How Not to Die from Cancer

After Dr. Dean Ornish conquered our number-one killer, heart disease, he moved on to killer number-two. What happens if cancer is put on a plant-based diet? Ornish and colleagues found that the progression of early-stage prostate cancer could be reversed with a plant-based diet and other healthy lifestyle behaviors.

If the blood of those eating the Standard American Diet is dripped onto cancer cells growing in a petri dish, cancer growth is cut down about 9 percent. And if they’ve followed a plant-based diet for a year? Their blood can slash cancer growth by 70 percent. So the blood circulating thgouhout the bodies of those eating plant-based diets had nearly eight times the stopping power when it came to suppressing cancer cell growth.

That was for cell growth of prostate cancer, the leading cancer-killer specific to men. In younger women, breast cancer is the top cancer-killer. Researchers wanted to repeat the study with women using breast cancer cells, but they didn’t want to wait a whole year to get the results. Women are dying now. So they figured they’d see what a plant-based diet could do after just two weeks against three different types of human breast cancer.

As you can see in my video How Not to Die from Cancer, the study showed cancer growth started out at 100 percent, but then dropped after the subjects ate a plant-based diet for 14 days. A layer of breast cancer cells was laid down in a petri dish, and then blood from women eating the Standard American Diet was dripped on it. As you can see in the video, even the blood of women eating pretty poor diets had some ability to break down cancer. After just two weeks of eating healthfully, though, blood was drawn from those same women—so they effectively acted as their own controls—and was dripped on a new carpet of breast cancer cells. You can see for yourself that only a few individual cancer cells remained. Their bodies cleaned up. After only 14 days on a plant-based diet, their bloodstream became that much more hostile to cancer.

Slowing down the growth of cancer cells is nice, but getting rid of them all together is even better. This is what’s called apoptosis, programmed cell death. After eating healthfully, the women’s own bodies were able to somehow reprogram the cancer cells, forcing them into early retirement.

In my video, you can see what’s called TUNEL imaging, which allows researchers to measure DNA fragmentation, or cell death. With this technology, dying cancer cells appear as little white spots. From the start of the study, you can see one small white speck in the upper left of the image, showing that the blood of an average woman on a typical American diet can knock off a few breast cancer cells. After 14 days of healthy, plant-based living, however, her blood turned that one small white speck into a multitude of white spots. It’s as if she’s an entirely different woman inside! The same blood now coursing through these women’s bodies gained the power to significantly slow down and even stop breast cancer cell growth after just two weeks of eating a plant-based diet.

What kind of blood do we want in our body? What kind of immune system? Do we want blood that just rolls over when new cancer cells pop up, or do we want blood circulating to every nook and cranny of our body with the power to slow down and stop them?

The dramatic strengthening of cancer defenses shown in the study was after 14 days of a plant-based diet—and exercise.The researchers had the women walking 30 to 60 minutes a day. Given there were two factors, how do we know what role the diet played? Researchers decided to put it to the test.

In my video, you can see a chart that first shows how blood taken from those who ate a plant-based diet and had a routine of mild exercise, such as walking every day, over an average of 14 years, exhibited significant cancer cell clearance. The researchers then compared the substantial cancer-stopping power of plant eaters to that of an average sedentary American, which you can see is basically nonexistent.

The researchers also analyzed a third group. Instead of 14 years on a plant-based diet, they had 14 years on a Standard American Diet, but they also had 14 years of daily, strenuous, hour-long exercise, like calisthenics. They wanted to know if you exercised hard enough and long enough could you rival some strolling plant eaters.

The answer? There’s no question that exercise helped, but literally 5,000 hours in the gym was no match for a plant-based diet.

Once again using TUNEL imaging to analyze cancer cell death, the researchers found that even if you are a couch potato eating fried potatoes, your body isn’t totally defenseless. Your bloodstream can kill off some cancer cells, which you can see in my video as a couple white spots in the first image of that series. If you exercise for 5,000 hours, you can kill many more cancer cells, evidenced by the many more white specks appearing throughout that image. But nothing appears to kick more cancer tush than a plant-based diet, as that image is filled with white spots indicating cancer cells killed off.

Why is this the case? We think it’s because animal proteins, such as meat, egg white, and dairy protein, increase the level of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a cancer-promoting growth hormone involved in the “acquisition or progress of malignant tumors.”

In my video, you can see the results of a study that nailed IGF-1 as the villain. Just as in the previous studies, subjects went on a plant-based diet and cancer-cell growth dropped, while cancer-cell death shot up. This experiment, however, had a kicker: It added back to the cancer just the amount of IGF-1 that had been banished from your body as a result of eating and living healthier. In doing so, it effectively erased the “diet and exercise” effect. It’s as if the subjects had never started eating healthfully at all, with the cancer-cell growth rates and death rates returning to the same levels as before the plant-based diet intervention.

