MD, PhD, MAE, 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.

825 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?

      • Any evidence chemo saves lives? I work In hospitals and I’ve seen hundreds of patients die from the chemo side effects! I never saw people die from eating a vegetarian/ Gerson diet!!!

        • yes, plenty – go on Medline and find it yourself.

          • It is sad that even with a PhD, you seem short of being able to understand primary medical literature findings and their parametric implications.

          • what about PhD + MD

          • Arul said:

            It is sad that even with a PhD, you seem short of being able to understand primary medical literature findings and their parametric implications.

            Oh? What precisely does Prof Ernst not understand?

          • @Edzard on Friday 11 May 2018 at 08:07 said:
            “yes, plenty – go on Medline and find it yourself.”

            I type:
            “pubmed chemotherapy survival rates”

            Into Google, and the third entry down (the first with layman’s terms in its title: “Does chemotherapy improve survival in advanced breast cancer“ – is this:
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2246459/

            Granted that it is 1977 and is obsolete (1967 – 1977) by now, hence its 3% 10 year survival for stage IV breast cancer, is irrelevant.

            So I google:
            pubmed chemotherapy breast cancer 10 year survival

            The same link appears at No. 1 spot, but at No. 3 is this:
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4845895/

            I.e. “10-year Outcomes of Breast Cancer Patients with Cytologically Confirmed Axillary Lymph Node Metastases and Pathologic Complete Response after Primary Systemic Chemotherapy”

            This, “Primary systemic therapy for operable breast cancer–10-year survival…“ is at No. 5 spot:
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9376273:

            The abstract contains “…appalling prognosis…” which is cherry-picked, but what is the rest of it saying?

            At No.7 (“Evaluation of the Survival Benefit of Different Chemotherapy Regimens”) is this:
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600692/

            At the bottom of the first page is this promising title “Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016” here:
            https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21349

            From figure 3, 67% of all-women with breast cancer at all-sites of median age 65, survive 5 years relatively. There are no 10 year survival rates.

            Help? Where can I find 10 year survival rates for breast cancer? (apart from the No. 1 Google hit above)

          • I was diagnosed with 4th Stage Ovarian Cancer in 2015, underwent 24 chemo treatments. My cancer has reoccurred three times. I have been doing the Gerson Therapy for 4 months and my Ca-125 cancer marker has already dropped double. I feel better than I have in the past 4 years, I have lost weight, and I am still working full time at my job. I am thriving by eating a organic, healthy vegetarian diet. My Gerson Practioner is very supportive and knowledgeable, and adjusts my diet regimen according to my lab work which I have done every 6 weeks. I have seen more positive results on my Gerson Therapy Support Group then on Medline. Chemo is toxic and poison. I have been there and done that, with no results. Nothing in your article will make me change my mind, and go back to chemo.

          • “Nothing in your article will make me change my mind, and go back to chemo.”
            you probably mean: No evidence will make me change my mind, and go back to chemo.
            I do wish you luck!

          • Vanessa,

            When you say that you have had no results from chemo, what exactly do you mean? If this is your third recurrence, that means that it has been brought under control three times in the past. I am presuming that you had standard surgery the first time round (total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingooopherectomy and omentectomy) in combination with chemotherapy (probably paclitaxel and carboplatin). How was the cancer treated the first and second time it recurred, and what sort of response did you have?

            It is rather difficult to know how to interpret your story without this information.

          • It is obvious to anyone that Vanessa is talking about her Ca-125 cancer marker, which continued to rise on Chemo and was going down on the Gerson Therapy. That is how Chemo wasn’t helping, what part of that can people not understand? Her test results to her are her evidence. And in spite of that evidence some would urger her to restart her chemo? is that an evidence based recommendation or an ideological one that is so committed to Chemo and big pharma that it is blind to evidence? I know someone who has undergone a similar experience with chemo with the same cancer. With numbers continuing to go up you are going to die. How is it out of the question to try anything else? The side affects of immunotherapy are horrid. Gerson isn’t easy or even at times pleasant but isn’t the truth in the numbers?

          • yes, but where are the numbers that suggest Gerson works for cancer?

          • @Edzard on Friday 08 March 2019 at 17:09 said:
            “yes, but where are the numbers that suggest Gerson works for cancer?”

            Here:
            https://tratamenteanticancer.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/max-gerson-a-cancer-therapy-results-of-fifty-cases.pdf

          • you are a bit like a broken record;
            have you started to learn about evidence yet?
            obviously not!

          • SocialMedic,

            “It is obvious to anyone that Vanessa is talking about her Ca-125 cancer marker, which continued to rise on Chemo and was going down on the Gerson Therapy. That is how Chemo wasn’t helping, what part of that can people not understand?”

            It is not obvious to me. However, I am a clinical oncologist.

            Indeed it is not at all clear to me what is going on here, which is why I feel that further information is required in order to interpret Vanessa’s story.

            She has supplied the information that her cancer was diagnosed four years ago, and that she has had extensive conventional treatment, including 24 cycles of chemotherapy, which has put her into remission three times. She has been on Gerson treatment for 4 months, during which time “my Ca-125 cancer marker has already dropped double” by which I assume she means it has halved; she states that she is having it checked 6-weekly, which means that she has had two measurements since starting treatment. She also states that she has lost weight, though not how much, and we don’t know whether she was overweight or underweight to begin with, or indeed whether there have been any shifts in fluid balance to account for this change. As a general rule, weight loss is something that oncologists view with concern, though this depends on context. The improvement in her well-being, although important for her quality of life, is a less reliable marker of what is going on, as patients frequently report such improvements regardless, and in any case if she has recently stopped chemotherapy I would expect it to take three months or so for the side-effects to wear off.

            Although CA-125 is useful as part of the clinical assessment of how ovarian cancer is doing it is by no means the whole story. CA-125 is not specific to ovarian cancer and can be affected by non-malignant inflammation within the abdomen. As tumours grow they frequently de-differentiate, which not only makes them more aggressive but can reduce their marker production. We have no information on what Vanessa’s CA-125 levels were, or whether they were showing an exponential rise (indicative of cancer progression) or a logarithmic fall (indicative of treatment response) as opposed to any other pattern of change.

            In my experience patients tend to get fixated on month-by-month changes in tumour markers and lose sight of overall trends and indeed of other indicators. The aim of chemotherapy (or oncology treatment in general for ovarian cancer) is not to reduce the CA-125, it is to improve the well-being of the patient by controlling the cancer.

            The only tumours where markers really do give an accurate picture of what is going on are germ-cell tumours. These can occur in the ovary (though not commonly) and they don’t make CA-125.

            Vanessa says of chemotherapy:
            “I have been there and done that, with no results.”
            However, four years after diagnosis, and following treatment with chemotherapy, she is alive and well.

        • vegetarian diet and Gerson as a treatment for cancer are criminal neglect!

        • Start with looking up cure rates for childhood leukaemias, Brian. All treated with chemotherapy. Then look up survival times for untreated cancers. Then look up Jess Ainscough and her mother, both Gerson enthusiasts, both dead as a result from cancers which stood a fair chance of being cured if conventional protocols had been applied.

        • No, but they die from cancer after not receiving life-prolonging chemotherapy.

          • Life saving chemotherapy? You mean the one with a 97% failure rate? Sounds wonderful.

          • if you are claiming that chemotherapy has a 97% failure rate, you should also tell us what evidence you have this to be true; please provide a link!

          • Chemo kills good cells as well as bad cells sometimes resulting in the death of patients, so does not always prolong it and makes that extra time if it works absolutely horrendous
            . Had chemo have you??? Fool

          • Chemo is indeed a horrible experience and it can kill you. But the data is clear. Cancer kills you. Chemo is better than cancer.

            Gerson claims to cure you by emptying out your bowels, including probiotics, food waste, and water. Bowel flora does not cause cancer and does not need to be removed. Gerson cannot save you, it actually can kill you, and it kills people all the time b

          • Katrina:

            Chemo kills good cells as well as bad cells sometimes resulting in the death of patients, so does not always prolong it and makes that extra time if it works absolutely horrendous. Had chemo have you??? Fool.

            I have had chemo. I would disagree with almost everything you are saying here.

            Christina:

            Gerson claims to cure you by emptying out your bowels, including probiotics, food waste, and water. Bowel flora does not cause cancer and does not need to be removed. Gerson cannot save you, it actually can kill you, and it kills people all the time b

            Actually there is quite a bit of evidence that bowel flora contributes to the risk of many diseases, including malignancies, and quite possibly bacteria elsewhere in the body (there has been a lot of interest recently in Porphyromonas gingivalis). However, there are a lot of details to work out and as yet nobody knows what we should be doing about it (other than a sensible balanced diet and regular exercise). But I agree with everything you are saying about the Gerson diet. Indeed I have personally witnessed the harm it can do (though of course this is anecdotal).

            chemotherapy has a 97% failure rate

            This is just plain wrong.

          • The “97% failure rate” canard. Again.

            My wif had breast cancer. It was treated with surgery. Surgery alone gave a 85% success rate in her case. She was advised to have local radiotherapy, increasing survival rates to 90% and adjunctive chemotherapy, raising things to 95%. So the chemotherapy and radiotherapy will each only help in 5% of such cases. “95% failure!” trumpet the fools. “Cut, poison, burn!”

            We ignore them and listen instead to the experts like Dr Money-Kyrle.

        • “I never saw people die from eating a vegetarian/ Gerson diet!!!”

          I have.

        • AMEN! Big phrama only wants the $$$$ . and it is big $. They can’t make money on natural cures!!! Thank you for being brave enough to speak up and tell the TRUTH!!!!!

          • funny then that they DO make big money on ‘natural’ supplements etc.

          • If only there were ‘natural cures’…

          • Gerson don’t do treatment for free my sister has been quoted 5000 pound for a week’s treatment

          • Mary,

            Most new cancer drugs are priced at around £5,000 per month. On the other hand the pharmaceutical companies only have a few years to recoup their research and development costs, and at least we know how effective they are. £5,000 a week sounds a lot of money for organically grown pressed fruit and vegetable juices, beans and coffee, particularly as the only evidence for any benefit comes from testimonials, dubious case histories and marketing spiel.

            I’m sorry to hear that your sister is in this position. I hope she doesn’t turn her back on the NHS, which will continue to look after her even if they are not promising a cure.

          • You sound like a complete dolt.

        • So, I’m trying to figure out whether to use the Gerson method for my husband who just got diagnosed. And I came across this study that stating Gerson patients died so quickly, they had to discontinue their study. I want what is best for my husband…whatever that takes. I don’t think with this study I can say Gerson is best.
          https://nutritionfacts.org/video/gerson-therapy-vs-chemotherapy/

          • @Tina

            You want to do the best for your husband, so take the advice of a proper, qualified oncologist. Gerson therapy is of zero value, despite what some deluded individuals say on this thread.

            Please take a look at this Wikipedia entry: your husband would be well advised not to risk any of the treatments listed. (Gerson therapy comes under the heading ‘hybrid’).

          • I sincerely hope that your husband didn’t choose the Gerson programme and that he sought advice from a properly qualified oncologist. Hope he’s doing well.

        • AMEN!!!

          • @ Leonardo Davila

            Amen to what? This thread is impossibly long to discover who you’re replying to via the indentations. Please indicate who your reply is intended for (@ name of person is the usual way to do this).

      • Ah, you have not read: A Cancer Therapy: Results of Fifty Cases and the Cure of Advanced Cancer, Gerson published in 1958

      • Dr. Max Gerson: 50 Case Studies. Get the book! Shows the gradual decrease and elimination of cancer over the course of treatments on 50 patients including x Rays!

      • I personally know two people who have cured themselves of cancer using guerson therapy on who had prostate cancer from jamaice and one who was a neuro surgeon living in cyprus.

      • Evidence:

        1.Gerson M: A Cancer Therapy: Results of Fifty Cases and The Cure of Advanced Cancer by Diet Therapy. San Diego, Calif: The Gerson Institute, 2002.

        2.Gerson C, Walker M: The Gerson Therapy: The Amazing Nutritional Program for Cancer and Other Illnesses. New York, NY: Kensington Publishing Corp, 2001.

        3.Gerson M: Effects of a combined dietary regime on patients with malignant tumors. Exp Med Surg 7 (4): 299-317, illust, 1949.

        4.Gerson M: Dietary considerations in malignant neoplastic disease: preliminary report. Rev Gastroenterol 12: 419-25, 1945. Also available onlineExit Disclaimer. Last accessed April 11, 2016.

        5.Gerson M: The cure of advanced cancer by diet therapy: a summary of 30 years of clinical experimentation. Physiol Chem Phys 10 (5): 449-64, 1978.

        6.Green S: A critique of the rationale for cancer treatment with coffee enemas and diet. JAMA 268 (22): 3224-7, 1992.

        7.Brown BT: Treating cancer with coffee enemas and diet. JAMA 269 (13): 1635-6, 1993.

        8.Cope FW: A medical application of the Ling association-induction hypothesis: the high potassium, low sodium diet of the Gerson cancer therapy. Physiol Chem Phys 10 (5): 465-8, 1978.

      • I helped a girlfriend with stage 3 rectal cancer back in 2016. the only option was surgery to remove the tumor, sew up the anus and install a colostomy bag. Although the doctor said eating an organic diet would not hurt her, they knew of no cancer cures from it. Less than 5 months later the tumor had disappeared , gone from the blood analysis and no surgeries needed. The doctors would not comment.

        • hey Dr Julian Money-Kyrle give us a “job security” perspective scientific evaluation of this case.
          The simple fact that “oncologists” like you do not prescribe or not even care to understand how a vegetarian diet can help patients even on the same time with chemotherapy after you solemnly yeled the Hypocrite creed : let food be your medicine…..prove that the medicine today is an industry that protects from competition and you are not a doctor but a corporate troll that only do standardized medicine for profit.
          Also to make sure my point is valid please explain why oncologists do not study any diet/nutrition courses in medical school? not part of curriculum? are you afraid the food pyramid will change again and got upside down . We never forget “margarine is better than fat “and “best doctors smoke camel” your industry lost credibility long ago.

          • 1. I try to keep any discussion that I am part of civil; trading insults does not form part of any serious discourse.

            2. I have addressed your queries in comments elsewhere if you would take the trouble to read them.

            3. The “Best doctors smoke camel” slogan was from 1949, two years before Doll and PEto started their study showing the link between cigarettes and lung cancer.

          • Dr Julian – you may try to keep your comments civil (as I do) but we are in the minority: the tenet of this blog is to ridicule and denigrate those who support and use CAM. A scan of comments over many years will confirm this, and pleas for moderation have been made in the past ( I hardly bother now)

            I have no comment on the discourse between you and the poster, it is a general observation. Maybe the Professor could invoke another top banner – blue is a nice healing colour?- stating no insults allowed on my blog.

      • Prof Michael Gearin Tosh, Living Proof, read his book – science said his cancer could not be cured and he’d be dead inside 2 years even with chemo, it was a blood cancer, and gerson did not even claim to be successful with that but he did it anyway and taught on at Oxford till his retirement 11 years later.

        When doctors nearly killed me 14 years back they said ‘medical science’ had nothing to offer an adverse reaction to anaesthetic, it was game over, so a coffee enema restored my ability to move and walk, gerson therapy had me walking inside 4 months when they said I was going to be confined to bed and nearly was. When I told them I didn’t think I was suitable for an anaesthetic for an unnecessary procedure in the first place they dismissed my concerns and proceded to nearly kill me, and left me in a state worse than death. All your nonsense is costing people lives by putting them off good things – I did other things like herbs [put away your crucifix and garlic] and supplements like EPA too, we should be building on gerson, but it certainly is foundational

        coffee enemas upregulate glutathione – you clearly are not reading the science at all.. just regurtitating certain beliefs within certain circles, and I have a science degree and other degrees, this scientific cherry picking of loaded biased limited studies is getting old already, and the medical profession are the top killers with iatrogenic death #1, they just killed my aunt last week giving her antibiotics for a heart attack…duh…and then let her systems fail…

        • I am glad to hear that you have recovered, yet I can assure you that Gerson therapy had nothing to do with it.

          • @Edzard on Thursday 28 February 2019 at 07:05 said:
            “…yet I can assure you that Gerson therapy had nothing to do with it.”

            No you can’t.

          • yes, I can!
            treatments that have neither biological plausibility nor evidence to back them up, do not work.

          • @Edzard on Thursday 28 February 2019 at 08:19 said:
            “yes, I can!”

            OK, let’s test that: Mary, did Dr Edzard reassure you?

          • stop behaving like a deluded nutter

          • @Edzard on Thursday 28 February 2019 at 12:59 said:
            “stop behaving like a deluded nutter”

            Perhaps, someday you might understand that words have meanings.

          • stop behaving like a deluded nutter

          • @Edzard on Thursday 28 February 2019 at 13:23 repeated:
            “stop behaving like a deluded nutter”

            …instead of simply as a means of force.

          • Edzard- You make me want to vomit.

          • And I can assure you that chemo causes more cancers and its success rate is less than 3%. And I go one step further and say nobody has to listen to doctors who promote big pharma.

            https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/chemotherapy-cancer-spread-cells-tumours-more-advanced-treatment-study-breast-metastatic-albert-a7826461.html

          • and I go even one more step further and tell you THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEDDAR CHEESE

          • Ali,

            And I can assure you that chemo causes more cancers

            Thank-you for that assurance. Can I ask what it is based on?

            In all fairness it is true that certain chemotherapy drugs (alkylating agents, for instance) can increase the risk of future cancers. This risk is well-established and quantified, and provided that the drugs are given appropriately it is more than outweighed by the benefits from treating the cancer that the patient actually has.

            and its success rate is less than 3%

            What do you even mean by that? It sounds as though you are saying that in only 3% of cases does chemotherapy have the intended effect. You only need to think about it for a moment to realise that this cannot possibly be true. For a start, do you really think that doctors who have devoted their careers to helping cancer patients would be giving toxic treatment with such a poor risk-to-benefit ratio? For that matter, do you really think that national health systems around the world (or even insurance companies) would be prepared to pay for it?

            The 3% figure is a misquotation from an Australian study published a few years ago which concluded that in only 3% of cancer patients was survival of 5 years or more attributable to chemotherapy. This may not sound like much, but if you read the original paper you will find that the authors included ALL cancers diagnosed over the study period. Many of these were small skin cancers treated by minor surgery, and of the other common cancers, most would not have routinely had chemotherapy as part of their treatment. Furthermore, a large number would have been advanced at the time of diagnosis and never have been expected to live the required five years (even though some of them undoubtedly would have had an additional year or two from chemotherapy). Most of the 3% therefore were rarer cancers that were cured by chemotherapy (childhood cancers, acute leukaemias, high-grade lymphomas, metastatic testicular cancer etc.).

            So – 3% of all cancer patients, most of which were never treated with chemotherapy at all, and many of which weren’t expected to live long, nevertheless had an additional 5 years or more DIRECTLY AS A RESULT OF CHEMOTHERAPY.

            I should add that the patients in the study received their diagnosis several decades ago, and cancer treatment has moved on a lot since then, both in terms of genetic markers identifying who will benefit most from chemotherapy and who won’t (and can therefore be spared it) and also with many non-chemotherapy-based treatments, such as immunotherapy in its various forms and other targeted biological therapies.

            I have also read the article that you linked to in The Independent, a UK national newpaper, which was written by a journalist, not a scientist. The article itself seems to be rather muddled and it is not very clear that the author understood what the researchers were looking at or what they found.

            From the article, it seems there were two studies, one looking at circulating tumour cells in mice with breast cancer (the type of mice generally used in this type of experiment are genetically engineered to have no immune system so that human tumour cultures can be grown in them in a standardised system), the other looking at biopsies taken from 20 breast cancer patients where the vasculature was reportedly different following chemotherapy but with no information about what it was different from.

            The authors speculated that increased circulating tumour cells in mice after chemotherapy may correspond to a similar effect in humans and this, in turn, may mean an increased risk of secondary tumours (rather than, for instance, cells rendered non-viable by chemotherapy becoming detached from the main tumour). They also speculated that biopsies during a course of chemotherapy could be used to determine whether the chemotherapy should continue based on vascular changes that they hypothesise could increase the risk of tumour cells entering the circulation.

            This is an interesting area of research, but not anything that can form the basis of treatment recommendations in its present form.

            On the contrary, we have clear evidence, from many large clinical trials, that in high-risk patients with breast cancer, chemotherapy in conjunction with surgery reduces the rate of recurrence and improves long-term survival compared with surgery alone. This is well-established and forms the basis of current treatment protocols.

            The type of research reported may one day help us to understand why chemotherapy works better in some cases than in others, and enable oncologists to be more selective in their choice of treatments. It does not demonstrate either that chemotherapy doesn’t work or that it causes cancer.

            I think you should take the trouble to read your sources more carefully and understand what the research is actually telling us, rather than giving your assurances that it says the opposite.

          • No you cannot assure anyone of anything. You seem to ignore any facts that contradict your narrative, I sm sure you mean well but you sre severly under educated, and are in no way capable of giving anyone any advice

          • how interesting!

          • No you cannot assure anyone of anything. You seem to ignore any facts that contradict your narrative, I sm sure you mean well but you sre severly under educated, and are in no way capable of giving anyone any advice

            Says ‘Trev’.

        • Actually I’m very new to the Gerson Therapy and very old to the world of the medical system and people in it. There is no Doctor Welby, Dr. Casey, House or Doctor Kildare anywhere near. I’m surprised to still be alive after the treatment I’ve received in the last four years. It ranges from drug overdoses to surgery that wasn’t needed. You are so right Mary that it hurts!

      • Yea thousands of real people getting better. What makes more logical sense, taking a sick weakened body and resting it, flooding it with an abundance of live nutrition and helping it remove toxins, or take that same body and just pump poisons into it. There is no way that you can ever regain great health by putting toxic chemicals into a sick weak body. Just like a healthy person would get sick from chemicals going into their Body. At best a person may shrink the cancer while destroying their immune system and then die a horrible death once the cancer grows again. Cancer success rates are no better than they were 50 years ago. They will never be. You want to know why? Because you’ll never be able to poison someone back into health! That will never change! If that was right, it would have worked already. 100s of billions of dollars have gone into trying to poison someone back into health and it never works. It never will, but as long as company’s and hospitals make their living by trying to find ways to chemically induce health, we will keep seeing this happen. You don’t need a bunch of evidence based studies to prove that using the Gerson Therapy works. All you need is common sense. Besides the studies that the pharmaceutical companies perform are supported by their own money. It’s not evidence based. It’s bad evidence based. The company’s report what is good and ommit what is not favorable to get the drugs approved. It’s really a sad broken system. If you are in an emergency situation like a gun shot, hit by a car, etc., you are in the best place in the world for that here in the USA, but if you are trying to get healthy again, that system of chemicals will only drive you further away from becoming healthy again.

        • if you are right, all the cancer statistics are wrong – probably fake news?
          go and get therapy for your paranoia, John!

          • Paranoia appears to be widespread, I wonder how that came about ? Likely it came from failed allopathic medicine. Why would people pleased with allopathic medcine look for other solutions ?

          • The actual statistics do are terrifying. Chemo kills

          • Care to share those statistics, Trev? I’m sure that, for example, all the people who are alive because chemotherapy cured their leukaemias and lymphomas will be impressed to learn that they are actually dead.

          • Trev,

            The actual statistics do are terrifying. Chemo kills

            Which statistics are those?

            It is true that some people die as a result of chemotherapy toxicity. However, on its own it cures a lot of people with acute leukaemia, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodkgin’s lymphoma, testicular teratoma and non-sesminomatous germ-cell tumours. In combination with other treatment it increases the number of long-term survivers with breast cancer, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer and others.

            I would be very interested to see what statistics you are quoting as I suspect that you may not have understood them properly.

        • I’m not sure that anything you are saying is true, even about treating gun shots, though the US has a lot of experience of that, with about fifty times the rate of firearms-related deaths than the UK.

          Cancer treatment is vastly different from 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago, and the statistics bear that out. As examples, metastatic testicular cancer, acute leukaemia and high-grade lymphoma were almost always fatal 50 years ago and are now usually curable with chemotherapy alone. Though now we have immunotherapy and other targeted therapies with many more in the pipeline.

          You don’t need a bunch of evidence based studies to prove that using the Gerson Therapy works.

          How can you show anything without evidence?

      • Yes, the thousands now healed.

      • Yes I can say for myself, I was diagnosed with non Hodgkin lymphoma (16 cm) in July /17, and I’m cured, still on treatment (Gerson therapy) but no activity cancer cells been found on my last pet scan!

      • Hi Edzard,

        I appreciate your point of view and and when you actually look at the documented facts, you can be pleasantly astonished how the Gerson Therapy successfully cures many chronic and terminal diseases.

        If you had terminal cancer and you had tried everything else, would you not rejoice by the news that your death sentence could be postponed to allow you a ripe full life?

        Dr. Albert Schweitzer, the Noble Peace Prize winner of medicine, called Gerson “one of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine”. Gerson cured Schwitzer’s wife of lung tubercliosi which was considered incurable and then Gerson cured Schzitser of his chronic dibatis type II.

        There are many hundreds of DOCUMENTED cases of terminal cancer patients who were told by doctors that they had only months remaining to live but whom were instead cured by the Gerson Protocal.
        In 1946, Dr Gerson presented 5 documented terminal patients to the US Congress at the Capitol building.
        Gerson presented the documented proof 5 cured terminal patients who were questioned by congress and after Gerson received a standing ovation for his miraculous results.

        A few weeks later, The American Medical Association launched the new cancer treatment of chemo therapy, a very expensive and profitable system based on patents from the drug companies.

        For this reason, Gerson was blacklisted and prohibited from practicing in the United States of the free.

        My mother also cured herself of her chronic type II diabetes, chronic high blood pressure, high cholesterol and debilitating artherities of the knees, After the first month on the Gerson protocall, my mother became 20 years younger. 10 years later, she is still cured of all of her conditions and she is in the best shape she has ever been in her life.

        You are what you eat so eat clean and green and your body will stay strong and healthy and be able to heal itself.

        Be well everybody and happy 2020!

          • @EE

            ABSOLUTELY …. professor.
            Studies are the important matter !

            Who actually cares what actually occurred in the real life of an individual ?

          • Who actually cares what actually occurred in the real life of an individual ?

            Because anecdotes are just that and correlation does not equal causation, RG. And dead people don’t post on blogs about how their Gerson therapy didn’t work. How many times do we have to tell you this?

            You don’t like nasty horrible studies and proper evidence because they show the voids in your arguments. Personal testimony, the lowest rung on the evidential ladder, however tallies with your confirmation bias.

            If testimony trumps studies, shouldn’t we still be bleeding patients and treating them with purgatives and enemas like we did 200 years ago? Lots of people said that these treatments worked for them.

          • @Edzard – I find it funny how you brag of your credentials (MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd) while at the same time telling other human beings they are “hopeless” and acting like “a delusional nutter”. How professional of you. I find it even more funny how when people bring up evidence and mention the THOUSANDS of people that have personally testified that Gerson therapy saved their lives, you completely dismiss it and then regurgitate that same reply of “that’s not real evidence”.

            Scientists and Doctors can be bought & paid for, just like politicians. You’ve clearly have been bought or you’ve just been indoctrinated so severely that you’re downing under water in your own cognitive dissonance. Either way, you’re a pathetic excuse for a human and a clown of a man in my eyes. A true product of our corrupt Rockefeller Medical System. I hope a bird sh*ts in your mouth tomorrow morning, you disinformation agent piece of trash.

            P.S. I personally know two people that cured their cancer with the Gerson methods and an alkaline diet and they both told me to tell you, “GO F*** YOURSELF!!!” Lol

          • nice one for my collection of moronic insults.
            THANK YOU

          • acting like “a delusional nutter”

            And then you roll in here and prove Professor Ernst right. Well done, you.

            I personally know two people that cured their cancer with the Gerson methods and an alkaline diet

            That which is asserted without evidence can be laughed out the room with equal ease. Perhaps you can explain to us the mechanism by which overpriced vitamins and sticking coffee up your bum selectively targets malignant cells for destruction? And as for “alkaline diet”, you really want to ask a high-school biology student what “homeostasis” means. Go on; we’ll wait.

        • Dr. Albert Schweitzer, the Noble Peace Prize winner of medicine

          Albert Schweitzer won the Nobel Peace Prize for 1952. He did not win the prize for Medicine.

          If you had terminal cancer and you had tried everything else, would you not rejoice by the news that your death sentence could be postponed to allow you a ripe full life?

          While I am not terminal yet, I know that my cancer will cut my life short, so of course I would rejoice if there were such a thing. But wishing for something doesn’t make it true (except in Disney films) and I prefer to go with the evidence. Modern medicine has given me nearly three extra years so far.

          Gerson cured Schwitzer’s wife of lung tubercliosi which was considered incurable

          Many cases of pulmonary tuberculosis do recover without treatment. Many die, of course, without antibiotics, but recovery isn’t that rare.

          My mother also cured herself of her chronic type II diabetes, chronic high blood pressure, high cholesterol and debilitating artherities of the knees

          It is difficult to comment in detail without knowing the details of her case, but all of these conditions would be expected to improve with a suitable diet (standard recommendation for type II diabetes) and particularly weight loss.

          Gerson cured Schzitser of his chronic dibatis type II.

          I don’t think type II diabetes was a recognised diagnosis at that time.

          There are many hundreds of DOCUMENTED cases of terminal cancer patients who were told by doctors that they had only months remaining to live but whom were instead cured by the Gerson Protocal.

          The ones I have looked at don’t appear to be well documented at all. Many of them do not meet the diagnostic criteria for cancer, and of those where the evidence is more convincing, a lot of them had surgery and radiotherapy as well, so it is misleading to ascribe their recovery to Gerson therapy.

          In any case our understanding of cancer and our treatment of it have come a long way since Gerson developed his ideas nearly a century ago.

          • @Dr. JMK

            Be Happy said:
            “My mother also cured herself of her chronic type II diabetes, chronic high blood pressure, high cholesterol and debilitating artherities of the knees.”

            Dr. JMK said:
            “It is difficult to comment in detail without knowing the details of her case, but all of these conditions would be expected to improve with a suitable diet (standard recommendation for type II diabetes) and particularly weight loss.”

            Say Doc, if your conclusion is true. Then why don’t doctors quit prescribing deadly meds, and convince people to change what they eat ?
            I’m not saying you made the wrong conclusion, I think you are correct in fact. I’m just pointing out the greed and hypocrisy of the pharma industry…. ya know. Cauz you know damn well if the MD prescribes meds for the illnesses mentioned with good results that he’s be patting himself on the back for the same results you say could have been achieved through diet….no ?

          • @RG

            Then why don’t doctors quit prescribing deadly meds, and convince people to change what they eat ?

            Who says they don’t?
            Perhaps you are unlucky and the doctor in your village is not a good, well educated one?
            In the civilized parts of the world, where doctors get a good education, doctors reallly do use a holistic approach in general health care (GP’s; family doctors etc.) and emphasize lifestyle improvement as a first order therapy and medicines only whern appropriate. I am sorry that you are possibly not privileged to live in a country with proper health care.
            As to “deadly”, of course most medicines are deadly if used improperly. That is because they have an effect in the body. If you take too much, the effects can certainly be deadly but proper doctors know how much is safe and only prescribe the correct doses. If your doctor is so bad, maybe you should always double check with the pharmacist that you are being prescribed the correct drug and dosage.
            Try to ask your librarian to help you find simple books about basic health care and medicine. You have much to learn.

          • Say Doc, if your conclusion is true. Then why don’t doctors quit prescribing deadly meds, and convince people to change what they eat ?

            The best advice for staying healthy is very simple:
            Eat less
            Exercise more
            Don’t smoke

            Doctors give this advice all the time. Convincing people to change, however, is not easy. Most people would rather go for an imaginary quick fix that make the effort to change their unhealthy habits, whether this is a pill or a “detox” (whatever that means).

            Leaving aside the US, which is not representative of healthcare worldwide (and France, where patients demand and doctors prescribe at least twice as many items as any in any other industrialised country, mainly in the form of suppositories as far as I can tell), most doctors are strongly aware of the cost-effectiveness of any given intervention and certainly prefer the cheaper and safer option of advising lifestyle changes rather than spending their limited budgets on expensive drugs.

            For instance, for type II diabetes, the prescribed treatment is diet plus exercise plus (if necessary) weight loss, plus (maybe) metformin, which has been shown to reduce long-term morbidity. Other oral drugs are only added if that doesn’t work, and insulin only as a last resort.

            For hypertension the advice is to lose weight, cut down on alcohol and avoid adding salt to food. If that doesn’t work, then adding antihypertensive drugs has also been shown to reduce the risk of strokes and heart failure.

            High cholesterol is a bit different as it is not a chronic disorder as such, but a risk factor for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. Management depends on an assessment of the overall risk (including smoking, alcohol intake, blood pressure, age, presence of other problems affecting cholesterol such as thyroid disease and diabetes) and advising accordingly. For those at high risk, statins have clearly been shown to save lives.

            The first thing any doctor should be advising for arthritis of the knees is weight loss.

            I think you need to appraise yourself of what doctors actually do. I think you would be quite surprised.

      • EDZARD ERNST -A CAREER BUILT ON DISCREDITING NATURAL HEALTH SCIENCE- SEE ARTICLE BELOW THAT SAYS ALOT ABOUT EDZARD ERNST!

        https://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/2017/11/professor-edzard-ernst-a-career-built-on-discrediting-natural-health-science/

      • Tons, but not gathered the same way Big Pharma gathers evidence, and so the anecdotes aren’t acknowledged by the traditional medical community.

        In the natural medicine world, when an individual patient needs treatment, he or she is treated and then anecdotal evidence is created.

        Traditional medicine does it differently. They test 200 rats with the same thing.

        Traditional medicine refuses to use common sense. Why? Because they can’t patent and sell natural foods and supplements.

        • because ‘common sense’ can be frightfully misleading.
          have you heard this bon mot?
          the plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not evidence
          THINK ABOUT IT

          • Anecdotes are evidence, they just carry a lot of issues.

            “Evidence based on anecdotes arising from the analysis of individual clinical cases, rather than the study of scientifically randomized groups of patients. Such evidence may be true or false, but it is always unreliable because it is based on hearsay, faulty reasoning, or other cause.”

            Medical Dictionary, © 2009 Farlex and Partners

            “Anecdotes are extremely weak support of a theory; even if the event itself has been verified, its occurrence may be inappropriately attributed to an unusual therapy, and other unrecognised factors (confounders) may have invalidated the initial prediction of demise. Multiple similar anecdotes do not significantly increase support and at best serve justify a scientific experiment to empirically test the theory.”

            Segen’s Medical Dictionary. © 2012

          • @DC: “Anecdotes are evidence, they just carry a lot of issues.”

            That’s putting it politely. Anecdotes are the lowest-quality evidence there is. At best, they sit at the beginning of scientific enquiry (the “hmm, that’s odd” stage); NOT at its conclusion as they do in AltMed.

            Hence our well-worn cynicism: if AltMedders genuinely cared about evidence, they’d already have done basic due dilligence to determine if there is any actual substance to their anecdotes before declaring that they have found The Truth.

            That they’ve not done so betrays their anecdotes’ true purpose: they are articles of Faith, to be loudly, frequently recited with enthusiastic devotion and unquestioning acceptance. Because, as we’ve all figured out by now: the harder an Altie believes in something, the more true that makes it.

            And you wonder why folks don’t take you seriously. But no, no, it is everybody else who is wrong.

          • EE: the plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not evidence

            DC: Anecdotes are evidence, they just carry a lot of issues.

            has: Anecdotes are the lowest-quality evidence there is.

            So it appears that you agree with me. OK.

          • @DC, has
            Another huge problem with anecdotes is that they often tend to get lots of publicity, especially when they hint at some spectacular result, whereas the subsequent grunt work (i.e. the tedious, laborious research to see if there’s actually something to those anecdotes) is usually only publicized and discussed among a relatively small group of insiders. Even worse: if the outcome of the study is negative, it is often ignored completely.

            Also note that scientists themselves(*) are not immune to spreading anecdotal ‘results’ that later turn out to be complete duds. Just search for press releases, news items or preprint publications about e.g. ‘very promising’ cancer treatments from 10-20 years ago, and try looking up the state of that research now. Only very rarely are there any real results, and in many cases those old press releases are the only publications one will find.

            All this means that anecdotes should be treated with the utmost reticence, and I personally tend to ignore them completely, at least as a form of ‘evidence’.

            *: However it is AltMed that not only tends to jump on the bandwagon of every new ‘insight’ that fits their narrative, but will also permanently incorporate it in their byzantine arsenal of treatments, even if it eventually turns out to be useless. One example is curcumin: some time around the early 2000’s, curcumin was found to have significant antioxidant properties, along with some other interesting pharmaceutical characteristics – in vitro. So AltMed immediately started touting curcumin as a sort of cure-all, administering it to their hapless customers it in any way conceivable, up to and including intravenously (which I personally think is criminally stupid). And they still do, even though there is not a single study showing that curcumin has significant therapeutic effects for any condition. AltMed also ignores other facts that suggest that they’re wrong, e.g. that countries where curcumin/turmeric is an everyday food ingredient do not have a remarkably healthier population.

          • @DC: Yes, we agree. However, your choice of wording (“[anecdotes] just carry a lot of issues”) was extremely unfortunate as it massively downplayed just how low-quality anecdotes are. They really are the bottom rung, frequently confused, inaccurate, exaggerated, misinterpreted, just plain wrong, or outright fraudulent, and should never inform any decision beyond “perhaps we should investigate further?”

            That’s why “personal anecdotes” doesn’t even appear in the Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence, but in the “Not Scientific Evidence” pile, while professional anecdotes (case reports) are right at the very bottom of the hierarchy.

            Remember, new conventional drugs coming onto market don’t even get out the door until they’ve cleared RCTs (second highest on the hierarchy) first. Yet new AltMed products are globally marketed and sold largely on the basis of “well this person says it helped them”, without even checking the veracity of that claim, never mind checking the product itself.

            For all the Altie ravings on the evil of Big Pharma, even the most greedy and corrupt of Big Pharmas could only dream of getting away with half of what AltMed does as standard.

            p.s. I am happy to assume you were not deliberately trying to minimize just how rotten and misleading anecdotes really are. But there are many a lot less ethical than you in AltMed who loudly, proudly, knowingly proclaim anecdotal testimonials as the Gold Standard while oh-so-conveniently skipping their numerous giant caveats completely, so I hope you’ll understand the need to clarify.

        • @Sam Lupowitz

          Traditional medicine refuses to use common sense.

          Traditional medicine has used common sense for thousands of years, up until some 150 years ago. It did not work. Child mortality rates were invariably in the double digits, and the average life span was maybe 50 years, and included a lot of suffering, often caused by what we now consider ‘simple infections’.
          Once smart people (a.k.a. scientists) really started figuring things out about biology, chemistry and physiology, progress was made. Nowadays, child mortality in most western countries is less than 0.5%, and the average life expectancy is higher than it has ever been, all thanks to real medicine, NOT ‘natural medicine’.

          Why? Because they can’t patent and sell natural foods and supplements.

          Now this may come as a shock to you, but Big Pharma IS selling ‘natural foods’ and supplements. Some 10% of their total annual turnover is made selling ‘natural foods’ and supplements.

          Where do you think that most ‘natural foods’ and supplements come from? Old ladies who stir bubbling cauldrons of herb extract? Natural Food Fairies? Pharmaceutical companies are best equipped to produce pills and potions that people want to buy, so that’s what they do. If you don’t believe me, just pick up a jar of an arbitrary supplement, read the label, and track down the factory that makes it. Almost always, you end up at some kind of pharma company, often in India or China.

          And the most ironic thing is that your real ‘natural foods’ and supplements, i.e. products that are indeed made by mostly uneducated people grinding up herbs and other ingredients at crude workbenches, are quite often harmful because they neglect even the most basic safety standards. Here’s a recent example: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p1022-aromatherapy-bacteria.html
          Then again, Burkholderia pseudomallei is 100% natural, so it can’t be bad, now can it?

        • Oh dear. Obligatory.

          Traditional medicine refuses to use common sense. Why? Because they can’t patent and sell natural foods and supplements.

          And who the heck do you think manufactures all those millions of bottles of supplements for which you preening mung beans shell out significant wads of cash? I’ll give you a hint: it’s NOT the happy organic garden pixies. So much for your “common sense”!

        • In the natural medicine world, when an individual patient needs treatment, he or she is treated and then anecdotal evidence is created.

          Traditional medicine does it differently. They test 200 rats with the same thing.

          Er, not really. The trials that require large numbers of test subjects tend to be with humans, as there are a great many random factors influencing the outcome and larger numbers make it more likely that any findings are not due to chance, and the questions are usually along the lines of “Does this intervention work?” and “Is it safe?”. In a laboratory the environment can be carefully controlled, and the lab animals (usually mice rather than rats) are specially bred to be genetically very similar, and the experiments tend to be designed to answer very specific questions regarding details of physiology, pathology, pharmacology etc.

          Humans vary enormously in their genes, their personal history and their behaviour, and in an individual case it is not at all clear what effect a particular treatment has had, or how the course of an illness might have been different without it. Unfortunately when it comes to matters of probability and chance, our instincts are very misleading and often downright wrong, and without an understanding of the behaviour of random numbers it is hard not to to draw erroneous conclusions. The branch of mathematics known as statistics was invented to deal with these problems, and provides tools for identifying genuine patterns among random noise which can be used in the design and analysis of clinical studies so that we know how certain (or uncertain) we can be of the results.

          The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is only collected when a treatment is followed by the expected outcome, and since the assumption is made at the start that they are cause and effect it cannot answer the question of whether this is in fact the case. Furthermore, instances where the expected outcome does not occur tend to be ignored, which makes it impossible to assess their frequency.

          I am not sure what you mean by “natural medicine”. The aim of science is to understand Nature, and Nature is at the root of evidence-based medicine. Most of what comes under the heading of traditional medicine is based on magical thinking, and not on Nature at all.

          • I am not sure what you mean by “natural medicine”.

            Marketing pablum. The devotional chant of the Purity Cult. Vacuously recited by pampered children who have conveniently forgotten/never cared that for almost all of human history, what “natural” really meant was “died young during childbirth”. (And for a good fraction of humanity still does.)

            It is the armor with which they gird their loins as they plunge into brave battle against those evil reductionist allopathic scientists who gave them lifespans of 80 years, antibiotics, microwave ovens, the atom bomb, and so on.

            As a physiological treatment it is as much use as a paper ball cup. As a retail therapy for needy neuroses, it is worth about $100 billion/year, and growing fast. It is everything and anything and whatever they want it to be. It is the puddle to their Narcissus.

            Evidence? They don’t need no steenkin’ evidence. They’ve got Testimonials!

            Would you like to buy more?

      • How about the original book published by Dr. Gerson who cured his own debilitating ills, and profoundly cured cancer in first 50 patients he set up in the Gerson Diet? I recommend everyone read the book and find out for sure if it can or does work.

        Or we could just listen to the Big Med/Big Pharma/Big Chemical conglomerates and inject their poisons into our systems instead.

        • the book does NOT contain convincing evidence. Gerson NEVER managed to produce anything near compelling evidence. The only evidence that does exist about his therapy fails to show effectiveness.

    • 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.

        • I am so happy for you Claire! Praise God! I have been diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer and I am deciding which clinic to go to.

          • “I have been diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer”
            I am very sorry to hear that. Sadly this is not curable. However, the combination of surgery to remove as much as possible of the cancer, together with chemotherapy, can keep you well and prolong your life. The treatment and its side-effects may seem unpleasant, but it isn’t that bad, you will recover from it, and believe me, it is a lot better than the alternative.

            There are people who will be happy to take your money and promise you a cure. They may appear to be very nice and genuine people, and some of them may even believe what they are saying. However, if Gerson therapy or any other of these alternative approaches really worked they would be standard treatment in every oncology clinic. If something seems too good to be true, then it usually is, whether it is a cancer cure or a get-rich-quick scheme.

      • 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?

      • You are blaming the Gerson Therapy entirely on your DIY- Idea of practicing it. No treatments for that matter are ever encouraged to be undertaken without medical supervision. How do we know whether you might have had some kind of preexisting health condition. You also mention having been on numerous other diets. How strict were you on the Gerson diet and did you in fact follow through with it exactly as you should have as per the clinics methods? No salt at all? Did you use the right kind of coffee? did you own a Norwalk juicer and press them freshly 8 times a day? Didn’t you have to go to school? Being on the Gerson diet is a full time job as you are supposed to be detoxifying a body which was weakened by decade long lifestyle choices. Following a half arsed version of the diet does not reap any results-so they say. And with 46kgs, regardless of your height, as an adult (unless you’re a small person), something must have definitely been wrong with you. How long did you fast for? Weeks at a time?? Don’t blame Gerson for your under researched, self-proclaimed healing methods.
        I am glad you have been reading up on the history of medicine and yes we are blessed with what we know today. God forbid I get into a traumatic accident where I will need an ER doctor to put me back together, however do not underestimate the power of nature and its tools. It is easy to point fingers and start insulting others over their beliefs. Its the same with religion isn’t it? Yes, The Gerson Therapy is very much science related. And I’m sure If this brilliant man were still alive he would own all of you deluded mainstreamers.
        When the oncology unit started giving my dad sugared yoghurt and treats I knew then and there- that they dont have a clue what they are feeding to their patients. Mr. Oncologist, how do you explain such behavior?

        As much as for all you other tools playing into the hands of the big Pharma, go get yourself radiated and blasted with chemo if you will. We all have the freedom of choice to decide what is best for our bodies. and shame on everyone who discourages others from reaching out for help other than poisonous chemo, because there ARE OPTIONS AND THERE IS HOPE! I do encourage everyone nonetheless to keep an open heart and do your research with as much scrutiny as possible because there is a great deal of quackery out there – the Gerson Therapy is legit!!

        • evidence please!

        • Being on the Gerson diet is a full time job as you are supposed to be detoxifying a body which was weakened by decade long lifestyle choices

          Basically if Gerson treatment doesn’t work it is because it isn’t being done correctly. I have heard that one too many times. It is bad enough giving false hope to desperate patients, subjecting them to a taxing and unpleasant regimen and taking their money. However, if it doesn’t work they are then made to feel guilty about not complying with treatment.

          do not underestimate the power of nature and its tools

          There is nothing natural about coffee enemas or hydraulic presses.

          It is easy to point fingers and start insulting others over their beliefs. Its the same with religion isn’t it?

          In the UK such hate crimes are illegal. However, I don’t think that has anything to do with treating the sick.

          The Gerson Therapy is very much science related

          No it isn’t. Max Gerson started with his own rather bizarre theories about the pathophysiology of malignant disease and then followed them to some strange logical conclusion without applying the scientific method at all. He was clearly a creative and intelligent man, but he was not self-critical.

          the oncology unit started giving my dad sugared yoghurt and treats I knew then and there- that they dont have a clue what they are feeding to their patients. Mr. Oncologist, how do you explain such behavior?

          That is difficult to answer without more details. Perhaps he had lost his appetite and yoghurt was all he could manage, with sugar added to give him much-needed calories. People in the late stages of cancer are very often subject to extreme weight loss due to a combination of difficulty eating and the direct catabolic effects of malignancy. Getting calories and protein into them (which is what they most need from their diet) is quite a struggle, and the nutrition team often have to be quite creative here.

          Or maybe you believe, against all evidence, that restricting sugar is beneficial in late-stage cancer.

          go get yourself radiated and blasted with chemo if you will

          I have. I learnt a few things which would have been useful to know when I was practising as an oncologist.

          We all have the freedom of choice to decide what is best for our bodies

          No we don’t.

          We do have the freedom of choice to believe what we like, and to act how we like within reason (the Law does not protect us from making bad choices), but what is actually best for our bodies is a matter of objective fact. I am constantly amazed at the large number of people who cannot distinguish between what IS and what OUGHT TO BE (by their reckoning).

          I really despair when it comes to Gerson therapy. It seems to bring out the worst in woolly thinking, magical thinking, witchcraft-like beliefs and practices, conspiracy theories, and charlatans out to make money from desparate people. Its advocates believe in it with a religious fervour and are blind to evidence or reason. As I have previously stated, I have seen for myself the harm it can do and the misery that it puts patients through, shortening the lives of many in the process.

          • Dr. J

            Dr. J said;
            “Basically if Gerson treatment doesn’t work it is because it isn’t being done correctly. I have heard that one too many times. It is bad enough giving false hope to desperate patients, subjecting them to a taxing and unpleasant regimen and taking their money. However, if it doesn’t work they are then made to feel guilty about not complying with treatment”

            Question Doc.
            If the cancer patient comes to the Oncologist office sporadically to receive his/her chemo cocktail infusion, you think the oncologist just might take issue with with the patient, for failing to follow his regimen ?

            yup…I thought so

          • @RG

            The difference being that conventional oncology does not demand the patient to commit to an hour-by-hour daily regimen of interventions with a notional sword of Damocles hanging over them that the treatment will fail if they do not follow it’s outrageous requirements. And if the patient is struggling with the current treatments, oncologists are kind and find ways to make it easier. They don’t tell the patient they’re going to die for not doing it properly. Do I exaggerate? Patrick Vickers, a naturopath, bilks sufferers with this nonsense.

            “The therapy itself is based around a gruelling and ultra-restrictive diet, with the patient consuming 20lbs of raw organic vegetables per day, juiced into a thick sludge which is to be drunk on the hour, every hour, from 8am until 8pm. Naturally, this means an extensive stay in an expensive clinic (Vickers’ own establishment charges nearly $18,000 for the three-week stay most patients ‘require’) in order to learn how to prepare so meticulous a diet.

            If the constant juicing (and inevitably subsequent bathroom adjacency) weren’t inconvenient enough, patients are expected to endure a minimum of five coffee enemas every day, along with a regime of supplement pills administered in doses that border on the downright dangerous. As Vickers boasted during his presentation: “If a medical doctor learned how much potassium we give patients every day, they’d be frantic”. Topping off the programme is a range of pseudoscientific adjuvant therapies: ozone therapy, pancreatic enzymes, vitamin C megadosing, laetrile (derived from apricot kernels and containing cyanide), and hydrotherapeutic immersion in a mix of water and hydrogen peroxide (a.k.a. bleach).

            The Gerson regime is as extreme in its proscriptions as it is in its prescriptions: all sodium is strictly prohibited, as is all meat (Vickers: “If you eat meat on the Gerson diet, you will die”) and all forms of exercise (Vickers: “If you do any exercise on the Gerson diet, you won’t heal”). ”

            Look up the names of those who have famously and publicly spoken about their Gerson journeys. Like Jess Ainscough and her mother. Both now dead. Of cancers with excellent cure rates under conventional therapy. Scared women, seduced by the quacks. Who paid with their lives.

            But of course they were probably sticking the wrong type of coffe up their arses and missed a couple of juicings. So it was their fault. they died, wasn’t it, RG?

          • Lenny

            So hypocrisy is justifiable, if it fits your agenda…. nothing changes here.

          • Point out the hypocrisy, RG. I’ve explained to you why you are provably and demonstrably wrong. Dr J has done similarly, but more patiently, expertly and eloquently. That you continue to spout your ignorant unevidenced, paranoiac, tinfoil-hatted nonsense is your problem, not ours. That you think your ten minutes on Google gives you the right to criticise the expertise of a consultant oncologist is hubris of barely comprehensible depth. I could tell you to run and stick your Gerson Therapy up,your arse but, if you ever contract cancer, that is what you’ll be doing with most of it.

          • RG

            Question Doc.
            If the cancer patient comes to the Oncologist office sporadically to receive his/her chemo cocktail infusion, you think the oncologist just might take issue with with the patient, for failing to follow his regimen?

            You really have no idea at all what goes on in oncology clinics, do you?

            For a start, compliance is high and it is very rare for a patient not to turn up for treatment. Usually when this happens there is a very good reason for it.

            When it comes to palliative (i.e. non-curative) treatment, the aim of chemotherapy is to improve quality of life and if possible to prolong it. Believe me, the side-effects of chemotherapy are much preferable to the effects of uncontrolled cancer (and both compare favourably to the ordeal of Gerson therapy, which is demanding and unpleasant to the point that it is difficult to stick to the protocol). Treatment plans are continuously reassessed on the basis of response, side-effects and patient wishes. This includes convincing the patient that it is OK to stop treatment if that is what they really want, and that they are not letting anybody down if they do.

            For adjuvant treatment the equation is a little different. The patient has already had their primary treatment (usually surgery) and the chemotherapy is to reduce the rate of relapse. Many are already cured by the surgery, and some will relapse regardless; neither of these two groups actually benefit from the chemotherapy at all. However, for those where chemotherapy prevents the cancer from coming back it is literally a life or death difference. Unfortunately we don’t know in advance who is going to benefit (although molecular biology and tumour genetics are starting to give some answers here) and it might be as few as 1 in 20 who will be cured by chemotherapy who would otherwise die (though usually it is closer to 1 in 10). It is very important that the patient understands this before agreeing to treatment, and that they understand what chemotherapy will involve. And if they do decide, part-way through the course, that they have had enough, then that is OK, though unfortunately there aren’t usually trial data to be able to tell them how effective half a course of treatment will be (in general, for chemo, probably still quite effective, for radiotherapy, probably not).

            The difficult group are the ones who have a high chance of being cured by chemotherapy but not otherwise. This includes acute leukaemia, high-grade lymphoma and metastatic testicular cancer. My experience here is predominantly in testicular cancer, where the chance of long-term cure with chemotherapy is in excess of 95%, and without it death is almost certain. Unfortunately any deviation from protocol, and particularly delays in treatment, seriously affects the outcome. Unfortunately, too, these are very often young men (many in their 20’s) who still think that the rules of reality don’t apply to them. It is very sad and difficult watching these people die unnecessarily when they had their whole lives ahead of them. I can think of three such cases in the past few years. One was long-term mentally ill and believed that he would be healed by God, the second had learning difficulties and simply didn’t understand what was happening to him (and it proved impossible to treat him without his co-operation). The third was an a****le who just couldn’t be bothered and whose family thought that supporting him meant acceding to his demands; he would turn up when he felt like it and discharge himself before the chemotherapy was finished. Despite all this we managed to get enough chemo into him to achieve a complete response and I hope that will translate into a long-term cure (only time will tell, but as I am no longer working I won’t ever know the end of the story). The other two died, of course.

            These cases tend to involve all sorts of people, including social services, mental health, care homes, psychiatric hospitals, independent patient advocates, ethics committees and the Courts. There is seldom a right answer to such ethical and moral problems, and often what you can achieve in practice is very different from what you think is right. They also take a disproportionate amount of time which could otherwise be spent on other patients.

            yup…I thought so

            Your ill-considered and stupid comments are quite frankly insulting to the many dedicated individuals working in cancer care who, so often, work well beyond their paid hours to provide the service that they feel their patients deserve.

          • Lenny

            You prove nothing. So Gerson is an intensive treatment, while Chemo drags on and on. The point was either treatment requires the patient to follow the regimen. You somehow only want to apply the requirement to Gerson and not Oncology. It’s a double standard Lenny…. no denying it.

            Yes, I’m a googleologist, aren’t we all ?

            Welcome, and happy are the days in the last 25 years when we can find information at our fingertips. No more reliance on AMA and Pharma trained Physicians…. whoo-hoo !!

