I saw this comment made by you AKL, and it strikes a bit of a nerve. And so i'd like to pose a question to you, respectfully.

 

How do you define a cure? Is it a magical pill you take? Does a cure have to rid the problem in a set amount of time to be labeled a cure? Does it have to work for every individual when used in a study? Does it have to come from pharmaceutical drug companies to be labeled a cure?

 

Taken out of context, only copied the parts with the word "cure" in them:

It isn't a cure because there's no such thing.

 

you aren't going to get a cure.

 

Well, you are only correct in saying there is no cure for acne. That is true.

 

It [diet] can prevent, reduce and reverse acne just like with most other health conditions, but it doesn't cause or cure it.

 

I wonder why you haven't asked this question before, seeing that there have been many opportunities.

Cure = eliminate disease, restore to health. Simply put. Whether it's a pharmaceutical drug or something else, makes no difference.

One more question. We are all different correct? I've heard you say this on numerous occasions, so i assume that is still your stance. So if this is true, how would a 'cure' work for every individual in a study? It would have to address every metabolic function that is leading to the formation of acne in the skin. And since everyone is metabolically different, and consumes a wide array of foods, and is exposed to various toxic elements, and may have impaired organ function to begin with...are these not things that must be considered when pondering the idea of a 'cure'?

 

No "cure" or medication or other treatment will work for everybody, many diseases can't be cured, as in you take some pills and the disease will never return. Contrary to diet, all pharmaceutical drugs have solid science to back them up, though. Not that I'm a proponent of pharmaceuticals (on the contrary), but at least they can show the evidence. I know several studies turned out to be fraudulent, most are not. Anyway, a simple example: paracetamol will get rid of people's headaches in most cases, no matter what their diet or metabolic functions are like (some exceptions, of course).

Basically, we have an issue in our world today. Where cures, in many ways, have become synonomous with the idea of miracles. The term 'cure' is used as hope for cancer victims. And most cancer victims are still crossing their fingers and hoping a pill comes out that 'cures' cancer. Yet...thousands of patients were 'cured' by a Dr. Max Gerson in the 30's, that were sent home to die by medical practitioners, by using raw foods/liver flushes/coffee enemas. And to this day, Gerson Clinics are dwarfing the success rates of traditional cancer treatments that use chemo/radiation/surgery. This is happening because Gerson Treatments build up the natural defenses of the body. They don't break them down, which is what chemos do. They are cell toxins. High dose intravenous vitamin C treatments are selectively toxic to cancer cells. All the while boosting the body's immune defenses.

 

If cancer has no 'cure', then why do people heal themselves by using high dose intravenous vitamin C? Why do they 'cure' themselves by using a raw food diet? Why do they 'cure' themselves by using IV injected sodium bicarbonate? Or by simply consuming alkaline water? Or by consuming raw apricot kernels? If they have no signs of the original ailment, were they not 'cured'?

 

All of these methods are addressing an underlying metabolic process that is allowing cancer to exist. Yet, they are not labeled 'cures'. And i have no issue with that. Because i believe the term 'cure' has come to mean something completely different in today's society. Cure is, again, synonomous with 'miracle pill'.

 

I know about Gerson's therapy. I also know that several people have died while under his supervision. I have yet to see evidence that his approach is more successful than standard treatments. And believe me, I truly wish it was, so people wouldn't have to go through harsh treatments anymore. Most natural practitioners claiming they can cure cancer are quacks, though, imo. Including Gerson, the "research" they provide is BS. The problem with some people is, that they think diet or holistic treatments can "cure" or at least help with everything. If that were true, then why weren't people incredibly much healthier before, say, the introduction of industrialization (or pick another point in history)? You'd say they must have lived for at least 100 years, without illness, being on such healthy, all-natural diets, living active lives.

In the post that was immediately shut down, in which i took this quote made by you AKL, the OP stated that everyone has different triggers. Are we not infinitely complex beings? So...might the individual 'cure' for someone be infinitely complex? Might it take someone a lifetime to figure out their own 'cure'?

 

Yes, we're much more complex than several people here think, which is indeed what I've always said. The topic was closed, since the phrase that only this forum (and the emo forum) should exist, makes no sense at all. Feel free to disagree, but that's how it is. That topic was posted right after OP claimed (in another topic) that diet is the solution, and treatments like BP are a lie. BP is backed up by more science than all natural treatments combined. I have no issue with the fact that people don't want to use it, or if they choose a natural approach. I have even posted in your green tea topic a while back, to thank you for sharing your idea. I only have a problem when people say that (proven) treatments are a scam and diet is the answer for everybody. It's not, and it's not proven either. In my opinion, several people who have just discovered the holistic approach start behaving like ex-smokers. Way too radical for my taste. I realize that I'm not exactly preaching to the choir here, but this is how I feel about it.