The reason one of the largest prospective studies on diet and cancer found “the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters” may be because they eat less animal protein, and thereby end up with less IGF-1, which means less cancer growth.

How much less cancer growth? A study found that middle-aged men and women with high protein intakes had a 75 percent increase in overall mortality and a fourfold increase in the risk of dying specifically from cancer. Does the protein source matter? Yes. It was specifically animal protein, which makes sense, given their higher IGF-1 levels.

The academic institution where the study was done sent out a press release with a memorable opening line: “That chicken wing you’re eating could be as deadly as a cigarette.” It went on to explain that “eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die from cancer…—a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking.”

What was the response to the revelation that diets high in meat, eggs, and dairy could be as harmful to health as smoking? One nutrition scientist replied it was “‘potentially even dangerous’ to compare the effects of smoking with the effect of meat and cheese,” but why? Because, they argued, a smoker might think “‘why bother quitting smoking if my cheese and ham sandwich is just as bad for me?’”

This reminds me of a famous Philip Morris cigarette ad that tried to downplay the risks of second-hand smoke. The ad included a chart with “everyday activities” and “reported relative risk,” in an attempt to say second-hand smoke wasn’t all that bad. The chart showed that while it increases the risk of lung cancer by 19 percent, drinking one or two glasses of milk every day may be three times as bad with a 62 percent higher risk of lung cancer. Lung cancer risk could be doubled if you frequently cook with oil, and heart disease risk tripled if you eat non-vegetarian or multiplied six-fold by eating lots of meat and dairy. Philip Morris’s conclusion? “Let’s keep a sense of perspective.” The “risk of lung cancer from second-hand tobacco smoke [was put] well below the risk reported by other studies for many everyday items and activities.”

That’s like saying, “Don’t worry about getting stabbed, because getting shot is so much worse.” Two risks don’t make a right.

Of course, you’ll note Philip Morris stopped throwing dairy under the bus once it purchased Kraft Foods.


The first time someone visits NutritionFacts.org can be overwhelming. With videos on more than 2,000 health topics, where do you even begin? Imagine stumbling onto the site not knowing what to expect and the new video-of-the-day is about how a particular spice can be effective in treating a particular form of arthritis. It would be easy to miss the forest for the trees, which is precisely why I created a series of overview videos that are essentially taken straight from my live, hour-long 2016 presentation How Not to Die: Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

The other videos in this overview series are:

Inspired to learn more about the role diet may play in preventing and treating cancer? Check out these other popular videos on the topic:

I’ve also produced an entire series on mammograms. You can find all of those videos here.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

How Could There Be Such a Disconnect Between the Science and Medical Practice?

“Most deaths in the United States are preventable and related to nutrition.” According to the most rigorous analysis of risk factors ever published, the Global Burden of Disease study, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, our diet is both the number-one cause of death and the number-one cause of disability in the United States, having bumped smoking tobacco down to number two. Smoking now kills about a half million Americans every year, whereas our diet kills thousands more.

If most death and disability is preventable and related to nutrition, then, certainly, nutrition is the number-one subject taught in medical school and the number-one topic your doctor talks with you about, right? How can there be such a disconnect between the science and the practice of medicine?

Let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine you’re a smoker in the 1950s. The average per-capita cigarette consumption was about 4,000 cigarettes a year. Think about that. In the 1950s, the average American smoked half a pack a day.

My video How Smoking in 1959 Is Like Eating in 2019 shows a series of 1950s tobacco ads featuring media stars, famous athletes, and even Santa Claus telling you to smoke. The message was clear: If you wanted to keep fit and stay slender, you made sure to smoke. Magazine ads also encouraged you to eat hot dogs to keep yourself trim, as well as lots of sugar to stay both slim and trim. One ad even claimed that sugar was less fattening than apples. Apples! Though one internal tobacco industry memo stated, “Apples connote goodness and freshness and we see many possibilities for our youth-oriented cigarette with this flavor.” They wanted to make apple-flavored cigarettes for kids. Shameless!

As those 1950s ads tell us, in addition to staying “fit,” staying “slender,” and “guard[ing] against throat-scratch”, “for digestion’s sake,” you could smoke. “No curative power is claimed for Philip Morris,” read one ad, “but—an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Heeding that advice, it’s better to be safe than sorry, so you’d better smoke.

Like eating, smoking was a family affair. Marlboro ads featured babies with comment bubbles saying, “Gee, Mommy, you sure enjoy your Marlboro,” “You’re darn tootin my dad smokes Marlboro…he knows a good thing,” and “Just one question, Mom…can you afford not to smoke Marlboro?” In another ad from the 1950s featuring a stereotypically  nuclear family, the dad is given cartons of cigarettes from his doting children—one boy and one girl, of course—and even the dog has a carton as his doting wife looks on.

“Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere” was one tobacco company’s tagline, and “No woman ever says no to Winchester” was another. After all, cigarettes are “so round, so firm, so fully packed.” After all, John Wayne smoked them…until he got lung cancer and died.

Back then, even the Flintstones were smoking, and so were the doctors. This is not to say there wasn’t controversy within the medical profession. Yes, some ads showed doctors smoking Camels, but, in others, physicians preferred Lucky Strikes, so there was some disagreement. Indeed, “eminent doctors…on high and impartial medical authority…call for Philip Morris.” Even “leading nose and throat specialists” couldn’t agree which cigarette is better for your throat. Probably best to stick to the science, and, touts another ad, “more scientists…smoke Kent…” This should not be rocket science—but even the rocket scientists had their favorite Viceroys for the “man who thinks for himself.”

Can you guess why the American Medical Association (AMA) “went on record as withholding endorsement of the Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health, which documented the important role of cigarettes in…lung cancer”? A “gift from the tobacco companies” of ten million dollars may have had a little something to do with that. But why weren’t more individual doctors speaking out? There were a few gallant souls ahead of their time writing in to medical journals, as there are today, standing up against industries killing millions, but why not more? Maybe it’s because “the majority of physicians themselves smoke[d] cigarettes,” just like the majority of physicians today continue to eat foods that contribute to our epidemics of dietary diseases. What was the AMA’s rallying cry back then? Everything “in moderation.” The AMA said “[e]xtensive scientific studies have proved that smoking in moderation” is okay.

Eating the Standard American Diet today is like being a smoker in the 1950s. Just as smoking was rampant back then, think about what we’re feeding even hospital patients to this day.

We don’t have to wait until society catches up with the science. Sometimes it takes a whole generation for things to change in medicine. The old guard of smoking physicians and medical school professors die off, and a new generation takes its place—but how many people need to die in the interim?


I try to answer the question that arises in the minds of pretty much anyone dipping even  a single toe into the lifestyle medicine literature: “Wait a second. If this were true, why didn’t my doctor tell me?” If, for example, our number-one killer can be reversed through diet, why isn’t it front-page news and taught to every medical student, broadcast from every mountaintop by medical organizations, and featured in our government dietary guidelines? Still confused? Check out my other videos that address these questions:

For more on the parallels between smoking then and eating today, see:

Is the risk of smoking really comparable to following the Standard American Diet, though? See Animal Protein Compared to Cigarette Smoking and Will Cannabis Turn Into Big Tobacco?.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Why a Resource Like NutritionFacts.org is So Necessary

In a study of the dietary advice given by newspapers in the United Kingdom, “no credible scientific basis” was found for most claims. Indeed, “[m]isreporting of dietary advice…is widespread and may contribute to public misconceptions about food and health”—and potentially not only the public.

Scientists like to think they are not influenced by popular media. One study decided to put it to the test. The New York Times reports on scientific research each week, and researchers found that the studies covered by the Times end up being cited in the New England Journal of Medicine more than those that don’t. Seems like the popular press does indeed have an impact on science? Not so fast. That’s just one potential explanation. Perhaps outstanding studies are more likely to be picked up by the media and, independently, more likely to be cited. It’s possible the Times was just earmarking important science and its publicizing of that research didn’t have any effect on how often it was cited in future studies.

How can we disentangle the two? In 1978, there was a three-month strike during which the Times continued to print copies but couldn’t sell them to the public. So, a natural experiment was set up. Researchers compared the number of citations of Journal articles published during the strike with the number published when the paper wasn’t on strike to “discover whether publicity in the popular press truly amplifies the transmission of scientific findings to the medical community.” If the paper were just earmarking important articles, then the strike would have no effect on the studies’ future impact, but that’s not what happened. As you can see from a graph shown in my video Spin Doctors: How the Media Reports on Medicine, the studies covered by the Times during the strike when no one could read them appeared to have no impact on the medical community.

The next question, of course, is whether the press is simply amplifying the medical information to the scientific community or distorting it as well? “[S]ystematic studies suggest that many stories about new medicines tend to overstate benefits, understate risks and costs, and fail to disclose relevant financial ties.” What’s more, “[o]verly rosy coverage of drugs may also result from the direct and indirect relations between journalists and drug companies”—that is, the financial ties between the reporters and Big Pharma with all its perks.

Scientists and physicians often blame the press for the public being “poorly served” by the media’s coverage of medical science. In fact, the famous physician William Osler was quoted as saying, “Believe nothing that you see in the newspapers…if you see anything in them that you know is true, begin to doubt it at once.” Both parties, however, share the blame. Reporters may only have an hour or two to put together a story, so they may rely on press releases. It’s not hard to imagine how drug company press releases might be biased. But, surely, press releases from the scientists themselves and their institutions would “present the facts fairly, unambiguously, and without spin,” right?