            Case in point, which you here will no doubt refer to as an anecdote;
            My primary physician drew my blood because he said due to being over 50 years old, he would like to check my prostate for potential cancer regularly, I agreed.
            The blood was drawn and the PSA result from my blood was elevated. My primary physician referred my to a Urologist that suggested I have a prostate biopsy to find out more. Before scheduling, I decided to do some googling and find out more about the risks of the biopsy, and why I might need one.
            After about forty-five minutes or so of reading, I discovered that the elevated PSA result could be from an ejaculation, an ejaculation within 48 hours of the blood draw can elevate the PSA result.

            So I contacted the urologist and explained to him what I had discovered. I told him that before doing anything further, I wanted to have my blood drawn and tested again. He agreed….. and the PSA result fell back to normal…. BINGO !

            So either I had a stupid urologist, or he was SCAM-ing me.
            Either way, I don’t need that crap…. gimme google.

          • RG

            Maybe Google can explain to you the difference between “requires” and “demands”.

            Your blinkered Dunning-Krugerism is becoming tiresome. Go and find another place to play.

          • You may want to read this book (written by a phd, md): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study

          • Spiceman,

            The China Study is fully of serious methodological flaws, cherry-picking of evidence, conclusions contradicted by its own data and many other problems. It has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere e.g. by Chris Masterjohn and separately by Denise Minger. It is not taken seriously by anybody who understands epidemiology, statistics or dietary science.

          • I fully agree

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Thursday 24 October 2019 at 07:17 said:

            “It has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere e.g. by Chris Masterjohn and separately by Denise Minger.”

            Chris, (hard sell: get 20% off today), Masterjohn:
            https://chris-masterjohn-phd.myshopify.com/products/did-you-know-dont-forget-to-add-save20

            And Denise (another nobody) Minger:
            https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/denise-minger

            Are you examples? Why not read The China Study yourself?

          • Molly,

            Why not read The China Study yourself?

            Others have taken the trouble to spend months going over Colin Campbell’s book in details, examining his data, how it was collected and how it was analysed statistically. They have found serious flaws in his methodology and it seems as though he started with his conclusions and then tried to find evidence supporting them and ignoring that which contradicted him.

            For instance he examined so many variables that there were thousands of potential correlations, of which many would be expected to show a high degree of statistical significance purely by chance, but only published the ones that fitted his theories.

            Why would I want to waste my time repeating their work, or indeed reading any of the many books out there expounding strange theories?

            another nobody

            What do you mean by that? Are you using the “Colin Campbell has a lot of letters after his name so he must be right” argument, of “Colin Campbel is famous so we should believe him” argument?

            Are you examples?

            Am I examples of what?

          • Denise Minger has also been debunked, both she and Dr. Campbell had their own agendas.
            The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

          • RG,

            Denise Minger has also been debunked

            Could you point me to where I can read about that? Although it probably doesn’t invalidate the statistical problems with Dr Campbell’s work. Mathematics speaks for itself.

            both she and Dr. Campbell had their own agendas

            True. I wouldn’t be surprised if she has also written a lot of nonsense.

            ,blockquote>The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
            That is often the case, though are you talking here about the truth of Dr Campbell’s conclusions or the truth about the problems with the methodology of the China Study? I am fairly convinced that Dr Campbell was wrong with regard to the latter. As for his beliefs, since the China Study doesn’t really provide very good evidence one way or the other we would have to look elsewhere.

          • I have read the China Study

            I think a better conversation about the data on the subject here;
            http://castig.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/the-protein-debate-campbell-cordain.pdf

            I think also a better job of debunking …. if you will, Dr. Campbell.

            One thing I take from Dr. Campbell and the China Study. Many if not most people eat more total protein than necessary, and this may explain many modern day illnesses. It does not indicate people need to eat plant protein exclusively. It means that overall protein intake can be lowered and maintain, or achieve better health, while still ingesting some animal protein…. along side plant protein.

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle said:

            “Am I examples of what?”

            Of someone who has read neither the thing being attacked nor the attackers of it.

          • RG,

            I agree with you that a lot of people eat very badly, although research in this area is problematic as diet may exert a gradual influence over a very long period. I have long suspected that what we eat in childhood could have lifelong effects; indeed only yesterday there was an article in the BBC news about baryatric surgery as treatment for type II diabetes in teenagers referring to evidence from animal studies that controlling calorie (and carbohydrate) intake, as well as weight, during puberty can strongly influence the course of diabetes in adulthood.

            While there are undoubtedly ways that people can and should modify their diets to reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and other problems, many people find it difficult to change long-established habits, and on the other hand there are those who believe that they have much more control over their bodies than they actually do (diet only accounts for part of the risk of these conditions, for instance).

            Personally I think eating locally produced food, in season, is a good start, and it certainly tastes better.

          • I grew up in times when, if you would go to the doctor it would make time for you to talk about your health properly. It would always give you advises about what to eat and what to drink along with the treatment, and trying to avoid to prescribe too many chemicals. I still remember the posters on the walls talking about that you should move more, eat fruits and vegetables and avoid many bad habits(smocking for example). And I grew up in an eastern Europe ex. communist country (communist at the time of my childhood). I had the chance to spend time at the country side. It was an incredible life. You can’t find such a thing in the big cities of the western civilization (where I actually live now). People would leave much longer than now. And usually old people would be in power until almost the end of their life. They wouldn’t have gym facilities and nutritionists. Also, not too many doctors in the village. But they would always know a lot about a lot in a good way.

            Nowadays, if you enter in a doctor’s office, their walls are filled with posters for new “discovered” pills with “incredible” benefits for your health. The doctor’s have maximum ten minutes for you and most of the time you end up at the pharmacy shelves. There is a big business related with Big Pharma.

            You said that we should support our comments with evidence.
            I can fill a big notebook with lost cases on cancer (starting with my mom, my grandmother, my father in law, many friends, artists, musicians, etc) on chemotherapy. No result at all. And the numbers are growing. Where? Mostly in the countries where canned food and fast food and processed food is everywhere. US is an example. When I moved to the west I was shocked to see how incredibly disorganized life people live, how they eat, how little personal time they have. Family time is almost non existent. Stress is at high level. They live like rats in a race running like crazy every day for nothing. It is a consumerist society that kills its own citizen every day. You only need to get on the street to see what you can eat fresh and organic. Mc Donalds, Starbucks, KFC and so on. Is this food? Does anybody care? Are you guys even realizing what are you debating here?

            Go and watch the playgrounds. Are empty. Kids don’t even bother anymore to go outside to play. They have enough entertainment inside at TV, Computer, Tablet, Phone. I recently have been at a conference about cancer and the presenters stated that we have more and more cancer cases in younger people…

            Facts? What facts are you still waiting for? The entire society is built on greed. Doctors make a fortune for not being able to realize the real cause of all the health problems in their patients. There’s a pill for each ill now. When was the last time when your family doctor gave you anything else than a paper with prescriptions? It is enough to read this: https://time.com/4475628/the-new-science-of-exercise/
            to figure out that we are far away from where we should be.

            If you want facts, go to an Amish community, or look at the statistics to see more about them. Or you could take the Adventist believers in US to see their mortality rates. They don’t have so many PHD experts. Still they live a much better life. Or go in other places of the earth where the stupidity of the consumerist society didn’t yet came over.

            As in a cancer patient the cancerous cells are multiplying uncontrolled, so this planet is invaded by the multiplication of the wrong actions and things in an uncontrolled and metastatic process. One of this is the greed of their own inhabitants including the so many doctors unfortunately and the drug companies and on and on. But we keep smiling and waiving.

            People forgot the simple things, the beauty of life. And this is so sad…

          • Spiceman

            And when there is no more money to extract from the patient, or the patient becomes too expensive… they kill the patient off fast.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UikHCFTQI4

      • Hi Amanda,
        My mother cured herself of 4 chronic incurable diseases at the same time when she went on the Gerson therapy,
        Gerson saved her life and 10 years later she is still in the best physical health that she has ever been in her life.

        To show my solidarity for her, I went on the Gerson therapy with her in the first couple of months. Healthy people are not supposed to follow the Gerson protocal and I did not know that.
        After 2 months I was too skinny and I went back to a healthy balanced vegan diet.

        My mother, who needed the Gerson, continued on the diet and completely healed herself.

        So people who are healthy can follow the Gerson Principles of health and use Gerson recipes but the full protocal should only be used by people with specific medical conditions that the Gerson Instiutie recognizes as compatible.

        I wanted to share this with other people who should be aware.

        Take Care!

    • Exactly!

    • I sat BULLSHIT!

    • Great and very “scientific” answer. Thank you

    • Excellent reply Peter!!!

    • Please don’t tell people that the Gerson therapy does not work just to ensure your income keeps coming in, which are your never-ending sick patients. Most of the patients the Gerson Therapy received were those that were told by their oncologist that there is nothing else they can do and go put your affairs in order. They have helped so many people, where medicine gave up. Many years have gone by without much improvement on the cancers that are killing so many people through Big Pharma treatments. I think we can see that Chemo is not the long term answer, but it seems to have a short term answer, however, the cancer usually comes back stronger and will no longer work with chemo. The medical field does not really want the cure, because they would lose out out so much money in many angles. Big Pharma is greedy and your cost!!!

      • “To ensure your income keeps coming in”

        Oh please do one, Julie. Show me a Gerson practitioner who generously gives their services for free.

      • Julie,
        I am not sure that a single one of your statements is true.

        “Please don’t tell people that the Gerson therapy does not work”
        I tell people that Gerson therapy does not work because it is not only useless but harmful. The theories of physiology, metabolism and the pathogenesis of cancer upon which it is based are nonsense, there is no evidence that it works, the case histories are rather dubious (see my previous post for a discussion of some of them), the treatment itself is dangerous and I have seen first-hand the misery, guilt and physical harm that it causes.

        “just to ensure your income keeps coming in, which are your never-ending sick patients.”
        It does not in any way threaten my income (which is my pension) nor that of working oncologists. There will always be a demand for doctors, because, yes, the sick patients are never-ending, and I don’t know any oncologist (in the UK at least) who does not work well beyond their paid ours in order to try to meet that demand.

        ” Most of the patients the Gerson Therapy received were those that were told by their oncologist that there is nothing else they can do and go put your affairs in order.”
        Of course I can’t know what most of the patients seeking Gerson Therapy were told by their oncologists, and I don’t suppose you can, either. It is very unusual that there is nothing that we can do, even if the cancer itself has become resistant to conventional treatment, and it is very important that the patient knows that their oncology team will always continue to care for them. In any case, putting our affairs in order is something that everyone should do as you never know what is round the corner (anybody who has lost a family member in an accident can attest to that). As far as I can see, the main reason why people seek Gerson Therapy is pressure from their relatives.

        “They have helped so many people, where medicine gave up.”
        One of the most distressing things about having cancer is the feeling of being out of control (though in fact we have much less control over our bodies than we think we do). The Gerson treatment gives people a false illusion of being back in control again, which they may feel is helpful at first, but when they find they are unable to stick to the demanding protocol, and they are told that this is the reason why their cancer is continuing to progress, it adds guilt to their misery.

        “Many years have gone by without much improvement on the cancers that are killing so many people”
        That is completely untrue. Over the course of my career research has revolutionised our understanding of what is going on with cancer and has led to huge changes in the way that they are treated, as well as technical developments in computers which have changed the way radiotherapy is delivered almost beyond recognition. These changes in treatment have led to demonstrably improved outcomes.

        “Big Pharma treatments”
        The molecular biologists may be the people unravelling the pathways involved in cancer behaviour, but somebody has to make the drugs, and given the huge cost of exploring the many candidate drugs, only a tiny fraction of which pass the required tests of safety and efficacy, Big Pharma are the only ones that are in a position to do it.

        “I think we can see that Chemo is not the long term answer”
        It is one of many approaches. Though for many people it has been and still is the long-term answer. Most chemotherapy treatments are either given with the intent of curing the cancer (testicular cancer, leukaemia, lymphoma etc.) or improving the cure rate in conjuction of with treatment modalities (breast cancer, bladder cancer, colorectal cancer etc.).

        “the cancer usually comes back stronger and will no longer work with chemo”
        In the case of palliative treatments, chemotherapy is not given with the intent to cure. However, it can be very effective in controlling the cancer, improving survival and quality of life. Advanced cancers are genetically unstable and therefore contain a great variety of different mutations among their component cells, with the result that even if most of them are sensitive to a specific treatment, there will always be some that aren’t, and Darwinian selection occuring within the tumour means that the resistant cells that are left will eventually dominate.

        “The medical field does not really want the cure, because they would lose out out so much money in many angles. ”
        I think you need to speak to some of the millions of doctors and biomedical scientists worldwide devoting their lives to cancer research, or maybe to the government bodies and charities funding them

        ” Big Pharma is greedy and your cost!!!”
        Legally any company’s primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to their customers. Therefore they need to be regulated. Unfortunately, particularly in the USA, this regulation isn’t always as strong as it should be, which has led to a bizarre situation where more money is spent on health care in the US than anywhere else, and yet the health and life expectancy of US citizens is among the worst in the developed world. A government that prioritises industry over the welfare of its citizens is bad for everybody.

      • Yes that’s why the Oncologist keeps pushing for Chemo. They get a Big Kickback. From Big Pharma. Why is it if Western Medicine is so great why is it that there are So Many Lawsuits against Companies because of all the Side effects And CANCER CAUSING.? DOCTORS KNOWS THIS. Too. But when it comes down to it they act like they didn’t have a Clue. . ALL THE ONCOLIGIST OUT THERE WOULD YOU DO CHEMO. ESPECIALLY IF YOU KNOW ITS NOT GOING TO Help your Family member YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS..

        • Yes that’s why the Oncologist keeps pushing for Chemo. They get a Big Kickback. From Big Pharma.

          I never got anything of the sort. I prescribed chemo when the evidence suggested that it was the appropriate thing to do.

          They get a Big Kickback. From Big Pharma. Why is it if Western Medicine is so great why is it that there are So Many Lawsuits against Companies because of all the Side effects

          What lawsuits? The side-effects are well-known and explained to patients so that they can give informed consent.

          \\\CANCER CAUSING.? DOCTORS KNOWS THIS

          Yes, they do. On the other hand when you are faced with a definite cancer now vs. an increased risk of a cancer in 30 years’ time (and the patient is probably in their 60’s) how are you going to call it?

          ALL THE ONCOLIGIST OUT THERE WOULD YOU DO CHEMO. ESPECIALLY IF YOU KNOW ITS NOT GOING TO Help your Family member YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS..

          I have always believed that I should treat my patients the same way that I would want to be treated myself, or my family for that matter. So yes, I have recommended chemotherapy for my father, my brother-in-law and my wife, and they have all done very well with it. I have had chemotherapy myself but it didn’t work for me, unfortunately. Happily I am now on a new targeted therapy which is keeping my cancer under control.

          I should add that all oncologists are very much concerned with the side-effects of treatment and spend a great deal of time and energy monitoring for unusually severe and dangerous effects, and doing all they can to keep them at a minimum.

          • thank you – I do admire you patience with some people!

          • I do admire you patience with some people!

            I don’t expect to change the mind of whoever it is I am replying to, but I hope somebody else reading it might find my comments educational.

            I am constantly astounded at the strange things people believe, and their complete ignorance of what oncologists (and doctors in general) do all day. Perhaps some of your regular contributers should contact a local oncologist / rheumatologist / physician and arrange to shadow them for a week.

            While I was waiting to pick up a prescription just now I saw a product in the pharmacy which was some kind of detoxifying foot patch based on lavender, though containing many other things, including minerals such as tourmeline. The instructions on the back included a diagram of the soles of the feet marked up with reflexology homunculi and acupuncture points, and recomended various places to apply the patch for optimal sleep, thereby combining reflexology, acupuncture and aromatherapy. The small print listed as “active ingredients” some kind of strach (74%), and as “inactive ingredients” lavender and about twenty other things. I asked the pharmacist about it and she said the patches were very popular and people swore by them.

            Really, many people seem to live in a different world full of magic and witchcraft, and they genuinely seem to believe in it.

          • yes, and as long as they do no harm to themselves or others, one might say this is ok. but sadly they do much harm, perhaps no more than in oncology.

          • I wonder how much money gets spent on ineffectual tripe which people imagine will improve their lives? AltMed, lucky charms, religious gewgaws, horoscopes..

            There’s a market out there and money to be made by the unscrupulous.

            As ever, really.

    • This article is exactly what I thought, that this dr is big pharma backed and it is senseless to waste his time to undermining a safe path of living for health conscious people and then trying to say its dangerous on top of it.
      Unless he is getting paid to do it, which is a big industry on the internet now.
      Why else would a sane person oppose it? Minus the coffee enemas, ( which hippocrates, the founder of medicine advocated 2000 years ago) its the way people ate and drank until a a hundred years ago before the factory processed foods with chemicals, preservatives, aadditives, and then genetically modified plants began. Then factory farming wasted and depleted the soil of its 60 minerals which prevent disease to just 3, and are only mandated to add back the 3 of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
      My urologist responded when asked about the dangers of eating organic foods, doing coffee enemas, drinking pure water and taking natural plant based supplements for vitamins that she saw zero risk in it.
      Simple as this, let those who are smart do their own research and see for themselves. gerson works, I saw a stage 3 cured personally. If she had listened to this guy, she would now have a colostomy bag.
      I will be not be contributing to further profits by posting and actions here as that may contribute to profits just like ‘likes’ do on the internet. I will also cancel this subscription for the same reason, as this is just a big pharma shill.

      • I cannot decide which notion is more amusing/wrong
        1) Hippocrates has his coffee anally
        2) I am ‘big pharma backed’
        3) 100 years ago, there was no cancer
        4) Gerson works
        THERE IS MUCH MADNESS OUT THERE!

      • Could you supply the reference to where Hippocrates advocated coffee enemas? As far as I am aware coffee was not known in ancient Greece, and indeed anywhere as a drink until about 1,500 years after Hippocrates.

        • I doubt you’ll get a response from Amante, but I bet the Hippocrates coffee enema notion comes from a misreading of this website: https://hippocrates.com.au/hippocrates-news-archive/detoxification/how-you-can-do-detoxifying-coffee-enemas/

          If Hippocrates ever experienced a ‘burning bum’ sensation after enjoying a coffee enema, he could always use coconut oil, according to the same website. (Please don’t be a spoilsport and point out that coconuts weren’t known in Greece in the 4th century BCE.)

          • I don’t know about coconuts, but somewhere I have a British Army medical manual from around the time of World War I recommending coffee enemas as emergency treatment for asthma. I would imagine that they would work as it would be an effective way of getting a large amount of caffeine into the body at once. Nowadays we use IV aminophylline, which is a similar drug.

          • @Frank Odds on Friday 01 March 2019 at 08:50 said:
            “…(Please don’t be a spoilsport and point out that coconuts weren’t known in Greece in the 4th century BCE.)”

            From here:
            http://cocos.arecaceae.com/ancient.html

            This:
            BC 415
            A Greek physician Ctesias (around 415 BC), wrote that he had seen these fruits in India.
            Chiovenda 1921-3 Webbia 5, 199-294 & 359-449.

    • ??❤

    • You are totally worthless. MD with a PHD of stupidity? Try inventing something that should help others, instead of relying in your outdated studies and google surfing universities. Sadly, it is your only source of research and “proof” of your claims.
      I’m a 22 years pancreatic cancer survivor, using the gerson therapy. I can’t wait for you to have cancer or one of your loved ones, and try your great chemo, let’s chat again then. I’ll wait to have a big laugh you. Yes, because that’s what people like you deserve. Good luck with your life and useless titles, which obviously make you very proud but show how insecure you are.
      For the rest of the readers, don’t waste your time reading this worthless blog, and take control of your own health!

      • “I can’t wait for you to have cancer or one of your loved ones”
        pure kindness!

      • Which pancreatic cancer, Mike? There’s more than one type. And what other treatment did you receive before you started sticking apricot stones and coffee up your arse and concluding that it was what cured you?

      • @ Mike:
        I have to say: you are NOT “totally worthless”!

        In just one short blog post, you manage to show human kindness, deep knowledge of psychology AND spread good health advice! Chapeau!

        If ingenious people like you have concluded that personal experience is sufficient evidence to evaluate a medical intervention, then who on earth seriously needs expensive, statistically solid, large-scale randomized controlled trials?!
        Anyway, at least I had one good laugh today… so thank you!
        🙂

    • Maybe this dude is paid by pharma to discredit Gerson’s . Such nonsense !!!! I love Gerson’s for many reasons. Ive used it to cure my RA and know many that have had cancer and are healed now.

    • “I see, in Dr. Max Gerson, M.D., the most eminent genius in medical history.”
      Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Dr. Albert Schweitzer.

      • appeal to authority = logical fallacy.

      • Medicine has moved on since Schweitzer’s day, particularly cancer treatment.

        • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Wednesday 27 May 2020 at 09:39 said:
          “Medicine has moved on since Schweitzer’s day, particularly cancer treatment.”

          Gerson cured the 75 year old Schweitzer of diabetes who then lived for another 15 years as opposed to modern medicine that has “…moved on since Schweitzer’s time…” but is still searching:
          https://www.diabetes.org.uk/diabetes-the-basics/is-there-a-cure

          From here:
          https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/04/uk-cancer-death-rates-drop-10-per-cent-ten-years
          This:
          “Death rates from cancer in the UK have dropped by 10% over the last decade, thanks to progress in diagnosing and treating the disease, but the number of deaths keeps rising because more people are falling ill.”

          Whereas in Schweitzer’s day, Gerson had a 30% success rate with patients (who had been abandoned by the, then-primitive-by-today’s-standards, cancer-doctors.)

          Today, standard cancer care is being disrupted:
          https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30243-6/fulltext

          But not Gerson Therapy (organic apples, carrots and green stuff have generally been available the whole time – likewise the supplements).

          • Gerson cured the 75 year old Schweitzer of diabetes who then lived for another 15 years

            It is not unknown to live 15 years with diabetes even with conventional treatment…

            I know very little about the circumstances of Schweitzer’s diagnosis of diabetes, or how he was treated (70 or more years ago) or on what basis he believed that he was cured. However, the management of type II diabetes is primarily diet, exercise and weight loss and from what I know of the Gerson diet it is low in carbohydrates and tends to bring the weight down.

            Death rates from cancer in the UK have dropped by 10% over the last decade, thanks to progress in diagnosing and treating the disease, but the number of deaths keeps rising because more people are falling ill.

            That is because:
            1. There are more people
            2. They are no longer dying of something else first (most cancers occurring in later life)

            in Schweitzer’s day, Gerson had a 30% success rate with patients

            So he claimed. I have looked at his case histories. For many of them it is unclear on what basis the diagnosis of cancer was made. Others had received conventional treatment as well which was probably the reason for the “cure”. I have not seen any that I found convincing. I have, however, looked after several patients undergoing Gerson therapy in the UK when I was a junior doctor working for an oncologist who had agreed to provide medical supervision – only one of them survived more than three weeks after starting it.

            But not Gerson Therapy (organic apples, carrots and green stuff have generally been available the whole time – likewise the supplements).

            My understanding is that the organically-grown fruit and vegetables have to be supplied by the Gerson Foundation to be part of the treatment, and foodstuffs which are generally available are not acceptable. Do you have specific information that they have been able to maintain their supply chain or are you just making this up?

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Thursday 28 May 2020 at 23:34 said

            “My understanding is that the organically-grown fruit and vegetables have to be supplied by the Gerson Foundation to be part of the treatment, and foodstuffs which are generally available are not acceptable. Do you have specific information that they have been able to maintain their supply chain or are you just making this up?”

            No, Gerson Therapy is no secret, it was and has always been open – he even says so on the first page of his book “…there is no secret!” – you buy your own organic vegetables, or grow them yourself, permission is not required!

            Everyone reading this knows the availability of organic carrots for the last few months, in their area/country – were they available or not? – now what about local healthcare, was that available or not?

          • Old Bob,

            No, Gerson Therapy is no secret, it was and has always been open – he even says so on the first page of his book “…there is no secret!” – you buy your own organic vegetables, or grow them yourself, permission is not required!

            Ah, that must be how the Gerson Foundation make their money, then.

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Friday 29 May 2020 at 15:03 said:
            “Ah, that must be how the Gerson Foundation make their money, then.”

            Yes, that is correct, money must be made (before it can be looted or mouched), by every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows he cannot consume more than he has produced. – Atlas Shrugged, penguin edition, page 411.

    • I know a man who did the Herson diet, no other treatment. He had a stage 3 Cancer his lymph node was the size of an egg. That was 1999 and he’s still cancer free in 2021.

      • yes, spontaneous remissions do happen. nothing to do with Herson, not even with Gerson!

        • Yet, it just happens to be a coincidence that his “spontaneous remission” occurred just when the man enacted the special diet. Who woulda thought ?
          Just like it just happens to be coincidental that patients that take vaccines have immediate bad reactions…. the two just happen to occur around the same time.

          Nothing to see here, more along.

          • he might also have had some vanilla ice cream at the time – think about it!

          • I had some vanilla ice cream the other day and had an immediate headache. Obviously a bad reaction. Think about it. You’re just a shill for Big Dairy, Edzard.

          • Lenny dear

            I went to the dentist last week. When I came home, my mouth was in pain. Do you think my visit to the dentist had any relation to why my mouth was hurting ? Or was it did a correlation ?

          • change your dentist

          • I do believe Gerson to be a genius. This website is probably sponsored by big pharma. Remember to look everywhere for the truth but to discard rubbish site like this one!

          • “… sponsored by big pharma”
            oh, yes – how very original! we did not have this fallacy for a while…

          • @Ruthy: An analytical, scientific mind would first work to identify all possible causes for this observation (incorrect diagnosis, indolent tumor, spontaneous remission, overlooked conventional treatment, false claim, magic diet, etc. etc) and then, much like Sherlock Holmes, do its best to disprove each one in turn, on basis that anything left standing at the very end is perhaps not entirely wrong.

            It is a careful process that may not give you the answer you’d like, but hopefully it gives you an answer that is useful.

            Whereas what you are doing is seeking to confirm and strengthen your existing bias. That is the work of a religious mind. And it should take no part in medicine; not when people’s lives are at stake.

            Sadly, as a career misanthrope, it has not escaped my notice that far too many human beings, when given the choice between pleasing belief and hard truth, would far rather choose the pleasing belief—even where that choice may ultimately result in the deaths of themselves and/or others.

            It takes a conscious ongoing effort not to lie to oneself. And Alties like yourself aren’t merely really bad at doing that, but often deliberately choose to do the exact opposite; for ego, for money, for social standing. As self-deception it is disgustingly self-serving.

            You fool no-one but yourselves. And I would pity all of you, were it not for blood on your hands.

            As to the rest: Evidence or GTFO. It should not be that hard.

          • @Ruthy

            Yet, it just happens to be a coincidence that his “spontaneous remission” occurred just when the man enacted the special diet. Who woulda thought ?

            No, this is no coincidence, but is actually to be expected.
            A large percentage of cancer patients (estimates run from 50% all the way up to 85%) use some sort of alternative treatment in the hope that this will help them somehow. So it isn’t strange at all if a subsequent remission is often attributed to this treatment – even if the patient had other, regular treatments as well. Also, these people then tend to become quite vocal proponents of the particular alternative treatment that they followed.

            Unfortunately, they are quite wrong: when looking at larger numbers than just N=1, remission rates are not higher among people who use these ‘special diets’ or any other alternative treatments – quite the opposite in fact: those who turn to alternative treatments tend to have higher mortality rates and a lower quality of life, especially if they forego or neglect regular treatments.

            Just like it just happens to be coincidental that patients that take vaccines have immediate bad reactions…. the two just happen to occur around the same time.

            I went to the dentist last week. When I came home, my mouth was in pain. Do you think my visit to the dentist had any relation to why my mouth was hurting ? Or was it did a correlation ?

            You are being silly here. Vaccination activates the immune system, causing some sort of reaction, and dental work can cause pain. Hence the guideline to look out for allergic reactions after vaccination and the routine use of dental anaesthetics. These are generally accepted facts with lots of scientific evidence. It is NOT a generally accepted scientific fact that following any diet helps against cancer – there isn’t even the slightest shred of evidence; there are just anecdotal reports such as yours, but those are simply wrong.

            Here are some reasons why anecdotes such as yours are spread and believed. First some general principles:
            – Control: people like to be in control of their life, and a cancer diagnosis is often quite devastating in that respect: all of a sudden, the future looks uncertain and full of suffering, and just passively submitting to unpleasant medical treatments contributes to feeling helpless. But actively doing something like following a diet is something that people can do by themselves, thereby giving them back a sense of control.
            – Hope: people don’t like to give up hope, or dash other people’s hope. So no matter how bleak things are, there will always be people who come up with optimistic stories about miraculous treatments, regardless of how improbable they are.

            Other reasons have to do with ignoring or denying reality, or fabricating their own truth:
            – Letting own beliefs prevail: people who recovered from cancer while using both alternative and regular treatments often attribute their recovery to their self-chosen alternative treatments, while ignoring or even omitting the fact that they also underwent regular treatment – which was far more likely to have cured them. One well-known example is Chris Wark who had surgery to treat his colon cancer, but declined follow-up chemotherapy and chose to follow a raw vegan diet instead. When his cancer didn’t recur, he loudly proclaimed that he had ‘beat cancer‘, starting off a cancer diet hype. In reality, his recovery had nothing to do with his diet, as surgery alone already had a high chance of eradicating his cancer. These people often attain a guru-like status, prompting them to keep promoting their false message.
            – False diagnosis: quite a few miraculously healed ‘cancer’ patients were in fact never diagnosed by a competent doctor, but were told by a quack or convinced themselves that a particular lump here or a skin blemish there was cancer. And when these things ultimately resolved naturally, the patient of course attributed this to the (alternative) treatment that they followed at the time.
            – Outright lies: unfortunately, people lie, sometimes even about very serious conditions such as cancer, usually because they crave attention and compassion from other people. There are several examples where people claimed to have cancer, and later turned out to have lied about their condition, such as this Dutch politician. To make things worse, these people often make up a ‘miracle cure’ as well to avoid being exposed as a liar, contributing to the narrative of successful alternative cancer treatments.

            Then there is the category of commercially motivated lies about alternative cancer treatments:
            – Personal gain: one egregious example is that of Belle Gibson, who raised huge amounts of money through crowdfunding by lying about her cancer diagnosis and her ‘treatments’ – invariably expensive alternative treatments.
            – Business model: and finally there are the outright cancer quacks who have turned taking huge sums of money from desperately ill people into a business model. A prime example is Stanislaw Burzynski, who has been charging patients tens of thousands of dollars for treatments that even after 40 years(!!) are still called ‘experimental’, and have no evidence of efficacy whatsoever. Other examples are cancer quacks who operate clinics in Mexico, robbing cancer patients of their last money as well as their last months or weeks of life while promising improvement or even a cure all the while. And yes, several of these clinics sell Gerson ‘therapy’.

          • @Richard: Well said. See also: post-hoc, Texas sharpshooter fallacies. One of the reasons the scientific method is designed to work the way it does is to minimize opportunities for these very human biases to creep in and pollute results. But it is highly counter-intuitive to those who would pride themselves on their “common sense” reasoning.

            Which is probably why it took a couple thousand years to get from the ancient Greek philosophers’ methods of “knowing” to Sir Francis Bacon and the start of the Enlightenment: Aristotle et al greatly enjoyed their own intelligent reasoning, through which they would arrive at pleasing conclusions; they saw no reason to test their conclusions (to destruction) to actually check they were right.

            Which is to say, a lot of very smart, educated, deep-thinking people have already made the very same mistakes which Ruthy now makes; and most of them never realized and/or learned from those mistakes themselves. So there’s no inherent shame in making such mistakes: we have all done it, and easily still do.

            What is shameful is refusing to recognize our mistakes when we make them, accept them, admit them, and embrace the positive learning opportunities they present. But so AltMed goes. It is very bad for Ego.

          • I’m not a proponent of Gerson Therapy. Never used it, nor personally known anybody that used the diet. However, I do subscribe to using diet as a means of treating chronic illnesses. “Let food be your medicine”. So in that respect, Gerson is not far off the mark.

          • diet is effective mostly for disease prevention; there are very few illnesses that can be cured by diet.
            Gerso was very far off the mark indeed.

          • “Let food be your medicine”.

            What an amazing quote Ruthy! Did you come up with that yourself or rip it off of this book’s title.

            Coming to the topic of Gerson’s therapy that you think hits the mark in terms of curing ailments with food, what foods do you suggest people eat to say…cure covid? How would they take that food? i.e., orally or anally?

          • ha Talker

            The idea of let food by thy medicine has been a concept for longer than I’ve been alive. If you had any brains you would know that.

            You expect me to teach you how to eat to cure ailments ? I won’t waste my time on ignorant cyber-bully, you figure it out yourself. I already told your where to look, the FOOD, and personal eating habits.

          • Of course, Ruthy! I expect you to teach me how to eat to cure ailments. Like you said, I have no “brains”, so I rely on very intelligent persons like you to get by in my daily life. You are right, you cannot go wrong with any ideology that existed longer than we ourselves have on this planet. So, I tried to put your advice to use the other day and ate four BigMac’s in one sitting to try and cure an upset stomach, but it made it worse. I am wondering where I went wrong. Should I be following Gerson’s teachings and ingest the foods anally? Have you tried the anal route? Does it work?

            Although I have no “brains” I have a curious mind. Since you refuse to tell me what foods would cure covid, I did my own “research” and found out that trying to cure covid with food is a fool’s errand. The best option is to avoid getting infected by social distancing, masking and vaccinations. In fact, a recent study found that mRNA vaccine induced immunity is far superior to natural immunity from a previous covid infection. Here is a quote for the study:

            unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99)

            So, I decided to rely on superior vaccine induced immunity and scheduled a vaccination appointment.

          • @Ruthy: “The idea of let food by thy medicine has been a concept for longer than I’ve been alive.”

            So what? That doesn’t mean it’s right.

            Galenic medicine ruled supreme for over 1500 until Harvey actually put them to the test and quickly proved them wrong. 1500 years of the One True Cause and Cure of Disease, destroyed virtually overnight. By applying science.

            And across those 1500 years, how many sick people died not so much from the disease but from the “cure” (Galenic bloodletting) which every physician and layperson knew was right? How many lives would have been saved—how much further advanced might medicine be today—had Hippocrates and Galen actually bothered to test their own claims to destruction first?

            “If you had any brains you would know that.”

            As others have already noted, there is plenty of scientific research that points to the importance of good diet and regular exercise for maintaining good health, and very little that shows diet—especially quack diets— effective at treating diseases beyond mild type 2 diabetes and various food intolerances. So who’s the one that’s not exercising their brains here? Because you’re the only person in this thread who’s presenting the dismal Appeal to Antiquity as her answer, and—as Galen attests—that doesn’t make you correct, only blindly arrogant and dangerously stubborn.

            So might I respectfully suggest you go away and learn how to ask questions first. Once you’ve developed basic competence in that, come back here and we’ll be happy to help you in learning how to obtain answers to those questions that are worth a damn. Or don’t, because as we’ve also learned by now, Alties don’t actually want answers that are accurate; only answers that fatten their egos, and fatten their wallets, and make them feel clever and superior to everyone else, and couldn’t care less for all the misery and pain and lives lost chasing those precious falsehoods.

            ’Cos Galen was piker compared to you lot.

            I would say “For shame!”, but I’ve yet to meet an altie who has any. So it goes.

          • @Talker: “Let food be thy medicine” is generally ascribed to Hippocrates (460-370BC), and thus is even older than Galen, though no more inherently correct for it. And, to be clear: H & G did lay the foundations for the modern mainstream system of medicine we now enjoy today. But that doesn’t mean they were utterly, appallingly, lethally ignorant and wrong on a lot of extremely important details, not least the causes disease and how [not] to cure it.

            The only good sacred cow is a dead one, which is what Alties fundamentally fail to understand about us, because they’ve never ever butchered one themselves, or even contemplated it as a possibility; and so they assume that because they blindly worship one, that we must blindly worship another. It is a failure of imagination, it is a failure of self-awareness (especially insight into one’s own limitations), it is a shocking ignorance of how the universe works and the millennia-long process by which humanity has gradually taught itself how to figure things out. All buoyed up by overinflated egos and a desperate cloying need for the social acceptance and praise of their fellow rah-rah cheerleaders. Just so mung beans like Ruthie and Roger can believe themselves Special, while the grifters get rich and sick people needlessly suffer and die.

            “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” – Isaac Asimov

          • @has

            Certainly, alties don’t seem to have the capability to think beyond binary numbers. If one doesn’t worship the alt-med gods, then that person for sure is sacrificing baby goats at the altar of big-pharma gods. Most people when confronted with cold hard scientific facts would most likely change their position, but not alties. Truthiness reigns supreme in alternate realities they inhabit, where 2+2 equals anything but four.

            P.S: Sherlock Holmes captured my imagination at a very young age followed by writing of Asimov, Vonnegut and Orwell. Reading your posts, it appears you had similar experiences as well.

          • Unfortunately the full text is behind a paywall, but this paper argues that:
            “the alleged Hippocratic phrase “let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food” is a widespread misquotation, lying at the root of an entire misconception about the ancient concepts of food and medicine”

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212826313000924

          • @zebra: “the alleged Hippocratic phrase “let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food” is a widespread misquotation, lying at the root of an entire misconception about the ancient concepts of food and medicine”

            This is entirely possible. Although, as we regularly observe, accuracy is not the first concern of AltMed advocates. Whatever serves.

          • Talker
            I already explained to you that I don’t do Gerson, why are you implicating me ? … like I said, no brains.

            So now I’m about 100% certain that you are of the male sex. Only men conjure up dreams of inserting lubricated meat up the poop-shoot. Have I ever tried it ? …. you would want to know, but that’s my business.

            If loads of BigMacs are you thing… by all means, enjoy. Just keep in mind that the top three comorbidity factors for Covid-19 death is hypertension, lipid metabolism, and obesity. These three make up about 45% of the contributing factors to covid death rates. Let’s you and me go to Mcdonalds land and I’ll by you all you want.

            Now I see you’ve jumped from oral and anal food to meatless injection in the arm. You want to bring vaccines in the conversation ? So a healthy diet will go further than a jab in the arm, because a vaccine won’t cure covid-19 either.

          • @Ruthy

            Have I ever tried it ? …. you would want to know, but that’s my business.

            I thought some anecdotal evidence would go a long way. Since you think that is a private matter, I will not push further.

            Now I see you’ve jumped from oral and anal food to meatless injection in the arm. You want to bring vaccines in the conversation ? So a healthy diet will go further than a jab in the arm, because a vaccine won’t cure covid-19 either.

            And….we are back to the starting point, when you were extoling the virtues of food cures without any evidence, I asked you what foods would cure covid and you refused to provide any information. So, I tried to walk in your footsteps for a day and try and cure something with food. Since you are unwilling to share your experience, I tried to eat BigMac as a cure and that didn’t work. I set forth to doing my own research and found that one can’t cure covid with food and vaccines PREVENT infection (never said anything about vaccines curing covid) and provided evidence of my claim. I explained all this in my last post which you clearly haven’t grasped, therefore no brains.

          • So now I’m about 100% certain that you are of the male sex. Only men conjure up dreams of inserting lubricated meat up the poop-shoot. Have I ever tried it ? …. you would want to know, but that’s my business.

            Talker was making a reference to Gerson therapy, which involves coffee enemas and is the original subject of this thread. Meat was never mentioned and as far as I know the Gerson diet is vegetarian.

          • good Doctor

            “So, I tried to put your advice to use the other day and ate four BigMac’s in one sitting to try and cure an upset stomach, but it made it worse. I am wondering where I went wrong. Should I be following Gerson’s teachings and ingest the foods anally? Have you tried the anal route? Does it work?”

            Thus my reply.

          • @Ruthy: While it is arguable that BigMacs are to food what Gerson is to medicine, you were the one who gleefully jumped on the Gerson bandwagon from out of nowhere—and apparently did so without even stopping to check what the Gerson “diet” actually involves.

            Yes, it is 100% true. Blasting coffee up the ol’ poop chute is the center pole [sic] in the Gerson big tenet. And you just boosted it. Euwww.

            (Also swallowing vast quantities of vitamin pills and generally feeling far more miserable and dying sooner than if they’d just taken the damn chemo. Gerson would be one of the more comically clownish claims of AltMed-dom, were it not also for its loathesomely lethal exploitation of some of the most desperate and frightened people currently alive. Not that they’ll be alive for much longer, mind, if Gerson “treatment” is the best that they’ve got.)

            Honestly, if you don’t want others to point and laugh at you in the future, perhaps try checking where you’re landing your feet before you plant them in a steaming cow patty the size of Texas.

          • To has

            I jumped on the Gerson bandwagon ? That’s what you say, I did not, I clearly said I do not support Gerson Therapy. I said I support eating healthy food with healthy habits.
            I’ve known of Gerson Therapy for more than ten years. Yes, including the coffee enemas, you assume too much.
            I am quite sure there are MD’s that prescribe coffee enemas to their patients. I can believe that these enemas can produce benefits for some patients, and I suspect that when done aside from the direction of a professional that the patient is taking on risk.

            Enough of Gerson, I focus on diet. My issues with Gerson diet is that far too much of the recommended foods are fruits, a diet of high sugar is against my personal protocol. I try to eat fruits only whole, never juiced.

          • @Ruthy
            So, you say you don’t support Gerson Therapy (GT), but that doesn’t stop you from contradicting yourself in the next paragraph, like so:

            I can believe that these enemas can produce benefits for some patients, and I suspect that when done aside from the direction of a professional that the patient is taking on risk.

            You don’t support GT, but you think it can be beneficial to some patients. Also, you believe in letting food be medicine and that GT being in line with that ideology but you don’t support GT. Is it Ruthy’s Gerson Therapy Paradox where she simultaneously supports and does not support GT?

            Coming to the issue of diet, I doubt that you understand the difference between using diet for disease prevention vs cure and it has been explained to you by others, but you don’t seem to be capable of wrapping your head around the concept. That said, if you keep parroting evidence free claims from alt-med fantasy lands, you are going to get mocked. Have a nice life!

          • @Ruthy: “I jumped on the Gerson bandwagon ? That’s what you say, I did not, I clearly said I do not support Gerson Therapy. I said I support eating healthy food with healthy habits.”

            Also @Ruthie: “Yet, it just happens to be a coincidence that his “spontaneous remission” occurred just when the man enacted the special [Gerson] diet. Who woulda thought?”

            Please. You embarrass yourself.

  • 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.

    • Just curious if you have looked at the numbers of people who have died from cancer from both forms of treatment? I have….. People should be shocked at the huge numbers of failure from the pseudo science of chemo. Honestly reading the posts from most of you claiming to be doctors or in the field of medicine disgust me. You bash anything that you are told is not accepted, spread disinformation and KILL people with your poison every day. “Big Pharma” Good????? are you all that brainwashed. I am sorry to speak like this but I am so tired of the B.S. touted by many of the health professionals who are slaves to both the drug companies and their insurance companies. If you think something like the Gerson method is incorrect, prove it, don’t bash it. You are scientists, where is your scientific method proving your claim? Oh thats right, you don’t have any…… If you all actually cared about patients you would be looking at everything that might be on to something. Tell me this, why was Dr. Max Gerson funded for his method by the U.S. when he first found it as the cure for T.B. Why was he a hero when he discovered this and then systematically torn down and had to leave the country? Could it be????? Because of “dare I say it” Big Pharma? I like many of you asking questions in here are reading because of cancer. My wife, at 30 years of age, two months after our son was born, who had been in, “oh how did the doctor put it” ” You are is such GREAT health” was diagnosed with stage four colon cancer. At first I listened intently to what the doctors were telling us. But as things progressed and getting worse I looked elsewhere. I found the the information on the Gerson method and seeing how the chemo was not working, begged my wife to try it. She asked the doctors and of course was given the same B.S. you are slinging in here. She didn’t think it would be wise to try and was strong in her faith that something would work. When it was obvious that nothing tried was working I proposed to the doctors a way to use their treatments that might have a chance of prolonging her time here and allow us more time to fight it. They agreed that my idea could work…….but against policy? Really??????? WTF!!! You all can take your crap that has a list of harmful effects so long that they have to give you a book on it. The lies and pussy behavior of you slaves sickens me. Remember it is called “Practicing Medicine” because you don’t have all the answers. The point is to keep looking and learning, and haven’t you learned by know that poison doesn’t fix things. We don’t drink bleach to clean our system out. Grow up!!

  • 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.

    • Well,my mother, sister and uncle survived cancer because of chemo,soooo
      Yes to chemo.

  • 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.

      • Shouldn’t all scientists be sceptical? Aren’t curiosity, scepticism and even argumentativeness essential qualities for being a scientist, for critical thinking and for inventiveness? And can you really be sure this person ‘scienceskeptic’, whom you presumably do not know, holds:

        ‘no college degree(s) since that’s where all those cheating MDs and PhD get their start.’ (your words in brackets).

        Why not stick to the argument rather than attacking a poster who disagrees with you.

    • You are so right! It’s about the money not the truth or cure or prevention because there’s little profit in that route.

      • if you were correct, why do oncologists die of cancer?

        • Yes and HOW MANY PEOLE HAVE DIED FROM CHEMO COMPARED TO THE 2 YOU MENTIONED. HAS ANYONE BEEN SUED FROM EATING NATURAL FOODS? LETS SEE DOES ANY FRUITS CAUSE CANCER? LETS SEE ALL THE WESTERN MEDICINE GAVE ALL SIDE EFFECTS. LIKE IT COULD CAUSE CANCER. THAT S WHY ALL THESE BIG PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES ARE BEING SUED RIGHT.

          • The Courts, as far as I can see, have a much lower standard of proof than the scientific method.

            Somebody choosing to start a Court Action isn’t proof of anything.

        • Because they used CHEMO OR RADIATIONOR SURGERY WHICH DIES CONTRIBUTE FOR MORE CANCER TO SPREAD. I KNOW I WORK IN SURGERY I SEE THIS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME

          • It is well-established that breaching tissue planes can open up a route of spread for certain kinds of cancer (particularly sarcomas), and it is very important that surgery is planned to take that into account. I have also seen tumours metastasising to surgical and other scars, although this is a lot less common, and I would imagine that the healing process releases growth factors which also promote tumour growth.

            On the other hand, for localised tumours surgery usually achieves a long-term cure, and there are often no effective alternatives.

            You might as well say that ambulances are sometimes involved in road traffic accidents and should therefore be banned.

  • 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.

    • What do you think about Gerson for severe autoimmune? I have a severe case of Primary Sjögrens, destroying my body and tissues and suspect a larger connective tissue disease. Rhrumatology sends me home with no solutions – and I have been to Hopkins, Mayo- Gerson has helped anecdotally with lupus, scleroderma and Sjögrens. With literally no medical solutions, what is the harm in trying?

      • Do you think there’s any good reason to suspect it might do any good?

        • Just anecdotal evidence; testimony. There are documented cases of Sjogrens and other autoimmune remissions. I have not available medical therapy to help.

          • @Christine

            It sounds like MD’s have failed you. Much of science based medicine falls short of real benefit. Some science based medicine in turn actually causes disease in our bodies. I call science based medicine “over-promise & under-deliver medicine”. Your mileage may vary.

            If you have not already addressed most of the issues that are pointed out in the link I will provide below…. then you should make every effort to follow the guidelines for better health laid out in the link. In addition, yoga is already mentioned in the link. But I would also find a way to enlighten yourself about some additional deep breathing techniques… check Google or Youtube.
            Gerson diet is likely not a solution for you problem, yet diet could be a part of your problem… again refer to the link provided, and then get deeper into the diet regimen as you see fit.

            Sometimes we can find health just by helping our body to help itself. MD’s don’t have solutions for chronic illnesses.

            https://www.ruthieharper.com/when-your-body-attacks/

            Good luck

          • Thank you, RG. I honestly have a lot of respect for MDs, having worked with them to provide patient care for 20 years. I worked in laboratory services which led me to be in the trenches with numerous practices around the country over these decades – and even in the field of dermatology where it’s easy to forgo optimal patient care for cash – rarely did I ever see a physician ever that wasn’t dedicated to medicine for the right reason. There really are rare kickbacks from pharma, money is not the driver behind prescribed care. But yes….there is a point such as mine where MDs just don’t know any more than what they have available, which can’t help. That is where I am. Thank you for this resource – I’ve addressed these areas but halfheartedly, usually fatigued by too many supplements or lack of grains in a diet, etc but I am circling back to be sure that I’ve given it a good honest try. My issue is that I have no inflammation showing in my blood and even HUGE doses of steroids do nothing for my symptoms, leading me to believe that reducing inflammation with diet will be about the same. Still, there is more to it as you know and thank you.

          • So, your answer to my question is, ‘no’.

          • I follow this type of breathing to alkalize my blood daily

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzCaZQqAs9I

          • good to know that you also fail to understand human physiology

          • RG,

            I follow this type of breathing to alkalize my blood daily

            I followed your link and looked at the video to see if your suggestion is really as daft as it sounds. It is.

            Normally the body maintains its pH (level of acidity / alkalinity) within very strict limits – it only goes outside these in severe illness or poisoning. Part of the mechanism involves maintaining a low level of carbon dioxide dissolved in the blood, which helps to buffer the system against fluctuations.

            The breathing shown in the video is what is known as hyperventilation, which is breathing more deeply and at a faster rate than required to eliminate excess carbon dioxide and take in oxygen. Since the haemoglobin in the blood binds oxygen very strongly, it is already 98 – 99% saturated by normal breathing, so hyperventilation doesn’t increase oxygenation. However, it will blow off the carbon dioxide that is normally in the blood. This has the effect of making the blood slightly more alkaline, which shifts the balance of calcium ions from an unbound state to a protein-bound state, therefore reducing the free calcium level in the blood. Calcium also needs to be within strict levels for nerves and muscles to function properly, and as the level falls you will notice the effect of these systems starting to struggle:

            As the sensory nerves start to fail you will notice tingling around the mouth and in the extremities. You may also experience chest pain.

            The muscles become abnormally excitable and twitch at the least stimulus. If you continue, they will enter a state of fixed contraction known as tetany – people hyperventilating from fear sometimes find that they are no longer able to move as a result, hence the term “petrified” (i.e. turned to stone).

            The central nervous system is affected which can result in dizziness and often a sense of panic. If you are epileptic it can trigger a fit (some people don’t know they are epileptic and have their first fit while hyperventilating).

            Carbon dioxide is also important as the main stimulus to breathing (not lack of oxygen, unless you have severe chronic lung disease). Hyperventilation therefore removes the drive to breathe, and if you stop consciously over-breathing you may well not breathe at all until you lose consciousness from lack of oxygen.

            For somebody who is fit and well this is unlikely to result in permanent harm, unless you fall over and hit yourself on something. For somebody with pre-existing medical problems (heart or kidney trouble, undiagnosed epilepsy, other metabolic problems…) it could be dangerous.

            There are all sorts of things that you can do to make yourself feel strange. This is one of them, but it really doesn’t have any health benefits, and I would discourage anybody reading this from following your advice.

          • @Dr JMK

            It would appear that RG is a disciple of Robert O. Young, the reprehensible and predatory quack whose halfwitted and long-disproven concepts of “alkilinity” have been seized upon by certain rather credulous members of society.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_O._Young

          • @ Dr. JMK Lenny & Alan

            Lenny, in truth I tried to read the book, however it was both above my interest level and my comprehension. I did not finish the book. To get that scientific about diet is not helpful to the average person.

            I agree that alkaline water, and to a lesser degree diet are poor means of attempting to alkalize the body, for the reasons mentioned. In fact, I would agree that these means of alkalizing blood could do more harm than good in the long term, especially for otherwise healthy people.
            I am not attempting to, nor want to change my blood PH for long, it’s a temporary daily change, and a method that works to achieve this goal.

            The average person does not breath correctly, nor breath enough. The links I provided for breathing can “do no harm”….. please keep this in mind when giving medical attention…. you know the drill.

            I will remind you doc, I am the healthy one here, you are not.

          • you are obscenely stupid, that’s all!

          • Severeal people are known to have died from following the dangerous fad invented by the Dutchman Wim Hof, who claims all kinds of unlikely health benefits from the extreme practices he promotes. Hyperventilation before diving and the cold-shock-response are the cause of many drowning accidents. Only few of the deaths this idiot is responsible for ever get publicised:

            https://bit.ly/3f5JolY
            https://bit.ly/2Z0A5xM
            The following two links are in Dutch, the native language of Wim Hof. Use Google translate or Chrome to read:
            https://bit.ly/3e5oPVc and https://bit.ly/3e6ld5f

          • @Bjorn

            Nice try Bjorn,

            The first two links you provided are the same story from different publishers. One of the two deaths mentioned was a man NOT using Wim Hof method of breathing. In fact he was meditating yoga while face down in the river. The one man that did die using Wim Hof breathing went against the recommendation to not use the technique in water.
            “The Wim Hof site also contains a warning, however: “Never practice it before or during diving, driving, swimming, taking a bath or any other environment/place where it might be dangerous to faint.” … as in driving a motor vehicle.

            One of the Dutch links you provided refers to three men dying in a pool…. again this is against the recommendation of the Wim Hof organization.
            It’s tantamount to patients being prescribed meds by the MD and not following the dose…. people die. In fact, people die when they do follow the dosing regimen…. hmmm. Patients die everyday on the operating table for routine procedures. EBM holds no high ground when it comes to patients dying.

            The other treatment mentioned in your links you provided refers to training oneself to endure cold. Wim Hof is not alone in this type of therapy. Many will testify of the benefits of a cold swim or shower. I don’t like cold water, however I do believe there could be a health benefit from adrenaline being raised. I will finish my shower many times with 20-25 seconds of cold water. No health benefit claims from personally about the cold water treatment, but many times I do find it invigorating.

            Wim Hofs methods should be learned slowly over time in a similar way that athletes need to train to push their bodies higher and further. Attempting to push the body beyond it’s physical limits can and does end bad sometimes.

          • Alan Henness on Monday 06 July 2020 at 18:50 posted a youTube titled:
            “Doctor Dissects the Wim Hof Method – Cold Hard Science Analysis”

            Got bored after 3 minutes – that guy needed to stop telling us what he is going to say and say it (also who cares who he is or how qualified he imagines he is).

          • @Old Bob on Monday 06 July 2020 at 20:24

            “Alan Henness on Monday 06 July 2020 at 18:50 posted a youTube titled:
            “Doctor Dissects the Wim Hof Method – Cold Hard Science Analysis”

            Got bored after 3 minutes – that guy needed to stop telling us what he is going to say and say it (also who cares who he is or how qualified he imagines he is).”

            I think you getting bored says a lot more about your attention span, intelligence, and comprehension of basic information than it does about the video. I can’t speak for you, however, I would be too embarrassed to post something so unspeakably stupid.

          • @Alan Henness

            Hey, if you dummbasses choose to continue popping pills rather than breathing, who am I to tell you otherwise.

            I already found what works and doesn’t work for me. I was just trying to help a person with no solutions from EBM…. and there are many.

          • Frank Collins on Monday 06 July 2020 at 23:14 said:
            “…I would be too embarrassed to post something so unspeakably stupid.”

