TheLiverDoc™
@theliverdoc • 323,476 subscribers
Doctor. Scientist. Author. https://t.co/vRivFzk37T https://t.co/8lHqoHPoRN
Shorts
Videos
Scientific progress relies on empirical evidence, rigorous testing, and peer review, none of which are advanced through public debates with untrained individuals. Unlike politics or philosophy, where personal opinions and rhetoric can shape policy, science is governed by objective data and reproducible facts that remain true regardless of public consensus. Engaging in formal debates with non-experts creates a false equivalence, giving the misleading impression that a robustly tested scientific consensus is merely one side of an ongoing opinion piece. Furthermore, scientific communication requires a specialized understanding of methodology and data analysis; arguing with untrained individuals often forces experts to defend fundamental facts against emotional appeals or misinformation rather than advancing actual knowledge. Ultimately, science validates its claims through the laboratory and the field, making public debate an inefficient and counterproductive forum for establishing objective truth. Watch the full video:
TheLiverDoc™143,886 views • 9 days ago
Ayurveda colleges teach students 5.5 years, the so-called Ayurvedic medicine and surgery (BAMS) only for them to make reels showing treatment of a terrible disease like avascular necrosis (AVN) of the hip by burning the skin of patients using sharp hot rods, while making the other patients sit around and chant religious verses and then making them applaud to this nonsense. Still want to call these people "Doctors?" One must be really mental to support this. Source:
TheLiverDoc™6,289,977 views • 10 months ago
Triangle of shame. Supplement Seller - Legalized Quack - Illiterate Celeb (report this post) Homeopathy is "medicine" made of water, alcohol, and sugar. So you're paying premium prices for fancy sugar pills containing precisely no medicine at all, all based on an 18th-century belief that "like cures like" and that shaken water somehow remembers things. Pathetic. "But it worked for me!" Of course it did. Most illnesses fade on their own, and people reach for these pills right as they're about to recover anyway, so the sugar takes credit for timing it never controlled. Bonus: a long, caring chat with the homeopath makes you feel deeply heard while consuming absolutely nothing. The rest of the world has caught on. The UK's NHS stopped funding it, France ended reimbursements, Germany is pushing to scrap state support, and both Spain and Australia reviewed the evidence and found a clean zero. India's bold contribution to this global reality check? Giving Melody to Meloni. And then there's the "triangle of shame": a supplement seller with an agenda, a homeopath defending a lifetime of sugar pills, and a celebrity cheerfully endorsing both without a single critical thought between them. None of them are doctors. So please, don't give your kids (or anyone for that matter) homeopathy, demand real science-based care, and force the government to stop funding the longest-running circus in human history.
TheLiverDoc™29,037 views • 1 day ago
Good morning. Please do not feed your child, cow's milk directly from the animal's udder. Raw milk consumption has become a "trad fad" among the 'educated fools' now because of poor understanding of germ-theory of disease, but this level of child m*rder is a whole different level of human stupidity. I am not sure if that smiling father of the baby understands how dangerous this is. Can anyone please track down this clown muscle brain and see how the child is doing? Always consume pasteurized milk. Some of the microbes that can harm you from raw milk are nightmarish, but those that can harm you from the cow's udder skin is downright hellish. Here is an example of what can happen to your child if you give them raw milk. A child drinks a glass of raw milk, seemingly wholesome, but laced with invisible E. coli bacteria that unleash a deadly Shiga toxin. Within days, the child is gripped by severe cramps and bloody diarrhoea as their intestines shred from the inside. Then, without warning, their red blood cells rupture, their platelets vanish, and their kidneys grind to a halt. Urine stops flowing, their skin turns pale and bruised, and they lie motionless in an ICU bed, tubes snaking from their neck into a dialysis machine that replaces their failed organs. Seizures may strike as toxins reach the brain. All of it - this slow, horrific spiral, set in motion by a single untreated glass of milk. and Be a rational and science-tempered parent to your children so that they grow and flourish. Seriously, someone please find this d*mbfck.