May I ask a question, too? Out of 100 people, how many have successfully gotten rid of their acne through diet/lifestyle changes only, while it's certain that they haven't "grown out of" it? I keep reading the term "many", but how many is many? And how long has it taken them? No mistake, I'm 100% convinced that diet and lifestyle affect your body, I don't see how it couldn't.

I know you started this with the term "respectfully" added. Personally, I would have found it more respectful if you had sent a PM, instead of posting this in public. But that's just me.

I have not heard of people using topical treatments and curing their acne permanently, but as we age, our chance of getting acne decreases dramatically Just like how we were before puberty, but for some it still remains.

Out of 100 people, how many have successfully gotten rid of their acne through diet/lifestyle changes only, while it's certain that they haven't "grown out of" it?

 

The study was prompted when researchers noted that acne problems less frequently and with less severity in cultures outside the Western Hemisphere. It was noted that some primitive populations whose diet consists of all natural foods experience very little problems with acne at all.

The study noted that the participants in the study ate only natural foods-what they were able to hunt, gather or grow themselves. No refined foods, which are a common staple in the Western diet, were found in the diet of the research participants. Only foods such as fruits, vegetables, seafood and lean meats.

 

Obviously, the implications of the results of this two year study could be far reaching and quite important to both the American diet and health. The question still remained, however; could the results of the study be trusted or was it simply coincidence that the research participants, eating only natural foods, experienced almost no acne related problems?

 

To answer that question, researchers elected to review other studies that had been conducted in similar populations. These studies focused on the incidents of acne in both South Americans and New Guineans that had immigrated to westernized locations. The results of those studies were amazing and would seem to point conclusively to the link between diet and acne.

Individuals who had previously subsisted on an all natural diet and had not experienced acne problems, developed acne when they moved to westernized locations and became ingrained in a Western culture-including the transfer of highly refined Western foods to their diet. Researchers concluded that the results of these studies confirmed once and for all that incidences of acne simply could not be attributed to genetics alone.

 

Obviously we wont see EVERY one completely acne free with the diet, but even studies reveal that the majority have had shown almost no acne with the natural diet.

Also that when introduced to the western diet, people would develop acne. If that's not enough, I am not sure what would be. If you are talking about the remaining 15% who could not cure it with the diet, remember not everyone's the same. There are many other facts like genetics (sebum production, liver function, metabolism, and so on), perhaps an allergic reaction to the most smallest and common things, or suffer from severe chronic inflammation or gut flora.

 

It is interesting to note that there are now several studies pointing to the fact that populations around the world subsisting on a completely natural diet simply not suffer from acne at the rate which individuals do who partake of a highly refined, typical Western diet. Multiple studies have also discerned that when many of these same individuals, who previously suffered no acne at all, become immersed in Western culture and begin eating Western foods, not only did they begin to experience what has been termed as an epidemic of acne, but the rates of other diseases common to the Western world also begin to rise.

These diseases include diabetes, heart disease, obesity and various kinds of cancer such as breast and prostate. Each of these diseases has been linked with the same factors that are now believed to provide the stimulus for acne outbreaks.

 

 

 

Agriculture had existed even before the earliest known civilization. Before that, if when we used to eat on what only nature and instincts had to offer, like any other animals, then we could have been living without severe diseases like we have today.

The topic on grain is debatable, although there are many studies that claim how badly it affects us.

Remember that high milk and meat consumption have been linked to increase in cancer rates, heart diseases...

We used to consume them long before the introduction of industrialization. If you have seen documentary movies like "forks over knives" lot of them point out that increase in milk and meat results in higher disease and cancer rates.

Some doctors are now even proudly claiming that given with the proper diet of raw vegetables and fruit, most health problems would cease to exist.

Thank you, DaftFrost!

I have not heard of people using topical treatments and curing their acne permanently, but as we age, our chance of getting acne decreases dramatically Just like how we were before puberty, but for some it still remains.

 

Exactly.

 

The study was prompted when researchers noted that acne problems less frequently and with less severity in cultures outside the Western Hemisphere. It was noted that some primitive populations whose diet consists of all natural foods experience very little problems with acne at all.

 

The study noted that the participants in the study ate only natural foods-what they were able to hunt, gather or grow themselves. No refined foods, which are a common staple in the Western diet, were found in the diet of the research participants. Only foods such as fruits, vegetables, seafood and lean meats.

 

Obviously, the implications of the results of this two year study could be far reaching and quite important to both the American diet and health. The question still remained, however; could the results of the study be trusted or was it simply coincidence that the research participants, eating only natural foods, experienced almost no acne related problems?

 

To answer that question, researchers elected to review other studies that had been conducted in similar populations. These studies focused on the incidents of acne in both South Americans and New Guineans that had immigrated to westernized locations. The results of those studies were amazing and would seem to point conclusively to the link between diet and acne.

 

Individuals who had previously subsisted on an all natural diet and had not experienced acne problems, developed acne when they moved to westernized locations and became ingrained in a Western culture-including the transfer of highly refined Western foods to their diet. Researchers concluded that the results of these studies confirmed once and for all that incidences of acne simply could not be attributed to genetics alone.

 

 

 

Obviously we wont see EVERY one completely acne free with the diet, but even studies reveal that the majority have had shown almost no acne with the natural diet.

Also that when introduced to the western diet, people would develop acne. If that's not enough, I am not sure what would be. If you are talking about the remaining 15% who could not cure it with the diet, remember not everyone's the same. There are many other facts like genetics (sebum production, liver function, metabolism, and so on), perhaps an allergic reaction to the most smallest and common things, or suffer from severe chronic inflammation or gut flora.

 

 

It is interesting to note that there are now several studies pointing to the fact that populations around the world subsisting on a completely natural diet simply not suffer from acne at the rate which individuals do who partake of a highly refined, typical Western diet. Multiple studies have also discerned that when many of these same individuals, who previously suffered no acne at all, become immersed in Western culture and begin eating Western foods, not only did they begin to experience what has been termed as an epidemic of acne, but the rates of other diseases common to the Western world also begin to rise.

 

These diseases include diabetes, heart disease, obesity and various kinds of cancer such as breast and prostate. Each of these diseases has been linked with the same factors that are now believed to provide the stimulus for acne outbreaks.

 

 

Do you have links to those studies? Or are they as "good" as the China Study?

Agriculture had existed even before the earliest known civilization. Before that, if when we used to eat on what only nature and instincts had to offer, like any other animals, then we could have been living without severe diseases like we have today.

The topic on grain is debatable, although there are many studies that claim how badly it affects us.

Remember that high milk and meat consumption have been linked to increase in cancer rates, heart diseases...

 

We used to consume them long before the introduction of industrialization. If you have seen documentary movies like "forks over knives" lot of them point out that increase in milk and meat results in higher disease and cancer rates.

Some doctors are now even proudly claiming that given with the proper diet of raw vegetables and fruit, most health problems would cease to exist.

 

For everything you say here I can show you studies and other research claiming the exact opposite, but I have a feeling we've already been there, so I'll leave it at this. But thanks for your time, and I am interested in those studies, so if you can find the links: great.

A cure - in my mind - is a product, process or treatment that once you stop using it or aren't on it any more the acne doesn't come back. I don't think such a thing exists either. It'd be fantastic if it did.

" A cure is the end of a medical condition; the substance or procedure that ends the medical condition, such as a medication, a surgical operation, a change in lifestyle, or even a philosophical mindset that helps end a person's suffering. It may also refer to the state of being healed, or cured."

It's a tough one to call but i tend agree with the above quote.

However if a life style change stops acne appearing then this could be called a cure.

But who is to say the cure for acne is just a physical thing?

I consider myself "cured" because i changed my way of thinking to deal with acne. I think acne causes more psychological problems than it is does physical and i have said for many years that it is where acne must be fought.

A cure - in my mind - is a product, process or treatment that once you stop using it or aren't on it any more the acne doesn't come back. I don't think such a thing exists either. It'd be fantastic if it did.

 

Sure. So i guess it boils down to terminology. My thoughts are similar to take to the skies, as far as introducing lifestyle changes that eliminate all signs of the original ailment, and recognizing it as a 'cure'.

I'm afraid that most cancer victims/acne victims, or any other victims of chronic illness...will forever be waiting for the type of 'cure' that you have described Spotthedifference. Most, if not all, of these diseases are preventable/reversible through strict diet/lifestyle changes. But most people don't see these types of changes as 'cures'. And unfortunately, the public is made to believe that anything not practiced by the AMA (or medical industry) is quackery. It all revolves around money. Big Pharma, which is an actual thing/monopoly, created the website 'quack watch' and the term 'quack'/'quack theory'. They did this to sway public opinion, so that all non-AMA practices became negatively perceived. Surgeons are one thing, but drug prescribers (doctors) are under the opinion that treating symptoms is the way you handle a medical condition. And these drug prescribers are taught in pharmaceutically funded medical schools, and receive special 'gifts' from pharmaceutical execs, with the motive of establishing a buddy buddy relationship. They sit around and make wise cracks about the doctors treating people with natural remedies, because they've been taught to believe that they are a joke. When in fact, they are addressing the underlying cause of the illness, not simply the symptom.

If anyone is interested in learning more about why Big Pharma is such a powerhouse, and why alternative treatments are not only looked down upon, but illegal in the U.S...i'd suggest watching these two videos. They are both very informative, and are very telling as to why things are happening the way they are in the field of medicine. Or basically, why one field of medicine was completely smeared and taken off the map in regards to medical school teachings/medical practices