            What do you care what other people think?

          • RG said:

            @Alan Henness

            Hey, if you dummbasses choose to continue popping pills rather than breathing, who am I to tell you otherwise.

            I already found what works and doesn’t work for me. I was just trying to help a person with no solutions from EBM…. and there are many.

            Awww… bless.

          • BTW

            If you don’t like the Wim Hof method of breathing. There are hundreds of others on the WWW teaching how to breath correctly. I actually combine a few different methods.
            For example, I won’t practice Wim Hof while I’m driving, but there are other methods of breathing that are safe during auto driving.

            bless you too Alan

          • RG said:

            There are hundreds of others on the WWW teaching how to breath correctly.

            Are there any that teach how to breathe incorrectly?

          • RG,

            There are hundreds of others on the WWW teaching how to breath correctly. I actually combine a few different methods.

            Are there any methods for teaching animals to breathe correctly? Or are humans the only species to have evolved a respiratory system that they don’t know how to use?

          • @Alan Henness

            “Are there any that teach how to breathe incorrectly?”

            Answer me this Alan,
            Are there any in the world that carry the title MD, that you don’t agree with ?

          • @Dr. JMK

            doc, that is a fair question

            However, we’re speaking here of improving health, not surviving.
            In this age, do people need to be how to exercise, eat properly, and drink enough water ? …. and yes breathe. I think these subjects are in discussion everyday round the world.

            Effects of stress, lack of exercise, elimination of toxic overload, and downright poor breathing habits abound. Even the posture of sitting in a chair for many hours per day is not conducive to proper breathing.

            Doc, con’t be a dummbass, you’re better than that.

          • RG said:

            @Alan Henness

            “Are there any that teach how to breathe incorrectly?”

            Answer me this Alan,
            Are there any in the world that carry the title MD, that you don’t agree with ?

            LOL!

            Now, can you answer the question I asked?

          • @Alan Henness

            When someone answers a question with a question, there is a reason.
            Evidently, you haven’t learned how to read in between the lines yet…. Alan.

            “Are there any that teach how to breath incorrectly ?” ….

            I suppose there are those Alan, but I wouldn’t know as I don’t make a habit of searching out to discover and expose therapies that don’t benefit… as some here are obsessed with. Why do you ask me, you seem to specialize in these matters.

          • RG said:

            @Alan Henness

            When someone answers a question with a question, there is a reason.
            Evidently, you haven’t learned how to read in between the lines yet…. Alan.

            LOL!

            “Are there any that teach how to breath incorrectly ?” ….

            I suppose there are those Alan, but I wouldn’t know as I don’t make a habit of searching out to discover and expose therapies that don’t benefit… as some here are obsessed with. Why do you ask me, you seem to specialize in these matters.

            Why did I ask? To expose your inability to think critically and your biases. Thanks for doing just that.

      • what is the harm in trying?

        The Gerson diet is not very physiological, and the coffee enemas introduce a very large amount of caffeine into the body which (among other things) has the effect of upset the balance between sodium and potassium in the body, exacerbated by the high levels of potassium in the fruit and vegetable juices that are part of the diet.

        When I was a trainee oncologist, my boss had agreed to see any cancer patients that were being treated at the local Gerson centre, I think just to ensure that they were seeing a normal doctor from time to time. He admitted some of them and I ended up looking after the in-patients on his behalf. What struck me was that:
        They were all very ill, over and above what might be expected from their cancer
        They were losing weight very quickly
        They had very abnormal serum electrolyte levels
        Most of them died within a few weeks of starting the Gerson treatment

        They also found the treatment very difficult to stick to – the diet is unpleasant and demanding, and nobody managed the requisite five coffee enemas daily. I also got the impression that they didn’t all want to continue, but they didn’t want to let their partners / families down.

        In addition to that it was quite expensive, as the Gerson Foundation insisted that the vegetable juices were from specially grown vegetables that only they could supply, extracted using a hydraulic press, which the patient was also expected to buy from them.

        My overall impression in this group of patients is that the Gerson treatment hastened their end and made them miserable for the last weeks of their lives.

        Clearly with an autoimmune condition rather than malignancy you are in a different position. However, there is no reason at all to suppose that Gerson therapy will help you. Anecdotal evidence in this situation can be quite misleading as most people with authoimmune problems go through good periods and bad periods, and are more likely to seek treatment at a time when their condition is worse than usual. Testimonials are even worse – nobody who does badly is ever going to leave a testimonial, and they are often fabricated in any case. So the Gerson Foundation is free to choose its testimonials and anecdotes.

        The Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins have international reputations, at least for medical research, though I don’t know what sort of care you get from them in practice. Health care in the US is rather different from the rest of the world (I live in the UK). I get the impression that it is very fragmented, and somehow it manages to achieve less with more resources and at vastly more cost than in other countries. I can well believe that you might somehow be missing out on all the support services that are essential in managing and coping with a chronic illness of this type.

        I am not a rheumatologist and my knowledge of Sjorgren’s etc. is decades out of date. The immune system is probably the most complex system in the body (arguably more complex than the brain), but medical researchers are beginning to unravel its pathways and control systems. This has already had a big impact on cancer treatment (I wouldn’t be alive today otherwise) and I would expect that understanding how it can go wrong will lead to new and much more effective strategies in autoimmune disease. Certainly the drugs that have been traditionally used are rather blunt instruments – either steroids or immunosuppressives – and the targeted approach that is proving so useful in cancer treatment must surely be the way to go for autoimmune disease as well.

        • Thank you so much for your thoughtful and kind reply. You are right, there is no reason to believe the Gerson therapy may work for my autoimmune, short of a Hail Mary and those few anecdotal cases. The same type cases that led me to try things like hookworm therapy, yielding nothing of course.

          The world of biologics has seemed to help immensely for certain autoimmune ; RA and psoriasis to name a few. Even lupus seems more treatable. Sjögrens however and my possible mixed connective tissue disease – nothing helps and nothing remotely exciting is even in phase 1 clinical trials. Scary when you have a disease that is destroying your glands in real time. In the world of autoimmune, all there is is bloodwork, clinical symptoms, often seronegative situations and doctors shrugging and walking out the door. They admit in all the research and papers I can find that, as of now, there simply is no treatment for my particular ailment (severe glandular assault). So I find myself grasping at all fringe therapies – functional medicine, stem cell therapy (HSCT), even those damn hookworms. I have worked in medicine (pathology and dermatology l) for over 20 years with access to physicians with access to the best physicians. I’m confident I’m not missing a treatment opportunity. It’s a scary place to be, 41, two little kids, disabled and progressive. Agree though from reading today here and elsewhere, Gersen is not the answer. Wishing doesn’t make wishes come true!
          Thank you again for your thoughtful post.

        • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Sunday 05 July 2020 at 01:26 said:

          “…They were all very ill… Most of them died within a few weeks of starting the Gerson treatment…”

          After which he said,
          “…Anecdotal evidence in this situation can be quite misleading…”

          And then he said,
          “…So the Gerson Foundation is free to choose its testimonials and anecdotes…”

  • 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.

    • Ok so how Many people have died from Chemo Compared to the Gerson Company? Also You Oncologist get kickbacks from Big Pharma and you know this. But ofcourse you won’t admit to it. Your are about the Money!!!!!. Becsuse if you Cured patients You would be ouT of BUSINESS!!!!

  • 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.

  • 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!

    • can you name a few that you find reliable instead of hurling insults, please?

      • The China Study by Campbell

        • I think for balance it is worth reading this commentary on The China Study:
          http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

          It highlights many shortcomings of how the study was conducted, and also how Campbell seems to have cherry-picked the correlations found in the study which support his conclusions (many of them were not very strong and may have been entirely due to chance).

          However vast in scope it was an observational study of a cross-section of a population at a specific time. It used historical mortality data as a surrogate for the expected fate of the individuals assessed, who were assumed to have the same risk as their forebears. The nutritional composition of the diet was not directly measured but based on standard tables which did not take account of geographical and effects such as soil quality.

          There is no question that environmental factors, including lifestyle factors such as diet, have an enormous influence on health and cancer risk specifically. The China Study appears to be addressing this question, but I am not convinced that it does it very well. Unfortunately it is very difficult to tease out specific factors which may be exerting their effect over the entire lifetime of the individual, or may only be important at certain times, such as childhood, adolescence or even during gestation. Indeed, we know that epigenetic mechanisms enable environmental conditions (such as famine) to affect health several generations down the line.

          In any case there is no reason to suppose that factors that might influence the risk of cancer in the first place should have a similar effect once the cancer is established. In other words if eating dairy produce increases cancer risk, then this does not imply that avoiding dairy produce would be an effective treatment for cancer.

          There is also the question of how applicable findings in a rural Chinese population are to the typical Western caucasian. To take the example of dairy again, many Chinese (along with most of the population of the world) are lactose-intolerant and cannot drink milk. However, those of us in the West who are descended from the original domesticators of cattle have evolved to tolerate lactose and indeed milk has been an important component of our diet for several thousand years.

          I am certainly not against a vegan diet, and in any case livestock are a significant contributor to global warming. However, I don’t think there is any convincing evidence that it (or any other diet) can cure cancer.

          • I had a quick look at that link, and it suffers from the same “problem” that the subject of this thread does: you end up reading the thing being criticised (because they are attacks).

            For “balance”, my definition would be something created that came to the opposite conclusion of The China Study, and this thing would, for instance, never mention Campbell’s name – it would use The China Study data, but come to the reverse conclusion – and if likewise, it did it for the layperson – that, I would buy.

            The subject here, i.e. the opening above, is a quote about coffee enemas. As I was skimming through it, it grabbed my attention and I thought the author (of this website) was in agreement with coffee enemas – it was only by the “end of quote” that I realised he was not, and the final five bullet points were his rebuttal (which I disagree with).

            Now this is the interesting thing: the author expected his audience to do the reverse by default. It was self-evident to him that coffee enemas are dangerous hence the quote is self-evidently dangerous and also that his bullet points are self-evidently true – in which case, why publish in the first place?

            In contrast I read every word of your post. It is better than either this website or the link you posted because it is interesting e.g. I too agree that diet cannot cure cancer, it just helps the immune system to keep it under control so that you don’t know you have it, and live well – after all the final degenerative disease is… old age.

          • Bob,

            When a scientist publishes their findings, all the other scientists working in the same field will try hard to find all the problems in it, and this nit-picking is part of the scientific process. It is expected and even invited and is not regarded as an attack, but a way of getting closer to the truth. Usually the strongest critics are the authors themselves, because they know that if they miss something, somebody else is going to pick it up. Science is not like party politics, with each side trying to convince voters that they are right. Scientists know that if they are proved wrong then progress is being made. I don’t think Campbell seems to be engaging in this process at all.

            It is dangerous in science to assume that something is self-evident. Different things are evident to different people (sometimes a cause of dispute between me and my wife), and this is dependent on what they already believe or know. I once met a very intelligent and well-read lady in India (as part of her preparation for a visit to England she read the Bible from cover to cover) to whom it was self-evident that turning on a light switch somehow invoked a kind of demon or spirit to illuminate the room.

            Coffee enemas are indeed dangerous. Apart from the risk of perforation they are a way of getting much more caffeine into the system than is possible from drinking coffee, and this does have profound pharmacological effects. But without a knowledge of the pharmacology of methylxanthines this isn’t necessarily evident at all.

            Coming back to diet and the immune system (which rivals the brain for the most complex system in the body) I don’t think there is much data supporting specific diets to help the immune system fight cancer. In any case the more we look into it the more it seems that individual tumours (rather than tumour types) interact with the immune system in different ways. This is an exciting area of cancer research and has already given us new drugs with many more following behind.

            Certainly if you have an unhealthy diet you are starting at a disadvantage, and if you don’t look after yourself properly than no treatment will be able to give you its full benefit.

          • (in reply to Julian Money-Kyrle) above:

            Yes, ideally, science should be objective, but, as the scientist said “Science advances one funeral at a time.” e.g. we all agree that quantum mechanics is true, now?

            It was “self-evident” to the Romans that bad-air caused malaria because after draining the swamps… no more malaria! But now we know that they were “wrong” – but draining the swamps still works. In other words, for me, after reading Max Gerson’s Fifty Cases, it is self-evident that he is doing something right.

            This something-right still works OK today e.g. Jesse Yu on youTube
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WyEsN9DzSo&list=PLcTAc4l3tN_gNh6s7w1q0J8wURZcZt6u3

            This is the modern version of Max Gerson’s book i.e. a thing that is self-evident.

            (In reply to Allan Henness) above
            Sorry about that, but the 28% was a page I found before that I could not find again, and the circuitous route was my next best effort – it was hard to find, but maybe that is just me.

  • 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.

        • @DrJ: you sir are a wonderful, perspicacious and extremely well-reasoned contributor to this blog and I’m sure my “thank you for your input” is echoed by most every reader!

      • Evidently you have blocked my most recent replies – it’s your website, why would you do otherwise 🙂

        But, just between you and me, why not skim through Jesse Yu’s youTube video, just to see what you are up against! – Know your enemy and all that – can your really go against Albert Schweitzer, or Prince Charles, or even Jesse Yu… It’s not the big people who are your enemy, it’s the little people… but NB that you are not their enemy.

    • David, Kalos orisate!

      I was diagnosed at the next state, hence inoperable, with metastasised prostate cancer 11 months ago therefore, officially, I am doomed with a 28% chance of survival but, after sticking to the Budwig diet, my PSA is coming down, but more significantly, all my bone pain has gone, and I feel wonderful, e.g. if I do a whole day’s gardening, the next morning I no longer feel the usual lactic-acid-effect, that takes half an hour of work to “work off” i.e. I seem to have the same energy I had when I was 18 years old.

      Have you read, The China Study? By Campbell – everyone should read that first (especially oncologists).

      That, I believe, is why the Budwig diet works – since reading The China Study, I have also further limited the small amount of animal-protein there, as well.

      • Bob,

        I have just looked up the Budwig diet. The ideas behind it seem to be based on a very simplistic, and completely wrong idea of how the body works and the pathogenesis of cancer. The diet itself seems reasonably OK at a brief glance but I can’t see any reason why it should work and I don’t suppose there is any evidence (other than anecdotal) in favour of it.

        As a (recently retired) prostate oncologist I have no idea what you mean by a 28% chance of survival. Survival figures come from clinical trials and are useful in comparing one treatment against another, but have little bearing on the fate of individuals. In any case if you have a long enough follow-up period all of us have a 0% chance of survival.

        Bone pain does come and go, and I don’t know whether you have a few isolated metastases or extensive involvement of the skeleton, nor what grade of tumour you have (which strongly influences how it is likely to behave). Nevertheless your symptomatic improvement is consistent with something reducing your testosterone level, and this could be related to something that you are eating.

        Survival from metastatic prostate cancer can be many years. Nevertheless there is robust data showing that chemotherapy given relatively early in the course of treatment has a substantial effect on survival and wellbeing (except of course during the few months of the chemotherapy). The STAMPEDE trial found that the group treated with docetaxol lived 22 months longer on average than the group receiving standard treatment (https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)01037-5.pdf). The benefit was much less in other trials looking at chemotherapy after other treatments had failed (about a 3-month improvement) so it seems to make quite a big difference how soon the chemotherapy is started.

        Last month further data was released from the same trial (which has many arms looking at different treatments) showing that, even in patients with metastatic disease, the addition of relatively low-dose radiotherapy to the prostate delayed progression of the metastases, and in patients with relatively limited metastases it also improved survival (https://www.esmo.org/Press-Office/Press-Releases/STAMPEDE-prostate-cancer-radiotherapy-Parker)

        Whatever claims might be made for the Budwig diet, I doubt if their proponents can supply the same robust evidence. However, perhaps they are promising you a cure. Your oncologist can’t do that, but he can substantially improve your outlook, and he can supply evidence to back that up.

        I should add that a lot of people are understandably frightened of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and ultimately it is a personal choice, but you should talk to your oncology team about exactly what treatment involves and what the side-effects will be before making a final decision. Even with side-effects your treatment is unlikely to be as bad as uncontrolled cancer. Having had both radiotherapy and chemotherapy myself (for another type of incurable cancer), I can tell you that they aren’t that bad. I am also aware of the loss of control that comes with a cancer treatment, and how disruptive it is having to plan your life around hospital appointments (believe me it is a pain in the a***), but at least I am alive and well enough to live a normal life in between. That is much better than the false sense of control you get by relying on diet alone.

        • Thank you for this generous reply.

          The statistic comes from “cancerresearchuk” here:
          https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/survival#heading-Three

          (see the graph at stage IV).

          I don’t believe you need to criticise Gerson at all because it is simply impossible for a lone person to do it. You would have to pay someone to help out, at least for the first months, it is physically impossible to wash/juice/cleanup for thirteen hours a day *and* interleave the three intermediate coffee enemas (the first and last are possible, outside the juicing).

          So it is “safe” because it is impossible, to do it alone.

          The reason I am doing Budwig is not just because of the pain I had, but to reduce the chances of the other diseases of diet too e.g. dementia, arthritis, diabetes II etc, as described in The China Study by Campbell.

          As far as I can tell, Gerson and Budwig simply discovered what The China Study proved, but much earlier, no more or less.

          I decided not to take the Zoladex or the Bicalutamide because of the side effects. I just want quality of life, not quantity – but the hospital said that I might last as little as a year or maybe as long as several years, it was very depressing – especially as the whole process was drawn out into two months (of tests, MRI, bone scan, CT scan, biopsy etc) – you are just a cabbage, waiting for things to happen to you.

          The alternative, I discovered, is very positive. All I had to do (from Bill Henderson’s book) is to stop eating sugar (that I love), cakes, etc, dairy, etc (i.e. animal protein, as it turned out) and take the supplements (i.e. Linus Paulin’s vitamin C + L-Proline + L-Lysine) and the other things including Budwig, as outlined in Henderson – that put me onto Buwig, and that, finally put me onto The China Study – that is the main book, all the evidence is in there.

          Gerson just discovered these things earlier (as did Hippocrates – as Campbell points out in the last pages of The China Study).

          • Bob,

            I have followed your link to the Cancer Research UK Web site, and I still can’t see where your 28% chance came from. Are you referring to your chances of surviving to five years? Or your chance of dying of something else, other than prostate cancer? Much of this data is age-standardised, which is a statistical trick allowing you to compare data e.g. between countries with a different age structure (whatever the stage of prostate cancer, a 90-year-old has a lower chance of surviving five years than a 50-year-old). It is primarily useful to professionals and particularly to people who are planning various aspects of health-care systems. It is not intended for giving a prognosis to individuals and it can by quite misleading to try to use it that way. Similarly, survival data from clinical trials are for comparing treatments, not predicting what will happen to an individual. There are many ways of presenting data for different purposes, and as your link pointed to the section of the site aimed at health care professionals, it is assumed that the reader will have some training in statistics (a prerequisite for practising oncology).

            I should also add that these figures were published in 2014, which actually makes them out-of-date now. They came from patients who had died by the time their survival data was collected, so they were treated before the gold standard was to give chemotherapy at diagnosis, let alone irradiating the prostate in metastatic disease, which will become the new gold standard, following last month’s revelations at the ESMO meeting. They probably came from patients treated before we had enzalutamide and abiraterone, intravenous radium-223 or even widespread use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

            I agree with you that the Gerson diet is impossible. It also makes you feel awful, due to the disruption of electrolytes that it causes, and all but one of the people I have seen who tried it were dead within three weeks. Gerson had some mad idea that cancer was caused by an imbalance of sodium and potassium, and the idea was to correct it (certainly coffee enemas will put your potassium up and your sodium down). However, at the time he was formulating his theories I don’t think the techniques even existed to measure intracellular electrolyte levels, and the physiological importance of electrolyte gradients, electrical potentials across cell membranes, ion channels etc. was still in the future.

            Linus Pauling’s advocacy of vitamin C as an anticancer agent has been thoroughly debunked and is an example of the sad fact that expertise in one area doesn’t necessarily carry over to others, and many renowned experts have ended up with egg on their face when they have tried to make pronouncements outside their own field. At least Einstein had the wit to know that he would make a hopeless President of Israel when he was offered the job. Another example is Jane Plant, who approached nutrition and cancer from the perspective of a geologist, with no training or expertise in biomedical sciences.

            Hippocrates was a wise man, but he did not have the knowledge that we have now. His model of disease, arising from imbalance between the four body fluids or humours (blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile), was the basis of mainstream medical practice up until the mid-19th century, and led to treatments such as purging and blood-letting aimed at restoring the balance. I have recently been reading the letters that my great-great-great-grandparents wrote to each other when they were apart (e.g. when one of them was away from home chasing a cure for some disease or other) and their physicians put them through some horrors. She was one of twelve siblings who lived to a (reasonably) ripe old age, but she had another six brothers and sisters who died before the age of 18.

            A modern understanding of disease has put in place public health measures such as access to clean water and vaccination, which means that it is no longer common to have eighteen children in the expectation that a third of them will not reach adulthood. While we can still learn from Hippocrates, really he has had his time.

            And it does seem that Campbell’s conclusions from the China Study are actually not justified by the data.

            I am glad you are finding life more positive now, but please don’t rely on false promises. If you are afraid of the effects of Zoladex, you can try it for a few months using the monthly version (3.6mg injection) and stop it if you don’t like it. The three-monthly version (10.8mg) actually lasts well over a year in many people so stay clear of that until you are sure you are happy with it. And do consider the substantial benefits that chemotherapy at this stage can bring.

            Remember that improved survival from cancer treatment comes as a result of reducing the amount of cancer in your body, so it is the symptom-free, useful part of your life that is extended, not the part at the end when the cancer is widespread enough to make you ill.

          • (Where the 28% comes from)
            From that link, you click on the lower option
            “Prostate cancer by stage at diagnoses”
            and then view the second graph down.

          • Bob,

            Thank-you for your clarification regarding the CRUK prostate survival data. Actually if I chase the graphs as you suggest the figure for stage IV is 30.4% – maybe the site has been updated since you last looked. But I should point out:
            1. These figures are relative survival, rather than absolute survival, so in order to calculate your chance of dying from prostate cancer from them you need to know your chance of dying from other causes.
            2. The data are from 2002-2006, and I would expect the survival to be much higher now, given the progress in prostate cancer treatment since then.
            3. The figures include all ages from 15-99, so are not directly applicable to a specific age group.
            4. The data come from East Anglia, which may not be representative of the UK as a whole as this part of the country has a strange demographic.

            I should add that relative survival can be very misleading indeed. Newspapers frequently report stories such as “sausages can double your risk of…”, but this might mean that the risk is increased from 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000, in which case you may feel that eating sausages is still worth it.

            This is the problem with statistics of any kind – you need to know how the figures are arrived at before you can interpret them.

        • Ok Dr Julian if had Cancer WHAT ROUTE WOULD YOU TAKE. ?????? OR YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS????

          • Liz, if you paid even the faintest bit of attention to these blogs rather than posting unhinged and ill-informed streams of paranoid nonsense you would realise that Dr Money-Kyrle is a retired oncologist who is currently under treatment for multiple myeloma. He has cancer. He is being treated with chemotheraputics. He recognises Gerson Therapy for the quacktastic nonsense it is. You may wish to look up “Dunning-Kruger Effect” before posting further.

          • Ok so never answered my Question what Treatments would he be doing if had Cancer?????? Your just saying he is getting Treatment but which one??????. You like to manipulate the answer by Not answering it. . Also Are you a CANCER PATIENT?? ABD WHAT TREATMENTS WOULD YOU DO?????. SIMPLE QUESTIONS

          • “Ok so never answered my Question”
            You have given me about 13 hours or so to answer the question, which you posted while I was asleep, and this is the first time I have seen it. I think it is a bit premature to complain that I have never answered it.

            I have always taken the view that I would want the same treatment for my family and myself as I give to my patients. Anything else would imply that I was not treating my own patients properly.

            The National Health Service in the UK, in which I have worked for my whole career, offers excellent cancer care.

            When I was first diagnosed with cancer I was very happy to be treated in the hospital where I worked, and indeed I cannot fault the care I received there, especially when I was unluckly enough to require a week in intensive care. I am now being treated at a different centre as I require specialist treatment that my own unit does not offer.

            To be a bit more specific, I have been treated with radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy and various kinds of immunotherapy. On the basis of my experience as an oncologist, I don’t think I would still be alive without this treatment. I have never expected that I would be cured, but I am pleased that over two years on from diagnosis I am reasonably well and still able to have a good quality of life, though I no longer have the energy to work.

            I have various family members who have had cancer, though I will not go into a lot of detail due to respect for their privacy. They have all received conventional therapy, too (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy).

          • And, Liz, if that stream of yammering was aimed at me, six years ago my wife was diagnosed with stage 2, borderline 3, triple positive breast cancer. She had a lumpectomy with (negative) sentinel node biopsy. She was treated with adjunctive chemotherapy. IV Fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide and docetaxel with subcutaneous Herceptin. She received localised radiotherapy over two weeks. Cure rate with surgery alone would be around 80%, increasing to 95% with the adjuncts.

            She was discharged from care last year and remains fit and well. She takes tamoxifen daily and will continue to do so for another five years.

            At no time did we even remotely contemplate following anything other than the advice of the surgeons and oncologists.

            Because we’re both healthcare professionals and we’re not stupid.

          • Liz

            The AMA approved methods CAN help keep you alive longer. After all, how else can they create a paying customer except to keep you breathing. You don’t need a doctor to make you immune system stronger. There are multiple things you can do yourself to improve your immune system. You help you immune system to help itself (the body), as the body can do infinitly more to help itself than anyone or any doctor.

            The truth is that physician error, medication error and adverse events from drugs and surgery kill over 225,000 people every year in the US . That makes our health care system the third leading cause of death in the US., behing only cancer and heart disease.

            Cause of Death —————————— Deaths

            Diseases of the Heart 710,760
            Cancer (Malignant Neoplasma) 553,091
            Medical Care 225,400
            Stroke (Cerebrovascular Diseases) 167,661
            Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease 122,009
            Diabetes Melitus 69,301
            Influenza and Pneumonia 65,313
            Alzheimer’s Disease 49,558

            ———————————————————————–
            Deaths by Health Care Deaths

            Medication Errors 7,400
            Unnecessory Surgery 12,000
            Other Preventable Errors in Hospitals 20,000
            Hospital Borne Infections 80,000
            Adverse Drug Effects 106,000

            Don’t drink the kool-Aid

          • RG:
            “The AMA approved methods CAN help keep you alive longer. After all, how else can they create a paying customer”
            I am not in the USA, which is unique in the world in having such a highly dysfunctional healthcare system. In my country, as in much of the world, payment for healthcare is through taxation.

          • yes Dr. J

            You can call it dysfunctional, and it might be.
            That is largely because patients are paying good money to doctors and hospitals and not receiving much for their money. In fact, many are getting more sick…. more disease.

            If you think your system of healthcare in England is superior, congratulations. I know of nobody going to England to have proceedures done, or to see doctors more wise. The money flow is not that much different on the other side of the pond. It still flows from the paitient to the doctor or Pharma, it just gets paid in the end via the governemnt, as you stated (taxation). The costs are higher here, but is the care vastly different ? I’ve conversed about healthcare with people from England, I’m not so sure it’s better.

          • The basic principle of the NHS is that it is free at the point of delivery to anybody living in the UK.

            And actually, yes, a lot of people come to the UK for medical treatment, though hopefully most of them are paying privately rather than at our taxpayers’ expense.

          • Dr. J

            There is no free lunch, including healthcare, unless you live in UAE. Even Cuba levies 50% income taxes to the 50% of the population that does not work for the government, it all goes in the same general pot, same as it does here in the USA. They tell us that our Social Security Taxes are kept in a separate fund….. lol, that’s a crock.
            Hey, people come to the USA for treatment, as they also leave. All around the world patients go seeking treatment in other countries….I was talking about a net net. I do suppose in countries where healthcare is free (already paid through taxation), I could imagine people have less motivation to seek care elsewhere.

          • RG
            Health costs in the USA are acknowledged to be the highest in the world, to the point where travel health insurance sold elsewhere often covers all countries except America.

            Of course the NHS is funded by taxation, but it keeps a close eye on costs and does manage to achieve a lot given that the funding is less than in many first-world countries.

            We don’t have the situation where if you lose your job then your family loses their health care. We don’t have essential drugs (such as insulin for type I diabetes) not covered by insurance and so expensive that people struggle to pay for them.

            There are a lot of other things that we don’t have, such as direct advertising of drugs to the public.

            We do have problems such as waiting lists for non-urgent surgery, and it is certainly not a perfect system, but at least it is able to provide care for everybody.

          • Dr J

            I’m not convinced healthcare for all is a given birthright, and many on this side of the pond aren’t sure either. I’d be much more inclined to let a free market system rule the day. A true free market system has been absent here for many decades, and for this reason I believe our system is dysfunctional as you say. I can’t well defend an industry I beleive is corrupt and yes… to a large extent failing. Why the failures ? Largely because paitents don’t get well, not because of prices or unavailability. Between the Veterans Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA (Obamacare), we have a freekish mixture of goverenment healthcare already. To add, we have the previous stated also mixed with a “for profit system” of healthcare based on medical insureance. A lame insureance system that nobody knows actyally what they actually pay for services rendered….. herin lies a big problem. Why can’t we just go to the doctor and pay what the free market system will allow ? Noooo, that would make too much sense. Get rid of governments, and for profit Insurance alike in my view. So to defent our healthcare industry…. I can not. To defend free markets, I will everytime because nothing has proven to more efficient than truely free markets.

          • “I’m not convinced healthcare for all is a given birthright, and many on this side of the pond aren’t sure either.”
            RG

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
            Thomas Jefferson

          • Dr J

            That’s a great quote you reference, thanks to Mr. Jefferson. That said, I seriously doubt it refers to the USA Healthcare standards.
            If you believe so you are mistaken. If that were so, we are 243 years deficient in compliance, and many many a politiican has overlooked the Declaration.

          • @RG

            “…we are 243 years deficient in compliance, and many many a politiican has overlooked the Declaration.”

            That’s right. The USA was the next to last country to abandon apartheid as part of its political system. Your comments on health care reveal that the sole criterion on which you judge the worth of people is the quantity of greenback dollars they possess. Shame on you.

          • Dear Frankie

            G’day Mate !! … a shot across the bow with that apartheid comment. If we must regress hundreds of years earlier, the UK and Europe were complicit in the BEGINNING of apartheid. Well, let’s just call it what it was, slave trade. The US slave trade came along later. Overall the years it lasted were similar on both sides of the pond. Im 65 years old, I was not involved in that, please leave me out in your accusation, neither do I accuse you.

            Now, back to the subject. I’m not putting down the healthcare system in the UK, if it works… by all means don’t fix it. I’ve admitted our US system is not working so well, many reason and explanations can be offered… I’ll pass on that for now. My best argument is this: there are free market systems that are working well in the world, without single payer systems, without relying on taxes, and without Healthcare Insurance Corporations that are working quite well, both Singapore and Hong Kong. They are wonderful models for the world (in my view). What I like about these systems of healthcare is that the consumer has choices with regard to what care and from who. Few controls over how money is spent, but does force individual to have a health savings account. In a big way, what I love about Singapore and Hong Kong is that they put some incentive on the consumer to be proactive in living healthy. In other words, if you want to make bad choices by smoking, drinking, eating bad, not excercing etc….. you will pay in more than one way. They are achieving great success at a fraction of the cost. The US healthcare system only needed tweeking before Barack Obama screwed things up with the ACA. All that was need was a mandate to purchase Catastrophic Care coverage… NOT COMPLETE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL. Now they F’d up the system worse than it was. We still have the failures of the previous system, with the addition of the ACA still fumbling and failing. Truthfully, the ACA was designed to fail, and that it did. It was designed as a failure because it was to be a step in the direction to a single payer system…. we may still get there eventually. The US government is cabable of doing nothing efficiently, this is a well known fact. I for one do not want a disfunctional govenment involved in my personal health, as many others feel the same way.

          • Frank Odds, or any of you in the UK

            I don’t know if this is true or not, perhaps you can verify it for me.

            Thousands in Britain left to go blind due to eye surgery rationing: Report

            https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/thousands-in-britain-left-to-go-blind-due-to-eye-surgery-rationing-report?fbclid=IwAR1m2WRVBW46aB_suHjProIHOsLxvqj_MQGUSU8WrccE24W93TlNDxAiBV4

          • @RG

            The report is correct (though spun in the most negative manner possible). Please don’t imagine for one minute that I think the NHS is perfect or fully defensible in its details! I just find the system in the USA reprehensible because it is entirely based on a person’s ability to pay (directly or indirectly via insurance). Like Julian Money-Kyrle said about the NHS: “We do have problems such as waiting lists for non-urgent surgery, and it is certainly not a perfect system, but at least it is able to provide care for everybody.”

            So cataract surgery obviously comes under the heading of “non-urgent” and, like a handful of other procedures, it therefore gets rationed. Different local administrations ration fewer or more procedures so we have a UK-wide expression: “postcode lottery” (you’d call it a zip code lottery) which means that depending on precisely where you live, a procedure you’d like to undergo may or may not be available.

            The question of which treatments to ration and which not has been with the NHS since it was first founded. No healthcare system ever enjoys a bottomless pit of financial resource. That’s one reason why I find it so annoying that the NHS devotes any of its funds to outdated, irrational, ineffective forms of treatment like those that are grouped under the umbrella terms ‘complementary’ and ‘alternative’.

            You can find a fairly comprehensive list of NHS procedures rationed in England on a ‘postcode’ basis in this article. (Accuracy warning: it’s a list from the Daily Mail.)

          • Thanks Frank

            That’s an honest reply, I appreciate your thoughts.

  • I have no idea why you didn’t just link to the data rather than your obscure, circuitous route.

    Anyway, cherry-picking only the stage 4 cases, the five-year survival rate is 30.4%, not 28%, and overall, the rate is 87.4%:

    Prostate Cancer (C61): 2002-2006
    Five-Year Relative Survival (%) by Stage, Adults Aged 15-99, Former Anglia Cancer Network
    Stage Men
    Stage I 112.0
    Stage II 99.4
    Stage III 93.3
    Stage IV 30.4
    All Stages 87.4
    Stage Not Known 65.6

    I’ve not particularly been following this thread, but perhaps you can provide the same data for gerson therapy so we can make a proper comparison…

    • Actually what most people would understand by the five-year survival (technically the absolute survival) is not 30.4%. This figure is for the five-year relative survival, which is the survival after diagnosis of prostate cancer divided by the survival in the same population of patients not diagnosed with prostate cancer.

      I have already discussed the shortcomings of these data elsewhere in this thread. They are clearly well out-of-date by now, though I don’t know how much they are influenced by a sub-population in the fens located within the Anglia area (in the East of England) who are rural, rather in-bred, and who very seldom avail themselves of medical care.

  • Let Max Gerson’s own words convince you here:
    https://tratamenteanticancer.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/max-gerson-a-cancer-therapy-results-of-fifty-cases.pdf

    For a top-level-overview of everything in a ten minute read (including the why of the coffee enemas), see the Appendix II from page 204 to 212 and the Q & A at the end.

    This information, I have not seen, so nicely compact, elsewhere e.g.

    “Cancer patients are not able for a long time to digest fats to the end products. When some intermediate substances are left in the body, they work as carcinogenic substances. Therefore we had to cut out fats, oils, and goods containing them for a long Time.”

    Which explains where e.g. Budwig (working completely independently) discovered the same thing empirically except for one special case: Flaxseed oil.

    Gerson, after publication, discovered Budwig and, because he had not tried flaxseed oil, tried it, and it worked, hence after his book was published, he advocated 2 tbsp of flaxseed oil per day too, to the Gerson Therapy in 1959, which is still used today.

    And there is other nicely compact info e.g. fasting is not allowed, nor most vitamins/minerals (except for potassium, iodine, vitamin C, B3 etc) and the story about the failure of the hormones where they all worked “at first” and then, because they depleted the liver’s inadequate reserves, backfired.

    • you might have forgotten to mention: this was published 60 years ago, and since then oncology has moved on and made quite a bit of progress.

      • That’s right, his book was published 60 years ago, after 30 years of clinical results (published in the book, complete with x-rays etc) so that makes it 90 years old – and as you can see from Appendix II, the original Hippocrates’s soup (which is still used today) is 2,500 years old, as is “Let food be thy medicine and medicine thy food” – which is still true today, as is “first do no harm”.

        The coffee enemas cannot be taken in isolation, just as food cannot be isolated from the land – our gut and the land are a system. Disrupt that billion year old system at one’s peril (e.g. by siphoning off sewage into the sea).

        • it is, in other words, an unproven treatment; and we now know (also from ‘clinical results’) that it reduces patients’ quality of life and often shortens their lives

          • Ah, you have not read the easy-read above i.e. pages 204 to 212, about the cures shown to the audience e.g. that of Mr Eyerly.

            Since you refuse to read my link, I copy and paste one of the fifty cases at random (page 195 to 196) for other readers to decide accordingly what the word, “unproven” means to you.

            CASE No. 47
            Mrs. V. B., age—36, married, two children. Family, negative.
            Clinical Diagnosis; Cervix carcinoma, inoperable case. Biopsy and Operation Report: Report of specialist: “She had not been in my office in over a year until February 3, 1947, at which time she gave a history of irregular menstruation with some bloody stain each day which had persisted for several months. “On examination, I found the cervix covered with a growth which on biopsy proved to be squamous epithelial carcinoma. It was an inoperative case, so I turned her over to our leading radiologists,”

            Previous History: At the first delivery. seventeen vears ago. she had a bad hemorrhage. Menstruation was not regular; she hemorrhaged often twice a month, each time lasting seven to nine days. Finally, a fibroid tumor was discovered. She was operated on in 1947, and the uterus was fixed in a normal position. Then she had another pregnancy, with normal delivery and no abnormal hemorrhage. February, .1946 patient observed slight discharge from the vagina which became darker and more bloody. Examination by gynecologist revealed the findings mentioned above. Biopsy taken; See above. February and April, 1947, patient had radium and X-ray treatments, which could not be continued.

            Discharge discontinued for a while, but the last six weeks the discharge returned, containing blood and more pus. Artificial sterilization performed at that time. Condition at time first seen, September 3, 1947: Gynecological examination revealed a large ulcerated cervix mass covered with blood and pus, easily bleeding on touch. Therefore, no further examination was called for. At the same time, patient had some hyperinsulinism which was corrected with the regular treatment in five weeks. Patient felt free of discharge and free of pain, July, 1949. She started to get cramps in the chest and upper abdomen with a burning sensation. She kept on eating, but “nothing did me good.” Her nervous excitement and depression became worse. She couldn’t sleep, was tearing, menstruation had not returned since the deep X-ray treatments.

            [Gerson Therapy applied] Hot flashes appeared with bad palpitation. Larger potassium doses helped again without additional sex hormones, as I observed on several patients that additional sex hormones reactivated the cancer condition. I was and am very hesitant to give the cancer patients the same or contrary sex hormones a year or longer before they are entirely free of symptoms and general disturbances.

            Report of the Gynecological Examination, September 16, 1949: Examination of Mrs. B- reveals no evidence of any pelvic or abdominal palpable recurrence. The vaginal wall is completely fibrosed. There is no area of erosion whatsoever. The entire pelvic findings are similarly negative. There is slight sensitivity in the right adnexal area but there are areas of thickening, nor pelvic mass. Nothing definite was felt in the upper abdomen. “I therefore would consider this patient at present free from any recurrence in the pelvis and in the abdomen.”

            In the following years, patient felt good and remained free of any recurrence or pathological disturbance. On June 23, 1954, she wrote the following: “I am delighted to tell you I am feeling wonderful. I would say my physical condition is probably better than it has been since the birth of my first child twenty-four years ago. I had a complete physical a few months ago and the only trouble anywhere was a spastic condition in my stomach; however, that is all right now. No, I have not had any recurrence of my former condition.”

            Last Report, August 5, 1957: Very good condition, bodily and mentally. “I am in wonderful health. I have not had any cause to be concerned or anxious about my old condition.”

          • Julian replied to your notions, and – as an oncologist – he is much more competent than I. therefore, I will not respond to this.

          • Bob,

            I’m not sure what point you are trying to make of case No. 47. This is a description of squamous carcinoma cured by radiotherapy.

            I don’t know exactly what technique was used in 1947, but since he mentions radium it was probably a form of brachytherapy, and probably using the Manchester system, whereby radium sources are placed in the uterine cavity and against the cervix, packed in place and left there for five or six days before removal (there are better systems in use now which don’t involve irradiating all the staff concerned). Depending on the stage of the tumour it may have been combined with external-beam radiotherapy, which could have been deep x-ray treatment (i.e. 250 – 300 KV x-rays, which don’t penetrate very well and give a large dose to the skin) or from a cobalt unit (better penetration and skin sparing). Either way, most or all of the dose would have been given from the radium application, and if there was an external-beam component which wasn’t completed she probably still received a curative dose.

            The effects of radiotherapy are delayed, so at the end of her treatment she probably still had obvious tumour at the cervix, together with ulceration from the tumour, the radiotherapy or infection. I would expect the healing process to take several months.

            Nowadays we plan radiotherapy from CT scans and we are very careful to limit the dose to sensitive structures such as the bowel. In 1947 (and indeed in 1997) radiotherapy planning involved a lot of guesswork, and the use of standard rather than individualised treatment plans. I would not be at all surprised if she had gastrointestinal symptoms from her treatment, which would take months to resolve.

            The radiotherapy would have induced a rather abrupt menopause, since the ovaries are very sensitive to radiation, hence the menopausal symptoms described, which seem to have been accompanied by depression. Gerson advised against the use of hormones in the mistaken belief that a squamous carcinoma of the cervix would be hormone-driven (I suppose he was confusing it with adenocarcinoma of the endometrium, which is a very different gynaecological tumour). This was probably good advice, however, as the rather primitive HRT available was probably diethylstilboestrol, which is a dangerous drug causing significant fluid retention (often to the point of overloading the heart) and abnormal blood clotting (a frequent cause of death from strokes and myocardial infarction if it is not given together with antocoagulation).

            Eventually her post-radiotherapy symptoms resolved as expected, her depression lifted and her post-menopausal symptoms improved. I don’t think Gerson can claim credit for that.

            I have treated many similar patients myself, using older techniques at the beginning of my specialist career. I don’t think this case history is particularly remarkable.

    • I have followed your link and looked through Gerson’s book. I won’t pretend that I have read it carefully. I have also had a look at some of the case histories.

      Starting with the histories, the first few I had a look at were all benign tumours which had been surgically debulked, and the reported improvements were consistent with the expected recovery after surgery. Others were extremely rare tumours. With most of them, however, it was rather difficult to know what was going on at all. The pathological techniques used in their diagnosis were very primative, and the names given refer to classification systems that are obsolete on the basis of what is now known of tumour pathology. Modern imaging techniques and even blood tests weren’t available, so the staging and metabolic effects of the tumours in question are unknown.

      For instance, one of the cases was of a benign but large pituitary tumour that appears to have spontaneously resolved; this is not unknown as these tumours can outgrow their blood supply and infarct (a technical term for tissue death following loss of blood supply). Another case was of a woman who seems to have been cured of breast cancer by her mastectomy but also had hyperparathyroidism, which for some reason Gerson regarded as another form of cancer. Yet another case was of a young man diagnosed with embryonal carcinoma; his tumour, however, seems to have been behaving much more like a seminoma (even with modern techniques, non-specialist pathologists have difficulty telling them apart), which we now know is very sensitive to low doses of radiation and was probably cured by the radiotherapy.

      This series of very unusual cases is clearly a selection from a much larger number, and I doubt if they were very representative. I am sure that if I were to look through the records of thirty years of patients treated at my own cancer centre I would be able to select fifty oddities.

      Moving on to what he had to say about his beliefs concerning the pathogenesis of cancer and the effects of his treatment, they are complete nonsense, and bear very little relationship to what we know about physiology, biochemistry and pathology. They also run contrary to my own experience of 30 years of medical practice. Gerson seems to be a man who has come up with some rather strange theories based on goodness-knows-what, and then fitted his observations to his theories. This is quite easy to do with any complex belief system, whether it is astrology, Chinese Traditional Medicine or whatever.

      You talk about the wisdom of 90 years of experience. Please note that this is the experience of a single man and his followers. Contrast this with the collective experience of the many clinicians and biomedical scientists involved in the research and treatment of cancer worldwide.

      And please, please be aware that because something is appealing that doesn’t make it true. There is a huge difference between what ought to be and what is.

      • It is true that you are a doctor and I am not, so I cannot pretend to understand every case properly, and as you say, the terms are old and some are obsolete ( I found that out trying to Google them ), also he has a habit of omitting the phase so that is implied in all the cases, which is disconcerting, so yes, there is a lot “wrong” with it in that sense – even for me as a layman, so I try to learn from you and e.g. Google hyperparathyroidism here:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperparathyroidism

        (because, to quote you above: “…but also had hyperparathyroidism, which for some reason Gerson regarded as another form of cancer.”)

        But this link says:

        “Primary hyperparathyroidism in 80% of cases is due to a single benign tumor known as a
        parathyroid adenoma with most of the rest of the cases due to a multiple benign tumors.[1][2] Rarely it may be due to parathyroid cancer”

        So this is correct i.e. Gerson will always call hyperparathyroidism a degenerate disease (cancer is just a special case, albeit “rare” in this case – but in Gerson “benign tumor” is just another symptom that takes “much longer to eradicate” simply because the immune system does not recognise it as alien, as easily it does “malignant tumors” (I hope I am using the correct terms here? If not apologies).

        As a layperson, this theory of what is the ultimate cause of e.g. cancer (amongst all the other degenerate diseases) is satisfying (than e.g. DNA damage (or is it “epigenetics” these days? – I am guessing again)) whereas the idea that “we don’t know” is not satisfying.

        Suppose everything Gerson said and did was wrong in some way or mistaken. That would be irrelevant if the Gerson Therapy produced results. It would simply mean that his model was wrong, not its effects, and would only require that the model be revised e.g. Newton was “wrong” and had to revised by Einstein, but Newton was still good enough for the Apollo missions.

        Likewise Gerson where the protocol has a 40% result in the so “called terminal” patients of allopathic medicine (it was 50% in 1948, but the food quality has been dropping off ever since e.g. “buttermilk” and “cottage cheese” are now too processed and cannot be used in Gerson anymore) and allopathic treatment has improved of course (as has Gerson).

        In 1976, I was sitting in a doctor’s waiting room, reading the public information cards when I spotted that the one on diabetes II that said that “dietary cholesterol had no effect on body cholesterol levels…” – today (I am guessing) this is no longer the case? Yes, No?

        In 1981, global warming was “unproven” – this is no longer the case?

        In 1930 Gerson said that diet was the cause of many diseases. He was ridiculed for it then – but is now proved correct:
        https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/14/poor-diet-is-a-factor-in-one-in-five-deaths-global-disease-study-reveals

        In my simple way, I just do not see how drinking carrot juice can be harmful. I can see why taking coffee up one’s rectum might be harmful, but Google only brings up three cases, is this really dangerous? Compared to what, drinking alcohol – does allopathic medicine still say that drinking one glass of red wine is good for you?

        • Bob,

          You are correct in that hyperparathyroidism is usually due to a parathyroid adenoma. This is a nodule of glandular tissue which no longer responds to the normal feedback mechanisms to switch of parathyroid hormone secretion when the calcium level rises. In the sense that it is a localised swelling it can be described as a tumour (“tumor” is Latin for swelling) and it is treated by surgical removal. They are quite hard to find (there are four parathyroid glands in the neck, each about the size of a pea) and we now use radioisotopic labelling in order to find them. They are not malignant and do not in any way behave like cancer. Malignant tumour of the parathyroid gland are vanishingly rare to the extent that I have never seen one. There are also a number of uncommon genetic syndromes where parathyroid adenomas occur in conjunction with other endocrine (glandular) tumours, again usually benign.

          Gerson describes both cancer and tuberculosis as degenerative diseases. When I was a medical student, as a mnemonic to aid diagnosis I learnt that disease can be classified into traumatic, infective, neoplastic, vascular, immunological, metabolic, iatrogenic and degenerative (TINVIMID). Tuberculosis is infective, cancer is neoplastic. Degenerative disease includes such things as osteoarthritis and other age-related conditions.

          The idea of not knowing is unsatisfying and indeed frightening for many people, which is why throughout history plausible-sounding explanations have been made up to explain the unknown. That doesn’t make them true. A scientist has to accept that there is much that we don’t know, though his job is to try to find out.

          Cancer is primarily a disease of the DNA of cells. We have very effective mechanisms for recognising and dealing with DNA damage, but occasionally mutations can occur that affect these very systems (due to radiation from cosmic rays, chemical irritants, viral DNA being incorporated into the cell genome or simple copying errors). This allows other mutations to build up within individual cells, including in genes concerned with cell growth and response to their local microenvironment, eventually leading to malignant transformation of the cell, which can then grow into a tumour. Within the tumour, many more mutations continue to occur, so that by the time it is large enough to diagnose (a 1cm tumour has 1,000,000,000 cells) the DNA of the cells making it up is very abnormal. Epigenetics don’t really figure very much in this process as far as I am aware, though our understanding of epigenetics is growing all the time.

          Molecular biology is largely the study of what is going on here.

          I think likening Gerson to Newton is a bit simplistic. It is more like trying to build a rocket to the moon using what you can find in a scrapyard. And Newton may be good enough for Apollo but certainly not for SatNav.

          I think buttermilk and cottage cheese are rather different in the USA than in the rest of the world, and food standards there certainly wouldn’t pass in Europe (use of hormones and antibiotics in animal feed, for instance).

          I would take Gerson’s claims of success in terminally ill patients with more than a pinch of salt. I think they are lies, or if I am charitable, self-delusion, with a very muddled series of case-histories cited to make them seem more plausible.

          I think it is probably true that dietary cholesterol has no effect on serum cholesterol. This is largely determined by your genetics, and secondarily by your weight. The specific dietary component that can put it up is carbohydrate, and the mechanism is increased insulin levels.

          If you watch the BBC news reporting the climate summit in Poland last week you will realise that global warming is accepted as true by virtually all climate scientists, and indeed the heads of state of most of the world except the USA, Russia, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It is almost too late to limit the effects to something that won’t be life-changing for the whole world, and if it continues at the current rate most species (including ours) will be going extinct as a result.

          Diet certainly contributes to many disease, as do many other lifestyle influences, though these are not always easy to identify if they act over a long time or have effects delayed by many decades. Sensible diet can certainly tip the balance in your favour, but it isn’t the whole story. Gerson’s dietary advice is anything but sensible. A diet which reduces the risk of particular types of cancer is not the same as a treatment for cancer that is already established.

          A coffee enema is a way of getting a lot of caffeine into the system very quickly. Many drugs are absorbed better per rectum than by mouth, and it can be easier than giving them intravenously. It is a very popular route of dosing in France. Indeed, coffee enemas used to be used in the 1920’s as emergency treatment for asthma. Nowadays we use theophylline or aminophylline rather than caffeine (they are closely related) and we give them intravenously or by nebuliser. A caffeine overdose can be dangerous in somebody with a tendency to cardiac arrhythmias, or indeed with a high serum potassium level as it will raise it further (if the potassium gets too high the heart will suddenly stop). This is apart from the obvious, such as bowel perforation.

          I don’t think carrot juice is dangerous, but if you drink too much it turns the skin orange/green (the colour your hands go if you have been peeling carrots). I saw this happen overnight once in a woman with cervical cancer. She had a sudden bleed from her tumour and lost so much blood that the carrot colour of her skin was revealed when she went from pink to green.

          I don’t think allopathic medicine has very much to say about drinking a glass of wine. Every time any of the components of wine are found to have a biological effect, whether in cell culture or in rats, the media report it in the form of dietary advice. Personally I love a glass or two of decent wine (or I did before I lost my sense of smell as a result of a cancer-related infection). My advice is to do everything in moderation.

          • You said of Gerson:

            “…I think they are lies, or if I am charitable, self delusion…”

            Whereas Albert Schweitzer said of Gerson:

            “I see in Dr. Max Gerson one of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine”.

          • Bob,

            I have a lot of respect for Albert Schweitzer, not least for his championing the music of J S Bach, but cancer treatment wasn’t really his area of expertise. Also medicine has moved on a great deal since his time.

  • @Bob on Thursday 13 December 2018 at 18:49

    “Whereas Albert Schweitzer said of Gerson:

    “I see in Dr. Max Gerson one of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine”.”

    Bob, this is the classic logical fallacy, “Argument from Authority”, and is no argument at all. I suggest you research logical fallacies, Wikipedia has a very good entry and many others, to relieve yourself of the burden of falling into fallacious arguments.

    • @Frank on Friday 14 December 2018

      No, it’s an opinion. Schweitzer is of the opinion of Gerson’s merit whereas Julian is of the opposite opinion.

      The point being that opinions don’t carry weight (unless folks are impressed by the argument from authority) so Julian’s opinions are just as irrelevant as Schweitzer’s (if you don’t fall for the argument from authority).

      • “Bob” wrote:

        Julian’s opinions are just as irrelevant as Schweitzer’s…

        Wrong. Julian Money-Kyrle is a certified authority on modern medicine, namely cancer therapy.

        Albert Schweitzer was far from being an authority on cancer in his day. His infatuation with Gerson was not based on any miracles, the health problems said to have kindled his admiration for Albert did not include cancer. They (adult onset diabetes, tuberculosis and migraine) are all known to improve spontaneously or by improvements in lifestyle.

        Julian’s views on cancer therapy, whether genuine or fake, is not an opinion but that of a trustworthy authority and therefore carries weight.

        • I don’t think I would quite describe myself as an authority on modern medicine, except to the extent that I am a qualified doctor with specialist training in clinical oncology, and I have practised as a consultant oncologist for many years. I don’t think that the opinions I have expressed here would differ very much from those of most other oncologists. They are, however, based on my training, my experience and my knowledge of the evidence base.

          You may have to take my word for it as I voluntarily removed myself from the Medical Register on my retirement as I was no longer able to meet the requirements for revalidation (which include annual appraisals and reports from colleagues and patients), so unless you are looking through a pre-2018 edition you won’t find me there.

          I am not, however, arguing from authority, although there are many wiser men (and women) than I working in my field whom I could quote if I thought that would be helpful.

          It is all very well saying that everybody’s opinion carries equal weight, but that won’t help very much if you are trying to decide on a course of action. An experienced specialist is usually going to give more helpful advice than a layman, whether it concerns what is wrong with your car, how to deal with damp in your house, where is the best spot in the garden for a particular plant etc.

          Oddly enough, it does seem to be the case that the less somebody knows about a topic the more fixed their opinion will be.

          I hope I am not guilty of self-aggrandisement if I say that I believe that my opinions on cancer treatment in the 21st century should carry more weight than Albert Schweitzer’s. On the other hand, I would not expect you to take so seriously my opinions regarding how to play Bach on the organ (which would be a very interesting discussion to have with Schweitzer but not really the right subject for this forum).

          These days the Internet makes a great deal of information available to anybody who is able to find it (given the propensity of search engines to base their results on your previous search and browsing history) and to judge whether it is trustworthy (since anybody can post anything on the Web with no oversight). But information isn’t knowledge, knowledge isn’t wisdom and indeed wisdom is not the same as skill (though both take much time and effort to acquire).

