?