TheLiverDoc™4,157,795 views • 10 months ago
![I am sorry but Dr Pal Manickam, the Gastroenterologist from California, is becoming not just a health misinformation menace, but also a subtle "hate-monger" with his divisive attitude towards dietary choices in India, also known as Bharat, a Union of States and marriage of [dietary] cultures and traditions. Claims: 1. Eating red meat (beef and pork) causes colon cancer 2. Nitrosamines (from nitrites/nitrates) in red meat causes colon cancer 3. Cancer screening in USA above age of 50, but not in India 4. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers in India 5. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers because Malayalees eat a lot of beef. A lot. Response: 1. Eating red meat does not cause colon cancer Higher red meat consumption was shown to have a correlation with increased risk for colon cancer, but the evidence for independent association was weak and remains weak Eating red meat does not increase risk of colon cancer. Excessive consumption of red meat/ processed meat (excessive not yet fully defined across populations) was confusingly correlated with increased risk of colon cancer 2. Studies have only looked at nitrites and nitrates [and hence nitrosamine formation] causing stomach cancer and not colon cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also focussed on nitrosamines and stomach cancer, but the potential role for dietary nitrate/nitrite in colon cancer is not conclusively proven. Meat-based diets (specifically processed meat, not fresh meat) have a well described higher risk for cancer, but it is not readily attributable to nitrite consistently in all studies. Most studies are on ground and well water and not meat. And the strongest study to show cancer link and nitrite consumption is in mice, not humans The biggest source of nitrate exposure is dietary consumption of certain types of vegetables that are naturally high in nitrate. This is a clear case of investigator bias, looking at any possible way to force the data into a specific conclusion (like Dr. Pal is doing in the video). The IARC maintains the tone of its conclusion, but only to reiterate its validity in a theoretical state, while acknowledging that the epidemiology does to support these conclusions. Nitrites are just one reason processed meats may contribute to bowel cancer, and their relative importance is uncertain. Other factors that may contribute include iron; PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) which are formed in smoked meats; and HCAs (heterocyclic amines), which are created when meat is cooked over an open flame – and which also are tumour-promoting. So its not just red meat, but the cooking method signficantly affecting health outcomes. 3. India does not have a national level screening protocol because the proportion of colon cancer among all cancers in India is only 3% which would lead to wastage of medical resources on a low-incidence cancer detection protocol. But in the USA, colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death. Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 23 for men and 1 in 26 for women - which is much much higher compared to India and that is why they have screening protocols in place - not because they eat more red meat than Indians. 4. Kerala has the highest crude incidence rate of all cancers followed by Mizoram. Not colon cancer. All cancers. Highest colon cancer rates and burden of colon cancer are observed in Goa and Orissa, not Kerala. & While the discussion on beef and colon cancer is ongoing in the video, a segment of the clip shows a news item "concerning increasing cases of colon cancer in Kerala" - this is that news piece - - and read what it says: it talks about only younger age group and colon cancer. "Experts opine that underlying factors leading to the rise in cases, especially at this age, could be lifestyle, environment and genetic factors" - they do not mention beef at all. The report also says: "Though we have no authentic records to show the statistics of rising cases, we have been observing a trend here. Our changing lifestyle is most likely to blame for the rise in colorectal cancer cases amongst younger people, though hereditary reasons are also a major cause." - again, no mention of beef eating. 5. Lakshwadeep is India's biggest meat eater followed by north-east states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur followed by Kerala. MEAT EATING. Not beef eating. Specifically looking at the largest beef consuming state - it is Meghalaya, where more than 80% of the population consumes this meat, not Kerala. Kerala is the largest beef consuming state in the context of male population only. [ 6. Oh by the way, about pork and colon cancer --> the risk was not increased consuming high amounts of pork: and there is only one study showing colon cancer risk in women in Japan, not India and that too who consumed pork >/= 3 times/week compared to </=1 time: Add-on: The risk for colon cancer is not red meat alone (with weak evidence), but more importantly (with stronger evidence), alcohol use, smoking, family history of cancer, presence of inflammatory bowel disease, obesity and polyps or adenoma of colon. These have been very conviniently ignored by the Gastroenterologist from California. Summary - red meat causing colon cancer is not convincingly proven. Increased intake of processed red meat more than higher intake of unprocessed red meat is weakly linked from evidence point of view to colon cancer risk. Nitrosamine in red meat as cancer causing in humans is not proven. Kerala does not have the largest burden of colon cancer in India, nor it is the largest consumer of beef. There is no realistic evidence that eating pork increases risk of colon cancer. These are actual facts. And I am not even a Gastroenterologist from California. I am a Hepatologist. From India.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1733310358318907537/ext_tw_video_thumb/1733310263968083968/pu/img/0WLksUP3S9HLTW3U.jpg)