Researchers decided to put it to the test. Critics may blame the media, but where do you think the media gets its information? “One might assume” that press releases from prestigious academic medical centers would be “measured and unexaggerated,” but researchers found they suffered from the same problems: downplaying side effects, having conflicts of interest and study limitations, and “promot[ing] research that has uncertain relevance to human health…”

For example, most “animal or laboratory studies…explicitly claimed relevance to human health, yet 90% lacked caveats about extrapolating results to people.” Indeed, “a release about a study of ultrasonography [ultrasound] reducing tumors in mice, titled ‘Researchers study the use of ultrasound for treatment of cancer,’” failed to add “for your pet mouse.”

“For animal research, it is estimated that less than 10% of non-human investigations ever succeed in being translated to human clinical use. Over-selling the results of non-human [lab animal] studies as a promised cure potentially confuses readers and might contribute to disillusionment with science.”

Although it is common to blame the media for exaggerations, most times, they don’t just make it up—it is what the research institutions are sending out themselves. Researchers found that “most of the inflation detected in our study…was already present in the text of the in their own press releases produced by academics and their establishments.” Medical journals, too. Indeed, sometimes medical journal press releases do more harm than good. An analysis of press releases from some of the most prestigious medical journals found the same litany of problems. I don’t think most people realize that journals sell reprints, which are official-looking copies of the articles they print, to drug companies and others. Reprints can bring in big bucks. Drug companies may buy a million copies of a favorable article. Indeed, they “usually buy reprints of studies that they have funded themselves. Unsurprisingly, they buy them only when the results are positive for their drugs, and they use these reprints as a form of marketing.” What’s more, sometimes a company will submit an article and promise to buy a certain number of reprints if it’s accepted, which “is effectively a bribe…” A long-time editor-in-chief at the prestigious British Medical Journal recalled that a woman from a public relations company called him, offered to take him to a restaurant of his choice, “and stopped just short of saying she would go to bed with me if we took the paper.”

“Another conflict of interest for editors relates to advertising—a major source of income for many journals. Most of the advertising comes from pharmaceutical companies.” If they don’t like a study, they can threaten to withdraw their advertising if it’s published. This potentially leaves editors “faced with the stark choice of agreeing not to publish a particular piece or seeing their journal die.”

Even if journalists, as they’re writing an article, have the time to skip the press releases and go directly to the source to read the studies themselves, they may find them “incomprehensible; utter gobbledygook.” Yet even if they do understand the studies, scientific articles are not simply reports of facts. Authors have many opportunities to add spin to their scientific reports, with “spin” defined as distorting the interpretation of results and misleading readers, either unconsciously or with a willful intent to deceive.  Researchers looked at randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results, meaning, for example, a drug was compared to a sugar pill and the difference between the two was essentially nonexistent. Would the researchers just lay out the truth and report that they spent time and money, but, in terms of their primary outcome, got nothing? Or would they try to spin it? In 68 percent of cases, they spun it. There was spin in the abstract, the article summary, which is particularly alarming because the abstract is often “the only part of an article [people] actually read.”

Given all of this, it’s no wonder the media often gets it wrong. Spin in the abstracts can turn into spin in the press releases and result in spin in the news. “Therefore, even if journalists [do their due diligence and] are using the original abstract conclusion in good faith, they still run the risk of deceiving their readers.” Researchers presenting new findings can always be careful to stress how preliminary the findings may be. “But let’s be serious. Powerful and reinforcing self-interests” may prevail.

I think the biggest problem with the way the media reports on medicine, though, is the choice of which stories are covered. In 2003, for instance, SARS and bioterrorism killed less than a dozen people, yet generated over a hundred thousand media reports, which is far more than those covering the actual greatest threats to our lives and health. In fact, ironically, “the more commonplace the cause of death, the less likely it is to be covered by the mass media.” Our leading killer is heart disease, yet it can be prevented, treated, and even reversed with diet and lifestyle changes—now that’s what should be front page news.


If we can’t trust the medical literature on its face, where can we turn? We’re talking life-or-death information here. What we need is someone who will dig deep into the data and translate the gobbledygook into actionable tips on keeping us and our families healthy. If only there was a website we could trust to tell us the unbiased truth…

If you appreciate the work we do, please consider supporting us. NutritionFacts.org relies solely on individual donations from users like you!

If you think just a little spin is bad, there is a much deeper rot in the medical literature. For more on this critical topic, see:

Interested in some specific examples of the spin and conflicts of interest we’ve been discussing? See:

It’s no wonder Physicians May Be Missing Their Most Important Tool.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations: