MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

The Gerson therapy, CANCER RESEARCH UK correctly informs us, is an alternative therapy which means it is usually used instead of conventional cancer treatment. It aims to rid the body of toxins and strengthen the body’s immune system. There is no scientific evidence that Gerson therapy can treat cancer. In fact, in certain situations Gerson therapy can be very harmful to your health. The diet should not be used instead of conventional cancer treatment.

I would go two steps further:

  • I would avoid the treatment at all cost.
  • I would distrust anyone who promotes it.

Like this article about Gerson therapy and its coffee enemas, for instance:

START OF QUOTE

…The Gerson Institute, along with many other high-profile alternative practitioners, prescribes coffee enemas to their patients up to five times per day in order to assist the liver in its mammoth task of detoxification and encouraging healthy bile production, which can further assist in breaking down toxins and cleansing the body.

It might sound a little wacky (and more than a little uncomfortable!), but the continuing popularity of coffee enemas suggests that it may be worth giving them a go if you’re suffering from stubborn health problems or planning on starting a detox diet…

Here are some of the reasons why you might want to try a coffee enema for yourself:

Eliminate toxins

You’ve probably already guessed by now that helping the liver to eliminate toxins from the body is the main reason why coffee enemas are so popular these days. The fact is, we live in an increasingly toxic world, surrounding ourselves in machines that spew forth toxic fumes, food that introduces increasing levels of harmful chemicals and excesses of vitamins and minerals, and chronic stress which tricks our bodies into retaining toxins rather than expelling them.

Eventually, something’s gotta give — it’s either your liver or the toxins (hint: it’s usually the liver). Liver failure is often accompanied by other serious health conditions, with anything from diabetes to cancer as possible outcomes. Coffee enemas bypass the digestive acids of the stomach, thereby delivering higher concentrations of caffeine to the colonic walls and stimulating greater bile secretion. This greatly helps the liver break down and eliminate toxins, a process which is marked by reduced gastrointestinal and liver pain, and a clearing of those Herxheimer symptoms.

Promote a healthy digestive tract

Over time, our digestive system can start to get a bit “down in the dumps” (pun intended). Bits of food waste can accumulate in the colon, along with toxins and other harmful compounds that stick to the colonic walls and can begin to degrade the overall health of your digestive tract. Coffee enemas, by stimulating bile secretion, help to purge the colon of that accumulated debris. This is helped by the physical flushing of fluids through the colon in the opposite direction, along with the enema encouraging greater peristalsis. Peristalsis refers to the wave-like contractions that help to move your food from one end to the other. More peristalsis means more movement of food wastes… and toxins.

Ease bloating and stomach pain

Bloating, gas and stomach pain are usually signs that your digestive system is underperforming. This is often due to a lack of bile secretion, poor food transit time and an overloaded liver… all of which are improved via coffee enemas! By using coffee enemas, you’re likely to see a marked improvement in your digestive issues, with less bloating, upset stomachs and gas.

Improve mood

Hundreds of recent studies have found a strong link between the gut and our mood. That link, referred to as the gut-brain axis, proves that a healthy gut is associated with a healthy state of mind. When your digestive system (and therefore gut) is overloaded with toxins, you’re bound to feel depressed and constantly suffering from negative emotions. Clearing up your toxin problem with a regular coffee enema should help to improve your mood and alleviate depression.

Treat candida

Candida is one of the biggest problems facing Americans today. It’s a stubborn form of yeast that resides in the gut (along with the mouth and, er, lady bits) and wreaks havoc with your immune system. Not only that, candida overgrowth contributes to insatiable sugar cravings, which in turn causes the overgrowth to establish itself more firmly.

Coffee enemas may selectively flush out candida overgrowths in the gut while preserving the beneficial bacteria that we rely on to break down food and support healthy immune function. Many people report a significant reduction in their symptoms of candida with regular coffee enema flushing.

END OF QUOTE

The article where these quotes come from is entitled ‘5 REASONS TO TRY COFFEE ENEMAS’. I think it is only fair for me to respond by writing a (much shorter) comment entitled

5 REASONS TO AVOID COFFEE ENEMAS

  1. None of the claims made above is supported by good evidence.
  2. Enemas with or without coffee are far from pleasant.
  3. Enemas are not risk-free.
  4. Such treatments cost money which could be used for something sensible.
  5. Coffee taken via the other end of the digestive tract is a much nicer experience.

105 Responses to Gerson therapy: a treatment to avoid at all cost

  • Of all organisations to use as a reputable source of information about an alternative cancer therapy, you have chosen Cancer Research UK. You may as well have asked Monsanto to give an unbiased write-up about Roundup, about which incidentally the truth of its carcinogenic nature has recently been revealed after many years of deceit and corruption.

    Perhaps your readers may be interested to learn more about Cancer Research UK and its relationship with Big Pharma at:
    http://www.chriswoollamshealthwatch.com/blog/cancer-research-uk-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/1012 Because of their relationship and funding by Big Pharma, of course, Cancer Research UK will not support natural treatments.

    As for attacking the Gerson Therapy, which has been so successful in curing cancer over the decades, does your bias know no bounds? Why not tell us instead the facts about the success (or lack of it) of conventional Big Pharma treatments on cancer? That would be embarrassing, though.

    Again, perhaps your readers might like to learn a bit about the Gerson Therapy at:
    https://www.cancertutor.com/gerson-therapy/

    • “Gerson Therapy… has been so successful in curing cancer over the decades…”
      ANY EVIDENCE FOR THIS STATEMENT?

    • Googling “Peter McAlpine” to see what undeclared COIs you might be flogging, I happened to discover this absolute work of genius which I recommend to all:

      https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-hospitality-does-make-emotional-connection-guests-peter-mcalpine

      Any relation? I think we should be told.

    • Take name of any med used for cancer and add summary of product characteristics. I think European provide more information than US or British, but you will find everything about the success during the research stage. Show me any studies of the same quality done with coffee enemas and Gerson’s in general!

    • @McAlpine:
      I use to promote Gerson therapy and I am really ashamed of it. I know very well what it is. In fact despite my love of science I got dragged into this irrational world of alternative “medicine” when I was 21 and the Big Pharma was the evil.

      Until I almost permanently damaged my kidneys, had a very unhealthy weight of 46 kg (fasting, enemas, Gerson dieat and juicing, other extreme fad health diets were all making me feel great – in my head) and even my cholesterol was too low! The kidney issue – I was pissing blood and the detox gospel preachers told me it was normal! That I have to wait, beacuse these are the toxins leaving my body! Well I went straight to a GP, later got my facts straight and have never looked back.

      I managed to ruin my otherwise perfect health when I was 27, because I was listening to all this alternative crap. It took me a while to get back to normal. If all of this BS does this to a healty young person, then we can safely assume that it does way more harm to a person with a serious illness like cancer.

      So with all this said – you are the one being bias – check the evidence and stop being so naive and trusting of every charlatane with a magical pseudoscientific vocabulary. I suggest you sit down and read quite a few books on the history of medicine (in fact history of science in general – do you even have a clue what kind of impact the scientific method has had on the lives of ordinary people and what has happened in the last 400 years???) and the principles of evidence-based medicine and the huge impacts it has had on each of us for the better. We don’t have all the answers yet, but that is ok, because the progress has been huge in just a few decades. We will get there – but not with people like you (and past me) yapping and spreading middle age mentality and conspiracy theories. This will lead us back to the age of irrationality, ignorance, superstition, magic medicine and burning witches. Back to the world where anything goes – because who needs evidence!

      • I’m pleased you realised your mistake in thinking that the pharmaceutical industry is the source of all evil and anything claiming to be vastly superior to drugs must necessarily be so – particularly if the word “natural” is attached to it. The suggestion being that one can have one’s cake and eat it too. Be healed in a simple and even pleasing way. Indeed be healed spiritually as well as physically. Filthy pharma could never, ever, heal in that way!

        Hugely profitable and powerful industries should be held morally and legally accountable for their actions. As a society we need to ensure sure that this happens.

        We should all be accountable for our actions, cranks included.

        This site is helping to do this.

      • I have adrenal cortical cancer I was stage 4. I am the only person who has survived from that stage in the UK. I have followed the Gerson therapy for years and it stops my tumours growing, 1mm in 3 yrs. You went wrong be a use you were anorexic. People who follow the therapy under a consultant who is a normally qualified doctor, have regular blood and health checks and are not thin. They are the right weight and eat a nutricious diet. My consultants at St. Bartholomews hospital in London have backed me with letters of support as they realise that any regime which followed correctly repairs the immune system, repairs you.I am now being studied to see why I am here as I should be dead.