I am sorry but Dr Pal Manickam, the Gastroenterologist from California, is becoming not just a health misinformation menace, but also a subtle "hate-monger" with his divisive attitude towards dietary choices in India, also known as Bharat, a Union of States and marriage of [dietary] cultures and traditions. Claims: 1. Eating red meat (beef and pork) causes colon cancer 2. Nitrosamines (from nitrites/nitrates) in red meat causes colon cancer 3. Cancer screening in USA above age of 50, but not in India 4. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers in India 5. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers because Malayalees eat a lot of beef. A lot. Response: 1. Eating red meat does not cause colon cancer Higher red meat consumption was shown to have a correlation with increased risk for colon cancer, but the evidence for independent association was weak and remains weak Eating red meat does not increase risk of colon cancer. Excessive consumption of red meat/ processed meat (excessive not yet fully defined across populations) was confusingly correlated with increased risk of colon cancer 2. Studies have only looked at nitrites and nitrates [and hence nitrosamine formation] causing stomach cancer and not colon cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also focussed on nitrosamines and stomach cancer, but the potential role for dietary nitrate/nitrite in colon cancer is not conclusively proven. Meat-based diets (specifically processed meat, not fresh meat) have a well described higher risk for cancer, but it is not readily attributable to nitrite consistently in all studies. Most studies are on ground and well water and not meat. And the strongest study to show cancer link and nitrite consumption is in mice, not humans The biggest source of nitrate exposure is dietary consumption of certain types of vegetables that are naturally high in nitrate. This is a clear case of investigator bias, looking at any possible way to force the data into a specific conclusion (like Dr. Pal is doing in the video). The IARC maintains the tone of its conclusion, but only to reiterate its validity in a theoretical state, while acknowledging that the epidemiology does to support these conclusions. Nitrites are just one reason processed meats may contribute to bowel cancer, and their relative importance is uncertain. Other factors that may contribute include iron; PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) which are formed in smoked meats; and HCAs (heterocyclic amines), which are created when meat is cooked over an open flame – and which also are tumour-promoting. So its not just red meat, but the cooking method signficantly affecting health outcomes. 3. India does not have a national level screening protocol because the proportion of colon cancer among all cancers in India is only 3% which would lead to wastage of medical resources on a low-incidence cancer detection protocol. But in the USA, colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death. Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 23 for men and 1 in 26 for women - which is much much higher compared to India and that is why they have screening protocols in place - not because they eat more red meat than Indians. 4. Kerala has the highest crude incidence rate of all cancers followed by Mizoram. Not colon cancer. All cancers. Highest colon cancer rates and burden of colon cancer are observed in Goa and Orissa, not Kerala. & While the discussion on beef and colon cancer is ongoing in the video, a segment of the clip shows a news item "concerning increasing cases of colon cancer in Kerala" - this is that news piece - - and read what it says: it talks about only younger age group and colon cancer. "Experts opine that underlying factors leading to the rise in cases, especially at this age, could be lifestyle, environment and genetic factors" - they do not mention beef at all. The report also says: "Though we have no authentic records to show the statistics of rising cases, we have been observing a trend here. Our changing lifestyle is most likely to blame for the rise in colorectal cancer cases amongst younger people, though hereditary reasons are also a major cause." - again, no mention of beef eating. 5. Lakshwadeep is India's biggest meat eater followed by north-east states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur followed by Kerala. MEAT EATING. Not beef eating. Specifically looking at the largest beef consuming state - it is Meghalaya, where more than 80% of the population consumes this meat, not Kerala. Kerala is the largest beef consuming state in the context of male population only. [ 6. Oh by the way, about pork and colon cancer --> the risk was not increased consuming high amounts of pork: and there is only one study showing colon cancer risk in women in Japan, not India and that too who consumed pork >/= 3 times/week compared to </=1 time: Add-on: The risk for colon cancer is not red meat alone (with weak evidence), but more importantly (with stronger evidence), alcohol use, smoking, family history of cancer, presence of inflammatory bowel disease, obesity and polyps or adenoma of colon. These have been very conviniently ignored by the Gastroenterologist from California. Summary - red meat causing colon cancer is not convincingly proven. Increased intake of processed red meat more than higher intake of unprocessed red meat is weakly linked from evidence point of view to colon cancer risk. Nitrosamine in red meat as cancer causing in humans is not proven. Kerala does not have the largest burden of colon cancer in India, nor it is the largest consumer of beef. There is no realistic evidence that eating pork increases risk of colon cancer. These are actual facts. And I am not even a Gastroenterologist from California. I am a Hepatologist. From India.
