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

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

I would go two steps further:

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

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

START OF QUOTE

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

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

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

Eliminate toxins

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

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

Promote a healthy digestive tract

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

Ease bloating and stomach pain

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

Improve mood

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

Treat candida

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

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

END OF QUOTE

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

5 REASONS TO AVOID COFFEE ENEMAS

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

572 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!

        • “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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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 ?

        • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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..

    • 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.

    • 👍👏❤

  • 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.

  • 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.