          • @Julian on Friday 14th December 2018

            I agree with every paragraph you wrote except for the fifth paragraph:

            “Oddly enough, it does seem to be the case that the less somebody knows about a topic the more fixed their opinion will be.”

            It is incomplete: the word “less” should be replaced with “less/more” e.g. an oaf who happened to live inside the arctic circle, and knew nothing about mathematics, would be able to tell Ptolemy, that he was wrong i.e. the earth goes round the sun – “Come to the north and look at it!”

            Whereas Ptolemy was able, by Fourier Analysis (epicycles), to make anything possible, even the Earth going round the Sun – or anything under the Sun, even a Homer Simpson e.g.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw

            Of course you could argue that the oaf knows more, which is true, evidently and also that Ptolemy is making reality fit his fantasy, which is true, evidently – because the definition of knowing more is the better fit of your fantasy to reality i.e. one’s better model.

            But who would you believe, the illiterate oaf or Ptolemy? – how could the Sun possible go all around the sky, in plain sight, all day, without any night! That’s impossible! That would make a mockery of Ptolemy’s beautiful model!

            Your sixth paragraph, about J.S. Bach: there’s a guy on youTube – a piano tuner, with a splendid “tough” New York accent, who plays a little of e.g. prelude 2 (C# minor) in Bach’s own tuning – *that* is very interesting – after that no one would want to play Bach in ET again.

            The most beautiful bars ever written are those that sing “Truly, this was the son of God” in The St. Matthew Passion especially the version by the German conductor (I forget his name) who plays everything really slowly.

            In the Bernstein lectures, in his lecture on J.S. Bach, he rightly concentrates on The St. Matthew Passion. The best Bernstein lecture is The Unanswered Question (it was on British TV in the 1980s, one Christmas time).

        • @bjorn on Friday 14th December 2018

          You are saying that Julian’s arguments carry more weight than Schweitzer’s – i.e. you are using Frank’s the-fallacy-from-authority-argument.

  • Erratum: evidently the second “Earth going round the sun” should have been “Sun going round the Earth” i.e. Ptolemy’s version – I hope nobody will quibble about that obvious error, but if you do, shame on you 🙂

  • Erratum: evidently the second “Earth going round the sun” should have been “Sun going round the Earth” i.e. Ptolemy’s version – I hope nobody will quibble about that obvious error, but if you do, shame on you 🙂

    Note to moderator:
    Dear moderator,
    Would you please insert the above correction? And delete this erratum?

    Many thanks

    • And, could you add some music to this?

      • “Bach’s own tuning”

        I think you must be referring to the Lehmann temperament, named for the musicologist who had the insight that the loops and curlicues decorating the front page of the first edition of the Well-Tempered Clavier were not purely decorative, but were tuning instructions (Bach always used to insist on tuning his own clavichords and harpsichords). The result was a tuning system that worked in every key, but since the semitones were not even, each key had its own character. Prior to Bach, keyboard instruments were tuned so that the commonly-used keys were harmonious, but the more sharps or flats in the key the worse it sounded, to the extent that some intervals were so far off that they were referred to as a “wolf” from the howling sound that resulted. Many North European organs are still tuned in this way since they have stops to reinforce particular harmonics, and they wouldn’t work properly in an even-tempered instrument.

        If you ever get the chance to hear Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in F played on such an instrument, you will hear how he uses this to his advantage, modulating in and out of the unharmonious keys to increase and then resolve the tension in the music, each time going further from the home key, making the music more and more discordant until he finally returns to F at the end of the Toccata.

        “The most beautiful bars ever written are those that sing “Truly, this was the son of God” in The St. Matthew Passion especially the version by the German conductor (I forget his name) who plays everything really slowly”

        That must be Otto Klemperer.
        I think it is rather hard to pick the best part of the St. Matthew Passion as it is all wonderful. Personally I love “Erbame dich” (“Have mercy Lord”). Nowadays this is usually sung by a male countertenor, but there is a famous recording of Kathleen Ferrier singing it (in English); it is a very emotional performance and wouldn’t suit everyone’s taste but it is certainly worth hearing. She had a tragically short career after being discovered in a talent competition and then dying young from breast cancer. As a trainee oncologist working at the Middlesex Hospital in London in the 1990’s I was shocked that nobody on the oncology ward – Kathleen Ferrier Ward – knew who she was.

        I had never thought of Ptolemy’s epicycles as being akin to Fourier analysis, but I see what you are saying. If you can describe any wave either as a displacement against time, or as the sum of a number of sine waves (Fourier showed that they were mathematically equivalent), then you should be able to describe any orbit as a sum of number of circular orbits (intuitively this sounds right to me but I don’t know enough maths to be sure).

        I have always regarded the heliocentric view of the solar system as a way of simplifying the calculation of the orbits and positions of the planets, asteroids, comets etc., though since the solar system is orbiting the centre of the galaxy, and the galaxy itself isn’t stationary, it isn’t strictly speaking correct to take anything as a truly fixed point. Indeed, I believe that astronomers commonly use a geocentric co-ordinate system for describing the positions of celestial bodies, though there are other systems in place for specific purposes.

        I never saw the Bernstein lectures – I will have to look out for them. Another very interesting musician.

  • I wonder if, in the future, computers will be equipped with sensors to help prevent commenting under the influence of psychoactive substances?

  • To equate the weight of Julian’s arguments with that of Schweitzer’s or Gerson’s, for that matter, is a fallacy of its own and using the “you too” argumentation to simply “return” the argument-from-authority gambit without actually weighing the circumstances brings to mind a kind of primary school mentality. Much to his honour, Julian modestly and humbly accepts the counter-argument despite coming from a self-acknowledged non-expert on the field. An accredited doctor that can so comfortably express that they don’t consider themselves special, that they clearly don’t know everything, and, beside training and experience, always strive to defer to an accepted evidence base, as well as the consensus of contemporary expertise on the specialty, is the kind of doctor you would comfortably trust with your life. One such doctor could be the man behind the name Julian and because we happen to have him in this blog for quite a long time, we have since long understood that pretending is a totally foreign word to him. In short, he is one such doctor.

    As to why the counter-use of the same argument (from authority) is not valid, it is quite simple. The sole time that has passed since Gerson’s era has led to an unprecedented accumulation of high-quality information in the field of medicine. Given that Julian would meet even the absolutely minimum current contemporary requirements of bearing the title of a specialist Doctor, he is almost automatically more trustworthy, if not for any other reason, purely by virtue of having had access to better information. That is to say that even a fresh graduate of a proper medical school), knows much more than Gerson could have known in his time. Much in the same way that any high school student of today could easily teach Archimedes a thing or two about geometry.

    In short, argument from trustworthy authority is not the same as argument from authority. Trustworthy, in this case, means following the current medical expert consensus, which always takes into account the highest-quality evidence currently available.

    • I find this discussion of the ‘argument from authority’ fallacy insightful. Ultimately, all forms of ‘teaching’ are essentially arguments from authority, and we’re all familiar with the different ‘teachings’ from diverse religious beliefs (often based on ‘holy scriptures’, which are a form of inanimate authority).

      James sums up the situation commendably: “In short, argument from trustworthy authority is not the same as argument from authority. Trustworthy, in this case, means following the current medical expert consensus, which always takes into account the highest-quality evidence currently available.” But, of course, the use of the word ‘current’ in the context of medical expert consensus implies that expert consensus is subject to change, and one suspects that ‘authorities’ may differ in the speed with which they adopt change.

      On this blog, we often hear that courses in, e.g., chiropractic last for several years, and involve a lot of the same basic education in anatomy and physiology, etc., that is given to medical students. But the students on these courses inevitably regard their teachers as trustworthy authorities and when the teaching they’re given departs wildly from the current medical expert consensus, how can they know? Their official textbooks say the same things as the teachers, yet as Prof. Ernst has often pointed out — most recently yesterday — teaching nonsense even at the highest level must result in nonsense.

      There can be no easy solution to the basic problem of effective critical thinking, which is essential to ascertaining the reliability of different ‘authorities’. Almost every opinion expressed in the comments on this blog (including this one) represent an argument from the commenter’s personal authority. But the contrast between Bob’s cherry-picked support for some aspects of Gerson Therapy and Julian Money-Kyrle’s erudite and witty responses must cause any but the most Gerson-committed reader to agree with James that “To equate the weight of Julian’s arguments with that of Schweitzer’s or Gerson’s, for that matter, is a fallacy of its own”.

      Bob didn’t cite the ‘authority’ admired by many people in the UK, but he might have mentioned that no less a figure than Prince Charles has publicly supported Gerson Therapy. The Prince, an ‘authority’ by virtue of an accident of birth, clearly outranks Schweitzer in terms of seniority. However, he fails the ‘trustworthy’ test since he has never even studied medicine, let alone agreed with the ‘current medical expert consensus’.

      • in essence, it seems to me that the fallacy is named incorrectly
        APPEAL TO AUTHORITY should be called APPEAL TO FALSE AUTHORITY.
        it would, of course, not solve the problem, but it would point out that there is a problem.

        • Nice one!

        • I disagree. Appeal to authority is fallacious no matter who the authority is. Even ackowledged experts are wrong sometimes and an essential part of the scientific process is to challenge accepted wisdom.

          However, there is a difference between striving to determine objective truth, and seeking out the best advice when faced with a practical problem. To argue that something is true because Galen or Hippocrates or Darwin or Einstein said so is fallacious. On the other hand if you are looking for the appropriate treatment for your prostate cancer, it should be quite clear that not everybody’s opinion is equally valid.

          Another problem with appeal to authority is that it can be used to justify almost anything. The evils perpetrated by the Nazis in the name of Social Darwinism are an example, and were a travesty of Darwin’s ideas.

      • @Frank Odds on Saturday 15 December 2018 at 08:32 said:

        Bob didn’t cite the ‘authority’ admired by many people in the UK, but he might have mentioned that no less a figure than Prince Charles

        I did mention Charles, see my post above on Wednesday 28 November 2018 at 14:26

        @Frank Odds then continued with:
        “However, he fails the ‘trustworthy’ test since he has never even studied medicine, let alone agreed with the ‘current medical expert consensus’.”

        I agree with you that it seems impossible go against the ‘xyz consensus’ as in my example above of going against Ptolemy – but Ptolemy turned out to be wrong.

        Here is another example, that of Alan Smith in NZ:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrhkoFcOMII

        The hospital authorities in NZ still argue that Alan Smith’s recovery was from their turning him on his stomach. They will never believe that vitamin C saved his life, no matter what evidence is presented to them.

        Here the ‘trusted authority’ is the entire NZ health system, but they were wrong whereas Alan Smith’s family are lay people, but they were right.

        • Sorry for overlooking your citing Charles, along with Schweitzer and Jesse Yu (who he?!). But I’m not clear what we’re now debating, Bob. You began on this thread with a comment that cited Gerson’s book from 1958, then returned after a while with a longer post citing examples of cases from that source. You engaged in a dialogue with Julian Money-Kyrle, in which his responses to you showed his characteristic good nature coupled with a clear exposition of why you were mistaken in supporting Gerson.

          Then a remark of yours prompted Frank Collins to point out that you were using the fallacious ‘argument from authority’ to support your case. Bjorn Geir suggested that Julian was a more trustworthy authority than the ones you were citing, to which you responded “You are saying that Julian’s arguments carry more weight than Schweitzer’s – i.e. you are using Frank’s the-fallacy-from-authority-argument.” You were perfectly correct in this comment, but the situation caused me to reflect that ‘authorities’ differ substantially in their training, knowledge and intelligence.

          There is no foolproof way to tell who is a reliable authority in any situation, and since the current ‘scientific consensus’ at any time may be changed by new evidence and data (which happened over the centuries not only to Ptolemy’s epicycles but also to many other scientific paradigms), even the ‘scientific consensus’ cannot be regarded as infallible. I hoped to convey these thoughts in my comment of Saturday 15th December.

          From your latest comment directed at me, it seems you are now less interested in Gerson therapy for cancer specifically, but you’re trying to present examples of medical cases in which one or other therapeutic approach regarded by ‘trusted authorities’ as a non-starter triumphed over a decision or recommendation from physicians attending a patient. Well, good luck: there’s no shortage of such material out there: the video you linked to is just one example.

          Charles Fort was a person who devoted his life to recording anecdotes of phenomena science couldn’t explain. He and his associates collected sufficient material to fill a monthly magazine, the Fortean Times which is still published. Maybe you could do something similar with altmed, although you may find several publications (What Doctors Don’t Tell You springs to mind) provide stiff competition.

          • I am trying to play the Socrates card of “I don’t know” – more or less – I think the source of the misunderstanding is the comparison, side by side, of Julian’s opinion and Schweitzer’s opinion, standalone.

            Evidently because I am contesting Julian’s view, the assumption is that I support Schweitzer’s view – (which is a case of the bleedin’ obvious) – but a better response would have been to note the contradiction and make a case against it, which is what Julian did (that Schweitzer was not a cancer doctor) instead of *assuming* that I was using the authority-thing as a mechanism (I hate the authority-thing, as it happens, but that is irrelevant – also, volunteering personal info like that just feeds future ad hominems – something which this group does not use, (if it did, I would stop posting and run away).

            The Gerson detractors demand evidence that Gerson works – which, to say the least is reasonable. But what is unreasonable is to avoid looking at it, or when forced to look at it, to reject it out-of-hand (Julian does not do that, he argues the case on its merits – but he also makes a slip-up and opines too – which makes it easy for his opponent to challenge him, as I did above – Julian does not need to do that (as tempting as it is 🙂 ).

            The most interesting thing of all, generally is that what we see is so highly coloured by what we already know, that two reasonable people can view the same thing as opposites (the oaf and Ptolemy) which means that one can be completely fooled by one’s own eyesight and never know it. And *that* tells us (the bleedin’ obvious) that the brain uses models for recognition i.e. recognising something is only recalling the model by definition hence if the model is wrong, the thing seen is wrong (but the viewer will argue the point to the death).

            Right now, I am of the opinion that Gerson is absolutely correct and will fight to the death to defend it (my model is that the immune system is the only way to slow/stop/reverse cancer which also implies start/speedup/encourage cancer (of course) ) – but I might be completely wrong and have no way, at the moment of knowing it by definition.

            Gerson (to me) means, by his crude empirical methods of discovery (death == bad == don’t do that again, recovery == good, keeping doing that) and the thing being done is diet-in at the front-end together with pulling toxins out (coffee enemas) at the back-end – and all this in an effort to assist the only thing that can recover the body: the immune system.

            The evidence that Gerson exists is vast. There is his book. The Pepper-Neely documents. His daughter’s book and the time-span of 80 years. He definitely exists.

            Does his method work? Over that time, it is more likely that he has “dealt” with many patients rather than a few or no patients at all (he would need something to live on).

            Suppose that he is a fraud. All his patients would die (only the terminal ones would risk their lives on an unknown quack who always kills all his patients, because they have nothing to lose).

            If all his patients die, then he would become a concept in the dictionary:
            Gersontherapy, noun, death by carrot juice and coffee enema

            But this is not the case, somewhere, by some means, some people live, they must do, otherwise he would have been exposed long ago like the case of Thalidomide.

            So the question is: do the survivors survive because of Gerson or by “spontaneous recovery” (e.g. from previous allopathic treatment or from ) – there has been a study of 200 cases of spontaneous remission (cited by Charlotte Gerson) by a third party and their evidence is that their changed diet is remarkably similar to the food used in Gerson (whole, plant-based).

            But suppose that all this written evidence is false, there is some massive cover-up that is somehow sustained on the income of ? – what could fund such a scheme? – what’s the next best thing? Viewing the evidence live i.e. youTube e.g. Jesse Yu.

            If Jesse Yu is an actor, funded by the Gerson Institute, then they could have made a much better production. So suppose the hesitant, semi-stutter of Yu is artificial for verisimilitude (of non-actor) and likewise the amateur video, and partial-audience (they must be plants – right?) – well all that can be instantly exposed by the sheer volume of it (as they did in the Columbo scripts i.e. the more intricate and perfect the crime, the more likely errors must occur for Columbo to find) – there are the three hospitals for starters – they must all be lying etc.

            But it is much simpler than that. A reporter simply has to go to the Gerson clinic in Mexico and film the patients and their progress – The Gerson clinic would try to prevent that happening – right? No, they encourage it. There is no cover up. You can buy Charlotter Gerson’s book for ten bucks and discover all their secrets and buy the equipment from third parties and get the blood tests done anywhere – an amateur can do it in their own home (well not quite, you need two people at least).

            But what do I know – as Socrates would say, “I am only a layman.”

          • Bob,

            If you want to know more about the immune system, I can strongly recommend “The Beautiful Cure” by Daniel Davis (a UK professor of immunology). It is an overview of how the various components of the immune system work, and how we know about them. It brought home to me just how much has changed since my immunology course at medical school, and just what an extraordinary thing the immune system is. It is written for the layman, though some knowledge of cellular biology is helpful.

          • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Sunday 16 December 2018 at 22:21 said:
            “If you want to know more about the immune system, I can strongly recommend “The Beautiful Cure” by Daniel Davis…”

            Thanks.

            I think that you might enjoy this?:
            Tripping Over The Truth by Travis Christofferson.
            here
            https://www.amazon.com/Tripping-over-Truth-Overturning-Entrenched/dp/1603587292/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2RDC3VV3J1I43&keywords=tripping+over+the+truth+by+travis+christofferson

          • Continued from my post above on Monday 18 February 2019 at 22:28 to Dr Money-Kyrle

            …this video (on GBM) is referenced on page 196 of the same book:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV4epXiKgrM

            I.e. you of all people would have a tremendous advantage in this approach (against metastatic prostate cancer, not GBM, obviously) – you already have a lifetime of experience and access – or would you be against this? (I mean for yourself only – in principle).

        • Alan Smith’s case is very interesting. I wish I knew the medical details. Hopefully he will be written up in the medical literature as a case report. As far as I can understand, the main problem was respiratory failure due to an inability to ventilate the lungs, and so he was treated with some sort of pulmonary by-pass system, about which I know very little (I certainly haven’t seen anything like that used in the UK). Usually in ITU, provided that only one system is failing there is a reasonable chance of saving the patient, but somebody as ill as this frequently has metabolic / biochemical problems which can lead to a cascade of multiple systems failing and the situation is very difficult to retrieve. This would include such things as secondary infection, kidney or even liver failure, failure of the heart muscle to contract adequately, blood clotting problems etc. etc. I doubt if the doctors treating him would consider withdrawing care if the only problem were respiratory failure, although it does sound as though there was no improvement in that after several weeks on the by-pass system, which was probably never intended to be used for so long.

          I don’t know how much difference the hairy-cell leukaemia would have made, or how urgently it needed to be treated. I am not a haematologist, so I don’t have any practical experience of treating leukaemia, but I understand that there is very effective treatment available. On the other hand a certain level of fitness is required before commencing treatment for any kind of malignancy, and indeed the performance status (i.e. to what extent the patient is up and about and able to carry on with their normal activities) is the most important prognostic factor in cancer treatment generally.

          Certainly there would be a mechanical element to the respiratory failure, and it would be surprising if a change of posture didn’t have an effect. Also I would expect the flu infection itself to have cleared fairly quickly, even if the effects of it were prolonged. Most things in medicine become clearer with time – they either get better or they get worse, and maybe his condition had reached the point where it was about to improve anyway.

          It is very difficult to know what part the vitamin C played as there were so many other things going on. This is why it is so important to have clinical trials. We don’t really know whether he got better because of the vitamin C or in spite of it, or indeed whether it made any difference at all.

          I am willing to believe that it probably did have some effect, though not necessarily beneficial. It was a very large dose (25g at a time), which at the very least would have been a significant acid load on the system. It is also a reducing agent, and indeed it is sometimes given as treatment for poisoning with oxidising agents as it is relatively non-toxic. So certainly I would expect it to have a metabolic effect.

          Regarding its use in oncology (did the family want to use it because of the leukaemia?), I am not aware of any good evidence that it is effective as a cancer treatment. However, it has been investigated in cancer prevention trials, where it has been found to increase the risk of developing cancer (as have other antioxidants).

          I have no idea whether and to what extent its use has been, or is being investigated in critically ill patients. If there are other, similar cases, then perhaps it would be interesting to consider a clinical trial, but I am afraid critical care is well out of my area of expertise (last time I was in an ITU I was the patient).

          • In severe septicaemia the situation is often desperate so the weakest of straws are often gladly grasped. One such that has been increasingly popular is a cocktail of corticosteroids, thiamine and vitamin C, which is thought to lower mortality and shorten ICU stay. A possible mechanism has been postulated but the evidence, even if it is promising, is still of low quality and the duration and dosage is uncertain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2767105/
            Here, the old saying of “more research is needed” is certainly valid.
            It has long been known that vitamin shortage (C and many other) occurs in sepsis so vitamins are always given along with parenteral (intravenous) nutrition, both fat- and water soluble one’s e.g. ascorbic acid (= vitamin C)
            That Mr. Smith recovered does not mean extreme-dose vitamin C made the difference. I looked through the film and of course his recovery was fantastic but it was not unique. There are a lot of if’s to this story as it is told in the film.
            In the first place, he would not be alive if it were not for the ECMO-ExtraCorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, which literally replaced his lungs while they were inflamed and fluid filled. It is a highly specialised technique where the blood is literally oxygenised outside the body. Another if is the hairy-cell leukaemia diagnosis. The hospitals involved did not (understandably)participate in the making of this rather partisan documentary so we cannot know if he still has this slow, often chronically symptom free disease. It may have been inconsequential to all this and it may even have been a misdiagnosis.

            Turning a white-lung patient on his stomach is an old well tried ICU trick that may work wonders in getting the lungs air filled. I am surprised they did not try that earlier. It may be that the relatives just did not know about it or remember?
            As Julian pointed out, his pneumonia was caused by swine-flu and that may have simply run its course, making it possible for his body to start recovering since it did not manage to kill him thanks to the ECMO. That the Vitamin C infusions coincided with his improvement may indicate that it may have had a positive role but it certainly was not the only miracle in this story and it has not been confirmed.
            Vitamin C happens to be extensively researched, not the least because of the respectful status of Linus Pauling, and it is quite clear that high- or low-dose, it is not the miracle that many believe, like this amateur:
            https://youtu.be/1cBp879mfgI

          • @Björn Geir on Tuesday 18 December 2018 at 22:24 said:
            “In severe septicaemia the situation is often desperate so the weakest of straws are often gladly grasped. One such that has been increasingly popular is a cocktail of corticosteroids, thiamine and vitamin C, which is thought to lower mortality and shorten ICU stay.”

            Yes, that is the experience of Paul Marik here:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVk7WyfP6J0&t=2561s

          • This is still very experimental and this is not the high-dose vitamin C therapy Naturopaths and other bungling amateurs promote, which does nothing in sepsis.
            This does not mean vitamin C cures illness on its own (other than scurvy of course) or is a panacea for anything from cancer to cholera.

          • @Björn Geir on Saturday 22 December 2018 at 14:33 said:
            “This is still very experimental…”

            …yes, ever since 1747, why don’t you watch it?

            This guy is on your side. He begins with the fact that vitamin C does nothing on it’s own, you have to also treat with antibiotics as a prerequisite… you professionals can be so dismissive, without listening to each other – you attack amateurs, but set a bad example yourself as a professional.

            I am exactly the same as you. In my own specialisation, I am as arrogant as the next person, but one day, this guy taught me a lesson. He set a trap for me in advance. I fell for it with “Of course it’s not the xyz!!!” – after ten minutes, I discovered that it was the xyz. This humiliation was completely avoidable: I only needed to, Groundhog-Day-Like, repeat like this:

            “You say it’s xyz? Let’s try it!” (in secret, what an idiot he is, but let’s play along)
            It is xyz.
            “Your were right.” (Jeez, good job I did not make an issue of it.)

            That way you protect yourself as an indifferent-observer, but if it turned out, as you knew all along, that it was not xyz then…
            “Ok, it’s not xyz, watch this.”
            And you can be the hero, but on the off chance that even the mighty-ego is wrong, there is still nothing lost and everything to gain by one’s native honesty.
            “Well, I dunno…”
            And as you have not pressurized yourself, you might even get inspired and discover xyz there and then and shine as some super-hero.

            But the best thing is that, to the customer, you will always come across as a nice guy – which as a professional is essential, seeing that they are paying you, not the other way round.

            Amateurs, by definition are not paid. They don’t have to prove anything. Attacking them is futile: “I want my money back!”

    • I agree absolutely.

  • What is Gerson therapy? is it a diet?

  • @Edzard on Monday 17 December 2018 at 13:51 posted:
    “http://skepdic.com/gersontherapy.html”

    That is an unsecured website (all secure websites use the https protocol) try this one instead:
    https://gerson.org/gerpress/

    • that’s a good one:
      to inform someone about a dangerous quackery, recommend the site of the quack,
      just has to show of what calibre you are.

      • The site you recommend may be unsecured, but it is much easier to make sense of than the official Gerson Web site. Nor has it triggered any flags from my Internet Security software.

        • @Julian Money-Kyrle said on Monday 17 December 2018 at 20:20

          “The site you recommend may be unsecured, but it is much easier to make sense of than the official Gerson Web site. Nor has it triggered any flags from my Internet Security software.”

          Use Linux instead, then you won’t need Internet Security software.

          Windows is an example of the easier-to-understand than e.g. the command-line, but it is limited to the death-by-a-thousand-mouse-clicks, whereas the command-line is always all-powerful by conceptual-hierarchy (the power used by the human mind to hold unlimited content).

          Also, you are always held captive by MS and *you* pay them to do it to you.

          With Open Software, *you* are in control, and can freely swap between hundreds of different versions for free – and all updates are free. The only “downside” is that you have to think for yourself.

      • Your link is the better recommendation for Max Gerson than my link e.g. this quote from your link:
        “Max Gerson was the personal physician and friend of Albert Einstein and the philanthropist and missionary, Albert Schweitzer….”

        So Max Gerson was also Einstein’s personal physician.

    • Bob said:

      That is an unsecured website

      And your point is???

      • point is: he doesn’t like people to speak the truth about Gerson, I guess.

      • Always check the URL.

        • I have a good knowledge of TLS but you seem to have completely failed to understand my question: why did you point out that skepdic.com didn’t use https?

          • @Alan Henness on Tuesday 18 December 2018 at 10:51 said:
            “Why did you point out that skepdic.com didn’t use https?”

            Because the reader might not notice, especially the layperson – it’s easy for you with “…a good knowledge of TLS…” – you always check the URL (I don’t, I keep forgetting to do it).
            https://www.wired.com/2017/01/half-web-now-encrypted-makes-everyone-safer/

          • LOL! You seemed to be dismissing that site in favour of another just because it didn’t have https, which, of course, has nothing to do with the content of the pages. Am I wrong?

          • @Alan Henness on Thursday 20 December 2018 at 14:14 said:
            “LOL! You seemed to be dismissing that site in favour of another just because it didn’t have https, which, of course, has nothing to do with the content of the pages.”

            Yes I prefer the https over http because it’s common courtesy (to the user’s privacy) – but I read some anyway for fun and in the fifth paragraph, found this:
            “Max Gerson was the personal physician and friend of Albert Einstein…”

            And then in the next paragraph, this:
            “Cancer quacks are greatly helped by the fact that dead patients can’t talk.”

            Therefore Einstein is a fool (if quack means charlatan) but evidently, from the context, “quack” here means “…one of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine…” (Albert Schweitzer).

            And by the same device, the meaning of “nobel prize winner” changes too.

            When language is destroyed, meaning is destroyed, which is the purpose of all authors of this type because once meaning is destroyed, then it can be replaced by the arbitrary without contest – because nothing means anything anyway, what does it matter, nothing can be proved because “proof” itself is just too difficult to define when the roots of meaning itself float.

            Even the mechanics of the sound of “quack” are preferred to e.g. “charlatan” for their sensational effect: the sharp harmonics of the audio-spikes in “quack” (likewise in all swear words: “C**t”, “f**k” etc) are more violent (energetic) compared to the softer, less energetic harmonics of e.g. “charlatan” (likewise all the softer swear words: “pussy”, “screw” etc).

            So, the proper way to convince is to use plain words consistently and give evidence only, (not opinion) so that the words fit reality as closely as possible, not the other way round: making reality fit the words, otherwise you run into the “a rose by any other name…” problem of the self-destruction of one’s own language and thence one’s own meaning.

  • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Sunday 16 December 2018 at 22:21 said:
    “I can strongly recommend “The Beautiful Cure” by Daniel Davis…”

    Thanks very much, a copy is now on its way to me 🙂

  • This book:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK12354/?depth=2

    Says, on page 76:
    “There is no evidence that megavitamin or orthomolecular therapy is effective in treating any disease.”

    (according to reference 6 at the bottom of this page:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine)

    Which contradicts e.g. Paul Merik’s findings.

    How can such a mighty book, that rests on thousands of other references and centuries of accumulated knowledge be wrong?

    Easy – at the start of the 20th century, two guys set out to prove that one-and-one-equals-two, and eventually, after a terrific struggle, they thought that they had proved it, but a few decades later, another guy proved that there are some things that are true that cannot be proved – and even a layman can detect the truth in that by the this-statement-is-false example i.e. because of the self-referencing problem.

    The human body is staggeringly “self-referencing” in its biochemistry i.e. it is guaranteed that there will be something that are true that can never be proved, as has been proved mathematically.

    In other words, that assertion above on page 76, could be made even stronger with “It can be proved that there will never be any evidence that xyz is true.” (but the xyz could still be true).

    How about this example instead: the computer programmer tries to write bug-free code. This is notoriously difficult and maybe impossible for anything remotely complicated because just one error in millions of the choice between True and False, could cause a catastrophic crash, and that’s that. This True or False is “boolean logic”… it takes a lifetime of training and practice to become any good at it.

    But there is another type of coding called Fuzzy Logic that does the opposite of the True or False alternatives, it always compromises instead, to somewhere in between, and any fool can program it by trial and error. Instead of only one or two inputs (of only true or false) it has many inputs and each is “weighted” (for more or less effect) and then added to all the others to produce a common output that lies somewhere above zero (normally False in Boolean logic) and below maximum (normally True in Boolen logic) e.g. if the washing machine Fuzzy Logic controller is heating the water up to some temperature, but it takes too long, then the weight given to the “heat up” output is increased – but if the water then overshoots, another input is added that monitors the ambient temperature that moderates the rate of increase in hot weather etc, and the thing is juggled until the best results are obtained.

    There is no “right” or “wrong” no True or False, but best of all, there is never any crash, the programmer is not forced to be absolutely right all the time for all circumstances forever on pain of death. I.e. the above assertion on page 76 is just such an assertion. It is written by boolean logic standards and applied to the human body biochemistry that is self-evidently of Fuzzy Logic design in exemplar – if you rip the heart out of the chest, it keeps beating autonymously! Etc.

    It may well be (probably inevitable) that Gerson is “wrong” in his model of why his method works, but a common factor of his diet (and many others) is the autophagy pattern e.g.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDzIbkyr5QQ

    I.e. the reason he gets his results might turn out to be just a very slow fasting effect. I noticed this because my past year of various experiments that are mainly budwig-diet-based have automatically reduced my body weight, despite the amount I eat, and the wierd thing is that my abdomen is now “tighter” than it ever was before i.e. there is no “skin curtain” as the woman describes in this link – and further, I have just tried a 36 hour fast with absolutely no sensations of discomfort at all for the first 24 hours (it suddenly got worse on the morning of the 36th hour, and I panicked and started eating, but was fine after I had a bowel movement – maybe that was all I had to do to continue the water-fast?)

    But I notice other effects too e.g. each winter, I always have had breathing problems from my stage 2 nasel polyps, this year, I can breath perfectly normally (so far) – now this could soley be to losing weight, or could it be that this slow-fast is inducing autophagy and the polyps are shrinking too?

    Because my bone-pain has gone, I have convinced myself that I have cured my metastic bone-cancer, but this might be the effect of the mind only (placebo)? Or even some sort of self-hypnosis? – if you wanted a placebo-ritural then Gerson Therapy would be the gold-standard of that – but the cancer is still there (how can it all disappear in a few months) so I imagine that it is shrinking too (this makes it easier to believe) – so now there is a “rationalisation” that helps the illusion to work – and all this is in a feedback loop of impenetrable complexity that can never be “proved” no matter what the degree of resolution i.e. the above book can grow to be infinitely-large to contain all-knowledge and still not be big enough.

    My argument here is that this web site’s assertion that Gerson-is-xyz is based on (the craving of the human mind for) boolean logic’s True or False, whereas reality is always Fuzzy: Gerson will never be True or False, just like everything else.

    • oh my, on a good day, you can produce a lot of tosh!

    • it takes a lifetime of training and practice to become any good at it

      This is true of many things apart from Boolean logic, Bob. Your posts show increasingly that the maxim certainly applies to yourself where biology and medicine are concerned. I watched the video you linked to about Paul Marik’s experience and gave up at the point where he says “[Lind] was able to prove categorically that limes cured sepsis.” No, he didn’t: as the title page, displayed in the video to accompany this amazing voiceover statement, makes clear: Lind found a cure for scurvy in 1747, not septicaemia!

      How can such a mighty book, that rests on thousands of other references and centuries of accumulated knowledge be wrong?

      That’s far easier than your answer suggests. It’s wrong in exactly the same way as huge numbers of other ‘mighty’ books have been shown to be wrong: the author is simply mistaken in his beliefs and has biased his writing accordingly.

      I have a couple of suggestions for you, Bob. Please don’t watch or cite videos for robust evidence of anything, particularly ones where the speaker makes such elementary mistakes as the above. Stick to the primary scientific literature on biomedicine. This website provides good advice on how to do this. Don’t give laboratory (pre-clinical) studies the same weight as randomized, controlled trials when it comes to demonstrating therapeutic effects: RCTs are the peak of the evidence pyramid.

      Oh, and don’t make the mistake of inflating one apparently successful outcome effect that may or may not be associated with the presumed cause to a generalizable phenomenon. There’s a lot of interesting research around effects of vitamin C including a huge current clinical trial. Gerson therapy, on the other hand, has been so repeatedly demonstrated to be objectively worthless that it’s pointless to set up new clinical trials.

      People with a lifetime of training and practice in clinical research are nowadays pretty good at spotting genuine subgroups within trials that may be responding to a treatment when others don’t, and we are moving into an age of individualized treatments based on whole-genome sequences that may be able to predict who is and is not likely to respond to a treatment, entirely vindicating your point about the fuzziness of peoples’ responses to treatment. But it’s very unlikely that the individualized approach will ever be able to vindicate Gerson. Most people with a lifetime of training and experience in biomedical research say he was mistaken, and — since you like authority figures — why don’t you read carefully what these people have to say?

    • We can at least conclude with some certainty, that the Gerson protocol does not help clear the mind.

    • @Bob: interesting….and being the Christmas season I was contemplating sneaking into a Catholic Church service to remind me of my childhood belief in nonsense. I read your post and can now save myself the trip.

    • Bob,

      You are starting with Bertram Russell’s attempt to derive mathematics rigorously from first principles, and then refer to Godel’s incompleteness theorem, which proved that Russell was never going to be able to succeed, since Godel showed that in any consistent mathematical system there will always be statements about natural numbers, the truth or falsehood of which cannot be proved within the system (I can’t remember exactly what he said as it was a long time ago that I read this up). Essentially this was concerning the philosophy of mathematics. Mathematical truth is a very specific thing, which doesn’t have a counterpart in other fields.

      I don’t really see how you can go from this to your assertion that human biochemistry is a self-referencing system, and so is constrained to follow the rules of a branch of number theory.

      I also don’t see how this has anything to do with the effectiveness or otherwise of treating various medical conditions with vitamins at unusual doses.

      You seem to be coming to the conclusion that Gerson was wrong in his models of why his treatment worked, but you are still accepting that it did work, despite evidence to the contrary. I don’t think anybody with first-hand experience of treating the diseases he refers to would take his case-histories seriously, for instance.

      From your posts I get the impression that you are an intelligent man with expertise in something like engineering or maybe computer science, that you read widely (though maybe not deeply) in popular science, that you have other interests (passions?) such as music, but that you have never had any training in biological sciences. I am assuming that this is why you are having trouble seeing that a plausible-sounding explanation (at least superficially) might be completely wrong.

      If you want to understand how nutrition might interact with tumour behaviour, or any other disease, you have to know at least some biology, cell-biology, biochemistry and pathology. Biological systems are too complex to be analysed in any useful way by logic or number-theory. There are a great many feedback loops and a lot of individual variation leading to random behaviour. If you want to apply mathematical tools to make sense of them, the most useful one is statistics, which is all about separating signals from random noise and calculating probabilities (and the basis of clinical trials).

      You make some references to observations on your own health, and what conclusions you have drawn from them, though they are not necessarily the same conclusions that I would draw. There are many reasons for weight loss, and whilst it is probably the diet, oncologists always worry about weight loss for the simple fact that it is almost impossible to put on weight if you have progressive cancer. I can’t really comment on your nasal obstruction, other than to say that it sounds as though it comes and goes, and there are many reasons why that might be, not necessarily entirely due to the polyps. With regard to the bone pain, cancer pain can also come and go, as I know from my own experience (two years ago I could hardly move without large doses of opiates; I am now virtually pain-free without them, though my last bone-marrow biopsy still showed about 60% replacement of the marrow by malignant cells).

      As an afterthought I am wondering if I have been a little charitable in taking your posts seriously enough to attempt a proper dialogue. Their content is getting stranger and stranger and you seem to be mixing up ideas that really don’t go with each other, rather like those people who are convinced that if they use the word “quantum” enough times then what they are saying must be true, or one of those chefs that mixes cuisines to produce “fusion food” when in reality they have no understanding of either culinary tradition.

      Of one thing I am certain, and that is, rather than following the Gerson diet or anything based on it, you are much more likely to feel better with a healthy dose of Bach (Johann Sebastian, that is, not the flower remedies).

      • Thanks Julian, I appreciate the sentiments (there is still hope for my own bone cancer) and the book recommendation – and also the privilege of being listened to and engaged.

        These are my motivations
        1 Initially I felt I had to respond to the attack of the website on Gerson – I might be completely wrong, but other readers can judge that for themselves.

        2 Is it possible to keep to a standard of values on a newsgroup? Viz
        2a Never opine (this is almost impossible) – but I think it is possible.
        2b Never use “authority” as an argument – Yes, this is possible via “fiction” (i.e. generalised reality – Aristotle) – but I fear that only you, understand my references – so maybe that’s a No?

        I learn 2b on-the-fly during the above posts.

        3c Is it possible to convert another person to one’s own view be argument (I think no one has ever done that in the history of man – “Hey, brother, I was wrong, xzy is a terrible idea – thanks for converting me to abc!”) – so the real interesting thing is, why do we even attempt to do it, despite the evidence? The answer is because of a deep biological drive that we attempt to define in the concept “morality” – and that, interestingly enough, turns out to be mathematical:
        https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mathematics-About-World-Alternatives-Mathematical/dp/150055197X

        Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

        • The ancient Greek art of rhetoric was all about using language to convince or persuade, but I think it involved more appeal to emotions than reason.

          The Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries was marked by reason, skepticism, liberty and emergence of the scientific method. At that time public debates were common, and I understand that the audiences were much less liable to be swayed by emotional arguments then than they are now (think of fake news and the influence of social media). Perhaps in a way they were better educated than people are now.

          The scientific method is all about evidence, the final arbiter being Nature, and when new evidence emerges the scientist has to go with it (though some come quietly while others continue kicking and screaming). Thomas Huxley wrote “There is no sadder sight in the world, than to see a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact.” I have great admiration for the honesty and integrity of those scientists whose devotion to the pursuit of truth leads them to turn their back on their life’s work when the evidence requires it. This doesn’t happen in other walks of life.

          All the best for Christmas and New Year to you and your family!

  • My mother used Gerson Therapy 24 years ago after being diagnosed with stage 4 liver cancer and given 6-12 months to live. She is still alive today only because she underwent that program. I’m not sure about the Gerson vs Chemo but I do know that the radiation in the latter would have killed her, as did the entire medical team at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto. They called her remission “an anomaly”.

  • @Edzard on Sunday 30 December 2018 at 12:14 posted this pubmed link of a “spontaneous remission”:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26622005

    This is the text:
    “A 67-year-old woman with a history of rheumatoid arthritis treated with sulfasalazine and methotrexate for two and a half years presented with a one-month history of neck swelling. Her cumulative methotrexate dose was about 800 mg. Computed tomography (CT) showed a large mass involving the left lobe of her thyroid, along with lymphadenopathy (Figure 1A and B) and esophageal compression (Figure 1B). An incisional thyroid biopsy suggested diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Although serology results were consistent with prior infection with Epstein–Barr virus, results from in situ hybridization of thyroid tissue were negative for the virus. We diagnosed methotrexate-related lymphoma. After withdrawal of methotrexate, the swelling of the patient’s neck gradually abated. No other treatments were used. Follow-up CT at one and a half months showed a dramatic resolution of lesions (Figure 1C and D). Complete remission was reconfirmed at a two-year follow-up visit, at which time our patient was taking only sulfasalazine for her rheumatoid arthritis.”

    In other words, the lymphoma was caused by the treatment and the “spontaneous remission” happened when the treatment was withdrawn.

    (likewise the three links that follow that one)

    • I did not even read the articles; my aim was to show that there is a lot on ‘spontaneous remission’ – that’s all.

      • @Edzard on Sunday 30 December 2018 at 20:33 said:
        “I did not even read the articles; my aim was to show that there is a lot on ‘spontaneous remission’ “

        Call your six and raise you four more: (the ten cases presented at the Pepper/Neely senate subcommittee, number 1875, on 1st-3rd July 1946 by Gerson – five of which were backed up in person by the cancer survivors themselves – this is a matter of US government record).

        Gerson’s ten also has the advantage of not inflicting cancer on his patients whereas four of your six cause cancer via methotrexate – I thought that you guys took that oath about “first do no harm”?

        Here is the first link I found for methotrexate side effects:
        https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-3441/methotrexate-anti-rheumatic-oral/details

        It is not good, but worse of all, it does not mention that it causes cancer – I suppose that that is an automatically forgone assumption, otherwise it would be mentioned – or maybe the “evidence” (of pubmed) is that it is OK not to worry because of ‘spontaneous remission’ from “a lot” of cases?

        So what does ‘spontaneous remission’ depend on? On the immune system. And what does methotrexate do? According to that link, it suppresses the immune system.

        Your call. (do you like the poker analogy? – do you understand it?)

        • Bob,

          What you are saying about methotrexate, cancer and the immune system is rather simplistic, particularly as the immune system is the most complex system in the body, with many different types of immune cell and other components, hundreds if not thousands of chemical mediators and myriad feedback loops.

          It takes a long time for a cancer to develop from the first mutations that affect the DNA surveillance mechanisms in the cell through to the half-dozen or so additional mutations (which all have to occur within the same cell) that turn a cell cancerous. It then has to grow to the size of about 1,000,000,000 cells before it is big enough to be detected (i.e. about 1 cubic centimetre). This whole process takes 30 – 40 years, though for reticuloendothelial tumours (such as leukaemias and lymphomas) this time can be shorter – perhaps 12 – 15 years. So to say that taking methotrexate for two years caused a cancer to develop at the end of that time is not really consistent with what we know about the mechanisms of carcinogenesis.

          However, cancers are more common in people who are immunosuppressed, and it is clear that there is a sort of immune surveillance going on which keeps tumour growth under control. Indeed, some of the mechanisms involved have been worked out to the point that they have led to effective cancer treatments. So I think what is going on here is that the immunosuppression from the methotrexate has allowed a pre-existing cancer to show itself, and when that immunosuppression is lifted, the immune system can get back to doing what it was before. Unfortunately immunosuppression is an important component of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, which is a disease of the immune system leading it to attack joints and other tissues. The methotrexate (or gold, penicillamine, corticosteroids etc.) used for treating rheumatoid is quite unpleasant, but not nearly so unpleasant as the disease itself, which can destroy not only joints but also heart valves and orther vital tissues.

          All oncologists have seen spontaneous remissions of various kinds. I have certainly had half a dozen or so patients who have done unexpectedly well, including cures when the treatment was only expected to be palliative, or the cancer suddenly halting its growth for no apparent reason. I have no idea what causes this, but it is an active area of research, as understanding it could open up new avenues for treatment.

          • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Monday 31 December 2018 at 19:38 said:

            “…It then has to grow to the size of about 1,000,000,000 cells before it is big enough to be detected (i.e. about 1 cubic centimetre). This whole process takes 30 – 40 years, though for reticuloendothelial tumours (such as leukaemias and lymphomas) this time can be shorter – perhaps 12 – 15 years…”

            Julian,
            This is fascinating stuff, so I start to think about it… from one cell to 10^9 would be thirty doublings (2^30) which over 30 years means a doubling-time of one year.

            As a layman, this does make any sense to me e.g. a baby grows from one cell to 4Kg (i.e. 4,000 cc ?) in 9 months, so that’s 4,000 * 10^9 == 4 * 10^12 == 2^35 gives 35 doublings i.e. a doubling-time of just over one week which is 50 times faster than cancer? Surely cancer should be faster because no cells are dying off?

            But as you say, this is oversimplified – evidently one’s immune system could be very strong 30 years ago, and non-existant today, so the doubling time is irrelevant to begin with, and only becomes “true” just as the immune system is overwhelmed, in which case, there could be rapid growth from one cancer-cell to fetal-size, faster than a growing fetus, in a very weak patient? – what do you think? – or an immunosuppressant could cancel out an old immune system likewise?

          • Bob,

            “As a layman, this does make any sense to me e.g. a baby grows from one cell to 4Kg (i.e. 4,000 cc ?) in 9 months, so that’s 4,000 * 10^9 == 4 * 10^12 == 2^35 gives 35 doublings i.e. a doubling-time of just over one week which is 50 times faster than cancer? Surely cancer should be faster because no cells are dying off?”

            I have only just seen this post, buried as it was among the many others, and I thought I ought to answer it as you seem to be asking an obvious question.

            Actually cancer cells are dying off all the time. They are very abnormal cells and hardly any of them are viable. Furthermore, most of the cells within a tumour are starved of oxygen since the blood supply within a tumour is quite inefficient (tumours do promote the growth of blood vessels into them, but they do not form anything like a normal blood supply). So although in comparison to normal tissue a much higher proportion of cancer cells are dividing (this can readily be seen by looking at their nuclei for evidence of mitosis), the overall growth of the tumour is relatively slow. This does, of course, vary quite a lot, and tumours tend to grow faster with time due to mutations giving rise to more aggressive clones.

            Doubling time is a more useful concept for some tumours than for others. Prostate cancer, for instance, is relatively slow-growing and tends to grow exponentially. Faster-growing tumours tend to follow a Gompertzian rather than exponential growth pattern, with the rate of growth declining as the tumour gets larger.

            So in comparison to a developing embryo, which is following a clear, well-established and efficient template, a tumour is a heterogeneous bunch of randomly mutating cells, most of which die fairly quickly. Very occasionally a tumour can approach a doubling time of a week (I have seen this, and it is very scary), but 2 – 3 months is more common for a relatively aggressive tumour, and 6 – 12 months for something like prostate cancer.

            If you consider that the smallest tumour you are likely to be able to detect is about 1g (i.e. 1,000,000,000 cells), and most cancers are fatal by the time the total number of scecondaries adds up to about 1Kg (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000 cells), you will realise that cancers remain hidden for most of their natural history (say the first 10 – 40 years) and we only become aware of them towards the end when they have become large enough to diagnose.

    • I am not sure that I would regard this as a spontaneous remission, as it followed the withdrawal of an immunosuppressive treatment. Even so, it would certainly be unexpected in this highly aggressive form of lymphoma. I think the team treating her were quite brave not to give her standard treatment (it is usually curable with chemotherapy), though maybe if she had rheumatoid arthritis she may not have been fit for it.

      I am assuming that she wasn’t given steroids for her arthritis at any point, which would be expected to cause rapid reduction in the size of the mass.

      • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Monday 31 December 2018 at 01:21 said:
        “I am not sure that I would regard this as a spontaneous remission, as it followed the withdrawal of an immunosuppressive treatment. Even so, it would certainly be unexpected in this highly aggressive form of lymphoma.”

        Just suppose that this is the norm: that all cancers are immediately destroyed by the immune system – from that perspective, there is nothing surprising, it is to be expected.

        Alternatively, suppose that there is a great body of truth (infinite facts that self-support without contradiction) that says the opposite: that all cancers are *not* destroyed by the immune system – in fact, that is their definition – then, as you say, this is unexpected.

        That great body of truth seems to exist e.g. surfing the WWW: from “cofactor” to “pathway” with detailed colour images of the 3d molecular structures of life – surely this cannot be wrong! Life itself can be controlled because in here, somewhere there exists the infinite number of solutions for the infinite number of cancers!

        That is what Ptolemy thought with his epicycles that can recreate *any* existing (periodic) pattern of the universe, arbitrarily, even Homer Simpson (see post above).

        But it turns out that fourier analysis is *not* the driving force of the heavenly bodies at all – it is just a description, and always an approximation, instead it turns out that there is something much simpler than fourier: gravity – gravity is the driving force, fourier is only a painting (of anything you wish, no matter how fanciful).

        Likewise the marvelous blizzard of modern biological knowledge will *never* find the-cure-for-cancer because it has disintegrated the very knowledge that it is trying to integrate namely: the immune system.

        The solution for the “cure-of-cancer” *is* the immune system. It is not perfect, but it is the best that biology has managed to evolve so far i.e. it is dynamic with feedback loops hence it can never be recreated artificially from arbitrary rules, because it is continuous, unlike discrete-fourier (that applies to reality e.g. the FFT in all audio systems in all computers).

        All Gerson is saying is that this marvelous system (the gut/portal vein/liver i.e. liver) is delicately hanging in the balance of the “absurdly disproportionate amount of its energy in getting rid of waste” (p 252 of Dr Max Gerson by Straus) hence tip that balance ever so slightly one way and you will suffer from all the degenerative diseases of cancer, TB, hypertension, diabetes II etc – but tip it the other way and you have good health, especially into old age.

        It turns out, that as long as there is enough functioning liver left, that with the most careful dietary control + coffee enemas interspersed (to prevent the excessive toxic load of dead cancer cells now flowing into the blood, destroying what is left of the liver), all the degenerative diseases can be reversed with their symptoms, often disappearing in just a few weeks – BUT, these symptoms are just that, the Gerson Therapy *must* be continued for at least 18 months or even 2 years to allow the liver to recover fully before hitting it with the harder stuff cope with such as (very little) animal protein with its concentrated toxic load from modern farming practices.

        (I am at page 280 of this book, and so far it might appeal to readers of this thread because it concentrates on the man and his character, (as well as his achievements), so it is romantic too i.e. of-the-heroic. He survived because he cured all sorts of people, from the ex president of France to the chancellor of Austria to famous celebrities to famous scientists and those people allowed him and his family to escape Nazi Germany and anti-Jewish sentiment and easily emigrate to the US. He was world famous in Europe, but completely suppressed in the US – and still is today – while the Establishment, quietly reverse their previous ideas about diet and organic whole, plant based food, into the it-was-self-evident-all-along position, which is the final insult).

        • ” He was world famous in Europe, but completely suppressed in the US …”
          thanks; you just made my day!

        • Bob said:

          It is not perfect, but it is the best that biology has managed to evolve so far i.e. it is dynamic with feedback loops hence it can never be recreated artificially from arbitrary rules, because it is continuous, unlike discrete-fourier (that applies to reality e.g. the FFT in all audio systems in all computers).

          Did you have to use a special online gobbledegook generator for that?

        • Bob,

          I can’t make any sense of your last post. You are putting together terms that I am familiar with, such as “immune system”, “feedback loops” and “fourier analysis”, but I have no idea what it is that you are trying to say.

          • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Tuesday 01 January 2019 at 23:38 said:

            “I can’t make any sense of your last post. You are putting together terms that I am familiar with, such as “immune system”, “feedback loops” and “fourier analysis”, but I have no idea what it is that you are trying to say.”

            My bad – the snag with formal education is that the meta-language is much worse than the language 🙂 I started learning about harmonics from Prout in a book of 1890 or thereabouts.

            The fourier is child’s play (without the maths) – get a child to draw a sinusoid (that’s the 1st harmonic) then get them to draw the 3rd harmonic, in phase and just above it, at ⅓ amplitude of the 1st. Now the child adds the two together to produce the sum.

            Continue in this fashion by adding ⅕ of the fifth harmonic and 1/7th of the seventh and so on and a square wave will start to appear (as the total sum) – now play it, it sounds like… overdriven-electric-guitar! (or opera singer with the “hard throat” – i.e. driven into clipping).

            Or alternatively, repeat with 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc – it sounds like… pan-pipes!

            I.e. *any* sound, no matter how complex can be recreated by simply adding harmonics of appropriate amplitude and phase – that is how Homer is created by epi-cycles (those sinusoids could be played as well) – you can “prove” anything in this manner e.g. that the Sun goes round the Earth, as Ptolemy did.

            (the translation from circles to sinusoids is as simple as the high-school demo of spring-bob against edge-on silhouette of rotating wheel – sinusoids are circular :).

            My point is this: modern biochemistry is able to “prove” likewise the cause of an infinite number of cancers (and thence produce an infinite number of cures) – but, that is just a description of the symptom, not a treatment of the cause, just like Ptolemy is just a description, not the cause (gravity).

            Likewise Gerson’s model is just as simple as gravity: soil and gut coexist/cooperate – spoil one and that destroys the other -> destroying the liver’s ability to stay ahead of the curve of degenerate disease.

            If that is not bad enough (for modern cancer, symptom-only “cures”) then there are the biological feedback loops to “predict”! – and that is like trying to predict the next economic crash (feedback loops of people trying to anticipate what other people are thinking, about what other people or thinking ad nauseam.)

          • I am trying hard to be polite to you; however, it seems to me that you have not the foggiest idea what you are writing about.

          • Edzard on Wednesday 02 January 2019 at 07:43 said:
            “I am trying hard to be polite to you; however, it seems to me that you have not the foggiest idea what you are writing about.”

            But you find it fascinating though? (otherwise you would not reply at all) – I mean, likewise, I don’t get why you quote the Gerson-enema above as if it is self-evidently bad (when to me it is self-evidently good).

            So here we have two different minds, each of opposite understanding of the exact same object – it’s bizzare to say the least!

            And to me, proves that the way the mind sees the world is via internal models of it (the bleedin’ obvious e.g. dreaming recreates “reality” to perfection (in colour, sound, feeling etc) because that is the way that reality is perceived in the first place)…

            So, because we have different internal models, we have opposite understandings that are completely incompatible, which is shocking emotionally and fascinating intellectually – and even more fascinating, I have a model of your model (and you will have a model of my model) – now there’s an interesting place to go 🙂 – in there is the place of persuasion – the place that no human has ever been able to take advantage of! Especially myself in the above posts! – the place that you and I are trying to honour by being polite.

          • “the mind sees the world is via internal models of it”
            perhaps – but there are objective criteria to compare the models against.
            this is where science is helpful.
            and BTW, I find your comments not fascinating at all; I am merely trying to be polite.