        • Any supposed doctor that allows you to continue this treatment under their supervision is a quack, not a physician.

        • Congratulations Claire on surviving. It is good that you have sensible open eyed consultants that arent tunnel visioned. You are right you need to get your immune system healthy and the only way is good natural wholesome food. Nothing manufactured with chemical preservatives food enhancers food colouring etc This is what everyone seems to eat these days. CHEMO destroys your immune system red and white blood cells. it just destroys everything in your body. and also causes cancer . they tell you this quite openly. how I know is I am having chemo now. HOW I know that natural is best is because I am doing it. and my white Blood platelets are high and GOOD my white blood cells are fighting back. the Oncologist cant understand how this is happening. . I told him and he said ohhhhh. really. the nurses just told me to keep doing whatever I am doing because its working. they told me they arent allowed to endorse anything except chemo. so go figure. Plants cant be patented . so no money can be made from them. so everyone else BACK OFF unless you have cancer or have gone through cancer you dont have a clue.

          • would love to know what you are doing Carolena Huddy…..I am starting adjuvant chemo tomorrow, but am very interested in alternative medicine to go alongside it….it makes sense to me to hit this cancer with everything and support my body while doing it….It’s incredibly confusing out there for the lay cancer patient to wade through all the conflicting information….probably the bottom line is cancer is a bugger of a disease and no one knows really why it happens, therefore a decent treatment that works universally is difficult to find. But obviously people have healed from both ‘alternative’ and conventional treatments….surely it’s time for a meeting of both worlds….I understand they are underpinned by different philosphies on health but really…anyway. If you see this message, information would be great. Thank you

          • the worlds are constantly meeting; the fact that a therapy is ‘alternative’ means that it has been rejected by critical evaluation of the existing evidence. don’t fall for the false hope BS-merchants are selling!

          • Charlie,

            If you have read any of my other comments you will know that I am an oncologist and I know have a widespread cancer. I have had chemotherapy and radiotherapy myself, and my treatment is continuing lifelong.

            I’m sorry that you are having to have adjuvant chemo, especially as these treatments seem to go on for ever while you are having them, but at least it means that your chance of a long-term cure is good.

            Be careful with alternative treatments. Those that have been tested and found to work are incorporated into conventional medicine, so most of what is left has already been shown not to be effective. Some are actively harmful – for instance there can be interactions with chemotherapy. Also, there are alternative practitioners who will tell you that chemotherapy is harming your body and you should stop it. Remember that the dangers of chemotherapy are well-known, and the team looking after you will do all they can to minimise them. Also remember that in the long-run, the studies have shown that on balance you are better of having chemotherapy than not (or your oncologist would not be recommending it).

            There is a lot of nonsense talked about supporting the immune system, mostly by people who don’t have any idea at all what the immune system does and how it works (it is immensely complicated). Certainly there are times when you will be more susceptible to particular sorts of infection as a result of the chemotherapy, and the most important thing you can do is tell your team at once if you are unwell.

            With regard to diet, there are many theories about how diet or certain foods can fight cancer or worsen it, and in the main there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true, and indeed some diets (such as the Gerson diet) are based on a complete misunderstanding of how the human body works. If a diet sounds strange then it is best avoided. Also be aware that some foods (e.g. grapefruit) can affect particular drugs; hopefully if that is an issue you will be given information about it. Some supplements can also interact with chemotherapy, so it is very important that your oncologist knows what you are taking.

            I would advocate a diet that is rich in fresh fruit and vegetables, not too much red meat or dairy, and some oily fish (e.g. salmon or mackerel) twice a week. Whole foods are better than processed. Beans and pulses are also a good idea. But keep it balanced – moderation in everything is best. You may find that the chemotherapy affects your sense of taste or smell, in which case stick with what still tastes OK. If there are problems eating (e.g. due to nausea or mouth ulcers) then the oncology team will include a dietician (or whatever they are called where you live) who can advise you about specifics.

            Please note that whether your red cells or white cells go down or not has very little to do with what you eat (provided you are not malnourished) and you can’t bring the counts up with supplements if the problem is the chemotherapy. There is quite wide variation in how different people’s bodies handle chemotherapy, mostly due to genetic variations such as different versions of certain enzymes. Indeed, if the white count doesn’t fall, that may mean that your body is getting rid of the chemotherapy faster than usual, and in some situations the dose has to be increased to compensate (this isn’t usually required). More often, the count falls too much and the dose has to be reduced or delayed in order to individualise your treatment.

            I hope your treatment goes smoothly, and I wish you all the best for your eventual recovery.

          • Thank you for replying with such a measured balanced response. I appreciate the time you took to reply to me. Wishing everyone here well in their battle with this sneaky, horrible disease.

      • Why were you doing GT if you had perfect health? Just curious.

      • Amanda, I recently lost a friend who was on the Gerson therapy. She went on it to cleanse and lose weight. She was having pains in her back but continued on it not seeing the correlation. She developed severe kidney infection which late turned to cancer. She still continued with the diet. Only when her mother forced her to go to the hospital and get a proper diagnosis did she finally stop. But it was too late. She was stage 4 and it had spread to her lungs. Do you know of any class action law suits?

    • Exactly!

    • I sat BULLSHIT!

    • Great and very “scientific” answer. Thank you

    • Excellent reply Peter!!!

  • There was a problem with this post that meant that not all the text was visible. Now fixed.

  • Cancer Research UK is being funded by “Big Pharma”? Good! People who haven’t the foggiest about what constitutes proof of efficacy for a cancer treatment and promote Gerson Therapy? Bad! Endangering the lives of others is an unconscionable act. In claiming his therapy worked, Max Gerson either invented the cases or cherry-picked them over many years from patients who experienced spontaneous remissions. For that matter, there has never been a plausible scientific explanation for why it would work in the first place. Just a lot of hot air. Today, it’s a business and a profitable one at that. In my over 30 years of watching the world of alternative cancer therapies and those who bilk the innocent out of their money, I’ve seen more patients die from cancer with Gerson and other so-called therapies than I want to remember. Instead of building a wall, Trump would better to impose heavy trade sanctions on Mexico until they shut down and ban the bogus cancer clinics in Tijuana and anywhere else in the country.

  • Candida is one of the biggest problems facing Americans today. It’s a stubborn form of yeast that resides in the gut (along with the mouth and, er, lady bits) and wreaks havoc with your immune system. Not only that, candida overgrowth contributes to insatiable sugar cravings, which in turn causes the overgrowth to establish itself more firmly.

    Sooner or later, Candida was bound to raise its ugly head on this blog. The quote in the OP vcan be commended as one of the more succinct accounts of the total ignorance on the part of believers in the gospel of the ‘chronic candidiasis syndrome’, ‘The Yeast Connection’, ‘Candida hypersensitivity syndrome’ and various other titles.

    Candida is the name of a genus of fungi with several hundreds of species. About seven of these cause infections in humans, (other species are exceptionally rare causes). In real medicine, Candida infections have long been recognized as ‘diseases of the already diseased’, sentinels of various kinds of immune dysfunction. Genital thrush is the commonest form of Candida infection, and the immune dysfunction that predisposes to episodes of genital thrush is still uncertain, despite considerable research efforts, but for other forms of candidiasis the nature of the immune deficit is clear. Oral thrush is one of the earliest indicators of a decline in CD4 lymphocyte counts/increased viral load in patients with AIDS, and disseminated, potentially fatal Candida infections arise in patients with serious, multiple immune defects.

    “It’s a stubborn form of yeast that resides in the gut…” Correct: like other ‘stubborn’ microbes (mostly bacteria) it forms part of the normal, commensal gut flora.

    “…and wreaks havoc with your immune system.” Nonsense! the converse is the case. Defects in the immune system permit Candida yeasts to become pathogenic. (Exactly the same thing happens with other members of the gut flora, e.g. E. coli and other Gram-negative gut bacteria.)

    “candida overgrowth contributes to insatiable sugar cravings, which in turn causes the overgrowth to establish itself more firmly.” Ignorant horse manure with no supporting evidence.

    “Coffee enemas may selectively flush out candida overgrowths in the gut while preserving the beneficial bacteria that we rely on to break down food and support healthy immune function.” Ignorant horse manure with no supporting evidence.

    “Many people report a significant reduction in their symptoms of candida with regular coffee enema flushing.” And many people report having been abducted by aliens.

    The main basis for diagnosis of this non-existent ‘clinical entity’ is your score on a subjective questionnaire. Examples of these moronic questions include: “Have you at any time in your life taken a course of antibiotics?”, “Do you have any symptoms that worsen on damp or muggy days or in moldy places?” and “Do you experience the feeling of being drained (exhausted without obvious cause)? Many of us would answer ‘yes’ to this type of question. The notion of sampling a patient for the presence of a Candida sp. is usually not entertained because ‘we all carry Candida’.