TheLiverDoc™1,921,155 views • 2 years ago
Do Ayurveda graduates on Instagram showing off their unscientific and primal therapy practical videos think it's a flex? Is this how you would like lipoma treatment in 2025? Instagram is full of such reels without any "community notes." Endless pit of nonsense.
TheLiverDoc™737,242 views • 11 months ago
Gentle reminder that Chiropractors are NOT DOCTORS. They have no knowledge about anatomy or physiology. They cannot diagnose or treat any disease competently. This hanging upside down chiropractic is something I had never come across and it's really dangerous. Don't visit these fools. Chiropractic is a recent quackery invented by a guy called Palmer where he was drunk and high and met the ghost of a physician who taught him principles of chiropractic in his dreams (true story).
TheLiverDoc™595,390 views • 9 months ago
A 24 year old man dislocated his jaw after a "deep yawn" while on a train to Dibrugarh. He was treated and cured immediately by the Railway Hospital surgeon - a doctor trained in MBBS and specialised in MS ENT speciality. Now imagine if the only "doctor" in the train or nearby was an Ayurveda or Homeopathy 'specialist', could they have helped this patient? Absolutely not. Because they are not really doctors, and they are incompetent in helping patients. These incidents are what people with real medical training do on a daily basis. Only pseudoscience peddlers like Ayush practitioners are the ones who will go to Court asking for "equal pay" as MBBS doctors or go to Court complaining about "Wikipedia calling Ayurveda a pseudoscience". Bunch of clowns. Reject these quacks who swindle people by "role playing" doctors.
TheLiverDoc™470,197 views • 7 months ago
>food delivery app owner proposes an ancient, already debunked gravitational theory of ageing to "promote" his zero-evidence based wellness product that looks like a fat band-aid stuck to the temple. >doctors and scientists including me call it out and warn people about misinformation packaged as "wellness". >food delivery app owner messages me personally which he denies here. >said food delivery app owner then asks me to come on Zoom (so he should have messaged me right?) to discuss his thoughts and opinions to which I say it's a waste of time one-on-one, but he should show evidence to his claims on Twitter for everyone's benefit. >food delivery app owner disappears, only to appear on India's best third rate podcast to claim that I was a waste of his time and he has lost respect towards me. >they have Brian Johnson just shy of drinking his son's blood in the US, while we have tech bros nearly making us swing down like bats to help us live longer. >the future of wellness is cooked. Never delivered. Definitely not in 10 minutes.
TheLiverDoc™300,107 views • 4 months ago
1:41
Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Weekend bonus. Share with your drinking buddies. #alcohol #alcoholawareness
TheLiverDoc™774,577 views • 1 year ago
I dont usually debunk what health-illiterate spiritual gurus mutter about medicine and nutrition, but this video was shared with me for some fact checking and also because it has got millions of views and 60K likes. And it is utter nonsense. The video features Jaggi Vasudev, self proclaimed spiritual leader also known as Sadhguru - who was featured in The Joe Rogan podcast (not that it makes him any credible, but it can project his nonsensical takes on healthcare onto millions worldwide) There are many utterly and absolutely inacurrate claims made in this video. Claim: There is a poisonous chemical called citatine in brinjal. Fact: There is no such thing as citatine. Brinjal (or egg plant), along with potatoes and tomatoes belong to the family of nightshade and genus Solanum. Solanum group contain Solanine in the unripe fruit/vegetables. These are natural defences present in these plants against animals. When stored under ambient temperature and when ripe enough, the chances of solanine poisoning is almost zero. Reports of poisoning and fatality were because people consumed bitter green tomatoes or green skin potatoes. Peeling skin of potatoes almost nullifies the risk of solanine poisoning. See more here: Claim: Citatine (actually he must have meant solanine) damages the hypothalamus region of brain. Fact: There is no evidence to show that solanine affects the hypothalamus region of brain. The most common site of toxicity from solanine is on the gastrointestinal tract - burning sensations in the mouth, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps and diarrhea and nothing on the hypothalamus in the brain. Claim: Hypothalamus is the important part of the brain which helps in decision making. Poison in brinjal attacks this part and makes you dull. Fact: The prefrontal cortex (PFC) and hippocampus are the most critical parts of the human brain for decision making and not hypothalamus. The hypothalamus helps manage your body temperature, hunger and thirst, mood, sex drive, blood pressure and sleep - and has nothing to do with decision making. Claim: Eating a whole garlic will kill you. Fact: No it wont. It will drive away vampires and non-vampires because literally no one can stand that breath. And probably give you a heartburn you'll never forget. Also nobody is going to eat a whole garlic unless it is reality TV where you are getting paid for it. Claim: If you eat one egg plant (brinjal) a day for a year, you will become a far duller person. Fact: If you keep listening to people like Jaggi and watch Jaggi videos and enjoy seeing Jaggi dancing during Navaratri, it is more like that you are already a very dull person without any critical thinking skills. Last point: The classification of foods into Satvic (pure, light), Rajasic (spicy, stimulating) and Tamasic (heavy, dull - such as Brinjal) is according to the primitive untested observations-based religious mumbo-jumbo from ancient Ayurvedic scriptures which also feature the annoyingly hocus-pocus "hot and cold" foods classification - it is utter nonsense. Never for a second believe the nutritional pseudoscience of Ayurveda. Many people suffer from Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) because they following this nonsense classification. Foods are actually classified by origin, chemical composition and predominant function. Sadhguru Jaggi is not a doctor. He is a conman who speaks good, fluent English, and lies, rather confidently.
TheLiverDoc™1,538,764 views • 2 years ago
We should maintain the decorum. Always. And Forever. h/t Pale Blue Thoughts Source:
TheLiverDoc™121,243 views • 2 months ago
![Please hear me out: DO NOT visit chiropractors for any health-related issue. Stay FAR away from them. This is dangerous. This is from an Instagram account of a chiropractor from Delhi who has >250K (misled) followers. I am quite worried that this nonsense is gaining popularity in India now. Chiropractic is a pseudoscientific practice that has absolutely no evidence for any claims made. Its origins lie in folk medicine practice of "bone-setting." You can still see "bone-setters" in suburban and rural areas in India. They are quacks and remnants of a bygone era. A quack who goes by the name Daniel David Palmer, who used to perform magnetic healing, discovered chiropractic practice in 1890s. While attending a Spiritualist Meeting, [he claims that] the idea of chiropractic came to him from the spirit of the deceased medical physician named Dr. Jim Atkinson. The ghost of Dr. Atkinson gave him the principles of practice of a new therapy which considered "body as a 'machine' whose parts could be manipulated to produce a drugless cure." - and voila! Chiropractic was born [that is how scientific this BS is]. Chiropractors dont realize that their practice evolved from the spirited mind of a looney. In 1906, Palmer was prosecuted under the new medical arts law in Iowa for practicing medicine without a license, and had to go to jail. Chiropractors propose that mechanical disorders of joints especially the spine affect health and manipulation (spinal adjustments) improves health - this is of course nonsense. Manipulation of joints and soft tissue (like in this video) are also performed. Apart from the spine, chiropractors also manipulate the patient and family into parting with their hard-earned money and they do it pretty well. Chiropractic practice is termed an "unscientific cult" [much like Ayurveda and Homeopathy]. Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analysis have shown that chiropractic practices have no [conclusive] clinically relevant benefits and can sometimes cause real harm [at times severe harm] to patients. See here here here here and here There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations. It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases. Several deaths have been associated with this technique. See here here and here Chiropractors are not doctors and they have no knowledge of the human anatomy and physiology. I suggest that no one visit a chiropractor for any health-related problems at any point in their life time.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1714811137269833948/ext_tw_video_thumb/1714810894247747584/pu/img/tvSFQ2BsdPHS9lLb.jpg)
Please hear me out: DO NOT visit chiropractors for any health-related issue. Stay FAR away from them. This is dangerous. This is from an Instagram account of a chiropractor from Delhi who has >250K (misled) followers. I am quite worried that this nonsense is gaining popularity in India now. Chiropractic is a pseudoscientific practice that has absolutely no evidence for any claims made. Its origins lie in folk medicine practice of "bone-setting." You can still see "bone-setters" in suburban and rural areas in India. They are quacks and remnants of a bygone era. A quack who goes by the name Daniel David Palmer, who used to perform magnetic healing, discovered chiropractic practice in 1890s. While attending a Spiritualist Meeting, [he claims that] the idea of chiropractic came to him from the spirit of the deceased medical physician named Dr. Jim Atkinson. The ghost of Dr. Atkinson gave him the principles of practice of a new therapy which considered "body as a 'machine' whose parts could be manipulated to produce a drugless cure." - and voila! Chiropractic was born [that is how scientific this BS is]. Chiropractors dont realize that their practice evolved from the spirited mind of a looney. In 1906, Palmer was prosecuted under the new medical arts law in Iowa for practicing medicine without a license, and had to go to jail. Chiropractors propose that mechanical disorders of joints especially the spine affect health and manipulation (spinal adjustments) improves health - this is of course nonsense. Manipulation of joints and soft tissue (like in this video) are also performed. Apart from the spine, chiropractors also manipulate the patient and family into parting with their hard-earned money and they do it pretty well. Chiropractic practice is termed an "unscientific cult" [much like Ayurveda and Homeopathy]. Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analysis have shown that chiropractic practices have no [conclusive] clinically relevant benefits and can sometimes cause real harm [at times severe harm] to patients. See here here here here and here There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations. It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases. Several deaths have been associated with this technique. See here here and here Chiropractors are not doctors and they have no knowledge of the human anatomy and physiology. I suggest that no one visit a chiropractor for any health-related problems at any point in their life time.
TheLiverDoc™1,142,929 views • 2 years ago
![Can people in power/ authority kindly stop with this absolute BS on "fasting killing cancer cells" and citing religious nonsense to appeal to peoples emotions? Fasting is really quite dangerous for cancer patients in real life. Let me explain and bury this myth once and for all, especially for science illiterates like this guy. [1] The most common argument is that fasting "starves" cancer by cutting off its sugar (glucose) supply. While it is true that cancer cells consume vast amounts of glucose, they are biologically aggressive survivalists. If you stop eating, your body eventually switches to burning fat and breaking down muscle for energy. Cancer cells are highly adaptable; when glucose is low, many types of cancer can mutate to feed on other fuel sources, such as lactate, amino acids (from your muscles), or fatty acids. You cannot simply "starve" a tumor without starving the patient first. [2] Fasting is dangerous for cancer patients because of cancer cachexia - a wasting syndrome where the body loses muscle and fat rapidly. Cachexia is responsible for up to 30% of cancer deaths. Cancer puts the body in a hyper-metabolic state (burning energy fast). If a patient fasts, they risk accelerating muscle loss and weakening their immune system. A weak body cannot tolerate life-saving treatments like chemotherapy or radiation, nor can it fight off infections. [3] Most claims about fasting curing cancer come from studies on mice or cells in a petri dish. In a dish: You can kill cancer cells with almost anything (lemon juice, bleach, starvation, even shooting a bullet at it at close point or using a grenade to destroy the entire lab) because they have no immune system or body to protect them. In a human: The biology is infinitely more complex. Human metabolism, hormonal fluctuations, and tumor micro-environments mean that what shrinks a tumor in a mouse often fails completely in human trials. [4] Proponents often cite "autophagy" (the body's cellular recycling process triggered by fasting) as the cure. They claim it cleans out cancerous cells. Science shows that autophagy is a double-edged sword. -In all people, autophagy is a normal physiological process - whether fasting or not, which help in cleaning up damaged cells. -But in patients with cancer, once a tumor exists, cancer cells can actually hijack autophagy to survive stress (like chemotherapy) and repair themselves. In this context, fasting could theoretically help the cancer survive the treatment intended to kill it. [5] "Cancer" is not one disease; it is over 200 different diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell growth. Some cancers are driven by hormones, some by genetic mutations, and some by viruses. A fasting protocol that slows down one specific type of breast cancer might have zero effect on pancreatic cancer, or worse, accelerate a different type. The most lethal aspect of this misinformation is the delay in treatment. Cancer is a time-sensitive disease. While a patient spends months trying to fast the cancer away based on religious or alternative advice, the cancer often metastasizes (spreads) to other organs. Once cancer spreads, it often moves from being curable to being terminal. Relying solely on fasting wastes the critical window where medical intervention could have saved a life. Suggesting a single "ancient cure" for 200 complex genetic diseases is scientifically illogical... ...and generally stupid, as this video proves.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2011663028648026498/amplify_video_thumb/2011661209100304388/img/DJHOW69erAX5Hmbo.jpg)
Can people in power/ authority kindly stop with this absolute BS on "fasting killing cancer cells" and citing religious nonsense to appeal to peoples emotions? Fasting is really quite dangerous for cancer patients in real life. Let me explain and bury this myth once and for all, especially for science illiterates like this guy. [1] The most common argument is that fasting "starves" cancer by cutting off its sugar (glucose) supply. While it is true that cancer cells consume vast amounts of glucose, they are biologically aggressive survivalists. If you stop eating, your body eventually switches to burning fat and breaking down muscle for energy. Cancer cells are highly adaptable; when glucose is low, many types of cancer can mutate to feed on other fuel sources, such as lactate, amino acids (from your muscles), or fatty acids. You cannot simply "starve" a tumor without starving the patient first. [2] Fasting is dangerous for cancer patients because of cancer cachexia - a wasting syndrome where the body loses muscle and fat rapidly. Cachexia is responsible for up to 30% of cancer deaths. Cancer puts the body in a hyper-metabolic state (burning energy fast). If a patient fasts, they risk accelerating muscle loss and weakening their immune system. A weak body cannot tolerate life-saving treatments like chemotherapy or radiation, nor can it fight off infections. [3] Most claims about fasting curing cancer come from studies on mice or cells in a petri dish. In a dish: You can kill cancer cells with almost anything (lemon juice, bleach, starvation, even shooting a bullet at it at close point or using a grenade to destroy the entire lab) because they have no immune system or body to protect them. In a human: The biology is infinitely more complex. Human metabolism, hormonal fluctuations, and tumor micro-environments mean that what shrinks a tumor in a mouse often fails completely in human trials. [4] Proponents often cite "autophagy" (the body's cellular recycling process triggered by fasting) as the cure. They claim it cleans out cancerous cells. Science shows that autophagy is a double-edged sword. -In all people, autophagy is a normal physiological process - whether fasting or not, which help in cleaning up damaged cells. -But in patients with cancer, once a tumor exists, cancer cells can actually hijack autophagy to survive stress (like chemotherapy) and repair themselves. In this context, fasting could theoretically help the cancer survive the treatment intended to kill it. [5] "Cancer" is not one disease; it is over 200 different diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell growth. Some cancers are driven by hormones, some by genetic mutations, and some by viruses. A fasting protocol that slows down one specific type of breast cancer might have zero effect on pancreatic cancer, or worse, accelerate a different type. The most lethal aspect of this misinformation is the delay in treatment. Cancer is a time-sensitive disease. While a patient spends months trying to fast the cancer away based on religious or alternative advice, the cancer often metastasizes (spreads) to other organs. Once cancer spreads, it often moves from being curable to being terminal. Relying solely on fasting wastes the critical window where medical intervention could have saved a life. Suggesting a single "ancient cure" for 200 complex genetic diseases is scientifically illogical... ...and generally stupid, as this video proves.
TheLiverDoc™191,898 views • 4 months ago
This is the boomer uncle who Raj Shamani invited to his podcast to talk on medical and health. The guy who said "Ghee" (also called clarified butter) is a fat burner. Ghee is heavy on saturated fats and every single nutrition and cardiology clinical societies recommend limiting saturated fats. See here: American Heart Association Presidential Advisory on Dietary Fats For lack of a better description, protoplasmic masses without neuronal cohesion, like this guy here, Mr. Prashant Desai, who has absolutely no training in medical and healthcare, who flaunts toilet paper value nutrition certificates for his video background and without an ounce of scientific temper, talking absolute rubbish on nutrition and diet are the ones the public must stay away from. Look at this video. Nutrition and diet specialist Prashant Desai is holding up a bottle of alcohol and claiming that is causes "non-alcoholic" fatty liver. I mean it is like trying to convince the public by holding up a cat and saying its a dog. Basic IQ anyone? Mr. Desai further says non-alcoholic fatty liver never existed in children before 1980. This is absolutely wrong. Fatty liver had been identified in overfed children as early as 1849. His claim that fruit juice is the same as alcohol is also nonsense. He has no actual idea how nutrient metabolism works. Metabolism of alcohol and that of fruit juice (fructose) is completely different. High fructose intake is associated with increased risk of fatty liver disease. Even fresh fruits have fructose in them. The added sugars cause more harm than the natural sugars in your recommended daily portion of fruits/ fruit juices. See here: Alcohol metabolism and fatty liver: Fructose metabolism and fatty liver: Listen to certified clinical nutritionists and doctors. Reject fearmongering nutritional quacks like these. Their narratives harm the public health.
TheLiverDoc™847,707 views • 2 years ago
The presenter asks Virat Kohli, the star Indian cricketer - "Why did you become a vegetarian?" His answer is mind-boggling. He starts with his source of advice - an Accupuncturist. Accupuncture is a pseudoscience. It has no meaningful principles or reasonable action. It is not based on scientific knowledge and is a form of quackery. Large systematic reviews confirm that there no good evidence of benefit, which suggests that it is not an effective method of healthcare. Virat then speaks about his cervical spine disc prolapse. He then speeds towards his stomach where he claims that eating meat was making stomach more acidic, because of which the calcium from his bones were leaking off. So the solution - make it alkaline. So he quit meat and became vegetarian - to make his stomach less acidic, more alkaline, to prevent calcium loss in bone and thus, cure his cervical spondylitis. This is pure and unadulterated nonsense. The stomach is acidic and will remain so whether you want it or not. Acid production is the unique and central component of the stomach's contribution to the digestive process and also plays a role in protecting the body against pathogens ingested with food or water [ You cannot make the stomach alkaline, unless you ingest enough alkali - which will of course kill you. Calcium does not leech away because the stomach is acidic. Eating meat does not cause calcium loss. In fact, increasing the protein intake from 1 g/kg body weight to 2 g/kg, given as meat, did not have an adverse effect on calcium metabolism. [ Going vegetarian does not mean one becomes gauranteed calcium sufficient. Vegetarianism is a culturo-religious factor and not a norm. People choose it because of various personal reasons and it is not one based on strong evidence from medical science. It is not superior to other diets, except of course, is better than veganism, which is the most inferior form of diet from scientific standpoint. Cervival neck disc bulge is not treated by going vegetarian. There are actual scientific guidelines for it. See here: and here: And no one should ever ask an Accupuncturist for any advise on health, because they themselves have no clue about human anatomy or physiology and they are not real healthcare providers. They are quacks. I like Virat Kohli. The guy is a national treasure. But I am sorry to say that he is very health and science-illiterate and a prototype of the beggarly scientific temper that define majoirty of Indians in today's India. Doctors, scientisits, science communicators, (real) health influencers, we need to do better.
TheLiverDoc™1,006,437 views • 2 years ago
No this is not a sewage treatment facility, but an Ayurvedic medicines preparation factory where buckets of mercury are dumped into "supposed" "effective herbal medicinal formulation" which will then be packaged and sold to hundreds of thousands of people in the name of tradition, safe and natural and religion and faith. This is "their" "supposed" way of purifying metals to "reduce" toxicity. Wake up. Source:
TheLiverDoc™841,716 views • 2 years ago