2011 · Aajonus Vonderplanitz
Cancer protocol survival rates
What this work is
A compilation of Aajonus's talks and interviews from 2000 to 2011 in which he reports survival and reversal rates for people on the Primal Diet, mainly cancer. The figures he cites include a 95% success rate, 96% of 242 cancer patients still alive after at least six years (a follow-up he attributes to Dr. Elnora Van Winkle), about 98% reversal with no prior medical treatment, and lower rates after surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. He contrasts those numbers with the survival rates he attributes to medical cancer treatment.
Verdict
SCIENTIFIC
The work follows the scientific method, and the paradigm it assumes passes.
1·This work · inside the paradigm
SCIENTIFIC
Follows the scientific method within Terrain Theory.
2·Paradigm · Terrain Theory
SCIENTIFIC
Passes all three tests.
How the verdict is decided
The verdict grades the whole picture: the paradigm this work assumes, and how the work was carried out inside it. A work can follow the scientific method rigorously and still be unscientific, because rigor inside a paradigm only shows the conclusion was reached carefully. It cannot verify the premise the paradigm rests on. So the paradigm decides the verdict. The work’s own score is kept because it shows how the conclusion was built.
1·This work
Did this work test its claim with methods that are independent, falsifiable, and non-circular?
SCIENTIFIC
A raw animal food diet produces high cancer survival and reversal rates, with approximately 96% of cancer patients alive after six or more years on the diet. All three tests pass.
Independently Verifiable
Pass
Van Winkle called 242 people and found 96% still alive. Whether a person is alive or dead does not require accepting terrain theory to observe.
Falsifiable
Pass
If the diet had not worked, the 240 terminal cancer patients would have died in large numbers and the survival figures would have been low. Aajonus reported 4 deaths and a 50% lung cancer reversal rate as what happened.
Non-Circular
Pass
The diet is raw animal foods. The outcome is whether someone is alive. The phone call used to count survivors was not built from the terrain model's conclusion.
Why
People diagnosed with terminal cancer by medical doctors started eating raw animal foods. Aajonus tracked them over years. Dr. Van Winkle called 242 patients who had been on the diet for at least six years and found 96% still alive. Out of 240 terminal cancer cases over 26 years, 4 died. He reported lower reversal rates for lung cancer at 50%. He reported lower survival after surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, predicting that rate might drop to 60%. The people who died had followed the diet at 40 to 50% compliance. The outcomes are alive or dead. The instrument is a phone call. Neither the outcome nor the counting method requires the terrain model to produce a result. A stranger who rejects the entire framework can still verify whether someone is alive. If the diet had produced no reversals, the survival numbers would have been low and the claim would have failed.
2·Paradigm · Terrain Theory
Does the framework this work assumes pass the three tests?
SCIENTIFIC
Independently Verifiable
Pass
Terrain theory claims the host condition determines health. Whether a cancer patient survives a dietary change is visible to anyone regardless of whether they accept the terrain model.
Falsifiable
Pass
The terrain model predicts that raw foods change the host condition and reverse disease. If patients kept dying at the same rate as those under medical treatment, the model would have no evidence it works.
Non-Circular
Pass
The food is defined by what is eaten. The outcome is counted in bodies alive and dead. Neither the diet nor the counting tool was constructed from the terrain model's prior conclusions.
Why
Terrain theory treats the host condition as the determinant of health, not an external invader. This paper applies that principle directly. Cancer patients changed what they ate. The food either changed their condition or it did not. The outcome is counted in people alive and people dead. The terrain model sees cancer as a terrain problem, meaning the body's internal environment has degenerated. The diet addresses that degeneration with raw foods. The allopathic model would cut, burn, or poison the tumor and call the suppression of the tumor successful treatment. Terrain theory asks whether the patient actually recovered, which means alive and well, not whether a tumor was temporarily reduced. The 4 deaths out of 240 are reported as deaths. The 50% lung cancer rate is reported as a lower success rate. The model does not absorb these as exceptions. If the diet had not worked, the bodies would have shown it.
From the work
she challenged me about that record and then I gave her the 242 cancer patients that I had worked with up to that time that had been on the diet for at least 6 years. She called every one of them and found that 96% of them were still alive and well.
The ones that passed away, guess how much of the diet they did. 40 to 50%. The ones who died, they were very thin people.
Of the 240 terminal cancer cases that he has helped with, with his nutritional suggestion, over the last 26 years, only four have died of cancer-related complications.
Source
Cancer protocol survival rates
Aajonus Vonderplanitz
2011 · Primary work
Scored from primary work · Rubric 1.0