          • @Edzard on Wednesday 02 January 2019 at 09:07 said:

            “…there are objective criteria to compare the models against.”
            Absolutely

            “…and BTW, I find your comments not fascinating at all; I am merely trying to be polite.”
            I use “fascinating” in it’s original meaning of “to be fastened” i.e. the subject could be horrific and fascinating at the same time.

            In other words, I try to chose words that are as objectively meaningful as possible – from their origins.

          • “you can “prove” anything in this manner”
            Fourier transform is a mathematical technique for describing any waveform as the sum of a series of sine waves rather than a displacement against time. They are equivalent, but one is easier to use than the other in particular situations.

            Epicycles were used by early astronomers to describe the movements of heavenly bodies as the sum of a series of circular orbits. Much later this was proven to be equivalent to fourier synthesis. However, it had nothing to do with Homer, who was much earlier, not a mathematician, and possibly did not exist (the works attributed to him were part of a long oral tradition before being written down).

            You seem to be suggesting that modern biochemistry describes the workings of the body in the form of some kind of mathematical equation that can be derived in a similar way. Scientific proof is quite different from mathematical proof. Science enables us to create a model based on evidence which approximates reality, and which is updated as new evidence becomes available. It is not a matter of opinion, nor is it dependent on how you perceive the world.

            I once met a very intelligent and well-read woman in India (the mother of one of my school friends) who was a devout Hindu, and who believed in the presence of many gods and spirits of various kinds who were responsible for what was going on in the world. For instance, when you turned on an electric light there was some kind of animate daemon who was activated by the switch and responsible for the glow. I found this a fascinating way of viewing the world, but it wouldn’t be very helpful if you were trying to wire a house.

            Gerson’s model is based on plausible-sounding (at the time) fantasy, and is inconsistent with the evidence, much of which has been gathered since his lifetime. It is also ridiculously simplistic. If I were to suggest that you could restart a broken-down car by pumping coffee into the exhaust pipe you would think I was mad (or at least, you wouldn’t expect it to work), but really that is the level of what he is saying.

          • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Wednesday 02 January 2019 at 10:04 said:
            “…However, it had nothing to do with Homer, who was much earlier…”

            We are at splendid cross purposes! The Homer here is the one being drawn by that youTube link i.e. Homer Simpson 🙂
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw&t=154s

            – but that makes the circle complete from the ancient fictional-Homeri to the modern fictional-Homer – perfect!

            “…If I were to suggest that you could restart a broken-down car by pumping coffee into the exhaust pipe you would think I was mad…”
            Yes, I would, but I also have a story which did just that: When I was a young guy, even cockier and more repellant than I am now, there were these two women with their old WV Beatle that would not start, they claimed.

            It was stuck in the middle of town with traffic going by all the time so I muscled in, put it in gear and got them to rock it to and fro with me, as I tried to listen for the sound of the bendix clicking back, out of engagement (it was hard to hear because of all the traffic)…

            Meanwhile, these two were giving me a constant stream of incredulous grief about the “stoopid, thing we were doing” and how “That ain’t gonna do no good!” etc etc. which made it even harder for me to hear the magic click – so eventually, exhausted (mentally and physically) I stepped back and said to “Try it now.” – she turned the key and up it started!

            I turned away without a word or a smile, back into the shadows… it is probably still a mystery to them, to this day: the mystery of the jammed bendix gear.

  • I have just finished Dr Max Gerson by Straus and now know that this is the book to read because it contains something much better than e.g. the details of the Gerson Therapy such as Charlotte Gerson’s book (which is very good as a manual) i.e. it is dramatic in the proper sense of that word: moral i.e. the moral clash between right and wrong by the history and actions of everyone involved.

    Interspersed with what happened between 1930 and 1999 are some of the cases from the Fifty Cases of Max Gerson’s book, 40 years or more later – how they felt meeting Gerson, and how they felt about their treatment before and afterwards – all the details.

    The finale is unbelievable, Gerson writes his book it takes two years, just as it is nearly finished, it is mysteriously stolen and his secretary made to copies so he fires her and has to write it all over again from scratch and he is 75 years old – he will be dead in three year’s time.

    He goes on WOR on the Long John radio show that normally runs from 11 pm until midnight – the radio host is mesmerised, he cannot believe what Gerson has achieved and the show continues until 2am in the early morning, the normal phone-ins are suspended, and Long John invites Gerson for another broadcast the following night – but in the morning, legal challenges force that appointment off the air and Gerson gets (the usual) summons to appear before the medical establishment – he resigns from that medical professional body – they don’t allow resignations until *they* say so!

    In other words, it is not the body of evidence of Gerson’s cures for cancer that are vast and cover more than 40 years of “remission” and extensive peer-reviewed publications in Europe only (non are allowed in the US because of suppression by the AMA, NCI and JAMA) the host cannot believe it, so he asks then why don’t they take your license away? Because they cannot, explains Gerson, I always present them with the cured patients that they said were incurable – five times now they have done it to me!

    Now, last night, on radio 4 there is a programme at 9.30 pm Series 8 Lady Mary Montague… – you can catch it on iPlayer – towards the end, the doctor there is talking about fecal-transplant and how it has been only discovered by the medical profession over the last five years to cure e.g. C. diff and one-in-four cases of ulcerative colitis but also in the cure of cancer! I.e. the gut turns out to be the critical organ – well they are catching up with Gerson, and he has been dead for 60 years so maybe it will take 70 years in total to catch up entirely?

    • and never once, while reading the book,it occurred to you that he might have been deluded and wrong?

      • @Edzard on Thursday 03 January 2019 at 09:42 said:
        “and never once, while reading the book,it occurred to you that he might have been deluded and wrong?”

        Sure, he was mad to trust his secretary for starters, but when one is honest oneself, then that is one’s standard of value that one applies to everyone else – so he naturally assumed that she was honest and trusted her – which was wrong, even deluded?

    • I remember seeing a faecal transplant used to cure Clostridium difficile at St. Stephen’s Hospital in Chelsea when I was a medical student in about 1984.

      • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Thursday 03 January 2019 at 10:14 said:
        “I remember seeing a faecal transplant used to cure Clostridium difficile at St. Stephen’s Hospital in Chelsea when I was a medical student in about 1984.”

        Yes, in that radio programme, the doctor mentions that the Chinese were doing them thousands of years ago.

        • … the doctor mentions that the Chinese were doing [fecal administration] thousands of years ago.

          …and they were poking children with stomachache in the belly with sharp sticks to let out excess fire, gouging under the fingernails of children with epilepsy and sucking blood into cups for diverse diseases.
          Did it help? Occasionally the patient happened to get better afterwards, but that is not how we measure success today.

          Chinese medicine-men may well have been giving patients shit back in those days, but where is the evidence it was doing them any good?

          • Björn Geir on Thursday 03 January 2019 at 11:55 said:
            “…and they were poking children with stomachache in the belly with sharp sticks to let out excess fire, gouging under the fingernails of children with epilepsy and sucking blood into cups for diverse diseases.
            Did it help? Occasionally the patient happened to get better afterwards, but that is not how we measure success today.”

            Hey guys, I’ve just had a terrific idea: The Trans-Orbital Lobotomy!
            No man! That’s way to barbaric we only need to shock ‘em – err, I mean: Electro-Convulsive-Therapy!

            Did it help? Occasionally the patient happened to get better afterwards, but that is not how we measure success today – or is it?

      • Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is nothing new, but a methodology still in early progress.

        I fail to see any relevant relation to the Gerson occultism.

        FMT is a promising technique nowhere near fully explored, new information is steadily coming in from studies.
        As with so many medical methods, good scientific evaluation and research is a slow process. FMT is widely used in cases where the gut flora has been disrupted, most notably in C. Diff. infections but also after heavy antibiotic treatments and in cancer treatment where the fecal flora has had to be killed off before bone marrow replacement. Many new uses may be still undiscovered.

        There is a lot of hype surrounding fecal transfer, like we see in “Bob’s” case above where he seems to have read somewhere that it cures cancer. That is far from the truth. It is also not an established cure for UC, ulcerative colitis but can benefit such patients in some cases. Promising results are seen, like in this rather small study, which showed that some patients seemed to benefit (not cured) but adverse events cannot be measured in such a small series (see below) Much more research seems to be needed before it can be considered a safe and effective addition to UC management.

        What scares me about amateurish hype of the sort we see here is that it may spur ill advised attempts at DIY-administration of fecal material by delusional doctor-wannabe’s. Such attempts may be harmful as in the case of a patient I saw some years ago who was almost dead form sepsis after oral administration of fecal material in an active bout of UC.
        FMT should never be done without proper medical surveillance and microbiotic control of what material is being used. As we can read in the link above, some bacteria seem to work while others defy the purpose.

    • “the gut turns out to be the critical organ – well they are catching up with Gerson”
      I don’t think modern medical research on the gut has very much to do with Gerson’s theories.

      “the show continues until 2am in the early morning”
      That tells me about Gerson’s charisma and his ability to convince people. It tells us nothing about the truth of what he is saying. Other charismatic speakers include Billy Graham, Adolph Hitler and Donald Trump, also Barack Obama and Martin Luther King, but I would not regard them as equally trustworthy.

      “non are allowed in the US because of suppression by the AMA, NCI and JAMA”
      Actually much good research written up in German language publications has been ignored by the rest of the world because of the taint it acquired by association with Nazi Germany. This includes the connection between weight gain and the type of food eaten rather than the number of calories, and some of the dangers to health from smoking, though not helped by the fact that not many scientists worldwide read German.

      • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Thursday 03 January 2019 at 10:29 said:

        (@Bob said: “the show continues until 2am in the early morning”)
        “That tells me about Gerson’s charisma and his ability to convince people. It tells us nothing about the truth of what he is saying.”

        Sure, but about cancer? “Let’s make America great again! (whisper – wazzat? – oh yeah) Let’s make America great again with the cure for cancer!” (whisper – wazzat? – Another two hours, fifty nine minutes to go?! – ok) “Let’s make American cancer cures great again!” (whisper – now what? – thanks “Let’s make American cancer cures great again by diet – yeah, by eating vegetables and… (whispers, coffee enemas? – Hey, I can’t read this stuff – your fired!)”

    • Bob,

      The limitations of your ability to handle medical issues critically tends to shine through your comments.

      “non are allowed in the US because of suppression by the AMA, NCI and JAMA” shows that you don’t realize JAMA is the publication of the AMA, so it shouldn’t be listed as if a separate organization.

      “…extensive peer-reviewed publications in Europe only…” shows that you don’t realize European peer-reviewed publications are freely available in the USA and, indeed, in most countries of the world.

      Please take a look at the Wikipedia entry on Max Gerson as an antidote to the conspiracy theories you’ve been swallowing. Never mind that you can easily denigrate Wikipedia as an unreliable source, just check the references cited in the article.

      • @Frank Odds on Thursday 03 January 2019 at 10:43 said:
        “Please take a look at the Wikipedia entry on Max Gerson as an antidote to the conspiracy theories you’ve been swallowing. Never mind that you can easily denigrate Wikipedia as an unreliable source, just check the references cited in the article.”

        OK, let’s do that, from here:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Gerson
        This:
        “The National Cancer Institute evaluated Gerson’s claims and concluded that his data showed no benefit from his treatment.[1] The therapy is both ineffective and dangerous.[2][3]”

        Who am I to believe? The NCI or e.g. Dr. Patricia Spain Ward from here:
        Quote from Dr Max Gerson by Straus, pages 383 – 386:
        “In the 1980s Dr. Patricia Spain Ward, one of the most eminent medical historians in the United States, was commissioned by the US Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to evaluate alternative methods of cancer management. After reviewing all relevant literature pertaining to Dr. Gerson’s work, she wrote a report on the “History of the Gerson Therapy,” citing the proven value of this treatment regimen and describing the unjust attacks by the medical establishment on Max Gerson…

        A scholar’s scholar and a superlative observer of clinical phenomena, Gerson was a product of the German medical education which Americans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries considered so superior to our own that all who could afford it went to Germany to perfect their training (Bonner, 1963)…

        There is now a great deal of research suggesting possible mechanisms for the efficacy of Gerson’s high potassium/low sodium diet…

        Although the AMA Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry labeled as “a false notion” the idea that diet can affect cancer, recent researchers have found that “nutritional status plays a critical role in immunological defense mechanisms at a number of important levels” (Kreusch, 1983, 345) and that nutritional factors “can have profound influences on… the development and manifestations of cancers.” as well as other diseases (Good, 1982, 85). In “The Cancerostatic Effect of Vegetarian Diets” (1983), Siguel describes as the ideal way to strengthen bodily defenses against neoplastic cells a diet similar to Gerson’s: high in carbohydrates and vegetables, low in protein…”

        • @Bob

          OK; like Edzard, I give up. You quoted me accurately: “Please take a look at the Wikipedia entry on Max Gerson as an antidote to the conspiracy theories you’ve been swallowing. Never mind that you can easily denigrate Wikipedia as an unreliable source, just check the references cited in the article.” I’ve added the italics to highlight the fact that you haven’t done what I suggested.

          “The National Cancer Institute evaluated Gerson’s claims and concluded that his data showed no benefit from his treatment.[1] The therapy is both ineffective and dangerous.[2][3]” The numbers in square brackets are the reference citations. In Wikipedia you merely click on them to be taken automatically to the foot of the entry where the source references are listed.

          Ref. 1 is an article from the (US) National Cancer Institute, which you seem to regard as a hotbed of anti-Gerson conspiracy, so we’ll pass over that one.

          Reference no. 2 is an archived web page from the American Cancer Society. Among other things it says: “Available scientific evidence does not support claims that Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer, and the principles behind it are not widely accepted by the medical community. It is not approved for use in the United States. Gerson therapy can be dangerous. Coffee enemas have been associated with serious infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte imbalances, and even death.”

          Reference no. 3 is a web page from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Institute. In its clinical summary for health professionals, the following appears: “Coffee enemas can cause infections, dangerous electrolyte deficiencies, and death (5). Despite proponents’ claims of recovery rates as high as 70-90 percent, case reviews by the NCI and New York County Medical Society in 1947 found no evidence of anticancer effects with the Gerson diet (1). The only large, retrospective review of patient survival in the literature was conducted by the Gerson Research Organization.
          The American Cancer Society (ACS) warns that the Gerson method can be very harmful (9).”

          (You can read the detailed list of side-effects on the same page.)

          You ask “Who am I to believe? The NCI or e.g. Dr. Patricia Spain Ward”. Let’s modify that to take account of the references in the Wikipedia sentence. “Who am I to believe? The NCI, the ACS and the Sloan-Kettering or e.g. Dr Patricia Spain Ward.” The blindingly obvious answer is “the first three”.

          If you prefer your conspiracy theory, you need to ask yourself why the 13,000 oncologists in the USA are so stupid or self-interested or — who knows what else? — to state that Gerson therapy is a crock and make the treatment illegal (in the interests of patient protection) when they know it works well and could save their patients better. Are there no US oncologists of the calibre and pro-patient mind-set of Dr Julian Money-Kyrle, whose comments to you you seem to have blithely ignored? In particular that he also sees Gerson therapy as a non-starter.

          So, OK Bob. I give up. SCAM supporters commonly merge into the ranks of conspiracy theorists, and I have no further time to waste on conspiracy theories.

          • @FO: your response is specific, fact-based, perspicacious, codified and unemotional. It appeals to scientific-opinion not just-one “scientist’s” opinion and demonstrates what can be accurately described as a prevailing-knowledge-based. The kind of response reasonable people make.
            But as is obvious that is not Bobs’ modus operandi. He, like most sCAM proponents goes by feel, want, desire, suspension-of-disbelief, and most predominantly ego. sCAMers are all about self-aggrandizement, standing-slightly-above mere “science & logic” and hubris. They NEVER disappoint in that regard.

          • @Michael Kenny on Friday 04 January 2019 at 13:08 said:
            “@FO: your response is specific, fact-based, perspicacious, codified and unemotional. It appeals to scientific-opinion not just-one “scientist’s” opinion and demonstrates what can be accurately described as a prevailing-knowledge-based. The kind of response reasonable people make.
            But as is obvious that is not Bobs’ modus operandi. He, like most sCAM proponents goes by feel, want, desire, suspension-of-disbelief, and most predominantly ego. sCAMers are all about self-aggrandizement, standing-slightly-above mere “science & logic” and hubris. They NEVER disappoint in that regard.”

            Never opine.

          • @Frank Odds on Friday 04 January 2019 at 09:49 said:
            “You ask ‘Who am I to believe? The NCI or e.g. Dr. Patricia Spain Ward’. Let’s modify that to take account of the references in the Wikipedia sentence. ‘Who am I to believe? The NCI, the ACS and the Sloan-Kettering or e.g. Dr Patricia Spain Ward.’ The blindingly obvious answer is “the first three”.

            Evidently, for you, “blind” and “obvious” are one and the same, see here:

            (Page 389 of Dr Max Gerson by Straus):
            “…JAMA said it was ‘fortunate’ that this Senate appearance received little newspaper publicity; the AMA was clearly outraged that Gerson’s appearance had become the subject of a favorable radio commentary, broadcast nationwide by ABC’s Raymond Gram Swing (U.S. Congress, 1946, 31-35; JAMA, 1946). The JAMA editorial focused on Gerson, even though it was not Gerson hut a lay witness, immune to AMA retaliation, who had called Gerson’s successes ‘miracles’ and urged the Senators to secure their future cancer commission against control by any existing medical organization (U.S. Congress, 1946, 96,97).”

            (Page 389-390)
            “It was not Gerson, but Dr. Miley, who told the Senators that a long-term survey by a well-known and respected physician showed that those who received no cancer treatment lived longer than those who received surgery, radiation or X-ray (U.S. Congress, 1946, 117). Perhaps because Miley was a Northwestern medical graduate, an established physician licensed in four states, and a fellow of the AMA and state and county societies of Pennsylvania and New York, [that] Morris Fishbein did not attack him personally…”

            (Page 318)
            “As Max Gerson wrote in a 1954 letter to his friend Albert Schweitzer:
            My main opponent is C. P. Rhoads, director of Sloan Kettering hospital here. He control the AMA and Academy of Medicine since he also controls millions of dollars annually from cancer collections, etc.

            “Those who would like to befriend me are saying quite openly that they are not allowed and cannot do so. They are sorry that they cannot help me or else they would lose their position and hospital privileges and laboratories. I have long given up hope of any kind of recognition. Nevertheless, I continue on my straightforward path. (10/1/54; translated from the German by Charlotte Gerson)

            “The questionable political motives and ethical behaviour of the established cancer research and treatment facilities in the 1950s has been exposed by Ralph W. Moss in his book The Cancer Industry. Dr Max Gerson was a decidedly anti-establishment and even threatening figure in this ‘industry’ “

            (Page 312)
            “[25 case histories have been supplied to the NCI for their inspection] Patiently, Dr. Gerson waited for some response…. Nine months later, there still was no word from the NCI. Finally he wrote a letter [asking for a reply] several more months passed before a reply arrived: “Twenty-five cases is really not enough for the NCI… we will need a hundred more cases.” Sorely disappointed once again, Gerson declined. Now, whenever the NCI received an inquiry about Dr. Gerson’s therapy, they responded, ‘Dr. Gerson was asked to submit cases for investigation, but refused to do so.’ The AMA and the ACS responded similarly. NCI did not return the case records… Years later, when Gar Hildenbrand… tried to use the Freedom of Information Act to extract these records from the NCI, they said that the files were routinely destroyed… a few years ago Pedro Aponte Vazquez, author of Cronica de un Encubrimiento, tried to retrieve from the Army records of C. P. Rhoads’ atomic, biological and chemical experiments on human subjects. He was told [likewise]”

          • Bob,
            You posts are continuing to sound quite irrational and suggest that you believe in conspiracy theories against all evidence and reason.

            It also seems as if you are favouring the opinion of someone who was practising 60 – 70 years ago, and who was at the very least a maverick, and if we are being less charitable a deluded charlatan, against current medical thinking and practice, which is based on a huge and consistent body of research carried out since then. Are you seriously denying the progress that has been made in scientific understanding since the 1940’s and 50’s?

            Whatever you may think of the National Institute of Health, all their recommendations on cancer treatment are accompanied by references to the evidence that they are based on, together with an assessment of the level of that evidence (e.g. an observational study is not considered to be as reliable as a randomised clinical trial).

            You also seem to regard a historian as a better authority on clinical matters than a respected body of clinicians. This seems to me rather like taking your car to be fixed a transport historian rather than a mechanic.

            The one theme that seems to run through all your posts is that you have no training in or basic understanding of biology or biomedical sciences, which does put you at a disadvantage in navigating this area without a map or a compass.

          • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Friday 04 January 2019 at 17:24 said:
            “Your posts are continuing to sound quite irrational and suggest that you believe in conspiracy theories against all evidence and reason.
            It also seems as if you are favouring the opinion of someone who was practising 60 – 70 years ago… Are you seriously denying the progress that has been made in scientific understanding since the 1940’s and 50’s?”

            I don’t try to make my posts sound like anything in particular, they are just quotes from published authors against quotes from other published authors – to show that there is no evidence that Gerson or his therapy is dangerous, there is just one opinion against another: Gerson’s patients against the AMA, NCI and all the other professional organisations of the US state.

            Gerson’s patients are of the opinion that they have been cured of cancer because they are still alive 40 years later. They might be wrong of course, they might all have had “spontaneous remission” because Max Gerson was some Svengali type with magic power – or maybe, just maybe he is right and diet is the cause of all modern degenerate diseases.

            You could present to me as many reports by the AMA or the NCI as you like and I could go through them with you and discredit each claim in turn using e.g. the text of Dr Max Gerson by Straus, but I don’t have to do that, there is a much easier way to expose the nature of the modern-drug-industry: mass-trials: E.g.

            (page 33 of Ascorbate, The Science of Vitamin C by Hickey & Roberts)
            “…Pharmacologist Professor David Horrobin states the position clearly: ‘If a trial has to be large, say more than 100 patients, it is large only because the expected effect size is very small’. By this reasoning, large-scale studies need justification rather than admiration. Horrobin has gone so far as to suggest that large-scale trials on patients with rapidly fatal diseases are unethical. [2003, Lancet 361, 695-697]”

            As you say, I am a layman, so I don’t volunteer my opinion because that would be meaningless. Instead I quote e.g. Dr. Steve Hickey and Dr. Hilary Roberts (who quote Horrobin). I do this because it is self-evident that it would be impossible (and highly unethical) to conduct double-blind, mass trials costing millions of dollars on e.g. Gerson therapy – who would put up with 2 years of fake-coffee-enemas, in the control group, when they were dying of cancer? Hence the American medical authorities always say (correctly) that xyz is “unproven” – that is what *you* are labelling as “conspiracy theory” (I do not use that term – nor ever will).

            The concept “conspiracy theory” is one of many, modern, package-deals that allow the advocate to avoid having to think: they can blow some air through their vocal chords and say “conspiracy theory” and imagine that they have proven some point by saying it – that they have somehow destroyed all the arguments of their (imagined) adversary – likewise calling someone a “quack” – it avoids having to provide any evidence to back up their claim: case dismissed by ad-hominem.

            Modern medical practice: Yes, there have been astonishing advances in all things, over the last 70 years e.g. computing, that has allowed routine DNA analysis in half an hour, but this progress alone has caused a curse of its own: specialisation.

            We now have a wood-for-the-trees problem everywhere in all-walks-of-life from wiring a household plug to choosing between chemotherapy vs radiation therapy (this choice was given to me – a layman – how am I to choose? – the doctors explained that it was unethical for them to choose for me).

            So, I decided to learn about modern biochemistry from the WWW and to my surprise, I discover from the youTube video of Jessie Yu, that it is possible to cure melanoma using the Gerson Therapy, and he explains and shows how he did it with medical evidence of his self-cure by diet and coffee enema.

            But the authorities e.g. the doctors at the hospital were not pleased with me when I decided not to take their advice (which they could not give anyway because it was “unethical” of them to chose for me – and impossible for them to educate their knowledge into my brain, in ten minutes, so that I could make “an informed choice”) – they said that I was taking a risk with my own life – but I say this in repy: “It is my life, and only I am allowed to take risks with it!”

            When authority tells me that I am not allowed to wire a household mains plug because I am not qualified, I am forced by law to allow them to do it for me, but I always check if afterwards because “It is my life, and only I am allowed to take risks with it!”

            If you think that I don’t trust authority, you are damn right I don’t – look at the fire at that London tower block – during the second world war, ordinary folks, lay-men-and-women went around roof tops with buckets of sand and saddle-pumps, putting out incendiaries, folks know what is dangerous and what is not dangerous, just like the residents of that tower block who kept telling the authorities that the cladding was dangerous for years beforehand. But they were all laymen and ignored.

            But instead of thinking, modern “authority” has regulation and law (instead of action and thought) so problems are solved today by passing laws e.g. fire regulations. The result is more danger, not less, and the response, more law and less thought.

            Modern knowledge has split medicine into so many fragments that no one knows anything (about the whole) anymore e.g. when the US passed legislation to fluoridate public drinking water, only dentists were consulted – but now we know that e.g. root canals are a major cause of degenerative disease, the error is in not considering the human body as a whole (this evidence is from Levi’s book, Primal Panacea – sorry I don’t have the page numbers because I lent the book to my local doctor). If you can provide evidence that this is not true, I am happy to examine it – I am only a layman.

          • “I don’t try to make my posts sound like anything in particular, they are just quotes from published authors against quotes from other published authors”

            The BBC, in its news and current affairs programmes, strives to give fair time to both sides of a debate. This is fine in the realm of politics, and indeed in the arts. However, this policy can cause great problems when it comes to the sciences, where in order to generate a debate at all they have to pit scientific consensus against a few mavericks as though what each side to say is equally valid.

            The only arbiter of truth in science is Nature, and opinion does not count for anything when it is not backed by sound evidence. And when new evidence emerges, scientific consensus has to change to take account of it.

            ” – to show that there is no evidence that Gerson or his therapy is dangerous, there is just one opinion against another”
            No. There is opinion on one side and evidence on the other.

            “You could present to me as many reports by the AMA or the NCI as you like and I could go through them with you and discredit each claim in turn”
            I doubt it very much. I don’t wish to be personal, but from your previous posts I don’t think you are able to understand such reports let alone critically analyse them.

            “Pharmacologist Professor David Horrobin states the position clearly: ‘If a trial has to be large, say more than 100 patients, it is large only because the expected effect size is very small’. By this reasoning, large-scale studies need justification rather than admiration.”
            Certainly all studies need justification, and there are a large number of badly-designed studies in the medical literature that have wasted a lot of resources and tell us very little. However, the influence of random factors in any biological system (including clinical trials) means that the size of the trial needs to be sufficient to be reasonably sure that the results are valid. There are well-established mathematical formulae for calculating this number, depending on the expected size of the effect and the degree of certainty required. A study of 100 patients would only reveal a large effect, and most trials have to be considerably larger than this to rise above the statistical noise threshold.

            “The concept “conspiracy theory” is one of many, modern, package-deals that allow the advocate to avoid having to think: they can blow some air through their vocal chords and say “conspiracy theory” and imagine that they have proven some point by saying it – that they have somehow destroyed all the arguments of their (imagined) adversary – likewise calling someone a “quack” – it avoids having to provide any evidence to back up their claim: case dismissed by ad-hominem”
            Is this how you view what I have been saying so far? Perhaps I have been a bit unfair in likening you to a conspiracy theotist, but you have been railing against pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions as though they were conspiring to hide the truth, you have been intransigent in not considering other points of view and you do very much cherry-pick your sources.

            “So, I decided to learn about modern biochemistry from the WWW”
            By enrolling in an on-line course from a reputable university?

            “But instead of thinking, modern “authority” has regulation and law (instead of action and thought) so problems are solved today by passing laws e.g. fire regulations. The result is more danger, not less, and the response, more law and less thought”
            We all know the reason for this – politicians need to be seen to be doing something in order to retain the vote, so much legislation gets passed with this in mind and with no thought for the actual consequences.

            “the residents of that tower block who kept telling the authorities that the cladding was dangerous for years beforehand. But they were all laymen and ignored”
            The enquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire has not been completed, so it is unwise to pre-empt its conclusions before they have been published.

            “Modern knowledge has split medicine into so many fragments that no one knows anything (about the whole) anymore ”
            That is a matter of medical training. Certainly there seems to be a trend these days towards early specialisation, particularly in some European countries such as Germany. Personally I have found it very useful to have had a good grounding in general medicine (I think you call it internal medicine in the USA) before training as an oncologist. But however specialised you are, the important thing is to know the limitations of your own expertise and when to consult somebody else. Modern medicine works in teams, not as lone practitioners.

            “e.g. when the US passed legislation to fluoridate public drinking water, only dentists were consulted”
            What has that got to do with the supposed fragmentation fo modern medicine? This is surely a reflection on how governments operate and who they choose to consult.

            “but now we know that e.g. root canals are a major cause of degenerative disease, the error is in not considering the human body as a whole (this evidence is from Levi’s book, Primal Panacea”
            I think you will find that this is quite contentious. The Internet is completely unregulated and anybody can put anything up there. You seem to have the knack of finding unreliable sources of information, and your BS-ometer needs to be recalibrated (sorry, I’m not trying to be rude). Even schoolchildren in the UK receive training in how to spot fake news.

            “it is possible to cure melanoma using the Gerson Therapy, and he explains and shows how he did it with medical evidence of his self-cure by diet and coffee enem”
            Malignant melanoma is very unpredictable in its behaviour, with spontaneous remissions and sudden relapses being quite common. This makes it particularly difficult to assess the efficacy of treatment in this condition.

            “Gerson’s patients are of the opinion that they have been cured of cancer because they are still alive 40 years later.”
            In my experience patients are convinced of a great many things which aren’t true. As I have said previously, of those case histories I have read, some had conventional therapy before consulting Gerson, and many were not diagnosed using modern methods or even diagnostic criteria; none seem to have been written up in a rigorous manner. I think it is more likely, therefore, that they never had cancer in the first place or that they were cured by other treatment.

            “choosing between chemotherapy vs radiation therapy (this choice was given to me – a layman – how am I to choose? – the doctors explained that it was unethical for them to choose for me”
            What??? Is that really what they said to you?

            “the doctors at the hospital were not pleased with me when I decided not to take their advice (which they could not give anyway because it was “unethical” of them to chose for me – and impossible for them to educate their knowledge into my brain, in ten minutes, so that I could make “an informed choice””
            I think perhaps you should find yourself another team of doctors, one that doesn’t put a rigid interpretation of ethical guidelines above common sense.

            A big part of what I used to do when I was practising was explaining to my patients exactly what was going on with them and what the treatment options were, in words they could understand, and getting them to repeat back to me what I had said so that I was sure that they understood it. It generally took a lot more than ten minutes, however. To make it easier, I was assisted by specialist nurses who could then spend even more time with the patients while I got on with the rest of my clinic, and by printed literature explaining details of treatment, its limitations and the potential risks. It was clear to me that some people are better at explaining things than others, and many of my colleagues would use medical jargon that meant very little to their patients (particularly those whose first language wasn’t English but who had trained in medicine in English, and really didn’t know the colloquial terms).

            Having said that, I have been spending months trying to explain things to you and you don’t seem to have understood very much of it, which makes it rather hard to have any sort of productive discussion. I suspect you may have posed more of a challenge to your doctors than most of their patients, but that does not absolve them of their responsibility to ensure that you are properly informed before making any decision (including the decision not to follow medical advice).

            And for your information:
            In metastatic prostate cancer, the role of radiotherapy is to control symptoms. Commonly this is bone pain, where a single fraction (dose) is generally sufficient (in the US, where everybody charges per fraction, the treatment is likely to be divided into many fractions). If the primary prostate tumour is very large and threatening to obstruct the bladder or rectum, radiotherapy can be helpful here, usually requiring a longer course of fractionated treatment.

            Recent data from the STAMPEDE trial in Europe suggests that radiotherapy to the primary tumour in prostate cancer can modify the course of secondary tumours elsewhere; I have no idea how this might have changed clinical practice, however, since this was published after I retired.

            The role of chemotherapy is primarily at the time of diagnosis, or at least while the cancer is still responsive to hormones (i.e. testosterone blockade). In this situation, giving six cycles of docetaxel over an eighteen-week period in addition to blocking testosterone with an LHRH analogue such as Zoladex prolongs survival (and well-being) by 22 months on average compared with an LHRH analogue alone. The same course of chemotherapy given later in the course of the disease (i.e. once it has become hormone-resistant) only gives around 3 months’ survival benefit.

            The main toxicity of docetaxel is fatigue, although it also causes hair loss, anaemia, immunosuppression and some toxicity to the nerves in the fingertips and toes.

            Radiotherapy for bone pain causes very little toxicity. Radiotherapy to the prostate causes fatigue and local urinary and bowel symptoms.

            Another type of radiotherapy is injectable radium-223, which has also been shown to improve survival as well as control symptoms, but the optimum time to give it has not yet been established, and it is certainly more toxic to the bone marrow than chemotherapy is, which (among other things) makes it difficult to give chemotherapy afterwards.

            I can’t really see that the choice between radiotherapy and chemotherapy would be either/or as they have different roles in prostate cancer. Though in many countries they are supervised by different doctors (radiation oncologist vs. medical oncologist – I am a clinical oncologist, trained in both, which is usual in the UK). In any case the mainstay of treatment is blocking testosterone, which has its own problems but is a lot better than uncontrolled cancer.

            You should have had this information from your own oncology team, explained in a way that was relevant to your particular disease, and they should have given you the opportunity to go away and think about it, and then come back to ask more questions before making any treatment decisions. If that is not the case, perhaps your family doctor would be able to refer you elsewhere.

  • Erratum:
    I missed the point in paragraph 5 above i.e. “It is not the body of evidence… it is the body of the suppression.” (that makes the Gerson case most eloquently).

  • @bob: is “never opine” your learned opinion? I’d suggest your postings are nothing but opinions.

    • @Michael kenny on Saturday 05 January 2019 at 13:09 said:
      “@bob: is “never opine” your learned opinion? I’d suggest your postings are nothing but opinions.”

      This is a trap-check, ya twit, and you called it – now I can call ya back and raise the pot!

      All ya gotta do is relax and think – you know what a wordy, smart-arse I am, you said it yourself above already, so you should expect plenty especially from this gold-mine, but no, just two words? (Edzart uses the minimal-response, his shortest is just two-letters above: “no”)

      So you are sitting there, wondering what my reply will be, why not just ask instead with e.g. “Why” – now, instead of calling, you passed, and it spoils my play because I gotta explain myself (which is always a defensive thing).

      This is the play (call-and-raise):
      “@bob: is “never opine” your learned opinion? I’d suggest your postings are nothing but opinions.”
      …Which is your option of course, but now you have broadened your own version of “opinion” to include: non-opinions – destroying the distinction of “opinion” – and eventually language, leading to shouting about Nazis etc.

      But the main error you make (and the reason why one should never opine) is e.g. this is what you said:
      “@Michael Kenny on Friday 04 January 2019 at 13:08 said:
      “@FO: your response is specific, fact-based, perspicacious, codified and unemotional. It appeals to scientific-opinion not just-one “scientist’s” opinion and demonstrates what can be accurately described as a prevailing-knowledge-based. The kind of response reasonable people make.”

      Now think about it, FO (Frank Odds) is: specific, factual, perspicacious, codified and unemotional – what a reputation he now has to live up to, all the time, the poor guy can no longer relax, he’s always got to check all his assertions for specificity, factualness codificity and be unemotional about it too – by the time he has done that, he will have forgotten what the question was – give the poor guy a break!

      But what if he manages it, to be perfect, well look what happens to smart-arses like Socrates – I mean, they condemn him to death, and he suggests that the punishment should be a Kalo vrathino – a good meal! Instead! Run for the hills Frank! – the other guy who tried that trick, got nailed to a tree for saying that, everyone loves a smart-arse 🙂

      Farewell fellow fools, and read Dr Max Gerson – yo-all ignored Marshall Barry, only a short time ago, and they just gave him the Nobel prize and H. Pylori is nothing compared to stroke, diabetes II, MS and all the others… and all of this is nothing compared to the Anthropocene!

      “…and so, furthermore, ladies and gentlemen of the Royal College of Charlies, I propose that the use of leeches is not only harmful, but useless!”
      “Pah, man’s unbalanced, etc” (Spike Milligan, The Good Show)

  • Bob

    Dr Money-Kyrle has been gradually exhausting his considerable supplies of politeness and consideration in response to your protracted practical demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect as he demolishes your laughable notions.

    I exhausted mine years ago.

    “ but now we know that e.g. root canals are a major cause of degenerative disease”

    Oh we do, do we? Care to supply some references to the original papers supporting this? I’m sure you’ve “done your research”.

    Oh. A couple of YouTube videos and something Joe Mercola wrote, is it?

    Run away, Bob. You are blinded by your own ignorance. Your beliefs are faith-based, unevidenced and religious.

    And Julian, I would suggest that you waste no more time on this thread. You have already explained and demonstrated Bob’s foolishness. His hapless arguments need no further deconstruction. Remember that it is impossible to defeat with logic a position which is fundamentally illogical.

    • Lenny,

      I think you are right. Bob doesn’t seem to understand very much of what we have been saying to him, which makes it rather difficult to have a fruitful discussion. He also doesn’t seem to be very clear about what he knows and what he doesn’t.

      I am reminded of the film “The Englishman who Went up a Hill but Came Down a Mountain”, which is a gentle comedy set in Wales (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112966/). There are two characters who are identical twins named Tommy Toop 1 and Tommy Toop 2 (played by local farmers). Toop, apparently, is a Welsh term for being a bit daft, or not quite right in the head. At one point one of them says:
      “We’re not so toop as to not know we’re toop”
      Wise words indeed!

    • @Lenny on Saturday 05 January 2019 at 16:47 said:
      “Dr Money-Kyrle has been gradually exhausting his considerable supplies of politeness and consideration in response to your protracted practical demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect as he demolishes your laughable notions.”

      I am sure that Dr Money-Kyrle does not want (or need) justification from anyone.

      Why are you so angry? It’s best for your own health to stay calm.

      I am a layman – I always said so – so e.g. I tend to believe something like this:
      https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/root-canals-cause-cancer/

      Who is this Mercola guy you mention?

      Check out the Jessie Yu video here:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WyEsN9DzSo&t=687s

  • @Lenny on Sunday 06 January 2019 at 15:13 said:

    “A pageful unevidenced garbage written by a chiroquacktor citing the long-discredited nonsense produced by Weston Price 100 years ago, leavened with a few anecdotes. Laughable.”

    Hey man, I never looked at it like that, you are right! How could I have been so wrong! But finally, you have convinced me – I am going to stop this ridiculous veggie diet and go back to my favourites: Sloppy Joes! With loads of salt – and start that chemo right away – Oh No! I have not had any for a year and I have terminal cancer – let’s hope it’s not too late 🙁 – I wish you had told me this sooner, all those other posters tried to explain it to me, but I was just too stupid to understand them, then you came along and made it so much clearer.

  • Who writes this shit. They must get paid to lie. Gerson has saved sooo many lives. Chemo kills
    As it is said let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food
    Even the bible says plant food
    So sick of the corrupt crap
    Whole foods plant based is the healthy way to go.

    • “Whole foods plant based is the healthy way to go”
      There is a lot of evidence that this is a good diet to stay healthy, and to reduce the chance of getting cancer in the first place. However, there is no evidence that it is an effective treatment for an established cancer.

      “let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food”
      That was written 2,000 years ago. We have moved on a bit since then.

      “the bible says plant food”
      I’m not sure what you are getting at here. What about hunter-gatherers?

      “Who writes this shit.”
      I am a retired oncologist.

      “They must get paid to lie”
      I am not paid at all. I am motivated by the desire to educate and to expose nonsense.

      “Gerson has saved sooo many lives”
      There is no evidence for this, other than rather dubious claims by Gerson himself and his foundation. When I was a junior doctor I saw three cancer patients who went onto Gerson therapy, mainly at the urging of their relatives. They found it difficult to stick rigidly to the protocol (e.g. only have three coffee enemas a day instead of five), their blood tests rapidly became dangerously abnormal and they were all dead within three weeks of starting.

      “Chemo kills”
      Knives kill. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t use them for chopping vegetables in the kitchen. The risks and benefits of chemotherapy are well-documented and it is never given lightly. However, it has improved and extended the lives of many people with incurable cancer and cured many others.

      I’m getting rather fed up with commentating on this thread – it is like playing Whack-a-Mole.

      • “I’m getting rather fed up with commentating on this thread – it is like playing Whack-a-Mole.”

        I’m sure many of us recognize that sensation, Julian — Edzard Ernst in particular — but please don’t stop the comments coming. They’re much appreciated, as many have told you.

      • Julian

        “They found it difficult to stick rigidly to the protocol (e.g. only have three coffee enemas a day instead of five)”

        Well that’s why they got ill and died. Gerson only works every time if you adhere EXACTLY to the protocols as described. Drink the wrong blond of juices two minutes too early or too late, stick the wrong thing up your arse, etc and it won’t work.

        I’m being trite but these are claims made by Gerson apologists. It’s the fault of the victim, not the scammers. That desperately ill people are unable to adhere to the ridiculous demands of the quacks gives a get-out. Every time.

        From the Gerson website:

        “These are all factors that will affect the prognosis. In the past 50 years, the population has been exposed
        to more toxins, prescription drugs and poor quality food, water and air than ever before. We now find that
        many people are initially diagnosed at a more advanced stage of disease. Many often have multiple
        additional health issues complicating their cancer diagnosis. Some cancers are now more aggressive and
        progress more quickly. For all these reasons, and more, determining whether or not the Gerson Therapy
        is the most optimal stand-alone primary treatment approach for you requires serious consideration and
        investigation. It is also important that anyone considering using the Gerson Therapy read the section on
        our web site on eligibility and contraindications to undergoing the therapy.

        Another very important factor to consider is whether one is willing to comply with the rigid and strict
        therapy protocol. People must seriously consider whether they have the discipline and determination to
        fully commit to the Gerson Therapy for two plus years. This will necessitate taking time off from work in
        order to do the therapy properly and get enough rest.”

        Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.

        Predatory quacks.

        • @Lenny on Saturday 12 January 2019 at 10:04 said:
          “Well that’s why they got ill and died. Gerson only works every time if you adhere EXACTLY to the protocols as described. Drink the wrong blond of juices two minutes too early or too late, stick the wrong thing up your arse, etc and it won’t work.”

          Yeah, he right! Ya don’t have to wash the automobile every week or polish it, sheesh! Or those tyre pressures, or change the oil every year, I ain’t changed the oil for years, or the water, an it still goes great!

          …some time later…

          So, it got some lipoma here and there, so what, and a little colitis, who care…

          …some time later…

          And now some melanoma, we just paint over it, there it be good again.

          …some time later…

          It dang running on sump oil and blowed up! Who care, the government will git me anudda one from fool neighbor who polish his every week – ha, sure show him who da dum one aint! An it aint me, no sir!

  • Dang some of y’all have been arguing for years.

  • Anyone interested in the patient ‘s experience of the Gerson therapy might do well to read the testimonial-memoir of BEATE BISHOP.
    She used to be a BBC producer, health conscious but a lifelong heavy smoker, who got skin cancer in the late 70’s.
    She had the usual surgery plus a skin graft.When the cancer spread, disillusioned with her surgeon (who never warned her to stop smoking,denied any diet connection, and was misleading too regarding the new tumor) she opted to attend the Mexico clinic.As far as i know she is still alive and well.She took the precaution of asking for her hospital file precisely to avoid the accusation of never having really had cancer in the first instance.

    I once met a cancer survivor.She had secondary cancer of the lung.She had surgery, but refused chemotherapy which her doctors said would prolong her life by 4-6 months not more.Despite strong opposition from the doctors she insisted instead in being referred to the Integrated Medicine hospital in Grt Ormond St in London, where she was given a plant tincture mixture specially made for her.She claims that this mixture helps her immune system keep the cancer at bay.
    7 yrs later she’s alive and well and carries on drinking a phial of this potion every day.
    She does not credit her recovery solely on the mixture though: she changed her lifestyle radically:nutrition, no stresses, travelling, keeping a happy outlook…She comes into Hospital every 6 months for monitoring tests.And she’s still smoking!

    The most striking in her story was the reaction of a woman oncologist who was part of the initial team treating her and vehemently against her defecting to the alternative hospital. They met by chance years later in the hospital ward where she was having her routine testing done.Without so much as a “how are you” the good doctor looked her up and down and spat out with rancour “I guess you were right then!” before walking off (!!!)

    You’d think the doctors would have the basic curiosity of finding out what was in the mixture but no…

    • yes!
      and you’d also think the doctors giving her the herbal mixture would have the basic curiosity of finding out whether it works by running a proper clinical trial.
      anecdote are no evidence!!!
      https://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/

    • “might do well to read the testimonial”
      Unfortunately, testimonials are more-or-less all there is to support Gerson therapy, and a testimonial is not very good evidence of anything. For a start, only those who are able to manage the demanding regimen and then survive long enough are in a position to write a testimonial, which rules out the majority of patients choosing this route.

      “health conscious but a lifelong heavy smoker”
      Isn’t it odd how people think they can mitigate the effects of smoking by adopting other elements of a healthy lifestyle. The only lifestyle choice that I can think of that is worse for your health than smoking is taking part in extreme sports, and e.g. diet is about as helpful there, too.

      “As far as i know she is still alive and well”
      Forty years later? How old was she when she was diagnosed, given that you describe her as a “lifelong smoker”, which suggests at least 30 – 40 years of smoking?

      Also, malignant melanoma is highly variable in its clinical course. As an example I know somebody personally who was diagnosed with secondary melanoma in the brain 35 years ago, still alive and cancer-free following conventional treatment which was never expected to be curative.

      “I once met a cancer survivor.”
      Only once? Cancer is quite common and a large proportion are cured, so I hope you have met quite a few.

      “She had secondary cancer of the lung.She had surgery”
      Why did she have surgery if she had secondary cancer of the lung? Surgery for lung cancer is only performed as a curative procedure. Did she, in fact, have lung cancer at all, or was it another type of cancer which had spread to the lung (e.g. pulmonary metastasectomy can be curative for soft-tissue sarcoma and germ-cell tumours).

      “but refused chemotherapy which her doctors said would prolong her life by 4-6 months not more.”
      In my experience what the doctors say and what the patient thinks they say in this situation are often very different.

      If her oncologist quoted a survival benefit of 4 – 6 months from chemotherapy, what they actually meant was that the chemotherapy had been assessed in clinical trials where the patients were (hopefully) similar to her, and that the MEDIAN SURVIVAL of the treated group was 4 – 6 months longer than that of the control group (perhaps by 4 months in one trial and 6 months in another). The median survival is the time by which half the patients in that group had died. That means that some of them (both treated and untreated) will have died much sooner than that, and some will have survived much longer. In practice there will be some who won’t have been helped by the chemotherapy at all, and some who will have been helped a great deal, and some who would survive a long time regardless. These are difficult concepts to explain to somebody who has just found out that they have an incurable cancer.

      If she did have lung cancer (rather than another type), although it usually behaves aggressively, this is by no means always the case, and for low-volume, slowly-progressing disease a survival of 7 years or more is certainly not unheard-of even with no treatment at all.

      I should add that a lot has changed in the treatment of lung cancer over the past 7 years, including the use of non-chemotherapy drugs.

      “You’d think the doctors would have the basic curiosity of finding out what was in the mixture”
      In my experience this sort of proprietary information is generally kept secret and is rather hard to obtain.

      • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Sunday 27 January 2019 at 02:11 said:
        “Unfortunately, testimonials are more-or-less all there is to support Gerson therapy,…”

        “…Unfortunately…” for whom? If testimonials are no good, why bother with job-interviews, references or the legal system etc.

        Check this testimonial out:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TA5r_F7DQk

        • False equivalence, Old-Bob.

          Medicine knows testimonial evidence to be of very low quality when testing the efficacy of a particular treatment. Which is why properly-designed clinical trials are used.

          Proof By YouTube is no proof and on this site we ignore such links. Now if you could link to some good-quality clinical evidence, that would be great.

          We’ll wait.

      • Dr Money-Kyrle,

        I am sorry about your diagnosis. I hope you are doing well. I am wondering why don’t you consider testimonials as evidence. Not they do not conform to standards for clinical double blind studies. But still, if there have been people who would have died from melanoma within a year, but still survived 3 years, with blood tests that are clear of biomarkers – with only Gerson Therapy, no surgery, no chemo, no radiation — why aren’t you curious about researching the science behind it?

        It seems you have dismissed the therapy based on lack of evidence. But I recently came across some old studies that shows that cancer is a metabolic disease and it is now getting more attention. https://onekickshop.com/product/cancer-as-a-metabolic-disease-on-the-origin-management-and-prevention-of-cancer-1st-edition-ebook-pdf-version/ PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4493566/

        And I came across research on autophagy and that the 2016 Nobel Prize went to Yoshinori Ohsumi for his work on autophagy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5240711/ It seems to me that autophagy could be a mechanism where our body could “eat” our own cancer cells. What induces autophagy? Not eating (or fasting) for a period of 24 hours or longer. What prevents autophagy? Frequent consumption of sugar that makes our body produce insulin.

        There is growing evidence that sugar is very bad for cancer. Cancer cells can only metabolize sugar. Normal cells can metabolize ketones. There have been moderate success in ketogenic diet in helping cancer survivability. As an oncologist do you tell your cancer patients to eat anything they want, just make sure they get enough calories? Do you think all calories are equal? Like 100 calories from white sugar or fructose is just as good as 100 calories from vegetables and fruits? There is growing evidence that 100 calories of white sugar cause our insulin to spike, but our body does not produce as much insulin when we eat 100 calories from vegetables and fruits. What does that have to do with disease? Lots — processed sugar is very inflammatory, stresses our pancreas and liver. Vegetables (even though they contain natural sugar) is much better, because it also contains enzymes that help our body digest it properly, our body recognizes the fiber and sends out signals that tells us we are full, and our gut microbiome feeds on the fiber and creates our nutrients that our body needs. Where is the evidence? I know there is evidence for all of this in PubMed. I am not a doctor. I do read. But you would know PubMed better than I, so I leave that research up to you. As for me, I am satisfied with Dr David Permutter’s YouTube videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRXl_N0OtX4

        I do hope you fact check and research Dr. Perlmutter’s claims in the above video. Because if it is true, then EVERY oncologist should be ORDERING their cancer patients to STOP eating processed sugar. As far as I know, oncologist are still telling patients they can eat whatever they want.

        There is also science behind the ability of our body’s immune system to fight disease and cancer. Ever heard of immunotherapy?

        So let’s see. Chemotherapy kills our immune system while it also kills our cancer cells. So you prescribe drugs to make our bodies produce white blood cells again. It kills our taste buds and gut lining. Makes us lose our appetite. While our immune system is suppressed we have increased likelihood of getting shingles and other diseases. And what is the success rate of chemo after 5 years? It is a race to see if the cancer grows faster than our immune system.

        Now compare that to the Gerson Therapy, which forces us to eat organic fresh fruits and vegetables for maximum nutrition and least toxins, coupled with coffee enemas to help our liver and pancreas get rid of toxins. Dr. Gerson claim is that by maximizing nutrition and removal of toxins, our body can heal itself, strengthening our metabolism and immune system (all systems actually). They claim to cure many auto-immune diseases for which there are no drug treatments. Yes we don’t know the statistics of success rate. But there is evidence that there are people who are still alive many years after they have been told they only have months or maybe a year to live. Yes, it is hard to determine the percentage of those who 3 years, 5 years or 20 years. We are given anecdotal evidence only. But even a handful who survive just several years past the time they were given at diagnosis would make me curious. As an oncologist, aren’t you even curious as to why there could be any survivors at all? It is the oncologists who can apply for research grants to get more evidence.

        Dr Money-Kyrle, does the Gerson Therapy sound outlandish to you because it is impossible for our body to heal itself? Where is the evidence for that? Do you dismiss that all the survivors of terminal cancer who went through the Gerson Therapy as coincidence of spontaneous healing? Where is the evidence for that? Chemotherapy is counting on our immune system to rebuild itself after poisoning it deliberately. What is the danger in consuming organic fruits and vegetables? Is that worse than having chemo kill our taste buds and intestine linings? How dangerous is the coffee enema? That would be easy to test — it should be a breeze for health professionals to collect data on that. I hope the medical professional DO research that and give us the answers — I anxiously wait to read those articles, as are many who are already diagnosed or have loved ones who are diagnosed with terminal, incurable cancer. What are the side effects of coffee enemas? Can it destroy our immune system? If the survival rates from Gerson Therapy is not 100% (neither is chemo or radiation either) what can improve the odds that our immune system would beat the cancer?

        Doctors have been saying that type 2 diabetes is uncurable. They prescribe insulin which actually make it worse. Now there is a doctor brave enough to see both of these common assumptions as myth — not scientific. Dr Jason Fung discovered that diet and fasting (what and when to eat) can reverse type 2 diabetes and cure it. He also dispells the myth that calorie counting is a good method for weight loss.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXXGxoNFag4&t=4507s
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73TA3oR47LA&t=172s

        Another question about body alkalinity. Gerson Therapy is very meticulous about keeping the body alkalinity at 7.35, because cancer cells thrive better than healthy cells at that ph level. In the previous comments, I see a post that claims that is bogus, because there is no need to monitor alkalinity in our food because it won’t affect our body’s alkalinity because our body is very good at keeping it at 7.35. It seems to me that there is an important assumption that there is no need to monitor a cancer patient’s alkalinity — that the cancer patient body function is NORMAL with respect to keeping the body’s alkalinity where as many other body functions are breaking down due to the cancer. So I want to ask you if you have measured a terminal cancer patient’s blood alkalinity throughout all stages of cancer — even up to the last days of his life. If you have not done that, have you came across any studies that monitored alkalinity especially in the last stages of cancer? If you have not observed that directly or cite any studies, than the chart posted above is insufficient evidence, and I would wonder more why alkalinity is not measured in the course of treatment.

        It seems to be very plausible that there are scientific basis for Gerson Therapy to cure cancer and auto-immune diseases by helping our body heal itself. I have presented enough scientific dots for a doctor with your expertise to examine further. Bad diet causes inflammation and disease. Good diet promotes good gut health, prevents disease and boosts our immune system. Autophagy is one mechanism which our body can heal itself and its activation depends on our blood sugar level. It does not prove that the Gerson Therapy works. But these scientific findings make it harder to dismiss Gerson Therapy as baseless.

        I wish you the best in beating cancer Dr Money-Kyrle

        • Dear Tina,
          Quote:“ I know there is evidence for all of this in PubMed. I am not a doctor. I do read. But you would know PubMed better than I, so I leave that research up to you.”

          What I find interesting about your post is that despite your lack of expertise, you seem to feel qualified to lecture Dr. Money-Kyrle about HIS field of expertise. As I see it, you accuse him (and all the other professional oncologists) of doing a very poor job, having overlooked all the great successes of Gerson therapy.

          Since I am also not a medical doctor, I do not feel qualified to comment on the best treatment options for your husband. In my case, I trusted the expert oncologists and did not regret it.
          The only advice that I would give is: Be very skeptical when you read health claims of unproven treatments on the internet, simply based on anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence, and if a promise sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
          SCAM believers are numerous and have a loud voice. Also be wary of unscrupulous “healers” that prey on desperate patients.
          I wish your husband all the best.