    The Chronic Candida syndrome was first introduced to the world in 1981 by a doctor of ‘orthomolecular medicine’ called Truss. It came of age a couple of years later with the publication of ‘The Yeast Connection’ — a best-seller book of unproven therapeutic recipes — authored by a gentleman called Crook [sic].

    • I remember it well. Talk about recycled horse pucks! It’s astounding to me that anyone would deem to promote the Candida or yeast syndrome today, especially when naturopaths in the U.S. now shy from the term for fear of being called quacks.

    • I am very pleased to see that this is being discussed here, I have just had a most dispiriting conversation with several of the Candida faithful, all sorts of “remedies” being pushed, from anthroposophical medicine to reiki, all convinced that they are suffering from this murky condition: do you know of any good material in Spanish on the subject? I was only able to find material in English, which is not very helpful to spanish (or catalan) speakers, as are the “sufferers” with whom I was concerned.

  • I was about to comment on Gerson ‘Therapy’, and how,
    of all the quack beliefs it is still, after all these years, one that the hysterics defend most vehemently.
    And then along comes the fellow McAlpine, wearing his own suicide vest disguised as an argument, but managing to blow himself up before reaching any targets.

  • As I pointed out before, the Cancer Tutor site mentioned in the clueless post above is worth checking, if only to confirm the type of people on the other side of the argument.
    All the usual stuff is available- anger, lies,verbal abuse.
    One person in particular- it wouldn’t be fair to name her, but she’s called Darlina Idan, and seems to be involved with a quckcentre in the Philippines- particularly dislikes being politely asked for evidence, and has several times called me an ‘ignorant fool’, a ‘frustrated artist’, a ‘troll’, and told me to get an education. One fellow said that it was quite obvious that ‘natural treatments’ have science on their side( I haven’t heard back from him), another said ‘For god’s sake man, you’re on a site where there are more than 200 reports of natural treatment. What more do you need?’. ‘Evidence’, said I. He disappeared also. Oh, I forgot the two occasions I was called an ‘asshole’. Not very scientific, or wholesome family reading, but I merely report.
    As long as McAlpine, Colin, Iqbal etc are working feverishly away removing the sandy foundations from their own beliefs, we can be sure that homeopathy is in unsafe hands.

  • “particularly dislikes being politely asked for evidence, and has several times called me an ‘ignorant fool’, a ‘frustrated artist’, a ‘troll’, and told me to get an education. One fellow said that it was quite obvious that ‘natural treatments’ have science on their side( I haven’t heard back from him), another said ‘For god’s sake man, you’re on a site where there are more than 200 reports of natural treatment. What more do you need?’. ‘Evidence’, said I. He disappeared also. Oh, I forgot the two occasions I was called an ‘asshole’. Not very scientific, or wholesome family reading, but I merely report.”

    Seems to be a common experience among truth seekers.

  • I love the replies! Some are so personal! I’m impressed! Sadly, though, many people here seem to be so full of anger and aggression, which is a recipe alone for getting cancer.

    Please ask yourself this question, if you are unfortunate to get cancer: “Will I walk my anti-natural treatment talk and go for Big Pharma’s conventional cancer treatments, i.e. chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, when I know that they have a deplorably and extremely low success rate globally and that I will most probably die? Or will I (be a hypocrite and) try natural treatments instead as they have far better success rates and I may well be cured?” … That’s got to hurt! So, breathe deeply and slowly in and out, and let the aggression flow out!

    • Demonstrably false, Peter. A swift Google search on cancer survival rates will let you now how successful medicine has been in treating a large number of cancers. It will also show that, with a few exceptions, that cure rate has increased with time. Contrast that with all the people cured by natural methods.

      Oh. That’ll be none, then.

      Google Jess Ainscough for starters. Who, along with her mother, took the “natural” path when the conventional one was available and offered a good chance of a cure. Both died.

      • Lenny
        And it doesn’t stop there of course.
        The ‘Wellness Warrior’, as she chose to call herself, acted as a magnet for many women, some of whom saw this as an adjunct to their wacky interpretation of ‘feminism’., with its appearance of spirited rebelliousness.. As you know, she appeared in public until very late in the day,saying that her awful appearance by then was simply part of the process of getting more and more ill before getting better.
        I feel sorry for the girl, but her delusional beliefs quite possibly caused deaths among those who took them up themselves.
        Sorry for the extreme anger and aggression I’m exhibiting in presenting my case here, Peter.

      • Please let Jess Ainscough and her mother RIP. Let’s stick to randomised controlled trials.

    • Peter, you are trying to get people to delay treatments that have real proven clinical value in properly conducted clinical studies for treatments that do not have such evidence. That simply (to prove your own “special” knowledge) puts people’s lives at risk. On average, people who abjure conventional treatment for “alternative” treatments — including nutritional treatments die earlier.
      Frankly, I have to assume that you honestly believe this nonsense, else you would be knowingly promoting suicide. The problem with your view, and the dearth of scientific evidence supporting it, is that promoting this takes advantage of scared people. That is, to use a word appropriate to the context, malign.

  • You’ll no doubt be disappointed to read that I’m not flogging anything here. Since you have asked, yes, I create for hotels a very different kind of hospitality, i.e. energetic, heart-based hospitality. I apply the principles of energy to organic agriculture, which is why I don’t have to work ever again.

    You’ll be even more disappointed to know that heart field energy and thought energy have been so well researched for many, many decades that it is old science; though don’t expect Big Pharma to do any research studies on energy as its application to health care would dent their profits hugely.

    It is amazing what can be achieved when you allow loving energy to flow through yourself and from yourself. Together with meditations it is indeed one of the regime of natural ways for treating cancer. Moreover, several universities in India have researched its effect on crop growth and shown that you can increase crop growth far above chemicals by sending loving energy to the plants. This ancient knowledge is enshrined so to speak in the famous old book called “The Secret Life of Plants” by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird.

    You are free to choose and defend to the death Big Pharma’s money-making chemical treatments, if you wish, and to try to deny the effectiveness of natural treatments, but you can’t beat Nature.

    • “It is amazing what can be achieved when you allow loving energy to flow through yourself and from yourself. Together with meditations it is indeed one of the regime of natural ways for treating cancer. Moreover, several universities in India have researched its effect on crop growth and shown that you can increase crop growth far above chemicals by sending loving energy to the plants. This ancient knowledge is enshrined so to speak in the famous old book called “The Secret Life of Plants” by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird.”

      Anyone with a very basic fantasy bullshit detector will find this one drives their instrument off scale.

      • Personally, I’ve been drawn into the secret life of Peter McAlpine.
        Who could have guessed early on that he was quite this s crackers?
        Once again, I apologise for my anger and aggression.

      • Ah. the ancient art ot B’uul sh’itt.
        I know it well.
        I imagine I’ve pissed on my chips already viz asking for names and details of these hotels?

    • If you have actual studies and statistics to back this up please share them. They don’t have to be published by “Big Pharma” but they do have to follow scientific protocol and have actual patients and real studies to back them up. I have been doing a lot of online research and the “traditional” medicine has lots of studies and articles and databases – from multiple sources – that give you statistics on chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. They list both good and bad outcomes and have study after study and explain in detail the patient groups, controls, etc. In trying to find the same information on the “natural” cures I find a lot of claims that they have cured every disease known to man – from diabetes and high blood pressure to mental illness and cancer – yet I can’t find a single report with facts and statistics to back up these cures. The so called proof is usually all on the same website making the lofty claims. Don’t preach to me in a Youtube video – give me some real examples – some real scientific proof. Just because something is natural doesn’t mean it can’t be backed up by science. Eating healthy will make you thinner and exercise will make you more fit – there are plenty of scientific statistics to back this up – so show me the proof that this stuff cures cancer. Don’t go off on “Big Pharma” – just show me what you have both good and bad. That is a real conversation – a real debate. When you defend zealously without a single scrap of proof it comes off as cultish not scientific. I would also like to know how much money you make doing this. “Big Pharma” discloses that information as well – many claim they do this for very noble reasons but often that “nobility” also makes them wealthy – which is fine – just don’t be a hypocrite about it.

  • Blimey! Peter McAlpine is back! With more rubbish and outright lies!
    Welcome back, Peter. You’ll find there’s lots of fun to be had here, albeit at your expense.
    I note that you accuse others of anger and aggression- like we’re children and have never encountered that one before ( the Cancer Tutor site sets the standard for this though).
    As to the idea that people who perceive the lies and idiocy of altmed would nonetheless turn to it when desperate-while this is a fantasy which no doubt comforts you, it reminds me somewhat of the gloating religious extremists who crowed, and celebrated Christopher Hitchens’ cancer by saying ‘NOW will you take God into your life?’.
    Needless to say, because he had courage as well as intelligence( we’ll overlook for now his support for the illegal invasion of Iraq), he declined the invitation.
    As for your hotel nonsense, and the vast millions you’ve managed to accrue- well done! You ‘spotted an opportunity’, as my Dad used to say, and you went straight for its neck!

  • “It is amazing what can be achieved when you allow loving energy to flow through yourself and from yourself. ”

    How did that work out for Steve Jobs? Someone with all the resources in the world able to have any therapy. One of his biggest regrets was to not seek allopathic medicine sooner and succumbing to or in my opinion becoming the victim of charlatanism and the metaphysical world that is cam.

    • Steve Jobs returned to his office (for more stressful ‘work’), from a non-WIFI environment to a full-WiFi environment. Getting well from any severe illness requires rest and freedom from stress of all kinds, above all, so one can rethink one’s priorities. Cancer is an ‘existential life crisis’ that needs to be met mentally, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually as well as physically. People have healed themselves by finding a new, healthier (on every level) life course as part of their regimen. We are not simply bodies, operating mechanically. We need nourishment on many levels. That the mind affects the body is well known; there is a whole area of science known as psychoneuroimmunobiology.

      • and you think that one can cure cancer with psychoneuroimmunobiology?
        I sincerely hope you never have to test this notion yourself.

  • Interesting by the way to see that altmed has its own diseases that go in and out of fashion
    .Anybody remember the ‘recovered memory syndrome’ craze that spread like wildfire through the quacky end of feminism a few years ago?
    Complete with ‘recovered memory syndrome survivors’ cruises’ ( the ship no doubt crewed by a lcomplement of daft feminist matelots), and survivors’ pins’ ( ‘buy one get one free’).

  • For those of you wanting to have ‘scientific’ evidence and proof, let me explain to you why you will NEVER get it under the current economic oligarchy that exists in the world. It takes $1 Billion USD to get a drug on the market. You read that correctly. One billion dollars. There are animal trials, human trials, the expense to get it through the FDA, etc. etc. etc. Pharmaceutical companies, university hospitals, etc, are all spending their time trying to find the next ‘big thing’ that they can sell which will recoup the enormous cost of getting their drugs to market, and that will continue making them money for years to come. Not a single one is going to shell out money to do studies on Gerson Therapy, Rife Machines, Himalayan Salt, etc. because there is no return on investment for those studies.

    I have a friend, Kerry Salmon, who died of breast cancer two years ago, after fighting it for 8 years. The total cost? Over 1.1 million USD, paid mostly by her insurance company to Mayo Clinic and the pharmaceutical companies. Toward the end, she was getting shots that cost $10k a piece to stimulate her white blood cells. But does Mayo Clinic report this as a loss? No, of course not. We kept her alive for 8 years – we’re heroes! It doesn’t matter that she was in horrible health from multiple rounds of chemo and radiation, infection from her pic line that left a hole in her chest, crying every night from the pain and stress of the treatment and the job she had to keep so her health insurance would pay for it. To them, she’s a success. She lived past her expected date, and they got rich in the process.

    Did they tell her what to eat to strengthen her body? No. Did they tell her what caused her cancer? No. Perhaps estrogen dominance from the fact that she was constipated all the time and she should take enemas. Perhaps it was from bacteria, viruses, or parasites that her body wasn’t able to eliminate. Here in Phoenix, we have an institute that is testing cancer patients and finding out that 60% of them have Lyme disease. But those patients have to pay for the testing themselves. Interestingly, curing the Lyme is making their cancer go away.

    The fact is that the medical profession doesn’t know any more about cancer than the natural medical profession. And that is the god’s honest truth. If you read a book called ‘The Scientific Structure of Revolutions’ by Thomas Kuhn, you will see that is because science, which you’d like to think is infallible, is really just a bunch of people following fads and trends that the current institutions will accept and pay for or that they can publish, or doing what will make money, and people who have truly amazing, revolutionary breakthroughs are usually labeled as heretics until enough people start to accept their work and it becomes the new standard. And that will never happen with natural medicine as long as there is no money in it.

    Most doctors have enough stuff to read just keeping up with the ‘science’ in their profession, much less being able to seriously study the effects of natural medicines. In addition, just like univeristy professors, they know that if they actually find something legitimate in those methods, they will never be able to tell anyone. Touting natural medicines rather than pharmaceuticals would cause them to lose their relationships with current insurance companies, lose their jobs, lose their medical licenses, etc. In order to practice medicine in our society, you have to practice it the way the AMA wants you to.

    So, until there a different economic system where pharmaceutical companies and hospitals actually get paid for wellness rather than disease, you are not going to see any changes in the types of studies that are done, or any mainstream proponents of natural medicine. And it is horribly shortsighted to claim that just because medical studies don’t exist, a natural method must not work. Even worse, sometimes pharmaceutical companies will do studies to discredit natural methods so that people won’t follow them. It is very, very easy to alter methods and skew data results. If you doubt that this is true, let me ask you what you would do for one billion dollars, much less the $7.21 billion that Pfizer or $11 billion that Mayo Clinic made last year.

    • “The fact is that the medical profession doesn’t know any more about cancer than the natural medical profession.”
      TOTALLY RIDICULOUS

    • I am sorry, but we don’t really care about money here, only evidence. In order to practice medicine in our society, you have to practice it using only treatments that work. “Natural” is an abstract term that makes no more of a specification as an adjective for “medicine”, than it does for “mortality”.

      • James

        “….but we don’t really care about money here, only evidence.”

        A small part of evidence is here:

        Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption Marcia Angell
        NEJM editor: “No longer possible to believe much of clinical research published”
        Campbell EG, Louis KS, Blumenthal D. looking a gift horse in the mouth. JAMA 1999; 279: 995-999.
        Why Doctors Are Losing the Public’s Trust by Physicians Weekly
        ted.com ben goldcare: what doctors don’t know about the drugs they prescribe.

        Or is it some other evidence that you have up your sleeve?

      • Uneducable Iqbal keeps clipping and pasting.
        If only he knew a little about modern medicine he might be helped to understand that the selectively picked morsels he keeps pasting are not evidence but debate. Much of it is correctly critical to medicine but as most of us understand, the shortcomings of medicine do not corroborate substituting health care with fake medicine such as his beloved homeopathy. Some of what Iqbal pulls out of other´s hats even counters his beliefs.

        • Björn Geir

          “If only he knew a little about modern medicine he might be helped to understand that the selectively picked morsels he keeps pasting are not evidence but debate.”

          …not evidence but debate? Issues raised about Missing evidence or cooked evidence qualifies as debate after years of show casing it as scientific evidence behind medicine? This is the truth about scientific medicine and the reason behind increasing deaths and maiming of hapless patients across the world.

          This is ONLY about MONEY. Flash $ (or is it EURO and get any evidence that you want.)

          https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0555-0

          We identified 77 trials (28,636 patients) assessing 47 treatments with 54 comparisons and 29 systematic reviews (13 published after 2013). From 2009 to 2015, the evidence covered by existing systematic reviews was consistently incomplete: 45 % to 70 % of trials; 30 % to 58 % of patients; 40 % to 66 % of treatments; and 38 % to 71 % of comparisons were missing. In the cumulative networks of randomized evidence, 10 % to 17 % of treatment comparisons were partially covered by systematic reviews and 55 % to 85 % were partially or not covered.

          This is NOT HOMEOPATHIC outcome.

          Edzard: you missed this one?

          • I am not sure you managed to understand the article you quote here.
            what has it to do with our discussion?

          • Fellow Iqbal, are you on spoilt hallucinogens?

            I repeat, we do not care about money here, only evidence. Modern medicine has lots of problems that need addressing. One of these problems is the intrusion of fake claims and practices (such as homeopathy and Gerson therapy). Although not exclusively, this is the main aspect tackled in this blog.

            You quote an interesting article, by the way, thank you for being useful, for a change.

            Oh, I almost forgot, you are right(!), this is not homeopathic outcome… The primary homeopathic outcomes are natural course of disease (short term use) and natural mortality (long term use).

        • Bjorn,
          Are you expecting a written statement from big pharma confessing all their lies and corruption? I am not a doctor neither a survivor, but I am an attorney and I have seeing how corporations lie. If you want evidence, you won’t find it discussing or asking here for evidence, this is so obvious that is embarrassing . You would have to travel and conduct your own investigation studying also and letting your believes on the side (being objective). Then you will be able to come to a conclusion based on what your research takes you.
          Otherwise you are just a sheep following second hand information. Then you will have the authority to discredit other alternatives

    • @scienceskeptic

      Your comment contains so much muddled thinking, it indicates you have a poor grasp on reality. I’ll pick on just one of your statements…

      You wrote

      sometimes pharmaceutical companies will do studies to discredit natural methods so that people won’t follow them.

      You can’t get away with that one without providing concrete examples.

      • Oh really? Because everyone here is providing such concrete examples of their statements. And I’m in the last year of a phd so my thinking and ability to research are pretty clear at this point, regardless of what you believe. But, since you can’t seem to use Google for yourself, let me give you some links:

        “…[Dr. John Ioannidis has] become one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for heart disease or back pain—is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences.” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

        “A 2012 study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, found that misconduct, not errors, was responsible for most retractions from journals. Among the 2,047 retracted papers they analyzed, the researchers found that “21 percent of the retractions were attributable to error, while 67 percent were due to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43 percent), duplicate publication (14 percent), and plagiarism (10 percent). Miscellaneous or unknown reasons accounted for the remaining 12 percent.” … “After an allegation is made, Brodnicki and members of her team, which very often includes Litt, meet to determine whether the allegation meets the definition of research misconduct, defined by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” http://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/surgery/data-dont-lie-do-they

        “Recent cases of research misconduct: In April 2016, a former University of Queensland professor, Bruce Murdoch, received a two-year suspended sentence after pleading guilty to 17 fraud-related charges. A number of these arose from an article he published in the European Journal of Neurology, which asserted a breakthrough in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.” … In 2015, Anna Ahimastos, who was employed at the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in Melbourne, admitted to fabricating research on blood-pressure medications published in two international journals. The research purported to establish that for patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD), intermittent claudication (a condition in which exercise induces cramping pain in the leg) treatment with a particular drug resulted in significant improvements.” https://theconversation.com/research-fraud-the-temptation-to-lie-and-the-challenges-of-regulation-58161

        Honestly, I could do this all day. Medical fraud, research fraud, the fact that doctors lie to patients and cover up medical errors (https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/11/health/dishonest-doctors-survey-brawley/index.html) should NOT be new to you. And note that these are from Harvard med and the top medical journals that publish Dr. Ioannidis. If you think my arguments are flawed it is more likely due to your lack of information/background in this area and limited perspective that prevent you from understanding my argument, but it’s also that my time is extremely limited so I’m not giving you the background. That’s why you have Google.

        Here is an article showing some evidence in favor of Gerson therapy. No, it’s not one of the prestigious medical journals I quoted from above, and it’s a case study. But it is a hopeful beginning. Surviving against all odds: analysis of 6 case studies of patients with cancer who followed the Gerson therapy. Molassiotis A1, Peat P. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1534735406298258

        More questions? Let’s keep nailing this thing until I get you to understand the economics of medicine…

        • ” … my thinking and ability to research are pretty clear …”
          evidently not!
          otherwise you would not have cited a small case series in support of an entirely implausible intervention.

          • I already cited the limitations of the study and simply noted it as a beginning. But really, no response to Harvard med or my other amazing sources? I am aghast.

          • SO AM I!
            1) your ‘amazing’ sources have been known to me [and probably most readers of this blog] for long. I even have one publication with Ioannidis.
            2) you use them not as a proper argument but as a fallacy.
            3) Ioannidis never showed what you seem to argue against [“sometimes pharmaceutical companies will do studies to discredit natural methods so that people won’t follow them.
            You can’t get away with that one without providing concrete examples.”]

        • @scienceskeptic

          Sorry, but your links don’t provide any support at all for your original statement. You said “sometimes pharmaceutical companies will do studies to discredit natural methods so that people won’t follow them.” I wanted concrete examples of studies done by pharmaceutical companies, designed to discredit ‘natural methods’ (whatever that means). You’ve merely provided links to (journalistic) articles on research misconduct — something that’s been with us as long as research has existed.

          Your first link explains how John Ioannidis tackled the reported links between individual dietary factors — particularly vitamins — and diseases. Which might be regarded as discrediting a ‘natural’ method. But there’s no indication Ioannidis was paid by a pharmaceutical company to do this: what’s more, the piece goes on to tell how Ioannidis considers drug company misconduct in pushing their own products to be even worse than the trumpeting of nutritional studies. (And surely anyone with half a brain already knows to take studies linking specific nutritional factors as causes or cures for disease with a heavy pinch of salt.)

          You say “I’m in the last year of a phd so my thinking and ability to research are pretty clear at this point, regardless of what you believe.” If I were your PhD supervisor (I’ve supervised and examined many PhDs) I’d be seriously worried I might have to advise you not to write up and submit a thesis. At PhD level I’d expect someone, asked to provide concrete examples in support of a statement, to do better than to say “If you think my arguments are flawed it is more likely due to your lack of information/background in this area and limited perspective that prevent you from understanding my argument, but it’s also that my time is extremely limited so I’m not giving you the background. That’s why you have Google.” You seem to have a serious scholarship deficiency. Google is not the place to find original sources. You seem not to know about PubMed, Web of Science or Medline, to name just three professional science databases.

    • scienceskeptic said:

      For those of you wanting to have ‘scientific’ evidence and proof, let me explain to you why you will NEVER get it under the current economic oligarchy that exists in the world. It takes $1 Billion USD to get a drug on the market. You read that correctly. One billion dollars.

      That cost includes all drug discovery, development, dead ends, overheads, etc, etc, etc, as well as the cost of testing.

      I can buy a 200 g jar of coffee at my local supermarket for £4.00. When can we expect to see Gerson therapy being rigorously tested?

    • Using the moniker ‘scienceskeptic’ gves a good indication you neither understand nor have an interest in critical thinking and logic. It’s part of a muddled tactic that religious apologists like to use with atheists; claiming that the atheist is just as religious as the believer but atheism is their “religion”. Nut-thinking. Your nut-thinking somehow gives you solice that you have uncovered some ineffable truth regarding the “way things are”….when in fact you are simply bloviating and self-aggrandizing and shaking a fist at the sky.
      I’m sure as a scienceskeptic you hold no college degree(s) since that’s where all those cheating MDs and PhD get their start.

      • @Michael Kenny. Awesome job using the red herring (diverting the topic to religion) and ad hominem (attacking the character attributes of the poster) fallacies. The fact that you are doing this, rather than sticking to the argument…well, I’m not going to finish that sentence. But rather than insulting my educational background, why don’t you try doing some research? I’ve posted quite a few links above proving my points, and I’m interested in your arguments against Harvard med and the mainstream journals listed.

        I really have no idea where you get any of the ideas you threw at me. It’s a great way to form a different bias – ingroup/outgroup. I’m obviously one of those crazy ‘outgroup’ people on the internet who is nothing like you. Why could I not be someone just like you? Someone who is simply tired of watching everyone go to the doctor and get more drugs that make them sicker rather than well?

        Looking back at your post, I believe the tactic religious apologists use is to tell people that atheism is just as pervasive of a world-view as a religion is – whether they want to believe it or not. If you believe in religion, all information you take in is colored by that perspective: god has a plan, everything happens for a reason, god inspired you to do something, you are going somewhere after death, etc.

        Similarly, if you are an atheist, all information you take in is colored by that perspective: sometimes things happen for no reason at all, you create a plan for your own life, you were inspired by BLANK (something else not god), and you have one life so you’d better live it while you can, etc. If you have a pervasive worldview, you are not open to evidence of the contrary. Your mind will simply push it away as inconsistent with your worldview. In that way, atheism is just as dogmatic as religion is.

        If you really want an amazing book on how paradigms or worldviews influence every aspect of your thinking, I would encourage you to read “The Paradigm Conspiracy: Why Our Social Systems Violate Human Potential…and How We Can Change Them”. Then we could actually have a conversation on this matter.

  • It is world known that corporations lie for profit. They don’t care about people, you can believe it or not it is your choice. Illnesses make profits, so why would they be interested in curing? that would be the end of their profits. Easy
    SO now you keep believing in big pharma

    • Guess who else lies?

      You alties. Like pigs in shit.

      Hardly a foundation on which to build trust.

    • It is world known that corporations lie for profit. They don’t care about people, you can believe it or not it is your choice. Illnesses make profits, so why would they be interested in curing? that would be the end of their profits. Easy

      What corporations do you have in mind? Perhaps Boiron (homeopathy: $515 million gross profit, $82 million net USA income in 2016)? Nelsons UK (homeopathy and Bach flower remedies: £4.5 million profit in 2008)?

      CAM “is expected to generate a revenue of USD 196.87 billion by 2025” (click here for source).

      SO now you keep believing in Big Snakeoil.

  • I’m horrified by the lack of intelligence here. The Gerson Therapy has cured my Lupus. I followed the therapy at home. To nourish your body with simple organic food. If I was to enter the hospital I would have been given drugs which cause more drugs to be given and so on and so on.

    Are you saying then that it is not true that an alkalized body can not host cancer? You had better be able to prove it if you don’t. Vegetables, apple cider vinegar, lemon, what about pure cranberries?, all of these natural scary things create an alkalized environment that cancer CANT live in.

    Why is this so impossible for most here to understand. You seem like a group of lemmings that works in the health industry, terrified to lose your jobs.

    Big Pharma and the powers in the government in the U.S. regularly attack supplement companies. Talk about Tumeric – or the more targeted component – Curcumin, the inflammation decreasing properties are amazing – but YOU people would prefer to take a Tylenol. What does Tylenol do?, it causes a mess in your body, clinically proven messes that now puts stern warning labels on these over the counter poisons.

    You can’t put a patent on organic apples and carrots – it really is the reason you will never understand from the readings here. Big Pharma-Big Money – you have been brainwashed.

    • I suggest you learn about the mechanisms by which our bodies regulate the pH to remain constant.
      get an easy to understand physiology text.

    • This simple graphic might help you:

      pH for dummies

    • There are a lot of reasons why Gerson Therapy might have worked for you, alkalinity aside. The high-quality and high-quantity diet of fresh fruits and vegetables, the supplements, the detoxing effects of removing junk food and meats, as well as toxins from your environment and health and beauty regimens, etc. Here is an article which explains why having a lot of alkaline foods can help you fight cancer, while not changing the pH of your blood.

      “Fortunately, the same foods that Berthelot found to be alkaline back in the 1800s are many of the same foods that are recommended today for their cancer-fighting properties. These plant-based foods – including citrus fruits and tomatoes – protect cells from damage, encourage normal cell growth, and other processes which help fight cancer and other chronic illnesses.[5] Conversely, high-intakes acidic foods such as meat and animal-based proteins, have been linked to inflammation, insulin insensitivity, and increased cell division.” https://mnoncology.com/about-us/practice-news/acid-alkaline-balance-and-cancer-the-truth-behind-the-myth/

    • @Cindy Galloway well said

  • I would also suggest consulting a good psychiatrist… Living with persecution complex is hard.

  • Shame on you for discrediting a major issue in our country, I surely hope you can sleep at night knowing you are NOT helping being a DR. I think you forgot about WHY you wanted to be a DR!!!! Nutrition and detoxing the body is KEY and you know this to be true. May GOD bless and enlighten you and your colleagues!!!

    • good grief!

    • Always curious about the mentality that needs to invoke God (whichever of the 3000 they happen to favor at the time) to try to win an argument based in logic? Are you a well known daft about town?
      I think your God has killed enough of us with cancer that REAL scientists ought to be allowed to try to fight back.

      • Really, Michael Kenny? Because you performed the same type of red herring above invoking religious apologists. If you are going to invoke atheism I have no idea why you would object to someone invoking whatever god they believe in.

    • He’s not just a doctor, he’s a MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd. Seems a little excessive to me, but he might be compensating for other deficiencies, like common sense or morality.

  • Having recently discovered this site, I looked up Gerson therapy as I was curious from my own experiences. When I was a trainee oncologist in the 1990’s, one of the Consultants I worked for had agreed to provide medical supervision of patients being treated by a local Gerson centre, I suppose on the grounds that it might be better for them to see a qualified doctor from time to time than not.

    I remember four patients altogether. Three of them were dead within three weeks of starting treatment. The fourth wasn’t particularly unwell to begin with and dropped off the radar after a while so I don’t know the outcome. I do remember that they all found the treatment very difficult and unpleasant (not to mention expensive) and none were able to manage the full five coffee enemas a day.

    Apart from trying to get my head round the idea that cancer could be cured by changing the pH and electrolyte concentrations in the body (or that the therapy could even achieve this in the presence of functioning kidneys) I did wonder what the true physiological effects were. I found a 1920’s Army medical manual recommending coffee enemas as emergency treatment for acute asthma. Of course it is an effective way of getting a lot of caffeine into the body very quickly. Nowadays we have the caffeine analogue aminophylline, which can be given intravenously and is much safer, as well as many other effective treatments for asthma (though I will not pretend that modern medicine has all the answers, and the memory of a young man dying of asthma in front of me when I was a medical SHO has been with me all my life).

    By the way, I like Alan Henness’s chart of pH homeostasis, which is very clear.

  • Lol. Then you need to do your homework. Gerson does not have ONE confirmed case of success. Just because they say so, does not make it true. Don’t believe anything unless it’s been proven by the masses. Of course chemo isn’t a cure. No one said it was hon. Not even the doctors. Chemo gives time to patients. That’s it. No one ever stated chemo saved lives. You came up with that all on your own.
    The only chance someone has for NED, is catching it early. Period. There. Is. No. Cure. For. Cancer.

    Gerson filmed a documentary following six cancer patients doing the therapy. They all died. You have to dig to find the information, but it’s there. A gentleman on Youtube did the digging and found out this information. this is why the documentary isn’t promoted.
    Where are the television ad’s promoting Gerson? If they had the cure, they’d spend millions advertising. Oncologists would have their brochures in their offices.
    We all know pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money, but you can’t drag that argument into this.
    If Gerson were the answer, the public would dive on that with a passion so fierce, it would be mind boggling.
    Fact: You cannot consume enough nutrition to cure yourself from disease. It is not physically possible. You’ll glow, have shiny hair and a few less colds and coughs, but that’s the extent of it. It’s science and proven.
    No one should be satisfied with the information tossed around out there unless it has been confirmed without question.
    That Chris guy who promotes Gerson? No one, NO ONE has confirmed his medical records. No one has confirmed he even had cancer.
    Fact: Gerson costs $1700 per week (cost as of July, 2018). 99.9% of the population could never even begin to afford it.
    Also, no one ever said people die from Gerson therapy. What they WILL die from however, is their cancer.
    Be really careful Brian. You can’t sit there and just believe what you hear, just because it sounds good. Question everything. Demand proof. Were Gerson the cure the world was looking for, it would be shouted from the rooftops and spoken about on the news channels. It would win the Nobel prize.
    No one should ever believe anything they read on the internet and take it as the truth. What would convince me? Firstly, I would have heard about it before a couple of days ago.
    Secondly, oncologists from multiple universities and hospitals viewing successful cases studies would be available to the public and all cancer patients. Multiple cases studies.
    Saying doctors and pharmaceutical companies are keeping Gerson from the public, because of money is an irresponsible thing to say or claim.

    You can’t eat your way to a cure and when something is only available to the wealthy, that makes me question it, right off the bat.

    • I have been reading and reading what I perceive as a fair amount of negative and degenerative dialog following this posted article, but wanted to complement you on what I consider a very selfless and civil sharing thus far.

      I actually enjoyed your comments and arguments even if I do not fully agree, not based on scientific study or facts, but acknowledged personal logic, belief, and hope.

      Before I open myself to getting slammed, I think I understand at the heart of all this debate is whether there is strong clinical research, peer-reviewed studies, etc. that can validate the efficacy of a Gerson Therapy or Diet regimen. If my understanding is correct, neither my reasoning, beliefs, or hope will add anything to these spirited and sometimes disheartening sharing’s but I wanted to take a moment to say thank you for what you expressed here.

      Personally, I am of the belief that eating a whole Food’s diet, with no added salts, sugar, and definitely oil, as advocated by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, have a positive impact on cardio health and other human ailments. I read his book as well as the China Study and even though it is my understanding that T. Colin Campbell does not assert his research definitively proves any particular thing, it does seem to suggest with a high degree of probability that eating a healthy diet, high in whole foods and low in animal protein may have positive impact on ones health, reduce ones chance of activating cancer or deactivating cancer growth.

      As a person who has been called intelligent at different times in my life, and who has also been formally educated and achieved a degree in law (yeah, one of those degrees and profession humanity loves to poke fun at), I find it very hard to know what is true, what is correct, and what is right in this whole arena of natural verses pharmaceutical.

      I do believe that perception, beliefs, and perspectives have a significant effect on how we understand each other, hear each other, and interact with one another. I know that pharmaceuticals, founders of industry and people of influence have impacted the greater masses in manners far from altruistic or positive. I know corruption exists on all levels of life and industry and there are very few absolutes in life.

      I believe there is good and bad on both sides of these discussions. My understanding is the drugs that big pharmaceutical companies develop are extracted from natural plants that can give life or death; can heal or make us sick, as are true from the naturalist side of the industry in the realm of unregulated supplements and other concoctions.

      For me it is a shame that such an important topic is met with such disrespect towards each other to TRUMP a particular cause or idea. I have read so much ugliness here that is, in my opinion, as deadly, painful and destructive, as the very cancers that are at the heart of these discussions. When I say heart, I am referring to whether a natural approach such as Gerson can promote viable recovery from cancer, or not.

      Someone mentioned Steve Jobs earlier and he is a person who has been on my heart a lot as I think about my own heath and my own struggle to grapple with this very topic, that for me is larger than Gerson, but encompasses life in general for at the root, in my opinion, is are we able to have a direct impact on our health and are we able to cure ourselves from cancer, heart disease, and other ailments by following strict natural regiments or are we really at the mercy of our genes, our environment and the luck of the draw.

      I know that he allegedly later expressed regret for not undergoing the traditional treatment, but vehemently believed, possibly to his own detriment that he could heal himself if he at particular things. What was unknown to me at the time of reading his story, was I was unaware that he was allegedly a stringent whole foods consumer and had been for many years of his life, yet he contracted cancer but back to the overall discussion about what is quackery and what is hard proof.

      I am not science breed. I love science and studied it as deeply as I needed to, in order to earn the various pieces of papers I have achieved (HS, BIS, JD) but I cannot give you the requirements that must be followed to qualify as a valid study that meets the criteria expressed among this group. I know the terminology, about blinded and double blinded, but could not give you their definition.

      What I can say is it seems harsh to be antagonistic, disrespectful, condescending in this forum. It is sad to read what seems to be many egos demanding or badgering one point of view or position, and this response is devoid of such expression and is further devoid of all that negative energy I have been soaking us as I have worked my way to the point of your response.

      I may not 100% agree with all the conclusions expressed by you but I am 100% grateful for this response and the manner in which it was expressed.

      Most of what I have read here, is why I tend to walk away from such discussion and not participate at all. We all have busy lives. The question for me becomes, will I add any value if I open my mouth and share and could the value I add have a positive impact on the discussion as a whole?

      I do not dictate how any adult decides to conduct themselves but I can share when something someone writes has a positive impact on me. I can share when something someone writes makes me feel proud to have shared a few moments of my precious life taking in what they had to express. That is what you have done and given to me.

      I mentioned Dr. Esselsyn and T. Collin Campbell as authors who have both had distinguished careers, who are labeled QUACKS in certain circles and their life’s work is laughed at and criticized by some as well. To this, what does a person say or do? I really do not know. What I know is Dr. Gerson probably gave his life trying to make the lives of others better and it is probably extremely judgmental to demean a persons life work, whether it is an effective alternative method to fighting cancer, a placebo, or whatever.

      It seems to me, probably because of my legal training, unless someone can clearly illustrate that this man had malicious and intentional intent to harm those he took an oath or heal and protect, the level of judgment and vehement expressed is unfortunate.

      I am aware part of what ignites the emotions, is probably a zealous desire for one side or the other to no have to witness anyone get harmed from false information. That in itself is a beautiful intention, if indeed that is at the heart of such a debate, but when did name calling and expressing ourselves in a defamatory manner ever bring about something constructive?

      We human beings are such a strange lot and I wish I knew if other life forms (animal, insect, etc.) are as equally capable of creating so much beauty as well as hardship for one another as humans do.

      I have been known to tell friends we are the most dysfunctional species on the planet. We are capable of so much infinite good as well as evil. That dichotomy is perplexing to me but I love us as a species and dedicate my life trying to help people become the best version of themselves, as defined by them.

      What I mean is I facilitate their journey, I do not dictate it. Only each person can decide for themselves who they truly are and what their ideal self and life would be or could be. But I digress for this is not about me, it is about you.
      I simply want to say thank you for what you have shared and being so civil in your delivery. It was worth reading and did not leave me disappointed for expending my life reading it.

      This does not imply yours is the only reply worthy of such remarks. However, yours is the one that stood out thus far for me and generated something inside me to stall my research on whether naturopathic medicine is quackery or has a reasonable place in my venue of medical options to cure things that may ail me.

      This is how I found this thread and post. A licensed doctor, was proud of the fact that besides having her medical degree, she also studied what she called “Integrative Medicine.”

      She listed as part of her additional studies the Gerson Institute, presumably for purpose of detoxification of the body. I will find out tomorrow. Sometimes it is hard for me to keep an open mind. One is quick to label and judge others but I know for a fact, when I practiced law, I was deemed strange because I had a huge heart and was very compassionate.

      I too had client’s come to me after others left them with no hope and said there was no way possible. A lot of times I say things differently, and worked some mojo that some considered was magic, but I would grow to understand we live in a world of things we know, things we know we do not know, and the realm of things “do don’t know we do not know.” The magic I supposedly created was manifested from that place.

      I learned to ask the write questions, and life some how made a way. Yes, people died and are going to die who fallow any particular treatment. Nothing is 100% except for the fact that as things stand to day, we are all going to die but some suggest that even that absolute is not truly certain some someday they may be able to jack our consciousness into the CLOUD. I do not know. What I know is there is room for discussion and sharing and I love the way you expressed your thoughts.

      Wishing you Peace, Love, and Tranquility

      EJ

      • Dear EJ,

        I have enjoyed reading your interesting post. One thing that it does highlight for me is the difference in approach in those mainly educated in the arts versus the sciences. The two branches largely ignore each other, which I think is a great pity as there are many ways in which each can inform the other’s thinking. One particular difference, it seems to me, is that in the arts is that anybody’s opinion can be considered the right one, and while there is much discussion and argument and different schools of thought, there is no universal truth. In the sciences, however, there is only one final arbiter and that is nature.

        I should briefly mention my own background at this point. I am an oncologist with thirty years’ experience practising as a physician. I have had to retire early, however, as I now have an incurable cancer myself.

        Science is a method of finding the truth. So far it has been the best method we have. Essentially it is very simple. You start with obervations, from which you form a hypothesis. You then make predictions from the hypothesis, and devise experiments to test the hypothesis. All the time you are trying to prove it wrong, not right, and if it stands up to these tests, then it is a good hypothesis. If it doesn’t make testable predictions in the first place, then it is not really worthy of consideration. When you have failed to knock down your hypothesis, you can publish it, along with the evidence you have collected and details of how you have tested it. Then everybody else tries hard to prove it false. Eventually evidence will be found that disproves it, and a better, modified version will stand in its place which is a closer approximation to nature. Scientific knowledge, then, is the best explanation that we have so far for how the world works. We know that it is incomplete, and there are some areas where we simply have to accept that we don’t know the answers and may not ever know them.

        If somebody has devoted his life to the pursuit of a particular area, and evidence is subsequently found that proves his ideas to be wrong, then his life’s work cannot form the basis of any valid scientific theory, even though that is not the same as saying that it has nothing to teach us.

        It matters not if somebody has distinguished themselves in an illustrious career if they are wrong. Science is based on evidence, not authority or dogma.

        Of course in the real world scientists can’t simply concentrate on the science. They have to think of their sources of funding and they are often judged on how much they have published and where. There is fraud, and particularly where the research has been funded by big business, undesirable results are regularly suppressed. This does not invalidate the scientific method, but it does mean that care is required in interpreting the literature.

        The whole thing becomes much more complicated as soon as biological systems are involved. The huge variation between individual organisms, the complicated feedbacks and the varied conditions mean that whatever you try to measure is greatly affected by a wealth of random factors. In order to tease out real effects from chance you have to understand the behaviour of random numbers, chance and probability, and our instincts here are very misleading, if not just plain wrong. Hence the branch of mathematics known as statistics was developed. Statistics enables us to discern true effects among randomness, to give us a measure of how sure we can be of our results (or more usually, a measure of how likely we are to have obtained our results purely out of chance, which is not the same thing), and it helps us to design studies to maximise our chances of learning something useful from them.

        Unfortunately, without some training in statistics it is very difficult to make sense of a scientific paper, particularly in the sphere of medicine, and it is very easy to come to the wrong conclusions. This is not helped when the authors of a paper are not very good statisticians themselves.

        When trying to assess the effects of medical interventions, there is a further problem, which is that the knowledge and beliefs of the subjects in the study strongly influence the outcome. This is the placebo effect, and is the reason why most trials are designed so that the subjects, and if possible the investigators, do not know who has received what treatment.

        As a medical practitioner, I have always striven where possible to base my practice on my knowledge of the medical sciences, and on the evidence from clinical trials. As new knowledge has arisen I have tried to keep up-to-date and to change my practice accordingly. Personal experience, too, counts for a great deal, but one has to accept that one’s own experience is limited and to know when not to place too much reliance on it. Even so, I have often been faced with the situation where the patient in front of me doesn’t fit into the data from the trials, and I still have to make a decision.

        Actually much of what I do involves explaining to the patient as best as I can what is going on and how their tumour is likely to behave, what treatment involves and can and can’t do, and what the uncertainties are, so that they can be suitably informed to make their own decisions.

        I worked in a system where I had to study for many years and pass a number of exams to become an accredited specialist, where I was part of a multidisciplinary team, where practice and outcomes were continually being evaluated by audit and other feedback, where I was monitored and subject to annual appraisals and five-yearly revalidation.

        What about those who treat sick and vulnerable people without these safeguards? Those who base their practice on schools of thought which have no scientific basis, and where no evidence has been found of their efficacy? Whether they are cynically trying to make money out of others’ misfortune, or whether they are genuinely trying to improve the lot of those less fortunate than themselves, they are in a position to do a great deal of harm. Should I stand by and let this happen? Should you? I care not about the motives of so-called alternative practitioners, their intent to harm, or lack of it. What matters are the consequences of promoting useless or dangerous treatment.

        At the very least we need to educate people better, to give them the tools to distinguish truth from falsehood, to be able to spot implausible claims, and to know what questions to ask. This is not going to be easy, I know.

        It is interesting that you mention Steve Jobs. In my experience, people who are well-educated, intelligent and able to think logically are the ones who are most able to convince themselves that they are right, against all evidence otherwise. What people believe is generally what appeals to them most, and they are very selective about the evidence that they will accept. This seems to be particularly true of scientists, as soon as they step out of their own field, however rigorous they are within their own area of expertise (I can think of a few Nobel prizewinners who have very strange ideas).

        How much effort someone has put into their life’s work, how strongly they believe in it, how genuine their motivations, how great their sacrifices, all this counts for nothing if the evidence proves them wrong. Write an opera about them, but don’t let them treat you.

  • Lack of evidence is not an evidence against.

    It may well be a lack of research.

    There is plenty of research claiming that numerous phytochemicals and specific aminoacid restrictions have decisive impact on cancer development and outcomes.

    So let’s ask ourselves…

    Why does a program that :

    1) mimics calorie restriction (known to modulate angiogenesis and reinforce TH1 immune defenses);

    2) includes antioxidant-dense food (decreasing ROS and favouring mitochondrial recoupling, a serious cancer hallmark.. see Warburg Effect for further comprehension);

    3) Restricts elements that create burden for liver detoxification pathways;

    Why it doesn’t receive solid and continuous funding for research ?

    Why xenobiotics have the preference for funding ?

    Any evidence-based replies to these two questions will be highly esteemed ?

    Thank you and congratulations for your blog.

    • lack of evidence means the therapy is unproven; and this means that we should not use it in routine care on patients who need treatments that work.

  • I believe in alternative treatments for curing cancer but Gerson Therapy has a lot of flaws in it..it doesnt build the immune system that supplements like AHCC, MGN-3, IP6 and Beta Glucan do (and which have clinical studies to prove they help with cancer patients, can slow down metastasis and prolong survival..). The reason cancer spreads is because the immune system is weak..if you fix the immune system then the malignant cells can be stopped. Second thing is that carrot and apple smoothies like Gerson promotes aren’t very effective. If you want to take lots of fruit and veg, it has to be hardcore stuff like broccoli, brussel sprouts, leeks, spring onions, garlic, blueberries, pomegranate, pineapples. Common things like carrots and apples which are in every day diets aren’t going to cut it, so no wonder that “Wellness Warrior” girl wasn’t getting cured.

    Next thing to say is you need certain “exotic” supplements too to deal with cancer stem cells..like curcumin, nigella sativa, both with huge amounts of research showing effectiveness against human cancer cells. (as disclosure, both of my parents got diagnosed with cancer, so Ive been researching and studying this topic a lot)

    • if you have been researching this topic, why don’t you show us some evidence?

    • certain “exotic” supplements too to deal with cancer stem cells..like curcumin, nigella sativa, both with huge amounts of research showing effectiveness against human cancer cells.

      By the same kind of evidence and reasoning, a Vodka is also highly effective against cancer cells.

    • I’m not sure that there is a great deal of evidence in favour of the supplements that you recommend, otherwise we would be using them as standard treatment.

      There is some evidence that certain dietary factors affect the risk of getting particular cancers. This kind of research is always difficult due to the long lead time between dietary exposure and the appearance of diagnosable cancer, the impossibility of controlling a diet for the duration of such a study (30 – 40 years) and the multitude of confounding factors.

      There is no reason to suppose that dietary factors influencing the appearance of cancer will then influence its behaviour once it has become established.

      The behaviour of cancer cells in culture, or indeed animal models, is very different from the behaviour of tumours within the human body, and many promising approaches turn out to be ineffective, too toxic or unworkable.

      There was a widely-publicised study showing that pomegranite juice reduced the level of PSA in patients with prostate cancer. However, it is important to remember that, while PSA can be a very useful marker for how prostate cancer is reponding to treatment, what really matters is the wellbeing of the patient. What was not publicised was that the numbers were small, and the study was funded by the makers of pomegranite juice.

      A colleague of mine (Professor Rob Thomas, Consultant Oncologist at Cambridge – UK, that is) is very interested in the influence of diet on prostate cancer, and he developed a supplement called Pomi-T containing extracts of pomegranite, broccoli, turmeric and green tea. In a prospective randomised trial of early, low-grade prostate cancer, those taking the active treatment went on to have fewer prostatectomies than those on placebo. An interesting result, but further research is required to establish the place of this preparation in the management of prostate cancer.

      I would be interested to see the data supporting the treatments that you are advocating. Could you supply some references?

  • Edzard Ernst MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

    Thousands of studies show the effects and cure from eating plant based ‘gerson’ foods.

    Do your homework idiot!

  • When some in this thread uses the term ‘alternative crap’ you just know they’re objective and unbiased – not.

    Three months ago I was diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer. A bone scan confirmed the cancer was still restricted to he prostate. Gleason of 7, PSA of 10.8. All from London’s Chelsea & Westminster, a very well respected NHS hospital. I have no complaints.
    The consultant surgeon was suggesting taking the prostate out, the consultant radiologist suggested, yes, you guessed it, some radiation treatment. Again, both offering subjective and unbiased views, of course. Do you hear the same words I do, that of ‘production line’?
    I decided to go down the bi-carb, B17 and vegan diet route with lots of supplements.

    Guess what, PSA down to 0.5! I now feel better than I’ve done in many a year.

    You know what you can do with your conventional cancer therapies, thats right, stick them where the sun don’t shine.

    Regards from sunny Cyprus.

    David

    • I am honestly concerned that the option you chose is going to shorten your life; please reconsider!
      the surgeon and the radiologist were both right; both are effective options.
      the PSA is a very unreliable indicator.

      • Actually there is no evidence that prostatectomy prolongs survival, though urologists as a whole are somewhat resistant to randomised trials in cancer treatment on the grounds that they already know how to treat it (a source of much frustration to me over the course of my career). The evidence for radiotherapy is better, and indeed the mindset of oncologists is much more trial- and evidence-orientated.

        A prostate cancer such as this (though we don’t know whether it is T1c or T2, nor whether Gleason 3+4 or 4+3, all of which make a difference to the prognosis) is likely to continue for many years before becoming symptomatic, and indeed if it were at the less agressive end of the scale (T1c, Gleason 3+4) some oncologists would advocate active surveillance, with repeat MRI scans and biopsies to assess what it is doing (as you say, PSA is unreliable).

        I’m sure that adopting a healthier lifestyle will make him feel much better, and a vegan diet can be a very healthy one. The only effect of bicarb will be to increase his blood pressure (due to the sodium load) and B17 is unlikely to have any effect (other than a small risk of death from cyanide poisoning). Some supplements have been shown to increase the risk of prostate cancer (e.g. vitamin E, in a large, double-blinded, randomised trial) but most probably won’t do anything. He may, of course, be taking something with an anti-androgenic effect, which would lower the PSA and perhaps slow the cancer a bit.

        Provided that the cancer is adequately monitored (e.g. another MRI in a year or so) he is unlikely to be doing himself any long-term harm.

        Of course I can only speak in general terms, and I can’t give an opinion on a patient who I have not seen.

        • Should the First Law Of Edzard’s Blog Be as follows:

          “When Dr Money-Kyrle Speaks, All Should Listen”

          There are some here who are experts in their fields, and some who are wise, and some who can write well.

          None can combine the three as Julian does.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

If you want to be able to edit your comment for five minutes after you first submit it, you will need to tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories