Originally Posted by JLx

As some one who has survived not just a cancer scare but a cancer certainty, (endometrial, Stage III) I object to anyone saying what someone else "should" have done.

I hope to unholy hell that if I subsequently die from recurrent cancer, people here aren't talking about me later: "Wasn't she the one who talked about eating fruit, even bananas? What an idiot. She should have been zero carb."

While meanwhile, in another community, perhaps they'd be saying, "Did she ever go to church? She should have been more positive and praying more''.

Or how about, "She was too fat most of her life. Why didn't she just eat less and move more"?

Engaging in hypotheticals about one's own choices and how cancer curative they would hypothetically be may be reassuring, but it's just whistling past the graveyard, imo.

In the link posted on Science Based Medicine, the gist was that Jessica Ainscough's best bet for survival was early radical, disfiguring surgery that the surgeon commenting admitted he himself would have thought twice about.

She put her faith in her body's ability to heal itself with an influx of nutrients and other less straightforward but seemingly harmless interventions, not such an unpromising choice, imo, since cancer seems so mysterious and has been known to lend itself to spontaneous remission. One of the first books I read when I was diagnosed was Gilda Radner's. She did the same thing at the end, just as sadly and ineffectively.

In another discussion on Science Based Medicine, btw, that same surgeon would almost certainly not agree that she "should have gone ketogenic" instead.