        • Tina,

          It is hard to know where to begin in answering your post. When I was an undergraduate at Cambridge University in the early 1980’s, my Director of Studies used to say that you can’t learn to play a violin by reading a book about it. This was long before the Internet, of course, but what you are doing here feels akin to a non-musician telling a professional violinist how to play on the basis of nothing more than watching a few YouTube videos.

          “I am wondering why don’t you consider testimonials as evidence.”
          Most people who have had any sort of treatment will give a glowing account of it, unless something went badly wrong, and often even then. Though testimonials can also be fabricated.

          “if there have been people who would have died from melanoma within a year, but still survived 3 years, with blood tests that are clear of biomarkers ”
          I don’t think there are any blood tests for melanoma.

          Survival figures in oncology are generally given as median survival, which is the point at which half the members of a particular group have died. The other half, of course, are still alive. Mortality, like everything else in biology, follows something like a bell curve, which is a graphical way of saying that some will die a lot sooner than the median, and some will survive a lot longer. The main reason survival figures are given in this way is so that two groups can be compared statistically within a trial (not between different trials, because the base populations will be different).

          Oncologists frequently use survival figures from trials as a guide to what might happen to individual patients, but no oncologist can ever give a prognosis that is ever more than very approximate.

          “why aren’t you curious about researching the science behind it?”
          Every oncologist has patients who have done unexpectedly well, and this is being researched.

          ” But I recently came across some old studies that shows that cancer is a metabolic disease and it is now getting more attention. https://onekickshop.com/product/cancer-as-a-metabolic-disease-on-the-origin-management-and-prevention-of-cancer-1st-edition-ebook-pdf-version/ PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4493566/
          That is rather dismissive of the whole area of molecular biology, which has not only given us a detailed understanding of what is going on in malignant cells but is also providing an increasing number of new and effective treatments.

          “It seems to me that autophagy could be a mechanism where our body could “eat” our own cancer cells.”
          I don’t think there is much evidence that this is actually the case. Just because something seems plausible doesn’t mean that it is true.

          “There is growing evidence that sugar is very bad for cancer. Cancer cells can only metabolize sugar. Normal cells can metabolize ketones. ”
          They can both metabolise lipids. In any case unless you are profoundly hypoglycaemic (for instance from an overdose of insulin) there is always plenty of glucose around for cancer cells to metabolise. Starving the body of sugar (or anything else) is not sufficient to reduce the blood glucose enough to interfere with cell metabolism.

          “There have been moderate success in ketogenic diet in helping cancer survivability”
          Could you supply evidence for this?

          “As an oncologist do you tell your cancer patients to eat anything they want, just make sure they get enough calories? ”
          No, I don’t. I am not practising any more, but when I was, I worked closely with the hospital dietetic service, and dietary advice was tailored to the patient.

          “Like 100 calories from white sugar or fructose is just as good as 100 calories from vegetables and fruits? There is growing evidence that 100 calories of white sugar cause our insulin to spike, but our body does not produce as much insulin when we eat 100 calories from vegetables and fruits. ”
          I am sure that anybody who manages diabetes would be able to tell you this.

          The original research was in Germany prior to World War II, but German-language scientific publications were (rightly or wrongly) discredited after the War following the horrors of Nazi experimentation on human subjects, so the results were not widely-known. Of course we know a lot more about insulin metabolism now than we did 80 years ago, and indeed a lot more about the role of diet in disease.

          “processed sugar is very inflammatory, stresses our pancreas and liver. Vegetables (even though they contain natural sugar) is much better, because it also contains enzymes that help our body digest it properly, our body recognizes the fiber and sends out signals that tells us we are full, and our gut microbiome feeds on the fiber and creates our nutrients that our body needs. ”
          That is a rather simplistic explanation, but I think you have got the gist of it right.

          You don’t seem to have been following the disputes between the food industry and public health services concerning sugar, or you would know that this is common knowledge. Indeed in Norway sugar is taxed with the specific aim of reducing the nation’s sugar intake. However, the food industry are reacting much as the tobacco industry did when the dangers of smoking were demonstrated.

          “I know there is evidence for all of this in PubMed. I am not a doctor. I do read. But you would know PubMed better than I, so I leave that research up to you.”
          Pubmed, like Google, is an indexing service, though specific to medical / biomedical journals. Research is performing original science, not reading about it.

          “I am satisfied with Dr David Permutter’s YouTube videos”
          Personally I don’t find YouTube videos a very satisfactory way of acquiring information, though I did find them helpful when I was learning how to replace a broken screen on my iPhone.

          “As far as I know, oncologist are still telling patients they can eat whatever they want. ”
          From what you have been saying, I don’t think you know very much at all about what oncologists are telling their patients.

          “There is also science behind the ability of our body’s immune system to fight disease and cancer. Ever heard of immunotherapy? ”
          This is getting silly. Are you talking about checkpoint inhibitors? Dendritic cells? Tumour vaccines? Targeted monoclonal antibodies? Colony stimulating factors? Stem cell therapy? Corticosteroids? Proteosome inhibitors?

          “Chemotherapy kills our immune system while it also kills our cancer cells”
          That is a rather simplistic way of looking at it. Particular types of chemotherapy have specific effects on certain components of the immune system.

          “It kills our taste buds and gut lining”
          That depends on the drug; generally if the gut lining is affected this means that the dose is wrong.

          I can certainly attest to the effects of chemotherapy on my taste buds when I was treated 18 months ago, but the effect was temporary. The effect of the cancer on my taste buds before I was diagnosed was much more profound. Sadly I have now lost most of my sense of smell following a parainfluenza infection related to the cancer, not to my treatment, and although my taste buds are working fine, I have lost most of my enjoyment of food and all my enjoyment of wine.

          “While our immune system is suppressed we have increased likelihood of getting shingles and other diseases”
          True. Have you ever considered the immunosuppressive effect of malignancy?

          “Now compare that to the Gerson Therapy, which forces us to eat organic fresh fruits and vegetables for maximum nutrition and least toxins, coupled with coffee enemas to help our liver and pancreas get rid of toxins. Dr”
          I don’t know what you mean by maximum nutrition or by toxins. In fact, considering the many “detoxifying” treatments that people subject themselves to nobody has ever been able to tell me the name of a single toxin that they are trying to remove.

          “How dangerous is the coffee enema? That would be easy to test — it should be a breeze for health professionals to collect data on that. ”
          Apart from the physical risks (burns, perforations etc., all well-documented from actual cases), the main effect of a coffee enema is to get a large amount of caffeine into the body very quickly. The pharmacology and toxicology of caffeine is well-established.

          “What is the danger in consuming organic fruits and vegetables? ”
          The danger is mainly to the environment.

          “Do you dismiss that all the survivors of terminal cancer who went through the Gerson Therapy as coincidence of spontaneous healing? ”
          Not at all. Many of them had conventional treatment as well, some of them don’t appear to have had cancer in the first place, some are from people who then went on to die from their cancer, and I suspect that some are fraudulent.

          “Doctors have been saying that type 2 diabetes is uncurable. They prescribe insulin which actually make it worse. ”
          Have you ever spoken to a diabetologist to ask what they do prescribe?
          The mainstays of treatment for type 2 diabetes are: DIET, WEIGHT LOSS, EXERCISE. Metformin is prescribed because it reduces the risk of long-term vascular complications, including death; it is currently being investigated as cancer treatment as well. Oral hypoglycaemics are widely used. Insulin is a treatment of last resort for type 2 diabetes.

          As for it being incurable, I think you need to look at recent NHS guideline.

          “He also dispells the myth that calorie counting is a good method for weight loss.”
          I think we have already covered that. Though I love the use of “dispells” which must be a self-defining word (like pentasyllabic and sesquipedalian).

          “Another question about body alkalinity. Gerson Therapy is very meticulous about keeping the body alkalinity at 7.35, because cancer cells thrive better than healthy cells at that ph level. In the previous comments, I see a post that claims that is bogus, because there is no need to monitor alkalinity in our food because it won’t affect our body’s alkalinity because our body is very good at keeping it at 7.35.”
          The body keeps its pH within very tight limits, and if it goes outside these (for instance as a result of an aspirin overdose) you become very ill indeed. Diet has very little effect.

          The environment of cancer cells is more acidic (i.e. lower pH) than the rest of the body due to their inadequate blood supply. This does have implications for treatment, though for certain drugs (such as mitomycin C) it can sensitise them.

          “So I want to ask you if you have measured a terminal cancer patient’s blood alkalinity throughout all stages of cancer ”
          As a clinician I can probably gauge a patient’s blood pH (or alkalinity as you put it) just from examining them. Measuring this directly is a hassle, as it involves taking an arterial blood sample (which is much more painful than normal venepuncture) and getting it analysed within a few minutes. The only situation where this is routine is in ITU. Significant deviations from normal do alter the other blood tests which we routinely monitor, however.

          I should add that the blood tests of all the patients that I have seen on Gerson treatment have been extremely abnormal, particularly with regard to serum electrolytes. This probably contributed to why they always looked (and seemed to feel) so unwell.

          “It seems to be very plausible that there are scientific basis for Gerson Therapy to cure cancer and auto-immune diseases by helping our body heal itself. ”
          It does if you know nothing about physiology or pathology.

          Seriously, though, you seem to think that oncologists are completely untrained, inexperienced and completely ignorant of the core basis of what we do for a living. What do you think we study at medical school and as post-graduates? Do you think we don’t learn anything from the patients we encounter, both in training and in practice? Don’t you think we keep abreast of current research? Don’t you think we try our damnedest to do the best by our patients?

          “I wish you the best in beating cancer”
          Thank-you, though I don’t regard it as a fight.

          • @Julian

            “I love the use of “dispells” which must be a self-defining word (like pentasyllabic and sesquipedalian).”

            Nice one! This is totally off-topic but I recently discovered the name suggested for annoying expressions such as “PIN number”, “HIV virus”, “LCD display”, etc. It’s “RAS syndrome”, where RAS stands for ‘redundant acronym/abbreviation syndrome’, so like ‘dispells’ it’s a self-referential or self-defining term.

            Of course, you’ll be totally familiar with the Ras oncogene, so maybe this comment is not so far off the thread topic after all!

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle,

            >”I don’t know what you mean by maximum nutrition or by toxins. In fact, considering the many >“detoxifying” treatments that people subject themselves to nobody has ever been able to tell me the >name of a single toxin that they are trying to remove.”

            The Gerson Therapy claims it is the lack of nutrients and presence of toxicity that causes all the auto-immune diseases and cancer that the therapy actually cures. So if I had a MD or PhD in medicine or biology or chemistry I would be very interested in measuring the levels of nutrients in the blood of cancer patients on chemo vs cancer patients on the Gerson Therapy. As for which toxins are being expelled by the coffee enema — that is very easy to figure out — do one on yourself and do the chemistry tests on it.

            I pointed to papers in PubMed that supports the scientific basis for Gerson’s claims and asked you to research PubMed – but you claim that isn’t research. It is still information that you can look up evaluate whether the nutrients and toxin remove could help the body rebuild itself. But if you prefer to do first hand research — analyze the end product of coffee enema with a mass spectrometer and see if you see any heavy metals. compare it to mass spectrometry from normal feces.

            >“What is the danger in consuming organic fruits and vegetables? ”
            >”The danger is mainly to the environment.”

            Environment is endangered from ORGANIC farming? We have been doing that for thousands of years.

            >“How dangerous is the coffee enema? That would be easy to test — it should be a breeze for health >professionals to collect data on that. ”
            >Apart from the physical risks (burns, perforations etc., all well-documented from actual cases), the >main effect of a coffee enema is to get a large amount of caffeine into the body very quickly. The >pharmacology and toxicology of caffeine is well-established.

            What is the effect? Loss of hair? Loss of smell? Loss of appetite? Loss of white blood cells where Neulasta® must be prescribed for thousands of dollars per shot? Or is it just dehydration — and the patient drinks more water? Or maybe loss of electrolytes where the patient consumes salt or something like that. Which is more costly on the body? Which is more costly for the medical system and society?

            No danger from fruits and vegetable diet, less risk with enemas than with chemo, definitely less costly. The only negative is there is not enough evidence. It is not that we have NO evidence at all, as there is evidence for metabolism as a cause for cancer. There is evidence that diet is related to our health. There is evidence that our immune system does heal ourselves. It should be easy to investigate (with an open mind) whether nutrition/detox can help our body heal from auto-immune diseases and cancer.

            There was a study done once: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2860407/
            Which seemed to discredit the nutrition/detox therapy. But I looked further and found that they scales were tipped against the doctors using natural therapy: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0982196539/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=newspringpress-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0982196539

            Listen to part of that story here: https://itsrainmakingtime.com/dr-nicholas-gonzalez-why-clinical-trials-cancer-cures-futile/

            I think there is much that can be investigated scientifically about using nutrition and detoxification as treatments rather than pharmaceutical drugs. Rather than to say “where is the evidence for Gerson” and other therapies like it and use that as an excuse to dismiss the notion that nutrition/detox can actually help our body heal, I hope we can all say let’s make sure our medical community do more research on this with an open mind. With this research, even if nutrition/detox does not reverse and cure the most terminal cases of cancer, it could still help us prevent cancer with proper understanding of nutrition/detox on our metabolism and immune system. Our health system is already over-burdened. Too many people already cannot afford the drugs for many diseases. If nutrition/detox can cure cancer and auto-immune diseases, then it can be used to prevent them as well. Our children may not need to suffer from cancer. Just a thought — or maybe it’s wishing thinking. But right now we don’t know which it is. And it depends if we are willing to honestly research these therapies.

  • @Edzard on Monday 28 January 2019 at 08:27 said:
    “yes, I know, you are a layman – but you are remarkably reluctant to learn”

    I have been so full of learning about Dr Max Gerson, I did not realise that he was not alone, there is an even more amazing story of a fella called Harold Hoxey, go to 40 minutes into this vid:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWLrfNJICeM

    …of the court decision that ten doctors agreed that Hoxey had cured thousands of patients of cancer, so you are wrong Mr Ernst, I learn something most days, and I am still only half way through this video – did you know of this guy?

  • @Edzard on Monday 28 January 2019 at 08:27 said:
    “yes, I know, you are a layman – but you are remarkably reluctant to learn”

    (continued) Wow – now at 45 minutes into this vid:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWLrfNJICeM

    …Hoxey just sued the AMA and won! And he got Fishbein (the head of the AMA) to admit that Hoxey was curing melanoma too!

    • Bob

      “…Hoxey just sued the AMA and won!”. He didn’t ‘just’ sue the AMA: he died in 1919! And he died of cancer, too. And his winning of the libel case against the AMA was pretty much pyrrhic: he was awarded $2 in damages.

      Oh, and by the way, the man’s name is spelt Hoxsey, not Hoxey, but someone of your narrow intellectual powers probably wouldn’t notice a fine point like that in the course of a one-and-a-half hour video.

      Please inform us how you go about rating the video you link to as a better guide to the validity of Hoxsey’s claims than, for example, this article.

      • @Frank Odds on Tuesday 29 January 2019 at 10:29 said:
        “Please inform us how you go about rating the video you link to as a better guide to the validity of Hoxsey’s claims than, for example, this article.”

        That’s easy to do because that article begins with this quote:
        “Of all the ghouls who feed on the bodies of the dead and the dying, the cancer quacks are most vicious and most heartless. —Morris Fishbein, 1965 [1]”

        I.e. the guy Hoxsey (thanks for the correction) successfully sued for slander (for calling Hoxsey a quack).

      • @Frank
        Good for Old Bob to find a quick excuse not to read further and risk sullying the glorified image of his deity with ugly facts.

  • @O-B

    Bob. When medicine and science makes advances, they are announced via the medium of reputable scientific journals. Not YouTube. Keep posting these links to streams of unverifiable anecdote and we will keep ignoring them. Give us some links to studies published in decent journals and we might sit up a bit.

    • @Lenny on Tuesday 29 January 2019 at 07:51 said:
      “When medicine and science makes advances, they are announced via the medium of reputable scientific journals. Not YouTube. Keep posting these links to streams of unverifiable anecdote and we will keep ignoring them…”

      You underestimate the power of youTube e.g.:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFzeNAHEhU

      Which is an analogy of Dr Max Gerson against the power of the State.

      And overestimate the power of “reputable scientific journals” e.g page 86 of The Beautiful Cure by Davis (as suggested by Dr. Money-Kyrle above): Cistron submitted a paper for publication to Nature, who passed it on for peer-review to Immunex, who stole the contents and patented them (complete with the same mistakes that Cistron made). Nature subsequently refused to publish it because of poor peer reviews.

    • @Lenny on Tuesday 29 January 2019 at 07:51 said:
      “When medicine and science makes advances, they are announced via the medium of reputable scientific journals. Not YouTube. Keep posting these links to streams of unverifiable anecdote and we will keep ignoring them…”

      Try ignoring this one:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJh3TiCFJH4

      • Ignoring Dell Bigtree is standard practice, except for ignorant fools. Do you have nothing better to do than make a fool of yourself in public?

        • @Björn Geir on Wednesday 30 January 2019 at 20:12 said:
          “Ignoring Dell Bigtree is standard practice, except for ignorant fools. Do you have nothing better to do than make a fool of yourself in public?”

          No, I don’t think so, “making a fool of myself” is non fatal and I would rather have folks laugh than throw rocks 🙂 – laughter is good for avoiding cancer (so I am told, possibly by other fools).

          • I hope you live!
            but I also hop that people will not mistake that for evidence.
            YOU REALLY SHOULD READ THIS:
            https://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/

          • @Edzard on Thursday 31 January 2019 at 08:53 said:
            “I hope you live!
            but I also hope that people will not mistake that for evidence.
            YOU REALLY SHOULD READ THIS:
            https://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/”

            Thanks, but if I comply with that article, I probably won’t live i.e. it promotes the clinical trial above one’s own reason (and how am I to judge anything, including that article without my own reason).

            These are the words to beware of, buried in that article:
            “…a consensus of most experts…”
            Which is this article’s definition of “scientific evidence”

            NB the initial use of force i.e. the shouting of “YOU REALLY SHOULD READ THIS”

            But the real evidence is in the size of the clinical trials themselves i.e. they are big, the bigger the better and finally the meta-analysis, the trial of the trials.

            Suppose that penicillin had just been discovered. How long would it take to be accepted as “proven” by the FDA? Ten years? No, all these mega-clinical-trials would be stopped after the first week on ethical grounds (to prevent all those on the control trials from dying).

            I.e. the reason for the massives size (and hence massive cost) is because the effect that “a consensus of most experts” has set out to find, is so small that it is buried in the noise-floor (i.e. virtually undetectable) – do you wish to risk your life on that sort of “evidence”?

          • thank you for reading the article;
            sorry to hear that you have not understood it.

  • chemotherapy is a big PROFIT business and dangerous to health, painful truth, nothing like nature period.

    • nothing like a rational, persuasive argument!

    • It is interesting to look at the lifespan of animals in the wild and compare them to the same species in captivity, where individuals commonly live about five times as long. Nature is cruel and uncaring. No animal left to Nature ever dies quietly of old age. As soon as they get old, sick, injured, slow or unlucky they become dinner for something else.

      For that matter, many chemotherapy agents do occur naturally – etoposide, daunorubicin, bleomycin, paclitaxel, vinca alkaloids…

  • My mom has stage 3 adenocarcinoma. Even with chemotherapy and surgery, her survival rates are low. The doctors say they will have to cut out 90-100% of her stomach. My mom is looking into Gerson. Do any of you know if it will actually help when she is stage 3? If you know any other way to cure her please share. I am only in seventh grade. My mom is exactly 50.

    • is no good evidence that Gerson therapy is effective for any cancer.

    • I am very sorry to hear about your mom.

      I am an oncologist and I now have an incurable cancer myself. I have looked after people who have tried Gerson therapy – none of them did very well with it. After giving many people chemotherapy over the course of my career I have found myself on the receiving end of it.

      Do you know what type of adenocarcinoma this is (e.g. bowel, stomach, pancreas)? Even if she can’t be cured by chemotherapy and surgery, it can control the cancer for a while and improve her quality of life.

      If she has Gerson therapy it will have no effect on the cancer, but the treatment regimen is unpleasant and difficult to follow. It will also make her feel quite ill, and could well shorten her life. And it can be expensive.

      If she has limited time left, it is better for her do spend it with her family and doing the things that she always wanted to do rather than waste it chasing false cures.

      • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Friday 01 February 2019 at 09:58
        “…I have looked after people who have tried Gerson therapy – none of them did very well with it…”

        Dr Ernst warns against your experience here, he says:
        “Thus even the most impressive clinical experience of the perceived efficacy of a treatment can be totally misleading. In fact, experience might just reflect the fact that we repeat the same mistake over and over again. Put differently, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence!”

        From here:
        https://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/”

        • more evidence that you fail or even refuse to understand what I wrote.

          • @Edzard on Friday 01 February 2019 at 17:28
            “more evidence that you fail or even refuse to understand what I wrote.”

            You call this “evidence”? But you just refuted that definition of “evidence” in your article – I quote it again:
            “Thus even the most impressive clinical experience of the perceived efficacy of a treatment can be totally misleading. In fact, experience might just reflect the fact that we repeat the same mistake over and over again. Put differently, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence!”

            This is your problem: double-standard. (and the problem of the FDA)

            Your article explicitly says that only “…a consensus of most experts…” can decide what is and what is not “evidence” and not any individual, no matter how expert or experienced they are, unless they are you!

          • so glad that you identified your problem!
            your seems to be that you totally resist improving you limited comprehension.

  • Good reactions friends

    But it is always good to remember and accept the fact that at times, “we don’t know, what we don’t know”

    None in this world of medical science knows it all except God, new discoveries are made each and every day.
    Therefore, there is no need of being rigid.

    Finally, I personally believe there are laws of nature that bear upon us either positively or negatively depending on our relation to them.

    • weird and beside the point: we do know that it does not work!
      nothing to do with the infantile nonsense: “we don’t know, what we don’t know”

      • @Edzard on Tuesday 05 February 2019 at 11:57 said:
        “…we do know that it does not work!”

        How can you know that? You have not applied your own standard-of-evidence, the “clinical trial” from here:
        https://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/”

      • @Edzard on Tuesday 05 February 2019 at 11:57 said:
        “…the infantile nonsense: ‘we don’t know, what we don’t know’ “

        If one is blind then sight is always an unknown unknown. Likewise music to the deaf.

        Likewise Gerson therapy’s root of the soil and the gut being part of the same organism (Gaia-in-the-small) see chapter 2 (page 14 of 214) here:
        https://tratamenteanticancer.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/max-gerson-a-cancer-therapy-results-of-fifty-cases.pdf

        Which is generally unknown, hence all the degenerative diseases of the 20th century in Man and the mass destruction of all other species via their habitats too, in the anthropocene.

        Gerson therapy remains an unknown unknown to most professional medics in the same way that music remains an unknown unknown to most professional musicians e.g. see the introduction of Ross W. Duffin’s book: How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and why you should care) where Christoph von Dohnanyi “…mused about a frustration in the preparation of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony…” where after two minutes of a D-minor chord, comes a striking shift to B-flat major, he could “…just not get that B-flat chord to sound right…” despite trying it “over and over” and he was “never satisfied” – the rest of the book explains why that was, so here, a professional (and a whole orchestra of professionals) were blind to reality (because they did not know that they did not know – because they thought they knew it all).

        • Gerson therapy very much deserves to remain an unknown unknown.

        • “If one is blind then sight is always an unknown unknown. Likewise music to the deaf”
          The blind know that they are blind, and the deaf surely know of the existance of music. An unknown unknown is something completely unexpected.

          I think you will find that most professional musicians know quite a lot about the Pythagorean comma and the use of different temperaments.

          The rest of your post makes very little sense. You really do seem very muddled in what you have to say, unlike Donald Rumsfeld, who showed more clarity in his thinking than he is generally given credit for.

          • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Friday 08 February 2019 at 20:01 said:
            “The blind know that they are blind.”
            No they don’t, they have no way of knowing – but if you think you can, I would like to see you try!

            “…and the deaf surely know of the existence of music.”
            Now, we are getting closer i.e. to “…know of the existence of…” it would take ten seconds to teach a blind person the label “blind” or a deaf person the label “music” but the actual concepts that those labels represent are missing, which is the whole point of words i.e. of language, in the first place.

            Again, I would like to see you try to explain music to the deaf!

            The original poster above was gently pointing out that there are unknown unknowns that we all suffer from, especially the more dogmatic, so watch out! – and then you come along and say “The blind know that they are blind.” QED

            By destroying language, you destroy man’s mind which is his only defense.

  • Doctors gave my wife 2 years to live after having surgery.
    She tried something different… Gerson. Two years later she seems healthy, her tumors are shrunk into scars and she is full of energy. Don’t suppose I’m as smart as those doctors, but I would choose what works. Chemo kills…. everything.

  • This is a joke. Gerson Therapy is legit and makes so much more sense than chemo. Chemo kills more people than it saves. Coffee enemas have many benefits, has helped me A LOT, and I refuse to stop doing them. Everything about the Gerson Therapy is amazing. Gerson Therapy WORKS but patients usually do it as a last resort after their body has been so badly weakened from chemo to the point that they cannot be saved. Also, Gerson Therapy is a very strict, expensive and labor intensive therapy, so many people fail because they don’t do it properly for the recommended amount of time. But many people have been cured!

  • i am thoroughly appalled at this thread and i have thought long and hard about how i might address it and it goes a little something like this….

    “You should hang your head in shame in delivering this drivvle”

  • Reading through all of Edzard’s comments reaffirms my belief that getting a PhD doesn’t necessarily mean that one is a truly intelligent and/or an intuitive person. I would hate to wake up every day in a body that contains a mind like his.

  • Thanks for your advice guys. But my father is completely like 100% against western medicine. My mom is doing Gerson. She is getting a PET scan soon. PET scans help the cancer grow by feeding it sugar water, but it will tell her if Gerson is helping or not. My mom has stomach cancer. It is at the esophagus or the start of the stomach by the tube that bring foods to the stomach.

  • “PET scans help the cancer grow by feeding it sugar water”
    Most people worry about the radiation dose from PET scans rather than the of sugar in the tracer, though most of the radiation received comes from the CT part of the scan rather than the tracer injection.

    If it is any reassurance to you, the amount of sugar in the injection (in the form of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose, known as FDG) really is tiny. I doubt if it would have any measurable effect on the sugar level in her blood, in comparison with eating almost anything at all, which would put it up at least a bit.

    In any case, while I wouldn’t recommend a high sugar intake to anyone for many reasons, it really does not feed the cancer and help it to grow. This is a myth perpetrated by people who don’t know very much about tumour biology.

    Depending on how far it is spread, there is still a reasonable chance of a long-term cure with surgery. Recent figures from the USA (https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/stomach-cancer/statistics) suggest that if the cancer is confined to the stomach she has about a 2 in 3 chance of still being alive in five years’ time. If it has spread to the lymph nodes this goes down to about 1 in 3. If it has spread further then she won’t be offered surgery and her chance of still being alive in five years is about 1 in 20.

    The figures for cancer of the oesophagus itself aren’t as good as that (though improvements in treatment mean that they are much better now than they were when I started my training as an oncologist 25 years ago). If it is a cancer of the cardia (this is the junction between the oesophagus and the stomach) the chances are similar to stomach cancer.

    There aren’t any survival figures available for people who only have Gerson treatment (as far as I know the Gerson Centre does not collect this information and it certainly doesn’t publish it – probably because they aren’t very good).

    For any cancer there will always be a few people who do much better than average, even with no treatment at all. I hope your Mom turns out to be one of those, but sadly that isn’t very likely.

    By choosing Gerson over Western medicine your father is denying your mother a realistic chance of a cure (you will have a better idea what that chance is after her scan). He is also condemning her to an unpleasant regimen of a strange diet and coffee enemas, which will cost a lot of money and make her feel bad. I am sure there are better ways she could be spending her time if it turns out to be limited.

    If this is your Mom’s choice that is one thing, but if your Dad is persuading her to follow this course against her better judgement then this amounts to abuse, even if he is doing it for the best reasons and loves her to bits. There aren’t any simple answers here, but if you do have concerns then maybe there is someone you could talk to – a counsellor at your school, perhaps, or a priest, or one of the cancer nurses at the hospital where she was diagnosed.

  • I will share my story as the comments sound pretty interesting. My wife was diagnosed with stage two breast cancer 4 years ago. She underwent surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and hormonal therapy. Initially, I looked into the gerson therapy and reviewed the book by his daughter. The treatment sounded interesting, but to toy with cancer was a dangerous game. We were lucky through a friend refered us to a well known naturopath in our area who treats a lot of cancer patients. We had a meeting with him. He pretty much begged my wife to do chemo and the rest. He referred us to a friend of his who ended up being the director of oncology at the hospital.
    To make my point the naturopath told my wife that gerson or any other diets don’t work against cancers. Once cancer has been established diets cannot work. So if you are wondering how he helped my wife , I will tell you. Please do not take what I m telling you as gospel as the naturopathic treatment was being monitored by the oncologist as well. There are 2 or 3 doctors on this blog who sound very smart, I would definitely listen to them. One of the doctors sounds very kind, I really like him, the other one is direct in smart but comical ? way.

    My wife in addition to chemotherapy she did hyperthermia on the same day of treatment. She also was prescribed 800 mg of cimetidine pre and post surgery. She is currently on low dose metformin hcl
    And takes some vitamin d. She also takes a baby aspirin daily. The oncologist has her on 20 mg of tamoxifen daily

    • “My wife in addition to chemotherapy she did hyperthermia on the same day of treatment”
      I’m rather curious about this. Presumably this was local hypothermia in the areas at highest risk, which would be the same areas that would normally be treated by radiotherapy, and which would depend on details of the tumour, and of the type of surgery that she had. Whole-body hypothermia is very difficult to achieve, and as far as I know has only been researched in the context of metastatic cancer. Local hyperthermia is also difficult, as the flow of blood through the treated area tends to keep it at normal temperature despite the application of heat, and as far as I know cannot be achieved very far below the skin surface unless heat probes of some kind are implanted into the tissue.

      While it is well-established that cancer cells can be killed by heat, any residual malignant cells after surgery are in a completely different environment than they are within an intact tumour. In a tumour, most of the malignant cells are starved of blood, and therefore of oxygen, glucose and other nutrients, and their environment is quite acidic, for the same reason. This makes them resistant to radiation (which depends upon the generation of oxygen free-radicals for its effect) but I would imagine it would make them more sensitive to heat, particularly as it would interfere with their ability to generate protective heat-shock proteins.

      However, following surgery, the small number of tumour cells that may remain (the whole reason for giving chemotherapy and radiotherapy) are well-perfused by blood and well-oxygenated, and I would not expect them to respond to heat in the same way, just as they respond differently to radiation and to some chemotherapy drugs. For that matter, it would be rather difficult to assess this in a clinical trial since there is no straightforward way to measure the effect of treatment.

      The timing of the hyperthermia in relation to the chemotherapy would be critical for the effect, too. If the hyperthermia is given first, the induction of heat-shock proteins could affect the chemotherapy, whereas if the chemotherapy is given first, the resulting cell-cycle arrest could affect the response to hyperthermia.

      As far as I know, clinical trials of hyperthermia (in combination with other treatments) have investigated the effects in advanced malignancy after other treatments have failed, and have not looked at adjuvant use of hyperthermia (which this is), so apart from side-effects of treatment, we don’t know whether in this situation it might actually increase the risk of recurrence by interfering with other treatment.

      Did your wife’s oncologist know that she was having hyperthermia, and did they make any dose modifications to take into account possible interactions?

      I’m also interested in the metformin and aspirin that she is taking. There is a large multicentre trial ongoing in the UK looking at whether the addition of aspiring affects the outcome of malignancy of all kinds, and another multicentre trial specifically looking at the effect of metformin on prostate cancer.

      I should say that I don’t have any specific expertise in hyperthermia in malignancy. But I do have a lot of experience in giving chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Both of these types of treatment have a complex mechanism of action and a narrow therapeutic index (i.e. a slightly lower dose is useless and a slightly higher dose is harmful), and I am very wary of using anything that might modify their effects unless it is in the context of a clinical trial.

      I would love to know, therefore, any details of how the hyperthermia treatment was given.

      • Dr. J

        Since John has not responded, please allow me to converse with you about the breast cancer. I’m pretty sure from Johns post that the oncologist was also administrating the hyperthermia.

        “As far as I know, clinical trials of hyperthermia (in combination with other treatments) have investigated the effects in advanced malignancy after other treatments have failed, and have not looked at adjuvant use of hyperthermia (which this is), so apart from side-effects of treatment, we don’t know whether in this situation it might actually increase the risk of recurrence by interfering with other treatment.
        Did your wife’s oncologist know that she was having hyperthermia, and did they make any dose modifications to take into account possible interactions? ”

        The US FDA has given the green light to hyperthermia treatments in conjunction with Radiation or Chemo. The use of Ultrasound is the means of heating the tissue, and it can go deep, in fact through the bone in my understanding. However, I’m not sure as you stated how much the blood is effected, perhaps it’s not the goal. I’m pretty sure they have some evidence that the treatment is beneficial. You are the expert, you tell me.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3763397/

        • Thank-you. Of course I don’t have any details other than what John has provided, and in any case I am not an expert in hyperthermia – my knowledge is no more than that of any oncologist, and I haven’t particularly been following the research. The link you provided gives a very detailed summary of the state of the area so far, including what is known about interactions with radiotherapy and chemotherapy, mechanisms of action and possible clinical uses.

          I was not aware that the FDA had approved the use of hyperthermia. However, a quick search threw up a few interesting links:
          http://www.ascopost.com/issues/january-15-2014/using-hyperthermia-for-cancer-treatment-proofs-promises-and-uncertainties/
          This is from the ASCO Post (American Society of Clinical Oncology) and it seems that the approval is for limited humanitarian use in patients with a rare form of cervical cancer who are unable to have chemotherapy. The article also mentions that hyperthermia can be used and reimbursed for breast cancer recurrence in the chest wall, which is a very difficult problem to treat with conventional approaches and ideal for hyperthermia as the tumour nodules are in the skin.

          https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfhde/hde.cfm?id=H090002
          This is from the FDA itself, and confirms the limited indications for certain cervical cancers

          https://www.hcioncology.com/hyperthermia-therapy/
          This is the Web site of a commercial centre offering hyperthermia to cancer patients. It seems to be deliberately vague about exactly what it is offering and which cancers can be treated there. It also seems to have cherry-picked promising areas of research and presented them as though they were referring to established treatment.

          Nowhere can I find anything about the use of adjuvant hyperthermia in breast cancer (by adjuvant, I mean in addition to the main treatment – surgery in this case – where the intent is to improve the chance of long-term cure). I wouldn’t have thought that the FDA approval extends to this indication, and the only proper usage would be in the context of a clinical trial.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791303/
          This paper gives the results of a trial of the clinical use of hyperthermia in breast cancer, specifically looking at local recurrence, and at locally advanced tumours (i.e. difficult to treat otherwise). There are some graphic photographs of the sort of problem that they are investigating, with before and after shots illustrating some of the responses they have achieved.

          So maybe John’s wife was in a clinical trial that her oncologist was participating in. Or maybe she was treated at a commercial centre, possibly outside the FDA-licensed indications and in the absence of clinical data to support such usage, with or without the knowledge of her oncologist. I am speculating here, but if it is the latter then it does have some of the features of alternative medicine.

          • Thank you Dr. J

            That was an excellent reply.
            I look forward to hearing more good results from hyperthemia treatments, as a solo treatment without Radiation or Chemo…. FDA permitting.

  • It has spread to two lymph nodes. She has got the PET scan results, but still need to go over them with the oncologist. She is going to Mexico tomorrow for immunotherapy.

    • “She is going to Mexico tomorrow for immunotherapy.”
      I thought your father was against conventional medicine. If there is a possibility that your Mom’s cancer could be treated by immunotherapy, her oncologist would be able to arrange the necessary DNA analysis of her biopsies to see whether it might be appropriate, and if so what kind of immunotherapy. Although their advice might be that something else would be more suitable at this time.

      So is your father OK with conventional treatment, provided that it isn’t given by suitably qualified doctors?

  • The oncologist talked about the PET scan results with my mom. Before, her cancer was at the juncture of the esophagus and the stomach and it was in two lymph nodes. Now, none of her cancer is in the esophagus tube and there is no cancer is the lymph nodes. I know you guys all agree that Gerson is bad, but doesn’t this disagree with that? Is there a part of this I don’t know because I’m not that educated on medical stuff?

    • “Is there a part of this I don’t know because I’m not that educated on medical stuff?”
      Nobody expects you to be educated on medical stuff. Even doctors only know about their own area of specialisation and have to consult with their colleagues when it comes to anything else (I was always asking other specialists when I was still working).

      It’s not very easy for me to comment on your story without seeing the scans. However, in my experience most non-medics have a rather unrealistic idea of how good the information is that you can get from scans.

      I am assuming that your Mom’s tumour was diagnosed with an endoscopy and biopsy. At the endoscopy the tumour would have been directly visible through a camera, though even that doesn’t give as clear a view as the naked eye. Biopsies would then have been taken, and a pathologist would have examined them under a microscope. It is only by looking at the appearance of the cells and how they are arranged in the biopsy that cancer can be diagnosed, and I should add that cancer cells are very small (it takes 1,000,000,000 of them to make a tumour the size of a pea).

      The next step would have been a CT scan. Think of this as being a rather pixellated black-and-white picture showing the body as it would look cut up into slices. It can show the presence of abnormal tissue, but not always what that tissue is. For instance, it might show an enlarged lymph node, but not always whether the node is enlarged due to cancer or for some other reason such as infection (remember the way glands come up in your neck when you have a sore throat?). Certainly CT scans are essential in order to plan treatment, but that doesn’t mean that there are never surprises at surgery.

      A PET scan looks at how tissue is behaving, rather than its shape or size. Specifically, the scan is usually set up to show areas that are burning a lot of glucose (by injecting a tiny amount of radioactive glucose and then seeing where the radioactivity goes). Most cancers burn more glucose than the tissue around them, and so they look brighter on the scan. PET scans give a very blurry picture, but it is overlaid onto a CT scan done at the same time so that you can see roughly where the glucose uptake is (the CT part is set up differently from a CT done on its own).

      This is useful information, but again it isn’t 100%. Not all tumours burn glucose in the same way, and in any case there has to be enough in one place for the radiation to concentrate. Nevertheless, if a lymph node seen on a CT scan also shows up bright on a PET, that is pretty good evidence that it is cancerous, whereas an enlarged lymph not that isn’t bright is probably clear.

      I know this sounds confusing, but think about it. The endoscopist had a good view of the cancer and the pathologist confirmed it under the microscope, so we know for certain that it is there, whatever the scans show. The scans have placed limits on how far it could have spread, but by themselves they don’t tell the whole story.

      It is also important to remember that when the radiologist writes his report on the scans, he doesn’t know the patient and he may not even be clear exactly what questions the surgeon or oncologist might be wanting him to answer about what is there. Quite possibly the PET and the CT scan will be reported by different people in different clinics who won’t necessarily know about what the other one has found or might not be looking for the same things.

      In case you think that I am making it sound as if scans are no good, I can remember how things were before we got them, and they have been getting better and better every year. They take out a lot of guesswork and you can’t manage modern cancer treatment without them. But as with anything else, to get the best out of them you have to be aware of their limitations.

      The ideal way to make a proper assessment of what is going on with cancer is to listen to the patient and ask the right questions, examine them carefully, order tests (including scans) and then discuss everything together as a group of specialists, so that the pathologist, the radiologist, the oncologist, the surgeon, the nurses and everybody else can look at the tests and explain what they have found, and also about the patient as a person, so that everybody understands the whole picure, not just their bit. We call this a multidisciplinary meeting and nearly every case of cancer in the UK is now discussed in this way in order to plan the best way forward. I don’t know if you have the same system where you live.

  • She still has cancer, just not in the esophagus.

  • My mom did do the scans that you listed before she left for Gerson the first time. I live in Washington, USA (not Washington D.C.) I don’t think we have multidisciplinary meetings here. My mom did the scans in the same clinic. The same two doctors talked over all her results with her.

    • I had been under the impression that your Mom had only just been diagnosed with cancer, but it sounds as though I may have misunderstood, as seem to be saying that the PET scan has been compared with an earlier test, suggesting that she has had some (Gerson?) treatment in between.

      From what you say, the original tests showed the cancer at the cardia (the junction of the stomach and oesophagus – I hope you don’t mind me using the English spelling), and also that she had lymph nodes involved. I am guessing that it was the endoscopy that showed the cancer at the cardia, and a CT scan that showed the lymph nodes (it might be quite hard to see the primary tumour on a CT scan).

      So now she has started Gerson therapy, and then had the PET scan, which doesn’t show the cancer at all, or to be more exact, it doesn’t show any abnormal uptake of FDG (radioactive glucose)?

      What you haven’t said is how long was the interval between the scans. If it was only a couple of weeks, then that isn’t really long enough to see a response (generally you need to compare scans done 2 – 3 months apart to see anything meaningful). Also it is difficult to measure response or progression if you are comparing different kinds of scans (or if you are comparing a scan with an endoscopy).

      I am not an expert in stomach cancer (I used to treat mainly prostate and testicular cancer) but a very quick search turned up this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3996244/ from March 2014. It is a review of the current state of knowledge of the role of FDG-PET scans in evaluating stomach cancer (OK, it is five years old and things may have moved on a bit). The important messages that I have taken away from it are:

      1. There are different pathological types of stomach cancer, and some take up more FDG than others, so they are not all equally visible on the scan. Possibly the ones that don’t show up so well behave less aggressively than the others.

      2. PET is not always helpful in detecting whether the lymph nodes are involved. In other words if the scan is positive then they are, but if it is negative then you don’t know (technically we would say that there is a high specificity but a low sensitivity).

      3. PET is more sensitive to spread within the abdomen, so if it is negative there then that is more reassuring.

      4. If you compare PET scans before and after chemotherapy, changes in FDG uptake can show a response sooner than you would see it on a plain CT, and can also predict to some extent how well the patient will do in the long term. This was specifically in patients given chemotherapy before surgery, and it was not known how this might apply to other types of treatment.

      I am making a lot of guesses about how your Mom has been investigated and treated so far and obviously I have never seen her or any of her tests or medical reports. I am just explaining how you can’t easily compare one type of scan with another and then conclude that whatever Gerson treatment she has had so far must be working. Her doctors are the ones who are best placed to tell you how she is doing as they will know how to put all the information together. Though it sounds as though she could be in with a good chance of cure with surgery.

      For a long time I have struggled to understand why some people turn their back on conventional medicine, which we know isn’t perfect but a least is what the evidence says is the best we have (and is getting better all the time), and instead choose something for which there is no evidence at all, or even any plausible reason why it should work.

      You don’t see people trying to commute to work by broomstick instead of taking the bus. And if somebody presented themselves as a flying carpet salesman, giving you a 100% guarantee that you could beat the traffic with their products, you would probably still prefer to spend your money on a Ford. So why take that approach with something as important as your health? Why choose witchcraft over science?

  • My dad’s sister had cancer. I think it was in her uterus. My dad when though a big change when I was 1-2 years old. Before, he worked in multiple IT companies. Then he changed. He started hating western society, blaming it for his sister’s death, for being only business-minded, for making my sisters and I not listen to him (he thinks the western schools do this). Before he changed, he trusted western medicine. He went and got what the western medicine doctors in India. His sister died. He is against western medicine also because they put chlorine in water and put mercury in cavity caps, even though both of them are toxic. I don’t support him or disagree with him. The list below shows which order my mom did her scans and Gerson.

    1. Endoscopy- India
    2. 1 week later… Endoscopy and Biopsy- Washington
    3. 1 to 2 week later… CT scan – Washington
    4. 1 week later… Went to Gerson for 2 weeks- Tijuana, Mexico
    5. Came home continued Gerson for 4 more weeks
    6. Got PET scan
    7. 3-4 days later… went to Gerson for immunotherapy for T cells and one other type that I can’t remember- will be there for about 3 weeks

  • What evidence do you have that Gerson therapy does not work?

    Can you please site the scientific evidence and not personal opinion as in your blog post.

    • DON’T BE DAFT!
      the burden of proof is on the ones who claim it works

      • DAFT!? For asking a question and asking for you not just to provide opinion but scientific evidence….interesting response.

        I neither believe or disbelieve in Gerson Therapy was merely asking a question in the hope that you had some evidence to support your very strong opinions.

        Having had recent experience of medical doctors who cannot agree on surgical approaches for spinal surgery it seems to me that medical experts in any field can rarely agree on what is best for their patients. Many Drs seem to assume unless something has FDA approval or published in the Lancet or similar status medical journal then it must be worthless or have little or no evidence of effectiveness.

        However what I have learned is there are people all around the world who are constantly pushing the boundaries of what we know, they are open to new ways of thinking and treatment options and in being so open are drastically changing the outcomes for people. They are the ones gathering the patient data that will eventually lead to approval being given by the FDA/NICE however in the meantime they are achieving life changing results for their people. The timescales for getting articles approved to appear in medical journals means that it is often years after their research is done that the studies start to appear in those medical journals.

        Another interesting fact i discovered on this journey was about the amount of fake medical news that appears in medical journals. I also discovered that even those bodies that claim to represent their specialist field often publish papers which are factually inaccurate and present a bias viewpoint of one treatment over another without presenting the facts.

        I would be interested to hear your views about Corrie Yelland and how she helps people living with cancer?
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix_P0lapYEA

        • yvonne stewart said:

          DAFT!? For asking a question and asking for you not just to provide opinion but scientific evidence….interesting response.

          Prof Ernst has already answered that. Once you come across the scientific evidence Gerson works, please do be sure to come back and post it here.

        • “DAFT!? For asking a question and asking for you not just to provide opinion but scientific evidence….interesting response.”

          Honestly, Prof Ernst was being kind. Your initial question—“What evidence do you have that Gerson therapy does not work?”—was indeed a nonsensical one. You might as well demand scientific evidence for the non-existence of flying carpets, or invisible pink unicorns, or flying purple butt-monkeys, or [ad infinitum]—it can’t be done.

          At best**, asking such a question illustrates a fundamental failure of joined-up thinking: if we insist that one thing is true until proved otherwise, then it holds that all things are true by default, which is logically impossible as any two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Hence the Null Hypothesis, which starts from the logically consistent position that nothing is assumed to be true until proven otherwise: i.e. Evidence or GTFO.

          Alt-med is chock-full of mutually contradictory claims of One True Causes and Cures of [sic] dis-ease, btw. For instance, one group claims cancer is caused by too much acidity and cured by an alkaline diet; another claims it’s a fungus cured by baking soda; another claims it caused by liver flukes cured with a zapper; and so on, and so on. Your own Gerson claims it’s due to too much salt and cured by a low-salt diet. It is impossible for all these claims to be true; at most one might be true, but all the others must be false. An honest mind would start by asking “Well, how do we work that out?”

          Yet remarkably few alt-med advocates seem bothered by this impossibility, never mind try to resolve it: it’s all one big happy tent, where all claims are accepted as True—except of course for those of the one system that has made the effort to apply some scientific rigor to the problem and has gathered and tested the evidence to back its claims up (i.e. medicine). Hmm, ever wonder why that is? Maybe you should first answer that, before you start asking questions of others.

          Also relevant to the discussion:

          https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-fdas-accelerated-drug-approval-program-is-failing-to-protect-cancer-patients/

          And as I noted there: “[T]he responsibility of rigorous trials is not to save those who are sick today, it’s to save the many more who will get sick tomorrow. Trash the process for profits or votes, and those already dying of disease will still die from it… along with their kids and their grandkids for generations to come.”

          This stuff is Hard and many lives are at stake, both now and in the future, so consider your responsibilities to other people before you go boosting untested, unproven, evidence-challenged “treatments” to others if you don’t wish to be accused of far worse than just “daft” behavior.

          (**At worst, the question was intentionally rigged, framed by a dishonest dissembler out to sell something. And AltMed certainly has a track record of that, but without further evidence to back up the JAQ-off hypothesis, we should extend benefit of doubt.)

          • Futher related, after a bit of rummaging around…

            Gerson’s original abstract, indexed on PubMed:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/751079

            Highlight: “This therapy has cured many cases of advanced cancer.”

            So many, clearly, that the author did not consider it necessary to give a number. Very Science. Much True. What a douche canoe.

            A more critical review of Gerson (abstract) observes:

            “Despite proponents’ claims of recovery rates as high as 70% to 90%, case reviews by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the New York County Medical Society found no evidence of usefulness for the Gerson diet.”

            and:

            “An NCI-sponsored study of Gonzalez therapy, which is similar to the Gerson diet, showed that patients … who underwent standard chemotherapy … survived three times longer and had better quality of life than those who chose [quack procedure].”

            A much more credible demonstration of Gerson’s actual recovery rates:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Ainscough

            And more discussion of that (horridly unethical) Gonzalez trial here:

            https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=gonzalez+trial

          • The tragedy of Jess Ainscough was that she was the third member of her family to have used Gerson to treat their cancer. And the third to die.

            “In April 2011, Jessica’s mother, Sharyn Ainscough, was diagnosed with breast cancer. Sharyn also refused all conventional treatment instead opting to join her daughter in Gerson Therapy. Sharyn Ainscough died in October 2013, two and half years after diagnosis, in line with expectations for untreated breast cancer.[17] At the time of her death, it was widely reported that “Sharyn, followed her daughter in advocating Gerson therapy after being diagnosed with breast cancer”.[18] However, in an interview with Jillian Exton, Jessica explained that it was her mother who had suggested Gerson Therapy to her after her initial chemotherapy was unsuccessful.[12] Jessica explained that her mother had previously used Gerson Therapy with her grandmother who died within weeks of being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2000.”

            Both Jess and her mother stood good chances of recovery under conventional treatment regimens but I doubt anything could have helped her grandmother, although she probably deserved better in her final days than having coffee forced up her bum and forcing down gallons of liquidised kale.

          • Lenny

            The thing I find a bit amusing about you and your cronies here at this forum is this. You are so willing to accept the testimonies of those that died not using allopatiic medicine on cancer, and use these testimonies to decry the use of such therapies. However, I have read numerous testimonies of cancer recoveries here from alternative therapies, but every such testimony gets trashed, poo-pooed and ridiculed…. in all reality, not accepted.

            get a life

          • RG,

            I’m not sure how you can obtain a testimony from somebody who has died. However, if you took the trouble to read posts that don’t accord with your own views you should have realised by now that testimonials are not accepted as evidence, whatever opinions they seem to support.

          • Dr. Julian

            Ahhhh yes

            I expected the very reasoning you provide might come as a reply, and I was correct.

            Strangely enough, testimonies of recoveries from allopathic medicine are WIDELY accepted here (as in the medical community) as evidence of success ! That’s known as a double standard.

            How great is the BS here

    • I think I could probably refer you to any university course covering physiology, pathology and biochemistry, which would not only present the relevant evidence but also teach critical thinking.

      If you are claiming that there are pixies at the bottom of your garden, then it is up to you to convince us that there are, not for us to demonstrate that there aren’t.

  • I know two people cured from cancer with Gerson therapy.

  • Enemas clean the liver, which clean your blood. The no salt diet is because the shell of your cells is made of sodium. If you make that shell emptier/losser your cells will absorb nutrients better. Carrot juice releases you bile. Limited acid helps make your body more alkali, which help in many ways including shrinking ulcers.

    • this is just pure BS!

    • Ria,

      I’m afraid none of this is true.

      “Enemas clean the liver”
      Enemas are an effective way of getting a drug into the body quickly (similar to giving it IV), they can be used for applying drugs directly to the bowel, and they are an effective treatment for constipation. They do not clean the liver. I don’t even know what cleaning the liver is supposed to mean. The only time I have ever tried to clean a liver was when I was about to cook it.

      “the liver, which clean your blood”
      I’m not quite sure what you mean here, either. The liver has a great many functions, though it is primarily a chemical factory where all kinds of reactions take place. Some of these are concerned with removing drugs and other toxic substances from the body, either by changing them into something else or by secreting them via the bile.

      “The no salt diet is because the shell of your cells is made of sodium. ”
      Human cells do not have a shell. Some bacteria have a cell wall (we call those gram-positive) and so do plant cells. Human cells have a membrane, which is primarily made of lipids (i.e. fat or oil). The tissue fluid outside the cells contains sodium, whereas the inside of the cells contain potassium. This difference in composition is essential for normal metabolic processes, including nerve impulses, muscle contraction and the beating of the heart. Meddle with it at your peril.

      “If you make that shell emptier/losser your cells will absorb nutrients better”
      Cells absorb nutrients through specific transport proteins embedded in the membrane, different ones for each nutrient. They also require normal levels of sodium, potassium and other electrolytes in order to function properly.

      “Carrot juice releases you bile.”
      No it doesn’t. The release of bile is stimulated by eating fatty food, such as cheese, lamb, fried food etc.; this is why these sorts of food can cause pain if you have gall stones.

      “Limited acid helps make your body more alkali”
      No it doesn’t. If you limit the acid in your diet then the kidneys respond by reducing the amount of acid excreted in the urine and the overall acidity / alkalinity (what we call pH) of the body remains unchanged.

      You can temporarily make your body slightly more alkali by hyperventilating (taking fast deep breaths) which clears the acidic gas carbon dioxide from the blood. If you try it you will find that it makes you dizzy, gives you pins and needles round your mouth and elsewhere, gives you cramp in your muscles, gives you chest pain and causes a feeling of panic. Sometimes it can make you lose consciousness, so it isn’t a very safe experiment to do unsupervised. To return to normal afterwards put a paper bag over your face so that you are breathing in your carbon dioxide again.

      These are the effects of a slight increase in the alkalinity of the body. Any more than that is rapidly fatal.

      “your body more alkali, which help in many ways including shrinking ulcers”
      Making your body more alkali doesn’t help anything.

      However, the cells within a tumour are often more acidic than normal tissue, since the don’t have a healthy blood supply and being starved of oxygen. As a result of this many of them die – if you look at a cancer under a microscope it is full of dead and dying cells, and for all but very small tumours the centre is very often dead. Increasing the alkalinity of these cells would enable more of them to survive, which isn’t very helpful if you are trying to treat cancer. However, improving the oxygenation of cancer cells does make them more sensitive to radiation, and there have been trials of various methods of doing this as part of radiotherapy treatment.

      “I know two people cured from cancer with Gerson therapy”
      It may seem an odd question, but how do you know that this is true? I don’t mean that they are lying, necessarily, and they may genuinely believe it, but there are a few questions that you should aske yourself:

      Did they have cancer in the first place?
      Did they have any other treatment such as surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy?
      Are they actually cancer free?
      If so, how has this been confirmed?
      Have they been free of cancer for long enough to be sure that it isn’t going to come back
      Could it be that they are simply feeling better because of their belief in the treatment, with no actual change in their condition (believe me, this happens a lot)?

      It is important to remember that there are a few true cases of cancer that get better of their own accord. Every oncologist (me included) has seen this, and there is research going on to investigate why this should happen.

      It is also important to remember that when an oncologist gives a prognosis (not always a wise thing to do) he can only talk in general terms. If the expected survival is six months, then that means that half the patients will be dead by six months and half of them won’t. Some of them will only live a week or two and some will live for years. This is simply the way numbers are – being aware of the behaviour of numbers is a very useful skill in understanding the world.

  • There is a wider issue being missed here. Why do humans think that their reductive science experiments are better Evidence than nature itself which has been working fine for billions of years? If only we could learn to work with nature and not against it then we might do a better job with not just our own health but that of the planet. Just because Chemo works to some extent, this does not mean it is our only option. Its time to start thinking outside the box. Hopefully there is time for us to learn that nature works so hard to clean and purify, while we continue to polute. My money is on nature winning.

    Evidence: take a good look at the state of the planet vs. Millions of years it did better without our ‘help’

    • Carolyn

      Pathogenic viruses and bacteria are entirely natural.

      Nature is basically out out to kill us. Our physiological systems and our societies have evolved to mitigate this effect. Our “reductive science experiments” have showed us how clean water supplies and improvements in hygiene improve public health. The same experiments show us what does and does not work in preventing and combating cancer. The same experiments show us that sticking apricot pips and coffee up your bum and drinking loads of pureed fruit and veg does pretty much nothing in treating cancer. That nasty reductionist science contradicts your naturalistic worldview is not a problem with the scientific method. It is a problem with your worldview.

      • ‘Our physiological systems and our societies have evolved…’

        Yes. So you agree that nature has forced us to evolve and that our physiological systems are fighting pathogens. What then are those systems if not part of nature within us and working for us? Are we not a product of nature? Doesn’t our own dna have a built-in system of quality assurance? Are we not made from the same proteins and enzymes as other life-forms? Are we not ourselves subjects of natural selection?

        Spontaneous remission is our natural system working to heal us. We only get sick because the toxic load becomes too much for us to fight those pathogens. Can we not help by reducing the load and supporting our natural healing?

        • “We only get sick because the toxic load becomes too much for us to fight those pathogens.”
          I very much doubt that this is true.
          “Can we not help by reducing the load and supporting our natural healing?”
          you mean detox? it’s bunk!

          • Edzard

            You are in part correct. There are two reasons for disease… not just one. Toxicity is only one, deficiency is the other reason that disease begins at the cellular level. So cells getting too much of what they don’t want, and not enough of what they need (nutrition) to be healthy are key. Take care of both and disease will take care of itself.
            Beyond those two key factors, throw in some good mental and physical habits, and there will be much much less disease in our society.
            It’s really not rocket scence.

          • “You are in part correct. There are two reasons for disease… not just one. Toxicity is only one, deficiency is the other reason that disease begins at the cellular level.”
            yes, not rocket science, just BS!

        • We only get sick because the toxic load becomes too much for us to fight those pathogens.

          Well, I wish I’d known that. It would have saved me years of study at medical school.

          • Well. I mentioned to you smart people here a couple months ago about toxic overload, you don’t want to acknowledge it…. but it’s real. Combined, these elements will lead to a toxic overload of the immune system.
            Let’s review the list again

            Mercury
            Radiation
            cleaning products
            soaps and shampos, antiperspirants and deodorants… perfumes
            foods with preservativs
            processed meats
            dairy products
            GMO’s
            Fluoride
            Formaldehyde
            pesticides
            herbicides
            pharmaceuticals
            non-stick cookware
            vaccines
            BPA
            tobacco

            Not a comprehensive list, get these toxins outta your life, these items are a good start.

          • Interesting thought, RG.

            Avoid “cleaning products, soaps and shampos, antiperspirants and deodorants… perfumes”

            That would indeed make you much healthier.

            No one would want to be in close contact with you so you’d be much less likely to pick up infections from anyone..

            The soap-dodging bit does rather contradict the “hygiene and clean water” hypothesis you cranks trot out to explain the reduction in communicable diseases, though.

            Almost as if you’re talking a load of cobblers isn’t it?

          • Combined, these elements will lead to a toxic overload of the immune system.

            You seem to have a very different idea of what the immune system is and how it works than I do. Have you ever studied immunology? Or toxicology, for that matter? Or cell biology?

            You are stringing together words in ways that make so little sense that I am not convinced that you actually understand them at all.

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle
            “Have you ever studied immunology? Or toxicology, for that matter? Or cell biology?”

            It would matter little to you prima-donnas here at this forum if I studied or what I studied, would you be any more willing to accept my thoughts … I already know the answer.

            At least half of the toxins I listed are mentioned here in this one link. Your homework is to read it…. ALL OF IT !
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033466/

            Yes, there is a correlation between toxins and the immune system., and I don’t need a damn PHD degree to understand it.

            Lenny
            Surely not you…. falling prey to the lure of using Ad Hominem attacks, hmmm, I hoped you were better than that.
            I guess I should have been more specific about personal care items, I assumed you knew which ones I was referring to…. ya know, the ones with toxic substances in them. However, there are personal hygiene products available without the ethel-methel bad stuff. I won’t make the mistake again of assuming that your know such trivia. Do some research, you might get enlightened.

          • It would matter little to you prima-donnas here at this forum if I studied or what I studied, would you be any more willing to accept my thoughts

            I think you misunderstood my question. I am not suggesting that whether or not anybody takes you seriously should depend on your qualifications, but that if you had studied any of these subjects you might be able to talk about them a little more intelligently.

            You are really making so little sense that I am beginning to doubt that you even know the meaning of many of the terms that you throw about so happily.

            To me it sounds rather like:
            “Yeah, I can set a fracture – all you need to know is:
            De hip bone connected to de thigh bone
            De thigh bone connected to de knee bone…”

            At least half of the toxins I listed are mentioned here in this one link. Your homework is to read it…. ALL OF IT !
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033466/

            OK, I’ve read it. Broadly speaking it says that there has been little research into the effect of in utero exposure to environmental toxins on later health, and it talks about a number of studies involving exposing pregnant mice to known toxins such as arsenic and dioxins. It doesn’t support your suggestion that we should give up soap and non-stick frying pans. To quote from the authors’ conclusions at the end of the paper:
            “it is clear that we need to determine precisely how early life exposures to pollutants impact the developing immune system.”

            I don’t need a damn PHD degree to understand it.

            No of course not. Though preparing for a PhD would teach you how to read scientific papers.

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle

            Your analysis of the link I posted is weak. Don’t tempt me to post numerous paragraphs from the link I posted from NCBI, you seem to overlook what fits your agenda. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the effects on a fetus, even the material did consider the effects on young people after birth. Exposures outside the womb, which take place over more years of the life are likely to ONLY INCREASE the long term ill effects of toxic overload. The study is relevant.

            You can defend toxins all you please Dr., you only make yourself appear silly by doing so.
            The facts have already been established that envrionmental toxins are harmful to our immune systems.

            I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss or poopoo the non stick cookware hazards. Dupont Corporation has already paid out many claims.
            https://ohiovalleyresource.org/2017/02/13/dupont-offers-670m-settlement-teflon-chemical-contamination-water/
            https://www.ecowatch.com/teflons-toxic-legacy-dupont-knew-for-decades-it-was-contaminating-wate-1882142514.html

            Here is your next assignment:
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790949/
            (from the link above)
            “Sixty years after the dawn of the petrochemical era, health effects are known for just a fraction of its bounty. And many of these chemicals—including lead, mercury, and a long list of organochlorines—now even contaminate human breast milk. While this study demonstrates that even low levels of diverse toxicants can disrupt the developing nervous system, it also provides a framework for analyzing a wide range of toxic chemicals based on their pro-oxidant activity. In so doing, it provides a strategy for quickly assessing the physiological effects of many of the toxic chemicals pervading our environment—the first step in identifying agents that might protect the most vulnerable among us.”

            Please Doc, don’t even attempt to make claims that the kidneys and liver can not be overwhelmed with toxic substances. Pharmaceuticals and alcohol are two simple examples of toxic overload leading to body harm.

          • RG,

            You seem to willfully misunderstand nearly everything I say, and indeed the sources you cite, too.

            I am not denying the dangers of environmental toxins, anything but. However, you are quoting studies that do not justify the conclusions that you are drawing from them.

            Exposures outside the womb, which take place over more years of the life are likely to ONLY INCREASE the long term ill effects of toxic overload.

            How can you conclude that? This is not what the paper was about. In any case it is very well established that the developing embryo (particularly before it becomes a fetus) is uniquely sensitive to chemical agents that have a quite different effect on adults and indeed on juveniles. Take thalidomide, for example, which is strongly teratogenic in humans if taken during the first trimester of pregnancy, but has a completely different toxicity profile in adults.

            In matters of health, it is very dangerous to assume that findings in one group can automatically be extrapolated to another. Age, sex, maturity, co-morbidity, co-exposure can all be important factors. So can species – coming back to the example of thalidomide again, which shows no teratogenic effects in pregnant rodents.

            Dupont Corporation has already paid out many claims.

            I don’t doubt it. But these were claims arising from contamination of the water supply by a chemical plant that was making Teflon. Cooking with non-stick pans is not the same as living near where they are made (or rather one of their components, as I doubt whether a chemical plant makes pans).

            Actually PTFE is chemically pretty inert. The microscopic structure which prevents nearby molecules from interacting with the shared electrons in the carbon-fluorine covalent bonds, which is why nothing will stick to it, also makes those bonds particularly hard to break.

            Please Doc, don’t even attempt to make claims that the kidneys and liver can not be overwhelmed with toxic substances.

            That is another daft thing to say. I have managed enough cases of liver and kidney failure over the course of my career.

            Here is your next assignment

            Res ipsa loquitur

            I should remind you that we got into this rather wearisome discussion on the basis of your assertion that all illness is caused either by nutrient deficiencies or exposure to toxins and by implication that correcting these deficiencies or exposures will effect a cure. You have not provided any evidence that supports your position, or indeed said much that makes sense at all. What conclusions do you expect me to draw from all this?

            In fact my main conclusion is that you don’t actually believe any of what you are saying, which is why you haven’t taken the trouble to be consistent, but you are just trying to see how far you can string me along.

          • Dr. Julian Money Kyrle

            “However, you are quoting studies that do not justify the conclusions that you are drawing from them.”

            While I am making a small asumption, I’m not exactly going out on a limb Dr.
            First of all, if you read the paper, the study DID refer to children outside the womb, so get off that talking point…. not valid. Perhaps you would like to sign up for some trials to test the effects on adults so we will know for sure. Sorry Doc, it’s already been established that envrionmental toxins are toxic to humans.

            Secondly, my assumption that more time exposure will only increase the risk is not without merit. Time is one of the main metrics of measuring exposure…. almost all exposure related testing involves the time metric. You can’t get away from it. This is one of the fallacies of acceptance of pharmacueticals is that most studies are limited in lengh of scope….. HOGWASH ! … this practice is dangerous !

            Does it always mean that more exposure time will result in the data ? ..we already know it doesn’t. This is largly becasue there are few studies that go on for extended years. Some people smoke for all their adult lives and don’t die from lung cancer. However, it’s a known fact that the longer a person smokes cigs, they are increasing their toxic exposure. The facts are that in the long run some pharma drugs will do more damage than good.

            As for thalidomide, it’s still a toxic substance to the human body, the negative effects are still present, even if you are experiencing the resutls you want. You may choose it over your cancer, but we all make these choices with regard to risk/reward.

            My headache pain may eventually get severe enough that I choose to take the pain pill on a given day, when in most cases I will choose to endure the pain rather than ingest a toxin. I will choose to obey traffic regulaton most everyday, but if I’m rushing a loved one to the hospital for an acute problem, I will likey take some risk is violating the traffic laws. The risk/reward ratio is always in play everyday of our lives.

            The fact that thalidomide helps reduces your symptoms sufficiently does not change the fact that it also has negative impacts on your body. Asside from antibiotics, and preventative measures as in vaccines, I know of almost no pharma medicatoin that cures ANYTHING, including cancers. In almost every case, pharma drugs simply make the simptoms go away for as long as you continue administrating the drug.

            It’s Friday…. no assignment for today

    • That is very muddled thinking.

      With regard to what is happening to the planet, scientists have been warning about it for decades. It is the pursuit of power and profit that have been driving the problem, together with various aspects of human nature, such as a tendency to think short-term and locally, and to discount future losses, which have got in the way of solutions.

      Doctors all know that when you are treating a patient you have to work with nature, not against it.

      Science observations and experiments are how we know about nature, which is always the final arbiter of what is true.

      Chemo is certainly not our only option, and nobody knows its limitations better than oncologists do.

      That is no reason to choose superstitions, witchcraft, lies, fraudulent claims and charlatanism.

      • What gives science permission to deny people some hope? The reductionist method can only measure one thing and exclude all other influences at the same time. It may give results, agreed. Yet it has a habit of debunking any other method as if this is the only worldview. We are a complex system living in a complex system. We need to think of ways to test theories in this complex world, without reducing it to simplified either/or answers. I’m suggesting that if something appears to work, then science needs to work a lot harder to disprove it before saying its wrong. Otherwise its just being high and mighty, claiming it knows best when its sctually somewhat blinkered.

        • I think you need to educate yourself on what science actually is. It is a method for finding the truth. Carl Sagan once described it as a way of trying not to fool yourself.

          What gives science permission to deny people some hope?

          I can’t work out what on earth you mean by that.

          I’m suggesting that if something appears to work, then science needs to work a lot harder to disprove it before saying its wrong.

          I’m not really sure what you are saying here, either. Appearances can be deceptive. Taking a scientific approach means not accepting things at face value, and not accepting the first or most appealing explanation you can think of. It means basing a hypothesis on evidence, and then trying as hard as you can to prove yourself wrong before you can tentatively accept it as the best you have got so far.

          Otherwise its just being high and mighty, claiming it knows best when its sctually somewhat blinkered.

          That is a good description of the proponents of Gerson therapy. As far as I can see, they fall into two groups. The first comprises those who accept it as a matter of faith. The other is composed of the ones making money out of it.

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle

            There is another group you don’t mention.

            The group that is eliminating toxins from their bodies that are interfering with healthy cell reproduction…. and giving their cells more of what they need to reproduce without disease.

          • There is another group you don’t mention.

            The group that is eliminating toxins from their bodies that are interfering with healthy cell reproduction…. and giving their cells more of what they need to reproduce without disease.

            I don’t mention them because I have no reason to believe that they exist, other than in the minds of the first of my two groups.

          • ‘I think you need to educate yourself on what science actually is.’

            I guess its dogma, I’m complaining about rather than science. Sometimes the truth is something scientists are not ready to accept, so they fall back on dogma. (Reference Copernicus, Darwin, Galleleo).

            That said, yesterday’s science often proves itself to be wrong today. So it is not strictly synonymous with truth. Even the great Carl Sagan would admit that.

          • Carolyn,

            yesterday’s science often proves itself to be wrong today. So it is not strictly synonymous with truth

            I said science was a method. An essential part of this method is rejecting a hypothesis when new evidence is found. It is the opposite of dogma. Even in the case a very robust hypothesis which has withstood enough testing tp take on the status of a theory (such as quantum physics, relativity or evolution) there is still the possibility that it may be overturned in time.

            Reference Copernicus, Darwin, Galleleo

            I’m not clear what you are getting at here. Copernicus and Galileo overturned some of the teachings of the Catholic Church, and Galileo got into a lot of trouble as a result. The Reverend Charles Darwin was much troubled by the conclusions he had drawn from the evidence he found, not least because he could foresee the controversy that publishing his ideas would cause, but by then others were already questioning the literal truth of the Bible.

  • Agree though that ‘There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim’. So just as the burden of proof falls on Gerson Therapy, so too does it upon those who claim ‘it does not work’. Absence of proof is no proof of absence.

    However, it makes logical sense to remove toxic loading as much as possible and to nutritionally support the body’s own defenses and healing processes. Doesn’t matter what you call it. If however you are asking for payment of ‘big bucks’ then there should be a guarantee or refund should it fail. The proof then is in the result and the risks become a personal choice.

    As for the planet, why do we let power, money, short-tern thinking etc… Have its way? We are all responsible if we let that happen.

  • As for the planet, why do we let power, money, short-tern thinking etc… Have its way? We are all responsible if we let that happen.

    Too true.

  • This argument against nutritional therapy and detoxification is very weak. The gerson statistics speak for themselves. Even the most deadly of cancers stage 4a pancreatic cancer has a 1% cure rate with conventional medical treatment, and Gerson has a 47% cure rate. I cannot imagine that a coffee enema would be less pleasant than chemotherapy, radiation or surgery and chemotherapy and radiation increase the chances of another type of cancer developing later. Gerson therapy has positive side effects due to intense nutrition and detoxification, where standard medical treatments for cancer have negative side effects.

    • Gerson has a 47% cure rate?
      any evidence for that?

    • chemotherapy and radiation increase the chances of another type of cancer developing later

      I should just point out that, while this is true, this risk isn’t always relevant. Some types of chemotherapy (particularly alkylating agents) increase the risk of leukaemias and lymphomas with an absolute risk of about 1%, peaking at 5 – 10 years after treatment, and this always has to be weighed against the risk of not treating. Other types of chemotherapy, however, do not carry the same risk.

      Radiation-induced cancers take a long time to appear (about 30 years or so), and though the absolute risk is hard to estimate it is probably about 5 – 10%. This is particularly important when children and young adults are irradiated, and research is continually finding ways to reduce the use of radiotherapy in these groups, or ideally avoid it altogether. The majority of radiotherapy patients are much older.

      stage 4a pancreatic cancer has a 1% cure rate with conventional medical treatment, and Gerson has a 47% cure rate.

      I have not come across any published statistics showing what the cure rate of Gerson therapy is, and as far as I can tell the Gerson Centre tries to hide such information, only releasing testimonials and individual case histories, which are probably not representative of their results as a whole.

      What do your cure rate statistics refer to? The official figures quoted by ASCO give 5-year survival rate of 1% for stage 4 pancreatic cancer in the US, which is not the same as a cure. However, this is a measure of survival from the time of diagnosis. Stage 4 pancreatic cancer is usually rapidly fatal, and many patients don’t survive long enough to see an oncologist at all. For those that are able to have it, chemotherapy improves the median survival (the time until half are dead) from about 3 1/2 months to about 8 months. Focusing only on median survival, however, hides the fact that chemotherapy makes very little difference to some, and a lot of difference to others, with some individuals surviving ten years or more (this isn’t purely down to chemotherapy – not all pancreatic cancers are as intrinsically agressive as the majority).

      By the time a pancreatic cancer patient has survived long enough reach the Gerson Centre they have already done better than most of their peers, and may well also have received chemotherapy, so your 1% and 47% figures are not measuring the same thing.

      Having said that, Gerson have yet to demonstrate that they have a 47% cure rate for anything.

      I cannot imagine that a coffee enema would be less pleasant than chemotherapy, radiation or surgery

      I can. Though I have only experienced the latter three myself.

      Gerson therapy has positive side effects due to intense nutrition and detoxification, where standard medical treatments for cancer have negative side effects.

      What do you mean here by positive and negative? It is clearly different from how these terms are used by the medical profession. How would you feel about receiving a positive test for hepatitis B, for instance?

      The patients I have looked after who were also undergoing Gerson therapy found it very difficult to tolerate. They were ill way beyond what I would expect from their cancer alone, and had abnormal levels of serum electrolytes (mainly due to the coffee enemas but not helped by the imbalanced diet) which must have made them feel dreadful.

      One of the side-effects of my own chemotherapy was that after losing all my hair, it grew back curly. I love it, and so does my wife, though a perm would probably have been easier.

  • Have either of you Studied and applied nutrition to your own lives. Most of the doctors I’ve met(while brilliant and very well educated) have almost no knowledge of how food becomes hormones, or breaks down into neurotransmitters. The human body was made to eat organic, unprocessed foods and while surgery and modern medicine has its rightful place in society, the important and necessity of excellent nutrition must be acknowledged. I don’t want to convince you that juicing vegetables can shrink cancer tumors but I would ask you both as humans to explore the connection between healing, vitality and wellbeing through diet. At the very least, if you explore and experiment , you will hopefully gain better health and then be able to suggest that healing to your patients. It is my hope that the medical community open their minds and hearts to the truth of nutrients, diet and exercise so the USA and the world can experience vibrant and sustained wellbeing. Not just survive but thrive! The first time I’ve heard of alkaline diets to treat tumors was through a TEDx talk on YouTube. This opened my eyes to food and nutrients to aid in healing. Please at least, explore the evidence yourself s and talk to patients who have had success changing their diets.

    • Jared
      I agree with you, food is the answer to many ailments and disease.

      the “brilliant and educated” people here have no interest in a healthier diet. Not enough money to be gained, not nearly enough control over people lives.

    • “The first time I’ve heard of alkaline diets to treat tumors was through a TEDx talk on YouTube.”

      Well, there’s delusional bullshit, and then there’s delusional bullshit that hurries patients to their graves. Guess which that is?

      The reason you don’t hear about alkaline “treatments” outside of deluded woo-woo circles is that they’re absolute nonsense, completely contradicted by basic biology. If you must rot your brain on YT, at least rot it watching material that’s factually correct.

      • Delusion is merely something that others cannot see. If someone sees something who is there to say what is delusion and what is real. ‘Delusions’ can heal if you believe in them. Psychology has proven the power if belief. So stop deluding yourself that your viewpoint is one and only true viewpoint. How high is the mountain you sit upon to make such a judgement? Because if that is the highest mountain, you are responsible for life and death. If you chose to prounce death, then you did that.

        • “How high is the mountain you sit upon to make such a judgement?”

          About five foot eight, or the height of my brain. A defective organ that despite decades of damage and wear still manages to produce infinitely better output that the loose cellular soup slopping around the void between your own fatuous lugholes.

          “‘Delusions’ can heal if you believe in them. Psychology has proven the power if belief.”

          NO. This is exactly why humanity invented science: to give us a reliable, repeatable process for testing claims in order to separate those claims that have some substance to them from those claims that are Wrong.

          See that red banner up top, that says “if you make a claim in a comment, support it with evidence”? Thats Evidence, love, not “whatever PoMo garbage you feel like pulling out your ass and throwing in our faces”. No-one here cares for your narcissistic protelyzations, only assertions you back up with reliable evidence. Please start doing so, or piss off.

          Irrational belief systems Harm and Kill; and not just the fraud or fool promoting them either, but true innocents as well. The only thing you’ve proven here is blood is on your hands as well.

  • My final thought in reply to the main premise of this argument is as follows: any cancer patient with the fight in them to defy doctors who say to them there is nothing more that can be done, and who then turns round to the doctor and says I’m not willing to give up, I’m still fighting, will look to seek to find ways to bring about ‘spontaneous remission’ a known phenomenon. How they do that and where they put their money or their faith should not be judged or pronounced useless, pointless or unscientific by the conventional medicine which has already failed them. Doctors have an oath that says do no harm, but by pronouncing to patients a potential therapy or treatment won’t work they are doing just that. No one has the right to pre-judge the outcome as being 100% failure rate. Even 99% failure means there’s a 1 in 100 chance for that patient. So who has the right to say that won’t be you. Hippocrates had a second principal it is important not to get in the way of healing naturally, so any means that supports the body’s natural healing process is not only not pointless, it should be the first place we turn to.

    • if a doctor ever does say ‘there is nothing more that can be done’, change physician.
      there is always something!
      I have never met one saying this.

      • Thats what happened with my Dad. He had cancer of the bladder and was kept alive with blood transfusions. They told him this treatment could not continue and there was nothing more they could do. He was 76. He died 3 weeks later. No chemo no operation. No alternatives. The NHS in the UK is failing us badly. He did have cancer 3 times already in his life and fought on. But when they said nothing more can be done he gave up.

        • I hope this is not true. if there are no more curative options, there is always palliative care. I hope your dad did receive this at least.

          • Of course it’s not true. Like all [quasi-]religious protelyzers, Carolyn sees what she chooses to see, chooses to believe what wants to believe, and makes it all about her. Real life is messy, uncertain, and sometimes cruel. Inventing a false narrative just because you’re too cowardly and/or greedy to work with that is AltMed’s modus operandi.

            I’ve no doubt NHS offered her terminally-ill father palliative care to make him comfortable as possible and provide time to spend time with family and friends as his long life drew to its inevitable end. The only reason he wouldn’t have have received such care is if a dishonest, selfish daughter convinced him to do otherwise by selling him false hope. But I really do hope not—for his sake, if not for hers.

      • Prof Ernst – ‘ I have never met one saying this’ I have two loved ones undergoing treatment for cancer : one has been operated on, brought back from the brink and has the best doctors fighting for,his life, but he has been told there is nothing more that can be done: no more operations, no chemo. The next step will be palliative. The other one is undergoing last chance treatment: he has been told there is nothing else that can be offered should this treatment not work. In both cases the medical professionals involved are first class and honest, They don’t want to change their physicians. And neither seek out CAM : that is their choice.

        Has and Dr Geir what exactly in Carolyn’s posts have produced such harsh remarks such as ‘…pulling out your ass’, … ‘or piss off’, …’blood is on your hands as well’, ‘abject ignorance’, ‘amateur ignorami blurt…’ Oh and unlike her ‘you know what you are talking about.’ Have I missed some of her posts?

        I think Carolyn is better placed to know what she is talking about: it’s her personal experience she is relating yet the insensitivity from skeptics in their quest to use any post to bash complementary medicine is quite shocking: and why can’t you respond without anger?

        Again, for me it is almost impossible to take this blog seriously when I read these unkind (kind description) comments. It doesn’t further your cause to convince those you set out to convince you are right.

        Whether you feel anger or not regarding CAM, it is so obviously thriving. I remember many years ago catching a radio debate between Professor Colquhoun and acupuncture users ( some of them medical professionals. ) He is as we know against acupuncture, but it was difficult to disbelieve the positive experiences of these users: having delayed using acupuncture, their experiences convinced me and many years later I am indebted to my acupuncturist. Homeopathy, chiropractic, reflexology, Reiki etc etc are popular: it is undeniable, and yet from the skeptics’ high ground it is all rubbish. I am sorry if your arguments don’t ring true.

        I have in the past raised the vaccine situation and I am called angrily an anti vaxxer. In reality, I like most people urge for safe vaccines. It is not good enough to say there is anti vaccination fake news. How can you call out parents as anti vaccination when they had their children vaccinated and sadly have damaged children as a result? These are real situations. In America $4billion compensation paid out since the NVICP inception; $110 million first quarter 2019. You may waft it away as a complex system or greedy plaintiffs. Really? It seems in the UK according to the national press who are campaigning for increased uptake of MMR it is the middle class and wealthy parents not vaccinating their children. A Government minister says he has not excluded removing unvaccinated children from school education. Strident measures but meanwhile these affected families are accused of fake news. It makes no sense. Not only is there no press coverage, it appears YouTube will be withdrawing any perceived anti vaccination videos. We need honesty and clarity: I fear for our democracy and resultant right for informed choice. I was reading about the opioid epidemic and learnt that the Pharmaceutical companies have produced a drug to counteract the effects of the opioids : win win then. Those companies can remain buoyant.

        Well you know how it is not being a skeptic of CAMetc etc etc : it is completely pointless engaging with so much anger here: my rant is over, and hopefully ( please please may I keep my resolution??!) my engagement with this unhappy blog.

        As always Professor, thank you for the space. May all your Skeptic Supporters engage with their less combative side and bring forth kindly discourse : you know just like the good old days of debates. Oh I forgot there is no place here to debate with the equivalent of a unicorn or tooth fairy. I love my unicorn and hope it sends its fairy dust to you all (oh no you don’t believe in fairies, time to go) Happy Sunday all.

        • “… he has been told there is nothing more that can be done: no more operations, no chemo. The next step will be palliative.”
          let me repeat:
          PALLIATIVE CARE IS NOT DOING NOTHING!!!

          • “PALLIATIVE CARE IS NOT DOING NOTHING!!!”

            QFT.

            WE ALL DIE.

            To die comfortably, without fear or pain, surrounded by loved ones, is one of the greatest—certainly the most underrated—gifts of modern medicine. It’s something our recent ancestors could only have dreamed of; something a couple billion less fortunate fellow humans still do.

            Angela, your cruel and callous dismissal of the best of modern medicine’s end-of-life care is exactly SOP for AltMed’s intellectual and moral cowards with their fake hope to sell. You think Carolyn’s personal testimonials, so clearly constructed with an ax to grind, are somehow special or unique? Get over yourselves.

            EVERYONE HERE has already lost loved ones in their life.

            EVERYONE HERE will lose loved ones in future.

            EVERYONE HERE will at some point, whether ready or not, die themselves.

            WE are just being honest—both to ourselves and to everyone else—in how we face up to the inevitable and so handle it in the best and most compassionate way possible. YOU are not. The shame is yours.

          • Oh, and knowing how much the Alties here love their testimonials, here’s one that cuts to the very heart, in more ways than one:

            I had a friend who was dying due to a combination of a massive infection, morbid obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. He had been in the hospital for several weeks and was declining fast. He was a devout Christian and had made his peace with his imminent death, but his son kept urging him to fight and kept asking the doctors if there was anything — anything — else they could do. They finally said that there was one procedure they could try, but that it had very little chance of helping in any meaningful way. The son convinced his father to have the procedure. It didn’t work, and caused horrible pain and distress during the final 24 hours of his father’s life.

            The son was a preacher. He believed that God could intervene and save his father, with the help of medical science. After sitting by his father’s bedside and watching how much that final procedure increased his father’s suffering, he admitted that he had been thinking of himself, not his father, and that it had been a horribly selfish thing to do. He thought he had been acting out of love, but he had actually been thinking of his own loss and acting out of his own desire to keep his father with him as long as possible, no matter the cost.

            The Sunday after his father died, he told his congregation about his selfish act, how wrong it was, how much unnecessary suffering it had cost his father, and asked them to keep his story in mind when, not if, they found themselves in a similar situation. As for him, despite his belief in a forgiving deity and the knowledge that his father understood and didn’t blame him, he would have to deal with his feelings of guilt for a very long time.

          • Professor Ernst and Has – why are you shouting – PALLIATIVE CARE IS NOT DOING NOTHING? My post was about the fact they didn’t want to change physicians despite quite bleak prospects, and that’s because they are receiving excellent care, and honest accounts of their illnesses. The comment about palliative care was mine alone – I have not discussed PC with them – as the next step in their care. It was a statement about what was to come.

            Has shouts WE ALL DIE. Yes indeed : from the time of birth, it’s the one thing we can be sure of. ‘To die comfortably, without fear of pain, surrounded by loved ones …’ Has I could not agree more with you. We are fortunate indeed to have the palliative care teams in hospitals, hospices and their service of home care and the fact that The Liverpool Pathway has been discontinued.

            I have had the privilege of many years working for a charity supporting those at end of life, and have seen the above first hand : we have much to be proud of.

            I am sorry Has but your accusation towards me of ‘cruel and callous dismissal of the best of modern medicine’s end-of-life care ….’ Is way off beam. I understand the the written word is not always clear: this blog is full of misunderstandings and assumptions, but I needed to put the record straight.

            Palliative care is vital and to be taken seriously: why when I have given so much willingly to support that aim, to be honoured to see the work our medical professionals do to create comfort, would I also be an intellectual and moral coward with fake hope to sell?

            I get the anger towards CAM Has, but you have called me out on something that I have been proud of and is close to my heart. Better luck next time: a reminder that we must read the words carefully before making erroneous assumptions: oh I forgot its par for the course on this blog. But happy to put you right. Best wishes. Oops there goes my resolution to disengage from this blog : must try harder. Happy Sunday

          • we are shouting because you don’t seem to hear

          • “you have called me out on something that I have been proud of and is close to my heart”

            Thank you for confirming it is all about you.

          • no idea what you are on about

    • @Carolyn

      The kind of abject ignorance that your remarks reveal, stirs negative and resentful emotions in people who, unlike you, know what they are talking about and know firsthand what cancer is and what cancer treatment can do and cannot.
      As Prof. Ernst says, a good physician will never abandon his patient.
      The problem we are dealing with here is not the shortcomings of modern doctors and medicine. It is neither the shortcomings of some doctors who luckily are a minority.
      What we are dealing with is all the charlatans and delusional fools who have picked one nonsense or the other to satisfy their unnatural urge to play doctor and earn money at the same time. They think they can take any fanciful idea that has caught their fancy and sell it to terrified, miracle seeking, desperate victim, who will offer their house, car, boat and grandma’s pension fund, in a feeble hope that the hoax may work.
      The odd survivor that attributes his luck to the juices and enemas is exhibited pompously by the charlatans as proof, ignoring the obvious, the survivor bias.
      Gerson “therapy” is one of those nonsense, taken from thin air, fanciful ideas that have been proven useless long ago but still survive for one reason only, that is MONEY!
      Gerson “therapy” will never provide anything but false hope. We do not have to guess or conjecture about it, We do not have to discard it, that is long done.

      You ignorantly declare that even a 99% failure rate provides a 1% success. This inane remark shows clearly how blind you are. Firstly there is no proof and little probability that the 1% who got better have done so because of the alternative “treatment” and secondly it means that 99% have payed, often dearly both in time, suffering and money, for a useless bluff.
      We who have extended experience of working with cancer know that there is always a subpopulation who show unexpected response or even survive untreated from many of the hundreds of different diseases called cancer.
      When we see amateur ignorami blurt borrowed tropes about something that is very dear and precious to us, we react with sorrow and anger. That is the feeling behind my response here, not disrespect for your person, whoever you are, but disgust at the dangerous foolishness you promote.

      • Professor Ernst declares ‘we are shouting because you don’t seem to hear’ . Quite happy to let it go – I know you like the last word, but I am intrigued as to what in my post didn’t address sufficiently the points raised.

        I kept on target addressing the accusations towards me; it wasn’t anything more than that.

        I can’t comment on the general thread as I know nothing about Gerson Therapy,but sadly it seems that those who do and contribute here are shouted down. Yes, I can see a good old ‘’WE ARE SHOUTING BECAUSE YOU DON’T SEEM TO HEAR’ does the trick in the absence of cogent commentary.

        • @Angela

          You are right to ask why your seemingly innocent and reasonable comment on Jun 09 generated so much anger. Perhaps a glance at Edzard’s post today may help provide a partial explanation.

          I going to pick on three of your points from June 09 that I think lie at the root of the main differences between your views and those of the angry skeptics.

          “I have two loved ones undergoing treatment for cancer : one has been operated on, brought back from the brink and has the best doctors fighting for,his life, but he has been told there is nothing more that can be done: no more operations, no chemo. The next step will be palliative.” This negative wording implies that palliative care is medicine giving up, but as Prof. Ernst pointed out, palliative care is doing everything that possibly can be done to minimize the pain of inevitable death.

          Since you say you have seen palliative care at first hand through your work with a charity, your use of evocative terms such as ‘fighting for his life’ and ‘last chance treatment’ creates the impression that you regard palliative care as some kind of failure. Try to think of substituting ‘postponing death’ for ‘saving life’. That’s all any effective medicine can offer a serious illness.

          When a patient has incurable cancer, doctors do everything in their power to slow the inevitable progression, but ultimately nature will take its course, just as it does for people who die of causes other than cancer. Medicine had made constant progress in devising methods for postponing cancer deaths, but people who cling to a belief that it should somehow be possible to live without ever dying are simply fooling themselves. (By the way, I happen to have incurable cancer myself, so I’m not unfamiliar with this field.)

          You wrote “Whether you feel anger or not regarding CAM, it is so obviously thriving.” And you picked as an example a discussion between David Colquhoun and people who believe acupuncture is clinically effective. You wrote “it was difficult to disbelieve the positive experiences of these users”. It should not have been. It is incredibly difficult to establish cause and effect, and you obviously belong to the significant majority of the population who fail to grasp the difficulty. Prayer, a supportive horoscope, an enjoyable day out in fine weather all count (for some) as ‘positive experiences’. It takes vastly more than subjective positive testimonials to establish whether X really caused Y. Arguing that because lots of people say they had a positive experience with X then X must ‘work’ is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. In other words, it’s not a valid argument at all.

          My third gripe is with your remarks “I like most people urge for safe vaccines. It is not good enough to say there is anti vaccination fake news. How can you call out parents as anti vaccination when they had their children vaccinated and sadly have damaged children as a result?” Once again you entirely ignore the difficulty of establishing whether vaccination truly caused the damage claimed.

          A massive quantity of data show that vaccines have a brilliant positive track record in reducing the incidence of serious infectious diseases. That’s why several governments have given up hope of ever expecting lawyers to address this problem scientifically and have set up funds to provide compensation in the small number of instances when a vaccine might have caused damage.

          I see the arguments of anti-vaxxers as equivalent to those who oppose being obliged to wear seat belts in road vehicles. They raise the few cases in which a seat belt may have worsened the consequences of a collision, overlooking that these are vastly outnumbered by cases in which seat belts have clearly postponed deaths.

          Do you ever fly or ride in a car, Angela? The risks of damage or death from both are enormously greater than the risk of damage or death from any vaccine.

          I hope you might understand what I’m trying to say in this comment, Angela. You’re arguing a case for unproven, even laughably unreasonable ‘alternative’ medicine mainly on the basis of the personal testimony of people who’ve tried out an ‘alternative’. And you’re carrying this type of reasoning into the vaccine domain, where you urge for safe vaccines, thus implying that those who research, produce and market vaccines are keen to foist unsafe vaccines on the public.

          In my local pharmacy the other day I saw an expensive device called ‘PainGone’, a small pen-like object which promises to relieve pain with just a few clicks of a button. It’s a battery-free version of a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) device. The hard evidence for TENS pain relief so far is of low quality and inconclusive, but it’s pretty clear that (a) it doesn’t work for everyone and (b) that the relief it affords is of very short duration. But there are 5-star testimonials from people who’ve had ‘positive experiences’ with PainGone pens — you can read them on Amazon.co.uk. There are also 1-star testimonials from people who have not had positive experiences, but the 5-stars outnumber the 1-stars, so that proves the device works, right?

          • Frank Odds – we have had discourse before and as ever your tone is patronising: dissecting my words and second guessing my thoughts leads to a road to nowhere, and certainly adds nothing to the construct.

            How many ways can I state I agree palliative care minimises discomfort at end of life? How do you know the ‘’evocative’ words you imply are negative have not been repeated verbatim? How can you deduce that ‘this negative wording implies that palliative care is medicine giving up’? This is difficult for me to follow: as I have said palliative care is vital – maybe the most vital of all medical treatments and
            care, and long may we have the most wonderfully caring individuals working alongside the medical professionals, it is a truly humbling experience. Frank, to save your time, please don’t lecture me about cancer and people fooling themselves. I have been fortunate to be informed by the experts, and unfortunate to
            see the suffering of loved ones. I am sure from your high standing you will find something to educate me with,but please for the sake of us all, spare me your inane narrative on palliative care.

            Frank, have your thoughts, thankfully they are not mine. However, onwards and upwards to your other gripes:

            For expediency, let’s move on from the testimonials, anecdotes, experiences being worthless : it’s been thrashed here. Suffice to say consumers of CAM kind of do their own thing. I know, how dare we?

            The important point re vaccinations : if you think data shows that vaccines have a brilliant positive track record, then we are seeing different data. Informed choice should be the way forward; instead we hear of forced MMR in Samoa with the resultant court case because two babies died (please don’t lecture me about contaminated vaccines), the point is at least one parent feels it was against her wishes with the result of sadly losing her child. You say that the arguments of anti vaxxers is equivalent to those that oppose having to wear vehicle seat belts. Really? Ok. Frank, yes, I am not two years of age, despite the fact you think I am, so I have driven cars and even flown ( in fact I was flying through my father’s job around the world from a baby , but truthfully can’t remember the belt system on aircraft in the late 1940’s, but my guess is you will know so that’s ok) you hope I understand what you are trying to say: no I don’t : parents currently have a choice to vaccinate or not their children. They need to be informed of the risks. I choose to drive and fly so happy to comply with the law.

            And as for your pen, I kind of liost the plot at this point: I would probably walk past it, but do tell if you use it – so you can prove the device works, right?

          • Angela,

            You say that the arguments of anti vaxxers is equivalent to those that oppose having to wear vehicle seat belts.

            I disagree with Frank here. Seatbelts primarily protect the wearer. A better analogy would be the requirement for a car to have good brakes.

            Herd immunity works like the boron control rods in a nuclear reactor. If you start withdrawing them the result is a runaway chain reaction (as happened at Chernobyl). Although the maths is the same in both cases it is maybe not a very good analogy either, as measles is a lot more deadly than radiation exposure.

            I have a personal interest here as I am unable to make antibodies due to multiple myeloma (a form of bone marrow cancer). I do not mount an immune response to vaccinations and I can no longer be sure that I am still immune to infections that I have previously had (such as measles, which I had as a child). I also become much more ill than other people when I do get an infection as I can’t fight it properly. If I were to catch measles there is a good chance it would kill me.

            So what about informed choice now? I can choose to avoid exposure – maybe not visiting my grandchildren in case they have a friend over whose vaccination status is unknown, maybe buying all my food online, but I still need to get to my hospital appointments for treatment.

            Yes, there is a danger from vaccinations, of the order of 1 in a million. The risk of death or disability from measles is a great deal higher than that.

      • has says ‘thank you for confirming it’s all
        about you’

        I have re-read my post and because I stated ‘…..I have been proud of and is close to my heart’ you say ‘thank you for confirming it’s all about you’

        What an inane remark : I get you don’t like my post, and I am thankful you weren’t rude, but what does it mean? I am indeed fortunate to be in a community that is grateful for those that are proud of their achievements which are close to their hearts; this is normal humanity.

        You said in a previous post I am not honest and compassionate and the shame is mine.

        I am not the one who is ashamed. And the discourse serves no one, but I am defending my stance: to save further empty dialogue let’s agree to be done. I respect you have a view, but then so do I.

      • Bravo on this comment Dr. Geir.

    • In the Disney movies that I watched as a child, if you wish for something hard enough then your wish can come true. However, I have not found this to be the case in other settings. What I have found is that there is a difference between what ought to be and what is, and that a lot of people don’t seem to have realised this yet.

      • Dr Julian thank you for your post addressed to me. There are issues therein that I would not necessarily agree with, but I respect your position, and sincerely wish you well for the future. A

        • There are issues therein that I would not necessarily agree with, but I respect your position

          I’m not sure I understand your comment. I did not take a position, I stated facts. Nor am I sure how you can agree or disagree with an issue.

          My primary reason for commenting at all on this forum is that it upsets me when people say things that aren’t true (however sincerely they may believe them), particularly when this encourages others to follow them in a course of action leading to consequences that they neither expect nor desire.

          My training as an oncologist and experience of 30 years of clinical practice and all that involves, followed by three years (so far) on the receiving end of cancer treatment, puts me in a position to spot factual errors that others might miss, at least when they fall within my area of expertise, and I feel that I should point them out. I used to spend a lot of time explaining to my own patients what was the matter with them, what treatment would involve, what it could and could not achieve and what the alternatives were, and I suppose in a way I am endeavouring to continue that here.

          I believe strongly that people should make their own decisions, but that they should be informed decisions, including a careful consideration of the consequences, particularly when they impact others. There is a lot of misinformation around, and I think it is a useful exercise sometimes to sit back and ask yourself “How do I know this? How reliable is the source? Where did they get their information from?”. And even “Did they get their sums right?”.

          I don’t really desire to get into an argument, and I see no point in debating established facts.

          • Dr Julian – I don’t want an argument either, but you appear to say you did not take a position, you stated facts and you are not sure how I can agree or disagree with an issue.

            There are many – also medical professionals, who take an alternative view to yours, having done their research and concluded differently. They would also say they are stating facts.

            My view is there are complexities around vaccines : there should be clearer information for parents to make informed choice. For example I
            have come across young adults who despite having MMR have contracted mumps, sometimes more than once. The incredulity of parents who
            cannot understand this declaring ‘my child had the vaccine’ speaks for itself in the need for more clarity and full information.

            I wish you well for a healthful
            future, but we have differing views on what is ‘fact’ . I understand the opposing view to your’s is upsetting, but I am equally upset when full information is called ‘fake news’ . Let’s agree to disagree: there are bigger forums than this one, researching and trying to deliver the truth. Best wishes A

          • For example I have come across young adults who despite having MMR have contracted mumps, sometimes more than once. The incredulity of parents who cannot understand this declaring ‘my child had the vaccine’ speaks for itself in the need for more clarity and full information.

            The mumps vaccine is well known not to give the same degree of protection as the measles vaccine; on the other hand mumps is less contagious and so herd immunity can be achieved with a lower take-up rate than with measles. Two doses offer more protection that one, and during an outbreak a third dose further reduces the risk of catching it. When vaccinated individuals do contract mumps, they tend to have a milder infection and the risk of complications is lower than in the unvaccinated.

            It is very rare to have a second infection of mumps, and this suggests that there may be some form of immune deficiency present. Mumps is not the only virus to cause parotitis, and it is much more common for the second infection to be with the Coxsackie or parainfluenza type 3 viruses and not mumps at all, despite the illness being similar.

            Unfortunately most people regard things in medicine as being absolute. That vaccines give 100% protection, that tests are either positive or negative with 100% certainty etc. This is not the case and cannot be in anything as complex as a biological system. But when reality fails to live up to people’s expectations they tend to feel let down and disillusioned.

            Really the problem is one of education. The information is there in the leaflets, but even when people read them they interpret them according to their own expectations. To quote from the patient information leaflet given out with MMR-VAXPro, for instance:

            As with other vaccines, M-M-RVAXPRO may not completely protect all persons who are vaccinated. Also, if the person who is to be vaccinated has already been exposed to the measles, mumps, or rubella virus but is not yet ill, M-M-RVAXPRO may not be able to prevent the illness from appearing.

          • There are many – also medical professionals, who take an alternative view to yours, having done their research and concluded differently.

            Just because somebody is a medical professional doesn’t mean that they are immune to the cognitive biases that affect all of us. It is very easy as a doctor to base your practice too much on your own experience, for instance, forgetting that it is limited, may not be typical and that your observations and recollections will tend to be coloured by your pre-existing beliefs. I am also shocked at the number of doctors whose training and expertise in statistics is insufficient for them to be able to read a scientific paper critically rather than simply to accept the conclusions of the authors.

            One example of a medical professional who came to different conclusions from mine is Andrew Wakefield.

        • Angela

          I case you havn’t figured it out. Here at this forum, they’ll find cause to take the oppostie side, no matter what you say… lol
          The inmates are running the asylum

          • RG – yes I agree; in attempting to provide another viewpoint (so there is balance for those reading the blog) I am open to receive personal insults. This has been the norm for many years: it is now tedious and, what’s more important, brings nothing to the debate on the important issue of health, when I am having to defend my personal position. Thanks for the reminder.

          • another viewpoint?
            really?
            everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.

          • Oh dear, RG. All these horrible clinicians and scientists with their years of learning and research and clinical experience patiently deconstructing your nonsense with their nasty facts and evidence when they should be deferring to the wisdom you have gained from the half an hour you spent reading Natural News earlier. You have your entrenched dogmatic position from which you cannot be budged. Our position is always open to change if the evidence indicates that there is a better way. Yours is not. This is the difference between science-based and faith-based medicine. Now run along, there’s a good chap.

          • Lenny

            I’ve been subscribing to failed allopathic medicine longer than you’ve likely been alive. I gave it a chance for at least 40 years (63 years old now). I witnessed many failures. I swallowed down the BS hook line and sinker…. foolish me, but I’m now the wiser. The “nasty facts and evidence” are what I have lived and what I have observed… nothing more.
            I do happen to beleive in being open minded, and changing towards what works, that is why I use some modern allopathic medicine, but not much. What I don’t subscribe to in modern medicine I find alternatives.
            You need not lecture me about open mindedness, nor success.

  • Professor – so you think those with a viewpoint are without factual knowledge? Oh I get it now.

    • the fact is that there is no good evidence that Gerson therapy cures anything.

      • How ridiculous you are Ernst!
        Im not sure how you sleep at night as you seem intent on killing people by suppressing the truth of healing mechanisms.
        I have had stage 4 cancer twice – leukaemia and sarcoma as a child and metastasised cervix cancer which had gone to the ovaries and brain.
        If it were not for Gerson and the fact that I refused systemic chemo and radiotherapy and surgery, I would not be alive today.
        Instead I flew to Germany, had 2 sessions of IPT and lots of ozone and vitamin C IV.
        I also juiced and did the coffee enemas and followed as much as I could the Gerson protocol.
        Thankfully when I was a kid my parents took me to a naturopath instead of chemotherapy so I already had a firm knowledge base about Gerson, plus I am a medical herbalist>
        I am deeply grateful to Gerson and other people who are doing their best to support the education of what actually causes cancer.
        Stats are manipulated but true stories like my own speak for themselves!
        I hope one day you find a way to lead a truly fulfilling life rather than one that fills your pockets whilst killing innocent people who are looking for answers.
        Shame on you!

        • Chinny reckon.

          • Lenny

            That’s the best you can come up with ?… Chinny reckon ?

            You should leave this topic for those of us best qualified to enter the conversation.

            Just go back to doing what you were trained for, examining and poking around in human orifices with smelly mucous membranes.

        • Leukaemia, sarcoma and cervical cancer are three cancers.

          You are stating that you had childhood leukaemia which was cured by a naturopath without chemotherapy. I would be interested in more details, such as what type of leukaemia it was an how it was diagnosed.

          There is an interesting paper concerning spontaneous remission of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (the commonest kind in childhood) here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5738709/
          However, the very rare documented remissions (which tended to follow an episode of life-threatening infection) were transient.

          Childhood leukaemia and childhood sarcomas of various kinds are often curable, though the treatment isn’t easy. However, you are suggesting that you have had remissions of three quite different aggressive and / or advanced tumours in the absence of conventional treatment which seems very unlikely to me.

          • Dr. J

            I would not categorize that ncbi link as interesting. It actually fits the description of an alibi for failed allopathic medicine, and an excuse to explain away homeopathic medicine.

            “Spontaneous remission (SR) in advanced-stage cancer is a rare but notable event, as it reveals the potential inherent reversibility of a fatal disease. Ignorance of physicians with regard to this phenomenon can provoke rejection of medical advice by the patient. It may even support the acceptance of quackery when cases of SR are attributed to dubious therapies”

            nothing here, save ncbi running their own interference for themselves. What proof do they have to make that claim ?

            Good gosh people, must every testimony here be refuted in the name of allopathic medicine ?

          • And that, RG, is a consultant oncologist’s elegant way of saying Chinny Reckon.

            Would you like to tell him to go back to doing what he was trained for as well?

            Remember, RG. That which is claimed without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence.

        • Fiona Burns said:

          you seem intent on killing people by suppressing the truth of healing mechanisms.

          Pray tell us how Prof Ernst is ‘suppressing the truth’ as you put it?

          Since you say you are a ‘medical herbalist’, perhaps you have some treatments you offer or can suggest that are being suppressed?

          rather than one that fills your pockets

          Really? Do you have evidence that Prof Ernst ‘fills his pockets’ by what he says here?

  • Lenny

    Perhaps you and the person you refer to…. the blog oncologist might read carefully this study, a study specifically on the subject of SR.

    http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Turner_berkeley_0028E_11026.pdf

    • And what do you think this thesis shows or proves?

    • RG

      I have seldom known you to contribute anything relevant or interesting to this blog. You don’t take a consistent position on anything but you do seem to be good at trawling the Internet for anything that appears to contradict what others are saying without any great understanding of what you have found. I don’t know whether you are trying to contribute to the debate by playing Devil’s advocate or if you just enjoy being contrary, but I find it quite tiresome.

      I have had a look at your link. It is a dissertation submitted as part of a PhD in Social Welfare from the University of California, Berkeley, though as it doesn’t seem to contain any original research I don’t know how well it would have been received. Perhaps the Faculty of Social Welfare isn’t so strict in its requirements as a medical or science faculty might be. It is 104 pages long, so I can’t pretend to have read it carefully, though I have looked at it to get the gist.

      Essentially the author Ms. Turner conducted a survey of people who had undergone spontaneous remission of cancer and asked them, or the people treating them, what they thought was going on, and concluded that their various theories (most of which I would regard as seriously whacky) ought to form the basis of serious research.

      It is quite clear from her introduction that she understands very little about cancer, or indeed the behaviour of numbers. Nor does she seem to be aware of current research into spontaneous remission or cancer more generally.

      At one point she says that in some cases allopathic physicians do not know the mechanism causing the remission, but there remains the possibility that there is an underlying mechanism that may be identified in future, so these cases should not be classified as spontaneous remissions.

      What her survey does tell us is just how strange people’s beliefs can be when they are trying to make sense of the world, although she doesn’t seem to pick up on that.

      • Doc Bjorn EE Lenny and company

        This entire blog and forum is playing “devil’s advocate” to homeopathy….. NO ? You’ve got some nerve for chiding those that come here to defend homeopathy. FU
        To allow that to sink in…. read that statement again, and ponder what I’m saying.

        If there were not an attack on homeopathy, there would not be a need for defense and discussion on the subject. You know-it-all’s here want to sit on your sanctimonious MD perches and throw stones, so I attempt to pick up a few and throw them back.

        You wast my time equally, you offer nothing to me.

        I know darn well that I will not change views on anything, it only took a few messages here to realize that fact. Your eyes are closed, your ears are closed, you are set in your old man thinking. You are too full of yourselves to listen to anybody with another view or another experience. You’ve been educated and brainwashed by the Medical associations, government affiliated organizations, Pharma’s that are saturated in old thinking, control and greed.

        I’ll say it again. It was my MD that alerted me to the fact that pills kill. If not for him wanting to analyze my blood after prescribing anti-inflammatory meds to me, I might have not come to the conclusion that allopathic medicine is flawed.

        I mostly post here at this site to encourage other homeopaths to continue looking for alternative methods , not to change your thinking…. You’re already DEAD. You guys can continue popping your useless pills that create other illness, taking your Chemo, and getting useless surgeries that are no better than the placebo.
        Much of “Scientific” medicine is a SCAM !
        I’ve witnessed and experienced to much failure from allopathic medicine to continue subscribing to it. As we know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. If I have an acute problem, or need a blood analysis, gimme an freakin MD…. currently I have no illness, so something is working right with homeopathy.

        • ‘pills kill’
          yes, of course they do.
          but the right ones can save your life.
          mostly a matter of knowing which, why and when.

          • hahaha… that’s laughable

            After my doc switched me from one NASID to another, I experienced a heart attack … how great is that ? Vioxx Kills, that’s well documented also.
            This is what you call medicine ? … quack quack.

            BTW- NSAIDS are intended for short term use…. as in 10 days. Patients are NOT being warned properly. Damage to intestine and liver are well documented. I was being prescribed them year after year…. certainly months on end before the doc checked anything.

          • maybe you had a stupid doc;
            maybe you should have read the patient information leaflet;
            maybe you are just daft?

          • Edzard, You are a joke. You will never admit that you are wrong, perhaps you are the daft one.

            I do read the white paper.
            How many times do I need to inform you folks here that Merck knew but did not disclose that Vioxx vastly increases heart arrhythmia.

            “2002 heart study cancelled
            Lanier contends Merck knew years earlier that Vioxx could be dangerous but needed the lucrative drug to keep its bottom line growing after patents for other big sellers ran out in 2000 and 2001. Santanello acknowledged under his questioning that Vioxx accounted for a dime of every dollar in Merck’s $2.5 billion in sales in 2002.
            In 2000 a study showed some Vioxx users could suffer five times as many heart attacks as those using the older painkiller naproxen — sold under the brand name Aleve.”

            Read it well, perhaps you’ll learn something about big Pharma.
            http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8645940/ns/health-arthritis/t/merck-failed-test-safety-vioxx-heart/#.XS469-hKjcs

          • I have no illusions about the pharmaceutical industry and this blog is not in any way to defend its faults.
            IN CASE YOU HAVE NOT NOTICED: IT IS ABOUT SCAM.

          • RG

            After my doc switched me from one NASID to another, I experienced a heart attack … how great is that ? Vioxx Kills, that’s well documented also

            We have already discussed this in another thread. In that thread you said that you had been switched from one COX2 inhibitor to another, not between NSAIDs, though you said a number of other things about your own medical history which contradicted each other.

            We also examined the evidence concerning Vioxx; it is clear that this does increase the risk of myocardial infarction, but it did not as much as double it, which means that in an individual case (such as yours) it is more likely than not that the heart attack was not due to Vioxx. Furthermore there is no evidence that Vioxx kills (that is not to say that it doesn’t, but that you can’t draw that conclusion on the basis of the available evidence).

            I am not defending Vioxx, and it was quite rightly withdrawn, but please be clear about what the evidence is and what it isn’t.

          • and it has been withdrawn because of the safety nets built in conventional healthcare, none of which exist in SCAM.

          • Sorry Mr. Edzard, you are wrong

            “and it (Vioxx) has been withdrawn because of the safety nets built in conventional healthcare, none of which exist in SCAM.”
            Stop with you lying to protect your pharma industry.

            Merck removed the product from market because it was killing people and the company was found to be in gross error. Assisted by the FDA that gave the approval without requiring sufficient data on safety. It was for this reason that the FDA could not demand product removal from market. Merck withdrew the drug from market themselves.

            Merck Vioxx rates in the USA as #3 of the top ten product recalls of all time. J&J and Pfizer also with product recalls in the top ten.
            https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/investing/T052-S000-10-biggest-product-recalls-of-all-time/index.html

            “Year: 2004
            Cost: $8.9 billion

            When Merck’s (MRK, $53.41) Vioxx first hit the market in 1999, it was hyped as a revolutionary breakthrough medication for arthritis pain.”

            Five years later, in September 2004, Merck was forced to pull the drug from the market after studies revealed that Vioxx greatly increased the risk of fatal heart attacks and strokes. By that point, 20 million Americans had already taken the drug. Later research estimated that 140,000 Americans had heart attacks from taking Vioxx, resulting in 88,000 deaths.

            The costs in dollar terms were also staggering. The pharmaceutical giant settled a class-action lawsuit for $4.85 billion in 2007 and agreed to a $950 million settlement with the DoJ in 2011. In 2016, shareholders settled a class-action lawsuit with Merck for $830 million. Statistics estimates that when all other expenses are included, the Vioxx recall cost the company $8.9 billion.”

            88 thousand deaths from heart attack Mr. Edzard. That’s 50% more people than US solders died in the Viet Nam war.
            They don’t pay out that kind of money without being in the wrong…. EE

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1779871/

          • I do not discuss with tolls who cannot even get my name right

          • Hello Dr. J

            You are wrong also. I have contradicted nothing of my medical history here.

            “We have already discussed this in another thread. In that thread you said that you had been switched from one COX2 inhibitor to another, not between NSAIDs, though you said a number of other things about your own medical history which contradicted each other.”

            On that, you are both right and wrong. I commend you however for at least having some recall.

            I consumed Motrin for years at the direction of my MD. And I will admit that the drug is one of the more effective drugs I ever consumed. At some point my doctor felt the need to check my system (blood) and direct me towards a COX2 inhibitor. I don’t know if he suspected some damage to my system from the NSAID, or he wanted to push another drug for pharma…. he never informed me. I was initiated on the COX2 inhibitor Celebrex. I took the drug for some months. I temporarly switched from the COX2 inhibitor Celebrex to Vioxx, for another month or two (it was 20 years ago and I can’t recall how long I took Vioxx, but not for long). Then I switched back to Celebrex since I found Vioxx no more effective. It was during the time I was taking Vioxx that I experienced heart problems.

            BTW- in the end neither COX2 inhibitor was as effective as Motrin.

            So Doc, you can assume it was by chance and not the Vioxx that disrupted my heart rhythms, but I never experienced any problems before, nor the twenty years after till this point in time.
            If you see the need to defend pharma, you draw your conclusions, I’ll draw mine.

        • RG

          I know darn well that I will not change views on anything, it only took a few messages here to realize that fact. Your eyes are closed, your ears are closed, you are set in your old man thinking

          We’ve often said what will change our views on homeopathy. Good-quality replicated studies which show that it is effective for any given condition. No such studies yet exist so we are forced to conclude that homeopathy is not effective. The anecdotes of True Believers such as yourself are of no consequence. The reasons for this have been pointed out many times.

          We have asked you what would change your mind. I don’t recall seeing an answer. There is only one person set in his ways with his fingers in his ears shouting “LALALA” when confronted with hard, empirical evidence. Only one person bleating about the inconsequential subjective bias-ridden collection of nonsense that are “provings”. You have lost the argument even before it started, RG. Just another believer in magic shaken water yammering inconsequentially about all the nasty scientists and clinicians with their evidence and logic and inconvenient questions.

          After 200 years homeopathy remains now as it was then: a refuge where the intellectually and logically bereft can indulge in mutual backpattery without having to answer inconvenient questions.

  • EE

    You wont post my message because I proved you wrong, and you know it.

  • Alan

    I stand corrected, but I correct you also.
    “Mr.” is neither prefix or suffix, it is defined as a title.

  • I started reading through and had to pause. Just because someone goes into remission, doesn’t mean they are cured. I’ve known many people that have quote “beaten cancer” (a term that means you have been cancer free for 5 years) and then end up dying after 5 years from cancer. Sometimes all you have is hope … never take that away from someone. Instead of yelling about “I’m right, your wrong” why not honestly try to come to a conclusion that may help us defeat cancer? In the end …. a person that has cancer could care less if they have to take a drug for change there eating habits and do some enemas. I don’t care who is right … Let’s just get it right. For there (and our) sake. Bottom line is … the rates for curing are terrible … if the community of doctors can’t do it with drugs, then I don’t see why there can’t be a shot at alternative treatments, and btw. What we consider ALTERNATIVE is common place for other cultures. Don’t knock it just because it’s not the “NORM”. Let’s get results and stop making it a power/money issue.

    • “Don’t knock it just because it’s not the “NORM”.”
      WHO WOULD DO THAT?
      only fairly stupid people.
      intelligent ones want patients to get the best treatments available – and to identify them we need evidence. and the evidence does not show that Gerson is effective.

      btw ” the rates for curing are terrible” – this is a sweeping statement that is wrong for many cancers today.

      • You’re right, it is a sweeping statement, but I meant it as a all inclusive statement. Cancer as a whole. I don’t mean to pick an choose “this or that cancer”. Please let me know what the overall cure rate for cancer as a whole is. I don’t have an issue with being wrong, if I am. Can you please define what you consider as “evidence” as well. I am speaking from the viewpoint of persons in my own life.

          • The link is interesting … just goes to show that we need true scientific… side by side studies of the current treatments and alternative ones. Maybe you could be the catalyst for that. You’re doctor. Compare apples to apples in a scientific environment. In the end, all we care about is the patient getting better. So instead of don’t do this … don’t do that (ie.. “Gerson Therapy: a treatment to avoid at all cost”) … we would be able to say why it doesn’t work. Side by side would show what works and what doesn’t. I’m sure any alternative medicine that truly believes it works … would be willing to do that. Just as any conventional treatment would. How about it ? We the people couldn’t finally get real answers.

          • I have researched SCAM for 25 years and published more scientific papers on it than anyone one the planet … and you now ask me I should be ‘the catalyst’. perhaps you read just a little of what has already been done. perhaps then you understand why I write on my blog “Gerson Therapy: a treatment to avoid at all cost”.
            a blog post is not a scientific paper, you know.

  • Edzard,
    I painfully read this entire thread (hours).

    I have researched Gerson protocol and although I am not a doctor I agree there is NO evidence that Gerson survival rate is any better than Chemo survival rate. I also caught CHIPSA in Mexico fraudulently stating they cured Shannon Oldenburgh, wife of an American Doctor David Oldenburgh with their regimen.

    CHIPSA formally was the Gerson Institute, went bankrupt in 2015 and reopened under the name CHIPSA. I wondered why if the protocol worked they would go bankrupt? If it truly worked wouldn’t people be flocking to Mexico for the treatment?

    They have since taken down the article but I knew they would which is why saved it on my PC. They said they had “removed all evidence of the cancer from her bones and lovely body in May of 2016”. She Died in October of 2016 yet still published the success story in 2019! When I approached CHIPSA on this, they took down the article so I am glad I prevented many unresearched people from being SCAMMED.

    Now having said that I do NOT agree that CHEMO is the answer, its a barbaric cure that will one day be as debunked as Leeches commonly used 500 years ago.

    After much research I have come to realize EVERYONE has cancer in their bodies. THe difference between those that die of it is their body not being able to naturally kill the cells. The answer is to build the bodies immune system and make it as healthy as possible, it may not be able to cure a late stage 4 cancer but it will prolong the life of that person without making them wish they were dead with horrible side effects.

    I have cured my Lyme disease using colloidal silver, a specific brand that has .8nm particle size. So small that it will not build up toxicity in the body and will actually enter the cells. I did this with STEVIA, Cats Claw and other natural supplements over a 2 year period. I am now Lyme free.

    I have no empirical data regarding Silver being effective on Cancer but I do know it IS beneficial in building up the immune system. A good thing, vs. Chemo that destroys EVERYTHING.

    Since using this Silver as many times as 7 teaspoons daily has NO side effects (no turning blue or any other side effect) it’s a good daily additive to everyone’s diet.If you are not sick, take it twice a day. I have used it to clear up Red eye and Ear infections in as little as 24 hours with NO medication.

    • “I have no empirical data regarding Silver being effective on Cancer but I do know it IS beneficial in building up the immune system.”
      how do you know?
      please stop promoting dangerous nonsense!

      • Wow, that’s a snarky comeback to a new member. I can tell you how I KNOW.

        1) My wife and I went on a group cruise with 20 other couples.
        When we got together with the 20 other couples, they all eventually became victim of a severe cold , sneezing and coughing and hacking on everyone. I hate when people are not respectful of covering their coughs.
        My wife and I upped our dosage of Silver in preparation. We also educated everyone that would listen about the great results we have had. They all were like you… skeptical to the point of laughing it off.

        My and wife and I NEVER got sick, not even a sniffle. We are the ONLY ONES that did not. We were with these people for three weeks and to this day we never got ill. (10 months ago).
        EVERY person in that group is now a believer and takes Silver daily.

        2) My wife and I used to routinely get sick from plane trips I nor her have been ill in over a year. (I travel a lot with my biz and she owns a travel company and also travels a lot). I also got colds after plane trips.

        3) As a doctor, you should know the history behind silver and in fact MANY known, widely used gauzes and antibacterial creams used by hospitals HAVE silver in them. Now you are not going to deny that fact are you? If so I will give you a list of them but I know you already have that.

        After reading your snarky comment I am starting to wonder if you benefit personally from Chemo? Have you ever gotten a kick back? What kind of doctor are you , Oncologist? Just wondering since your comment was totally off the wall. I told you I had empirical proof. I have many other studies I have performed regarding Silver. Personal experience out strips your bias and skepticism. Instead of being snarky, why don’t you try it for yourself and see if you notice a decrease in being ill? Nothing to lose other than your ego.

  • Chemo and Gerson treat the SYMPTOM, not the disease. Treating the disease means allowing the BODY to heal itself.
    Unfortunately, sticking coffee up your arse three times a day and juicing 13 times a day has NOT proven to work. This protocol was developed in the 1950s but Chemo started with Mustard gas in WWI so even though it’s been “refined” it also has not proven to be a cure. Has anyone wondered why if either of these really work why are people still dying?

    Oh sure a few people are cured but what if they were misdiagnosed in the first place? What if once they had a tumor cut out and the margins are clear they never needed Chemo? It’s used as “an insurance policy” yet when people stay in remission for 5 years or more they are put on a list of being a “cancer survivor.”
    It’s all BS. With Doctors making $4K-$6K kick back for every Chemo treatment prescribed.

    • “Chemo and Gerson treat the SYMPTOM, not the disease.”
      are you competing for the worst-informed statement of the month?

    • I wondered why if the protocol worked they would go bankrupt?

      Businesses go bankrupt for many reasons. Generally it is to do with their business model and how they are financed rather than on the basis of what they are selling.

      I do NOT agree that CHEMO is the answer, its a barbaric cure that will one day be as debunked

      Chemotherapy may be many things but it is certainly not bunkum.

      After much research I have come to realize EVERYONE has cancer in their bodies

      Could you point us to where your research has been published?

      Chemo started with Mustard gas in WWI so even though it’s been “refined” it also has not proven to be a cure. Has anyone wondered why if either of these really work why are people still dying?

      I’m afraid it is the fate of every single person that they are going to die, and medical science is unlikely ever to change this. In any case, cancer is a great many different diseases and specific treatments have more success with some of them than with others. Everything in life is strongly affected by random factors, and the progression of disease is no exception (including both Lyme disease and how an individual might be affected by colloidal silver), but not very many people seem to realise this. Having said that, high-grade lymphomas, acute leukaemias and advanced testicular cancer are generally completely curable by chemotherapy, even stage 4..

      The answer is to build the bodies immune system and make it as healthy as possible, it may not be able to cure a late stage 4 cancer but it will prolong the life of that person without making them wish they were dead with horrible side effects.

      Immune-based treatments can have much worse side-effects than chemotherapy. CAR-T therapy, for instance, which is something I may be facing in the future (I have already had chemotherapy).

      Chemo? It’s used as “an insurance policy” yet when people stay in remission for 5 years or more they are put on a list of being a “cancer survivor.

      I don’t think I have ever seen a list of cancer survivors. Do you know where such lists can be found? 5-year survival data are quoted in studies because it is a conventient way to compare one treatment with another. Remission is a specific term used by haematologists to mean that no leukaemic cells can be found in the bone marrow; it isn’t very meaningful to apply it to solid tumours which behave rather differently. Adjuvant chemotherapy can very simplistically be described as an insurance policy, but what this actually means is that some people will be cured without it, some will relapse despite chemotherapy, and some will be cured by the chemotherapy who wouldn’t otherwise have been (though historically it has been rather hard to predict who these will be – this is now starting to change).

      What if once they had a tumor cut out and the margins are clear they never needed Chemo?

      Positive margins generally mean that further surgery or else radiotherapy is required, not chemo.

      With Doctors making $4K-$6K kick back for every Chemo treatment prescribed.

      If that were true my life would have been very different.

      I have no empirical data regarding Silver being effective on Cancer but I do know it IS beneficial in building up the immune system.

      What do you even mean by that?

      • Your quote:
        advanced testicular cancer are generally completely curable by chemotherapy, even stage 4..
        In America you can go to jail for stating such inaccuracies. And in fact a Mexican doctor was put in jai after crossing the Mexican border for this fraud.
        The real truth…
        Chemo is no cure. There is NO cure to cancer because it’s a natural occurring cell that only a healthy body can “cure”.
        Any doctor stating Chemo is a cure is committing fraud. I am over this blog, this statement just proves my point. Biased to no end. And BTW, my best friend IS an oncologist and YES in America doctors DO GET A CUT.
        I could go into details but I do not want to hurt people knowing what I know about the Chemo SCAM.
        BTW, many people are given Chemo that simply do not need it or will not be helped by it.

  • Reading through this thread, it seems people are either in one camp or the other in regards to alternative cancer treatment. If you study the body’s defences on a cellular level, it makes sense to sway the odds in the patients favour by providing abundant micronutrients and reducing toxins that inhibit the body’s immunological defences. Targeted pharmaceuticals which have significant success rates play a vital role in beating cancer but many have success rates of under 50%, some with only 10% success rates have been approved and often do more harm than good, further knocking out the immune system and reducing the patient’s chances of survival.
    Cancer is a metabolic disease. Genes may increase your risk but it is the epigenetics determined by lifestyle and environmental factors that allow the cells to turn cancerous. Significant toxins include glyphosate, heavy metals(lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic) and (most) drugs. Just because they are not conventionally measured, it does not mean they are safe. Doctors are certainly influenced by big pharma and also have little knowledge of nutrition(a few hours of lectures on the extremes of vitamin deficiencies) – don’t expect any of them to approve the Gerson method if it is not ‘FDA approved’ as they don’t want to be struck off…Yet it is perfectly fine to put people on 5-12 medications for multiple chronic diseases, treating symptoms rather than the cause. The whole healthcare system is designed to keep people chronically sick as that is most profitable for Big Pharma.
    Bottom line is, patients need to be the guardian of their own health and not blindly follow the path to chronic diseases or cancer, as the Western lifestyle promotes both.

    • I noticed that you have not provided any links to any evidence for this plethora of bold statements.
      I WONDER WHY.

    • Dr. Tessa Ting

      I agree with your entire post. I have been promoting the same facts here that you have stated w/regard to cells both being exposed to toxins, and insufficient nutrients…. leading to the true underlying cause of cancer cells and the body’s inability to manage them.

      Also w/regard to over-promise and under-deliver pharma…. and the toxicity of Chemo and AMA cancer protocol.

      Also w/regard to the tragic situation of patients with chronic disease being worsened by drug cocktails of prescriptions from MD’s and Pharma that are hurting the masses rather than helping.

      Also, that I have learned through trial and error not to blindly trust MD’s, and to educate myself to be as you say, the guardian of my own health.

      I have been rebutted by the conventional (wrong) thinking here, as you will be also.
      Thank you for posting, I couldn’t agree with you more.

    • If you study the body’s defences on a cellular level, it makes sense to sway the odds in the patients favour by providing abundant micronutrients and reducing toxins that inhibit the body’s immunological defences.

      Dr Ting,

      I wonder if you could explain what you mean by that? I’m having trouble making sense of it.

      Targeted pharmaceuticals which have significant success rates play a vital role in beating cancer but many have success rates of under 50%, some with only 10% success rates have been approved

      Could you also explain what you mean by success rate in this context?

      Significant toxins include glyphosate, heavy metals(lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic) and (most) drugs.

      Are you saying that most drugs are carcinogenic? If so, could you explain how you came to that conclusion?

      Bottom line is, patients need to be the guardian of their own health and not blindly follow the path to chronic diseases or cancer, as the Western lifestyle promotes both.

      That’s certainly true. We can all make significant improvements to our health by:
      1. Eating less
      2. Exercising more
      3. Not smoking tobacco

      Compared to this the effects of environmental toxins are quite small. The trouble is that most people would rather find someone else to blame for their woes than taking responsibility for their own health and following this advice.

      • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Friday 27 December 2019 at 19:42 said:

        “Dr Ting,
        I wonder if you could explain what you mean by that? I’m having trouble making sense of it.”

        Otherwise this happens:
        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/02/teenager-first-uk-go-deaf-blind-due-junk-food-diet-report-reveals/

        • Old Bob,

          Otherwise this happens

          You have linked to an example of how vitamin deficiency can occur in somebody with a limited diet. This is something that doctors have been aware of since vitamins were first discovered, and we do see them from time to time (particularly vitamins B12, thiamine and vitamin D; vitamin C deficiency is very rare these days, though I have seen one case of scurvey over the course of my career). However, I don’t think that is what Dr Ting was talking about.

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Saturday 28 December 2019 at 22:58 said:

            ”…[vitamin deficiency] is something that doctors have been aware of since vitamins were first discovered…”

            To a first-order approximation, yes, of course, but the “tyranny of the discontinuous mind” says that 90mg (or whatever) is the RDA (or whatever) whereas Alan Smith:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrhkoFcOMII
            Says otherwise.

            likewise Paul Marik:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfXVce34A78&t

            Both come from Klenner’s 60-out-of-60-cures for polio using IV vitamin C in 1948 etc – but now the “tyranny of the discontinuous mind” again disrupts and demands that vitamin C be tried alone and bingo! It does not work (see Paul Marik above), it only works (to cure sepsis) with the hydrocortisone etc. The situation is way more complex than our simplistic ideas about “testing”, that are supposed to be “proof”.

            The book I recommend: Living Proof by Michael Gearin-Tosh is about “temperament” i.e. the deep reasoning that makes human beings act differently in the face of the same evidence (he goes one way while some of the medical profession go the other – but not all).

            I recommend it to you because he, likewise is an established academic and being a fellow at St. Catherine’s College, Oxford University, teaching English literature, he writes well-good 🙂 (a cross between an English version of John Grisham rooted in Richard Dawkin’s “tyranny of the discontinuous mind” with splendid literary examples from Donne and Elizabeth I etc.

            But his strength is his objective treatment e.g. he analyses the meaning of what is being said e.g. “opportunistic pneumonia” including his own title “Living Proof”, both “Living” and “Proof” are analysed in their turn.

            He is no way as entertaining as Adam Kay (“I put the Christmas tree lights up myself”), or as dramatic (in the finale of Kay’s book) because Gearin-Tosh does not die, he just slowly recovers – a “tragedy” of “drama” in itself, I think :), of multiple myeloma.

            Gearin-Tosh puts across the “temperament” of both sides, in extremely short sentences of dry English wit.

          • Old Bob,

            I am not an intensivist, so I do not have the advantage of the years of reading and practical experience that it would take to familiarise myself with the relevant literature. However, from what I remember (I am not going to watch the YouTube documentary all over again) there were other factors that could have been relevant to his recovery. In any case, even Aesop knew that one swallow does not make a summer, and if there is a role for high-dose vitamin C in critically ill patients then this needs to be investigated in properly designed studies that are able to distinguish between genuine effects and random factors. Without these we have know way of knowing whether it is beneficial at all, or indeed dangerous, however convinced particular individuals may be.

            As an oncologist who also has multiple myeloma I am in a better position to make sense of Michael Gearin-Tosh’s book; I see that it is readily available second-hand (it does not seem to be still in print) so I will look out for it. Without having read it (yet) the facts appear to be:

            MGT was diagnosed with myeloma in 1994
            He had multiple lines of unconventional and unproven treatment
            He lived for 8 years
            He died of the consequences of an infected tooth that could have been easily and effectively treated by antibiotics, had he not refused them

            It is not unusual to survive 8 years with myeloma, though with the particular variant I have I am unlikely to be so lucky. In 1994 the main treatment available was melphalan and prednisolone (a form of chemotherapy plus corticosteroids), plus supportive treatment of all the complications, of course (hypercalcaemia, pathological fracture, amyloidosis, renal failure etc.), though there were trials of high-dose chemotherapy with stem-cell rescue, which subsequently proved to have a massive impact on life expectancy (I understand that these days, with much more effective treatments available, the main role of high-dose chemotherapy is to prolong the duration of remission rather than survival).

            Some years ago I was interested to read a series of essays by Douglas Adams (author of “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” and fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge, in the Faculty of English) in which he recounted how surprised he was, on talking to scientists (apparently not something that academics in the arts did very much) how different their approach was, and in particular, familiar as he was with the academic squabbles which are the bread and butter of his colleagues, how none of their ideas were a matter of opinion, since all of them were testable against Nature, the only arbiter.

            I am disinclined to trust the opinion of an academic outside their own field. Even Nobel prize winners such as Linus Pauling and James Watson have made fools of themselves by straying beyond their areas of expertise, and I have read the nonsense produced by Professor Jane Plant, a good example of how easily a geologist without a proper understanding of statistics can be misled when trying to tackle biology.

            MGT’s book includes a chapter by Carmen Wheatley, who gave many references in support of her ideas which could not be found in a literature search by an academic library, refusing to provide reprints in order to facilitate a rigorous review of her contribution; she also misreprisented the findings of studies which were readily available.

            Anyway I have ordered it from Amazon to add to my reading list (alas these days I have much less time to devote to reading than I would like, or indeed to music, which is very dear to my heart).

            I should add that Alan Kay’s “This is Going to Hurt” is one of the most accurate accounts that I have ever read of life as a trainee specialist in the UK. It brought back many terrifying memories.

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Sunday 29 December 2019 at 09:56 said:

            “As an oncologist who also has multiple myeloma…”
            Is that exceptional? Is it possible that they are connected? – Googling is not helpful there – could prostate metastases mutate into multiple myeloma / other types too?

            Micheal Gearin-Tosh lived for more than 10 years after his diagnosis. He died July29 in 2005, from here:
            https://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/aug/06/guardianobituaries.obituaries

            The Adam Kay book… I believe you, even before you said it – that stuff? No one could make that up.

            MGT begins with his trip to Russia, he comes back, has the diagnosis, but still honours the impulsive offer to some Russian General who acted bodyguard, to come to England…

          • could prostate metastases mutate into multiple myeloma / other types too?

            No. Tumours behave according to the cell type they originate from. Their DNA is very unstable and the cells can become less well-differentiated (and more aggressive) with time but they never differentiate into anything ressembling a different type of cell. Prostate cancer in the bone marrow looks and behaves quite differently from, say, breast cancer in the bone marrow, although they are both adenocarcinomas (derived from glandular tissue), and osteosarcoma (originating in bone and derived from connective tissue) is different from myeloma (also originating in bone but derived from the reticuloendothelial system, in this case B lymphocytes, although it is rather different from the many types of B cell lymphoma).

            In fact the expertise require to treat each of these four examples is sufficiently specialised that none of them would even be managed by the same team.

            Actually the situation is more complicated than this (biology is never straightforward). Prostate cancer can sometimes de-differentiate into small-cell carcinoma, which is much more common as one of the sub-types of lung cancer. When it does so it stops behaving like prostate cancer (slow-growing, confined to bones and lymph nodes, responsive to hormones and chemotherapy agents such as docetaxel and carbazetaxel) and starts behaving like aggressive lung cancer (fast-growing, spreading to lungs, liver and brain, no response to hormone manipulation but responsive to carboplatin, etoposide and other drugs used to treat small-cell carcinoma originating elsewhere in the body). From my own experience I suspect that this behaviour is more common than generally realised and something that I used to test for if I found myself managing a prostate cancer that was behaving oddly.

            These days it is getting easier to characterise tumours from the specific DNA mutations they have, and this is leading to much more individualised treatment. For some tumour types this is moving from research to standard management, and as the molecular biology is being worked out this is where oncology is heading.

  • @EE

    I suppose it seems to be valuable to you. Yet, I haven’t witnessed anybody yet change their thinking about medical treatment as a result of your efforts here.

    So continue deluding yourself in 2020…. so you can attempt to sell more books.

  • In the book “The Gerson Therapy”, written by Charlotte Gerson and Mort Walker D.P.M., they claim this therapy cures cancer 42& of the time. Dr Gerson claims this therapy can cure every major disease, including multiple sclerosis. If this is true, it represents a threat to the current medical establishment. So one cannot be sure you aren’t simply trying to save your job, here. Forced to have an uncompromising position. Good luck!

    • firstly, I am retired and have no job to save
      secondly, a claim is not evidence
      SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!

      • It has been fun to read, but the Doctor’s responses have been uncompromising. Example: saying the book fifty cases is “spontaneous remission” can not be proved, either. Sadly your replies seem manipulative, even desperate. Good luck, thank you for your time, Sir

        • you are reversing the burden of proof; not on!

        • Quite honestly it is difficult to know what to make of Gerson’s case histories. They aren’t written up in any thorough or rigorous way. There is little information about how the cancers were diagnosed (I suspect not all of them were malignant in the first place) and a lot of them also had conventional treatment. Some of them could have been fabricated and we would have no way of knowing.

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Monday 24 February 2020 at 17:36 said:

            “Quite honestly it is difficult to know what to make of Gerson’s case histories. They aren’t written up in any thorough or rigorous way.”

            That is their advantage: they are short and clear e.g. case number 35 “Mr G. G – age 27, married, no children…” who was cured of basal cell carcinoma. The last sentence adds that Mr G. G. appeared before the senate sub committee of 1946 (Pepper/Neely, july 1st – 3rd).

            So we check there and sure enough, there he is, a Mr George Gimpson of
            729 Thirty-second Street,
            Union City,
            N.J.
            Along with his testimony beginning with a letter from Major R.C. Fagley, Chief Medical Officer of the Regional Hospital, Fort Riley, Kansas, of the original diagnosis.

            Mr Gimpson then gives evidence, including the operations at different hospitals: Regional in Kansas, Fitzsimmons in Denver, Lyons N.J. Bronx N.Y. before he refuses any more and switches to Dr Gerson:

            SENATOR PEPPER: “ You quit smoking?”
            Mr GIMPSON: “I quit smoking, and drinking too.”
            SENATOR PEPPER: “ How long, now, did you take this diet before you began to notice any improvement in your condition?”
            Mr GIMPSON: “Well, I would say about, oh, a month, two months, a month and a half to six weeks.”

            Now Pepper questions Dr Miley who confirms that it was basal carcinoma with “bone involvement” and that now “…there are no signs of that at present.” He is questioned further and confirms that it was malignant.

            S.J. Haught, in his book Censured for Curing Cancer, confirms this and reproduces a photo of Mr Gimpson on page 89 with the caption “videotaped interview in 1981” – more than thirty years later – so he was definitely cured. (Haught was a newspaperman who set out to prove that Gerson was a fraud, but discovered the opposite and wrote his book about it, after interviewing Gerson and his previous patients personally and by publishing the letters he received from the AMA: Gerson was always short and direct, the AMA always evasive and secretive).

            I guess that this is not clinical evidence to you? In that case the story of Johnny Gunther’s brain-cancer in Death Be Not Proud by his father John Gunther or Raymond Swing’s radio broadcast on July 3rd 1946 of Gerson’s 10 cases before the senate sub committee or Long John Nebels radio broadcast of Gerson’s results – all this is not “evidence”?

            And the famous TV adverts of the time of doctors smoking Camel cigarettes, is likewise, not evidence? (of Raymond Swing being fired by the sponsors of his radio programme, after featuring the Gerson evidence of the Pepper/Neely senate sub committee, in his coast-to-coast broadcast).

            Yes, by the standards of the time (there is no evidence that smoking is bad for you), Dr Gerson was wrong about smoking being bad?!

            But today, we know that smoking is bad, and Gerson was eventually proved right after he had died.

            Likewise, medicine is slowly starting to accede that nutrition might juuuuuusssssstttt be helpful in cure (maybe not from current hospital food: Anyone for organic?).

          • Old Bob,

            That is their advantage: they are short and clear e.g. case number 35 “Mr G. G – age 27, married, no children…” who was cured of basal cell carcinoma.

            Short, yes, but clear? Not to me.

            Despite your extensive explanation I am still non the wiser about what is going on here. What on earth is a “basal carcinoma with bone involvement” and how was the diagnosis made? Whereabouts was it, and was there actually recurrent or persistent tumour following Mr G G’s surgery, or was it by then simply a wound that was proving rather slow to heal? Was it direct invasion of a bone or metastasis to bones?

            We are talking about 75 – 80 years ago when pathological techniques were much more primitive than they are now (no immunohistochemistry or DNA analysis, no electron microscopy, no special stains) and indeed very little was understood concerning the biology of tumours, which are now classified very differently from how they were back then. If it was a clinical and not a pathological diagnosis then it is even possible that there was never any malignancy present in the first place.

            I guess that this is not clinical evidence to you?

            No, it isn’t. How can it be when you haven’t supplied any clinical details?

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Tuesday 25 February 2020 at 18:18 said:

            “Despite your extensive explanation I am still non the wiser about what is going on here. What on earth is a “basal carcinoma with bone involvement” and how was the diagnosis made? Whereabouts was it, and was there actually recurrent or persistent tumour following Mr G G’s surgery, or was it by then simply a wound that was proving rather slow to heal? Was it direct invasion of a bone or metastasis to bones?”

            From here:
            https://tratamenteanticancer.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/max-gerson-a-cancer-therapy-results-of-fifty-cases.pdf

            this:
            “CASE No. 35
            Mr. G. G., age—27, married, no children.
            Clinical Diagnosis: Basal cell carcinoma with undiagnosed complications.

            In 1938, patient first noticed a pimple or wart on neck; it grew, became an ulcer, which later grew slowly. He entered the Army in August, 1944, despite the ulcer. BIOPSY, August 28, 1944, in Fort Riley. Biopsy was made, report: Basal cell carcinoma of skin, below and posterior to right mastoid, removed by block dissection.

            RECURRED, April 1945: A large lump reappeared at the site of right mastoid; no second biopsy was taken. Patient was sent to a hospital in Denver in September. 1945. October, 1945, X-ray therapy was suggested but was turned down by X-ray specialist. Surgery in Walter Reed Hospital suggested, but this was refused by patient; he also refused surgery in Bronx Hospital.

            FIRST SEEN, October 20, 1945: Diffuse swelling of face, neck – extreme pain, dizziness, loss of equilibrium; no signs of acute inflammatory lesions:, or redness. During last few weeks at home, pain had increased terribly. His face became more and more swollen and cyanotic. The left eye was closed by swelling; the right eye could hardly be kept open. There was no temperature. Two men helped him walk to the office; he was crying from pain and his
            head covered with a wet towel. Complaints: “Terrible drawing and pulling pain in my head; I stumble, have no equilibrium, my hair is falling out.” Below the right proc. mastoideus, there was a hard mass as large as a small fist, not movable but fixed on the base of the skull. Above there was an operation scar 3 inches long. The entire face was swollen and cyanotic. Right corner of mouth hung down, caused by facial paralysis and general swelling of the face. The left eye was
            entirely closed. The right eye could be somewhat opened. The right cornea and conjunctival reflex was very weak. Pupils responded normally to the light and distance. There was no imbalance of eye muscles as far as they could be tested. Deep tendon reflexes more active. No Babinski; anesthesia on right auricle and in a circle around it. Pulse 98, not quite regular. Urine
            normal, partial agranulocytosis, lymphocytosis. X-ray showed a large bulging tumor mass. Reexamined by specialist who took some photos of the tumor. Diagnosis of several neurologists uncertain — probably a sinus thrombosis. Treatment started immediately,
            In four weeks, the tumor mass almost disappeared. Face was no longer swollen, facialis restored. The mouth was even, the deep, drawing pains appeared rarely, and the hair stopped falling out. At intervals there was some pain and some difficulty in keeping equilibrium. Circulation and motility were first restored in face in about 3 weeks. In February, 1946, circulation and strength returned to both hands. Later, in about six months, circulation and strength returned to both legs as well, so that patient could walk normally. The final improvement was the restoration of his sexual function. He went back to light work July, 1946, for 3 to 4 hours a day, but was advised to wait for 1-1.5 years before returning to his heavy work as a longshoreman.

            February, 1947, no complaints, except that he has no normal sensitivity on and around the right ear. Urine normal, blood normal. Strong, took full-time easy job. New X-rays negative.

            April, 1948, went back to normal work and has been working since.

            February, 1950, no complaints — except some overweight — 223.5 lbs. Interesting may be that alter 3 years of dietary regime, patient gave up the diet. No pregnancy occurred during the first 11 rears of. marriage. After both he and his wife were advised to return to the diet, pregnancy occurred 4 months later. January, 1952, his wife wanted another baby; according to my advice, both returned to the diet and new pregnancy occurred. Both children are normal,

            October, 1954. his gallbladder was removed.

            November, 1956, hemorrhoids were removed.

            Last Examination, August 8, 1957: Patient is now in good health, free of any disturbances and lives partly on the diet with his family.
            Patient was demonstrated July, 1946, in Senate Subcommittee, where 5 of my cured cancer patients were shown for the first time in American history.”

          • Old Bob,

            Thanks, that makes much more sense.

            The initial diagnosis was confirmed pathologically as a basal cell carcinoma, and this history of an ulcer gradually increasing in size over several years is in keeping with that. This type of tumour spreads locally, but does not spread regionally (to lymph nodes) or distantly (i.e. metastases to other organs) except in vanishingly rare cases, so block dissection (removal of tumour and associated lymph nodes in a single block of tissue) might be regarded as a more radical operation than was strictly necessary.

            Roughly six months after surgery, a large lump appeared over the mastoid, which was not biopsied. Somebody clearly made the assumption that this must be recurrent basal cell carcinoma, but this seems unlikely to me. BCC’s grow very slowly, and his previous history confirms that this was the case here. The rapid appearance of a large lump is therefore not in keeping either with the previous behaviour of the tumour or how they are known to behave.

            Whatever the nature of the lump, his symptoms (features reported by the patient) and associated signs (examination findings) were clearly due to venous obstruction (e.g. extensive cavernous sinus thrombosis but perhaps extending further down the jugular vein) and pressure on the facial and other nerves. The description of the lump suggests a fluid collection of some kind under pressure, which could be an abscess or more likely (since there appear not to have been any infective symptoms) a haematoma (the result of bleeding into the tissues – following a block dissection the structures of the neck no longer have their normal protective covering of fat and other soft tissue and are much more vulnerable to minor trauma; there could even have been rupture of a surgical aneurysm (i.e. damage to the wall of an artery)). The x-ray may even have shown some erosion of the adjacent bone due to pressure, though this wasn’t mentioned in the report. An x-ray of the sort available in 1946 would not have been able to define a soft-tissue mass very well and certainly not say very much about its nature or indeed the precise anatomy. As far as I can tell, the diagnosis of bony involvement was based on the fact that the lump appeared to be fixed to the mastoid (i.e. it couldn’t be wiggled up and down), which could be explained by the size and the tension in the surrounding tissue.

            It is not clear whether the dizziness that G G mentions is vertigo (a sensation of rotation) or pre-syncope (a feeling of faintness due to a fall in blood pressure). Cavernous sinus thrombosis can certainly cause vertigo due to interruption of the venous blood flow from the cerebellum and the brain stem, and can cause infarcts (strokes) by the same mechanism. Direct pressure on the carotid sinus in the neck can also trigger a reflex drop in heart rate and blood pressure, and I remember once examining the neck of a woman who had had a block dissection some years ago and being rather disconcerted when she suddenly lost consciousness as I touched her carotid sinus.

            With time the thrombus would eventually be absorbed, and collateral veins would form allowing other routes of venous drainage. So eventually his symptoms would resolve spontaneously, which is what appears to have happened.

            The main thing that surprises me is that nobody thought to stick a needle in the lump to see what it consisted of. To assume without a biopsy that it was a local recurrence when this is not at all in keeping with the natural history of the disease strikes me as brave if not downright negligent. This was a basal cell carcinoma, not a squamous carcinoma, where local recurrence would be unremarkable. Or possibly the surgeon simply assumed that it was an SCC despite the pathological diagnosis (certainly block dissection would have been the correct treatment for an SCC).

            It does not surprise me at all that Gerson was happy to take the credit, however, nor that the story might seem convincing to somebody with no practical experience of managing these types of problems.

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Wednesday 26 February 2020 at 10:43 said:

            “The main thing that surprises me is that nobody thought to stick a needle in the lump to see what it consisted of. To assume without a biopsy that it was a local recurrence when this is not at all in keeping with the natural history of the disease strikes me as brave if not downright negligent.”

            That’s probably why Gerson points it out. He made enemies of other doctors by holding them all to their own rules (see his biography by Straus, during Gerson’s medical training under Foester).

            “It does not surprise me at all that Gerson was happy to take the credit, however, nor that the story might seem convincing to somebody with no practical experience of managing these types of problems.”

            Gimpson gave Gerson the credit:

            SENATOR PEPPER: Now, tell us this. Did you stay in the hospital for any length of time?
            MR. GIMPSON: No.
            DR. GERSON: That was before the hospital was established.
            SENATOR PEPPER: He gave you this book, to tell you what to eat and what not to eat?
            MR. GIMPSON: Yes; what to eat and what to drink and everything.
            SENATOR PEPPER: And you went by this diet?
            MR. GIMPSON: Whatever is in that book, that is what I took.
            SENATOR PEPPER: And you followed strictly, this diet?
            MR. GIMPSON: 100 percent. I gave away my last pack of cigarettes just before I went up to his office, and from that day to this, I never smoked a cigarette.
            SENATOR PEPPER: “ You quit smoking?”
            Mr GIMPSON: “I quit smoking, and drinking too.”
            SENATOR PEPPER: “ How long, now, did you take this diet before you began to notice any improvement in your condition?”
            Mr GIMPSON: “Well, I would say about, oh, a month, two months, a month and a half to six weeks.”
            SENATOR PEPPER: You took no medicine, or had no other treatment?
            MR. GIMPSON: No. Liver injections. Everything I am supposed to take and eat, everything is right there (referring to the little book).
            DR. GERSON: Here is the medication book.
            SENATOR PEPPER: So you are satisfied the treatment Dr. Gerson gave you has been responsible for the improvement in your condition?
            MR. GIMPSON: Every bit of it.

            Given his condition after the conventional medical treatment of the time (clearly sub-standard by its own standards), he decided himself to take the let-the-body-heal-itself approach offered by Gerson instead (which is what you have so elegantly explained above).

          • @ Old Bob

            he decided himself to take the let-the-body-heal-itself approach offered by Gerson instead

            The error being the assumption that the regime of nonsense Gerson prescribed had anything to do with the patient’s body healing itself in its own way.

          • Lenny on Thursday 27 February 2020 at 07:49 said:

            “The error being the assumption that the regime of nonsense Gerson prescribed had anything to do with the patient’s body healing itself in its own way.”

            That is your choice, you can put whatever you like in your body (Oh, no it isn’t there are laws about that – so ignoring that whole-other-world of arguments) you are free to smoke or have a beer – maybe that will cheer you up 🙂

      • Edzard on Monday 24 February 2020 at 15:12 said:

        “…show us the evidence!”

        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1534735406298258

  • OMG People please you are discussing that topic for so long now. You now what? why don’t we work together and execut a study. Turning this discussion into something that helps humanity.
    Ok!
    Let’s make the groups one that gets the normal chemo treatment and another group who gets the Gerson therapy. Mh how long should we do the study 5 years or more?
    And than let’s see what happens.

    We can work out the details later.

    I hope we can work something out!

  • I’ve talked on the phone with two people this week they reversed their autoimmune on the Gerson Therapy. Neither of them are cured, one drastically reduced symptoms and the other much better. They did nothing else. Honestly though, I might rather be dead than live on the Gerson Therapy. I still can’t for the life of me, even in my dire circumstance – and believe me it is – I can’t figure out how coffee enemas could ever detoxify anything. Spare me the explanation here; I’ve read two Gerson books.

    I will say that there are many instances where, If would myself facing cancer with chemo as a treatment- I would consider forgoing treatment and living as best I could for the time that I had. If the chemo had a decent probability of extended my QUALITY life for several years or longer, I’d consider it. I would be one of the first to choose death with dignity rather than ride out a terrible decline and painful death. In fact, I’d choose it for incurable degenerative disease and might very well do that for my awful, progressive condition.

    I think medicine has its limitations – simply in that there aren’t answers and cures for everything. It infuriates me
    sometimes that doctors miss a diagnosis far too often simply by not listening or thinking the issue through enough. They are many rare and even not so rare diseases that go undiagnosed too long or eventually the patients themselves figure it out. It happened to me, and it shouldn’t have.

    Still, this idea that medicine is in bed with “Big Pharma” (sometimes, yes but in different ways than described here) and that physicians don’t care about their patients and the reason people are put on chemo or given other treatments is to make money is just plain wrong. The exceedingly vast number of physicians are trying to help their patients. They are using the methods shown to have the best outcomes. They are not making patients suffer in the interest of making money. That is an incredible insult to people that have dedicated decades of study, continued learning and every day with patients to provide care.

    • Christine Anthony on Saturday 11 July 2020 at 14:54 said:

      “…Honestly though, I might rather be dead than live on the Gerson Therapy. I still can’t for the life of me, even in my dire circumstance – and believe me it is – I can’t figure out how coffee enemas could ever detoxify anything. Spare me the explanation here; I’ve read two Gerson books.”

      Now imagine your counterpart, taking the same attitude, would they “convince” you of your “error”?

      I would not use the “argument” that “…I’ve read n Gerson books…”, instead I might quote something from one of them e.g. “…if you asked me how it worked, I could not say!” or “…[I never turned anyone away, some I paid for with my own money]…”

  • First let me say that my wife was recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. So recently in fact, that we haven’t got a plan of attack. We have yet to even see the oncologist (although we do have an appointment).

    When we face a terrible life threatening disease we look for hope. When dealing with conventional medical treatment we may feel that the medical professionals are not compassionate, simply because they are being as frank as possible, or just because they telling us things we would rather not hear.

    We don’t want to hear:
    1. the success rate of curing your cancer is less than 5%”
    2. If you are lucky you may have 5 more months.
    3. All we can do is try to make you as comfortable as possible.
    4. etc. etc. etc.

    We then grasp for anything that gives some hope of survival. This may calm us, which while good, can take us away from treatments that may prolong our lives, help us battle this terrible beast and improve what little time is left. It has even caused me, a rational educated person (I am a C.P.A, Attorney and have my Juris Doctorate), to reach out and look for alternatives.

    In this search for knowledge I have come across the Gerson methods. Techniques and methods that don’t have proven clinical studies, trials or support of the cure rates claimed. Instead, Gerson is sold purely on patient testimonials, in other words Sales Pitches, and only positive testimonials at that. Is it realistic to believe that 100% of the testimonials are positive? I for one don’t think so.

    Beside the doctors, I have the support of medical professionals and pharmaceutical chemists in my family to help me sort through this murky swamp. All supportive, helping guide us through the tough treatment choices we need to make.

    Our countries, USA, UK and others have governing bodies to help insure that Snake Oil is not a part of our treatment regiment. While this is not always good, as they can delay the drugs or therapy that might work to try and insure bad drugs or treatment are released prematurely. I personally think the USA’s FDA does not do the things it needs to.

    I am wishing for a better option than conventional medicine; wishing and hoping for an absolute cure for my wife’s cancer. I can’t see living life without her, but I am still a rational person that understands that the conventional treatments are our best hope.

    I for one, am not ready to enrich these Snake Oil Salesmen who give us false hopes and take us away from treatments that have real chance of success.

    • Joel on Friday 31 July 2020 at 19:17 said:
      “Is it realistic to believe that 100% of the testimonials are positive? I for one don’t think so.”

      Anyone tough enough to do strict Gerson Therapy, is never going to write a negative testimonial by definition – that makes no sense, unless there was some “miracle” recovery in the process e.g. Death Be Not Proud by John Gunther (and he was basically pro-Establishment) (and yet he gave a positive testimonial).

      “I am wishing for a better option than conventional medicine; wishing and hoping for an absolute cure for my wife’s cancer.”

      Read chapter 8 (page 47 of the book, not the pdf) here:
      https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.org/Cancer%20The%20Forbidden%20Cures%20by%20Donld%20T%20Grahn%20%282012%29/ebooks%20Gerson/Haught%20S%20J%20Dr%20Max%20Gerson%20Censured%20for%20Curing%20Cancer%201962%20153p%20text.pd

    • Joel,

      I am an oncologist in the UK, though I had to take early retirement three years ago when I was myself diagnosed with an incurable cancer.

      I hope you will find that the health professionals making up the team that will be dealing with your wife are compassionate and kind, as well as professional in their approach. They will not lie to you about what can or can’t be achieved with treatment, and they will tell you what is involved, so that you are both in a position to make informed decisions.

      I hope they don’t start talking about success rates and survival times, because these are meaningless when it comes to treating an individual. Their main utility is in the context of clinical trials, where a measure is needed to compare one treatment against another. In clinical trials a measure called the median survival is often used, which is the time until half of a group have died (median is used rather than mean, as there are usually a few patients who survive much longer than the rest and would unduly influence the mean). You can then say, in a specific trial population, that the median survival differs between two treatment groups. But you can’t extrapolate from that to predict what will happen to an individual who may well not be at all typical of those enrolled into the trial. It is also important to remember that at the median point half of the subjects are still alive, and furthermore there is often a very wide range of survival times.

      I think everyone who has cancer themselves, or a loved one who has been affected, wants nothing more than a total and permanent cure. However, even after successful treatment cancers can recur, and you can only meaningfully say that somebody has been cured when they have died of something else. On a happier note, modern cancer therapy is getting better all the time, to the point where many cancers, even when not curable, become more like chronic diseases, controllable with treatment.

      Over the years I have had a handful of patients with very extensive spread of their tumours, who had complete and durable responses to what was intended to be palliative treatment; I expected them to do badly but they lived for many years cancer-free. Sadly they were not the majority, but every oncologist has patients like that, and who is to say that your wife couldn’t be one of them?

      I think what you will find is that dealing with treatment turns your life upside down, with the sheer number of appointments for scans, blood tests, assessments, treatment itself… And there are times when your body just doesn’t behave the way that you are used to or expect. You may also find that there are long waits at the clinic itself, as the people going ahead of you turn out to require more time than the standard slots allocated to them. This can lead to a feeling of being out of control, and in my experience professionals such as lawyers find this harder than most. I hope that you will be able to identify a member of the team who can be your primary contact and with whom you can discuss all your concerns, practical and otherwise. I don’t know how cancer care is organised where you live, but in the UK this is generally a specialist nurse.

      It is four years to the day since my first symptoms started; at times it has been a roller coaster since then and I don’t know exactly what the future holds, but mostly my quality of life has been good. Perhaps it has been a little easier for me as the territory is familiar – you will find everything is very strange at first. The worst thing is waiting for results, and when they do come through the reality is generally nothing like the nightmares that your imagination can create.

    • Joel on Friday 31 July 2020 at 19:17 said:
      “I for one, am not ready to enrich these Snake Oil Salesmen who give us false hopes and take us away from treatments that have real chance of success.”

      Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Friday 31 July 2020 at 23:41 said:
      “…(median is used rather than mean, as there are usually a few patients who survive much longer than the rest and would unduly influence the mean)…”

      Joel, in principle, DIY Gerson Therapy is possible without employing “Snake Oil Salesmen” – it is all there in Gerson’s book, but you would have to be rich enough to employ someone full time to make the juices etc.

      Failing that, once you have read his book and understand it, you could for instance, just stick absolutely to the diet and supplements in conjunction with and while waiting for, conventional therapy (I am doing something like this).

      Dr JMK explains “median” above: NB that so called outliers are removed from the stats. Suppose that I am one of them (I don’t claim that, this is just a ‘suppose’) and ten years later I am still as healthy as today, then evidently I will be excluded as ‘abnormal’ and information will be lost (diet) from the official stats.

      • Old Bob,

        Dr JMK explains “median” above: NB that so called outliers are removed from the stats. Suppose that I am one of them (I don’t claim that, this is just a ‘suppose’) and ten years later I am still as healthy as today, then evidently I will be excluded as ‘abnormal’ and information will be lost (diet) from the official stats.

        Not quite. I was specifically talking about the way survival is reported in clinical trials. If you are comparing two treatment groups the median survival gives a more meaningful and useful comparison than the mean, which can be more easily affected by random factors unconnected with the treatment under investigation.

        Survival data does not quite follow a Gaussian (i.e. normal or bell curve distribution) as the minimum end of the curve is fixed at zero and the maximum end has a long tail comprising the long survivors which are not representative of the group as a whole. In situations where the data is skewed in this way the median gives a more representative measure of central tendency than the mean.

        Official statistics are reported differently from clinical trials as they have a different purpose.

        It is also important to remember that survival statistics are often out of date; ten-year survival figures will reflect treatment that was used ten or more years ago, which may well be quite different from the standard today. This is also true of clinical trials of cancer treatment where recruitment is usually over a period of several years; if you add this to the treatment period and then the follow-up period a recently-published trial could easily be reporting patients treated more than a decade ago.

        Another thing that people often misunderstand about cancer trials is how to interpret a relatively modest survival improvement when comparing a new treatment with the best existing one. A three-month survival benefit means that the median survival in one group is three months longer than the other, but this hides the fact that there will be some patients who show no response to the new treatment, and others who respond very well and benefit by a great deal more than three months. In normal practice (outside clinical trials) an oncologist will be monitoring his patients continuously through treatment and if they are not responding he will stop it and switch to something else.

      • QUOTE
        Median survival, or “median overall survival” is also commonly used to express survival rates. This is the amount of time after which 50% of the patients have died and 50% have survived. In ongoing settings such as clinical trials, the median has the advantage that it can be calculated once 50% of subjects have reached the clinical endpoint of the trial, whereas calculation of an arithmetical mean can only be done after all subjects have reached the endpoint.[3]

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_rate#Median_survival
        END of QUOTE [Retrieved 2020-08-01]

        • That is another very good point. The best way to show survival is with a Kaplan-Meier curve, which graphs every death (or whatever event is being studied) over the follow-up period, and not just a snapshot, which is what the median gives. They are very often included in trial reports, but some training in statistics is required in order to read them properly.

  • You doctors are sure getting tore up by the Gerson believers. Actually Dr. Julian if Chemo is so safe why don’t you prove us all wrong and put the poison in your own body if it is so harmless. Until you do that Dr. Julian and give us some concrete proof you lose. Gerson lives on!!!

    • oh, dear!

    • Gerson lives on!!!

      Unlike the patients who try it.

    • Actually Dr. Julian if Chemo is so safe why don’t you prove us all wrong and put the poison in your own body if it is so harmless. Until you do that Dr. Julian and give us some concrete proof you lose. Gerson lives on!!!

      I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a form of bone marrow cancer, in December 2016. Since then I have had multiple lines of therapy, including chemotherapy (cisplatin, doxorubicin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide), thalidomide and two other derivatives of it, lenolidamide and pomalidomide, targeted drugs in the form of the monoclonal antibodies bortezumib and daratumumab, high-dose steroids and all mannger of supporting drugs. I have also had radiotherapy, and fentanyl, for that matter, which I have found to be a very effective painkiller with minimal toxicity (I was able to come off it in 2018). Yes, I have had side-effects from them, but they have been manageable and certainly much better than the effects of untreated malignancy (and better than the side-effects of Gerson therapy, for that matter, based on what I have seen of people undergoing it when I was a trainee oncologist).

      None of my doctors have promised that I will be cured and I know for a fact that I have only a few years left at most if all continues to go as well as it has done so far, and while I can hardly be said to have normal health, and it is frustrating not to be able to do things that I used to (partly due to fractures in my spine from the myeloma which led to the diagnosis) my quality of life is good.

      Without modern medicine I would certainly have died already, probably in 2017. Instead I have had an extra four years of wildlife photography, improving my organ playing and watching my grandchildren growing up.

      Throughout my career as a doctor I have firmly believed that I should treat my patients in the way that I would wish for myself and my family, and as my wife and I have got older and developed various medical problems on the way this has been put to the test.

      There do seem to be some people around who appear to understand the rules of biology, physics and chemistry but who think that somehow they don’t apply to them. I have never been able to understand this thinking, though it is more common than you would expect.

      I am not sure what sort of concrete proof you would accept. I don’t really want to go to the trouble of digging out, scanning and uploading my medical records, and I am not even sure that I have them all myself.

    • Bradley

      The level of wilful ignorance you display is quite breathtaking. You have no concept of the depth of your own stupidity. Try looking up the Dunning-Kruger effect.

      Julian is, I suspect, about to hand you your witless, scrawny arse on a very big plate.

      Do you mind if we all pull up chairs to enjoy seeing it happen?

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.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

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.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories