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

I know of one patient who turned to the Gerson Therapy having been told that she was suffering from terminal cancer and would not survive another course of chemotherapy. Happily, seven years later she is alive and well. So therefore it is vital that, rather than dismissing such experiences, we should further investigate the beneficial nature of these treatments.

HRH The Prince of Wales (2004)

I was reminded of this embarrassing (because displaying profound ignorance) quote when I looked at the website of the ‘GERSON SUPPORT GROUP UK‘ where it is prominently cited. Under the heading ‘SCIENCE & CLINICAL RATIONAL’ the site offers a long article about the Gerson therapy (GT). Allow me to show you a few quotes from it:

Dr Max Gerson’s therapy is based on the belief that insufficient nutrients within the cells and an accumulation of toxins in the tissues lead to a breakdown in healthy cellular function which, if left unchecked, can trigger cancer.

That is interesting, I find, because the statement clearly admits that the GT is not an evidence-based therapy but a belief-based treatment.

The therapy that he developed uses a restrictive, plant-based diet and specific supplements to boost healthy cellular function; and various detoxification procedures, including coffee enemas, to eliminate waste products.

The claims hidden in this sentence remain unproven. There is no evidence that cellular fuction is boosted, nor that the procedures eliminate toxins.

… we only need to look at communities across the globe which exist in a pre-industrialised state to see that, whilst they might be more likely to die from pneumonia or tuberculosis, rates of degenerative illness are a fraction of those in the ‘developed‘ world. The age-adjusted death rate from breast cancer is less than 2 per 100,000 of the population in Thailand, Sri Lanka and El Salvador and around 33 per 100,000 in the UK, US, The Netherlands and numerous other affluent, Western countries.

Correlation is not causation! Pre-industrial societies also watch less TV, eat less ice-cream, read less fashion magazines, etc., etc. Are these habits also the cause of cancer?

… migrant studies show that within two generations the cancer rates of migrants increase rapidly towards Western rates, again underlining the assertion that cancer is caused primarily by diet and lifestyle rather than ‘faulty’ genes.

In no way is this an argument for eating raw vegetable and taking your coffee via the rectum.

In the German scientific golden age of the 1920s and 30s…

Golden age for what, for fascists?

Gerson had used a restricted diet to cure himself of migraines. He then helped another patient to reverse tuberculosis, and many others to reverse a variety of degenerative illnesses, all by similar means. He later developed his therapy to the point where he was able to help individuals reverse cancer. 

In this case, Max Gerson was ignorant of the fact that experience and evidence are two fundamentally different things.

Max Gerson developed his therapy in an iterative way, starting with a restrictive plant-based diet, adding vitamins, minerals and enzymes to encourage the oxygenation of the cells and then introducing the coffee enemas to aid detoxification of waste products. What is fascinating is that science has subsequently explained the mechanism of action behind some of his theories. (See Biochemical Basis to the Therapy).

Science has not explained the mechanism of action, not least because the action has never been verified. There are no robust clinical trials of Gerson’s therapy. Evidently, 100 years were not enough to conduct any – or perhaps the proponents know only too well that they would not generate the results they hoped?

Equally interesting is that in 2012 Dr Thomas Seyfried published the results of many years research in Cancer as a Metabolic Disease. 

Really? On Medline, I find only two cancer-related papers for Seyfried T. 2012:

Thus, nearly a century after their original proposition that the fundamental cause of cancer was faulty cellular metabolism, it seems that doctors Otto Warburg and Max Gerson might be vindicated.

No, to ‘vindicate’ a therapeutic suggestion one needs several rigorous clinical trials. And for the GT, they remain absent.

_______________________________

So, what does the GT amount to?

  • proponents had ~100 years to produce evidence;
  • they failed to do so;
  • thus the therapy is at best unproven;
  • it is also biologically implausible;
  • moreover, it is expensive;
  • crucially it is not free of serious adverse effects;
  • it is promoted only by those who seem to make money from it.

The only controlled clinical trial of a Gerson-like therapy that I know of is this one (rarely cited by Gerson fans):

Conventional medicine has had little to offer patients with inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma; thus, many patients seek alternative treatments. The National Cancer Institute, in 1998, sponsored a randomized, phase III, controlled trial of proteolytic enzyme therapy versus chemotherapy. Because most eligible patients refused random assignment, the trial was changed in 2001 to a controlled, observational study.

METHODS

All patients were seen by one of the investigators at Columbia University, and patients who received enzyme therapy were seen by the participating alternative practitioner. Of 55 patients who had inoperable pancreatic cancer, 23 elected gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, and 32 elected enzyme treatment, which included pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, detoxification, and an organic diet. Primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival and quality of life, respectively.

RESULTS

At enrollment, the treatment groups had no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics, pathology, quality of life, or clinically meaningful laboratory values. Kaplan-Meier analysis found a 9.7-month difference in median survival between the chemotherapy group (median survival, 14 months) and enzyme treatment groups (median survival, 4.3 months) and found an adjusted-mortality hazard ratio of the enzyme group compared with the chemotherapy group of 6.96 (P < .001). At 1 year, 56% of chemotherapy-group patients were alive, and 16% of enzyme-therapy patients were alive. The quality of life ratings were better in the chemotherapy group than in the enzyme-treated group (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Among patients who have pancreatic cancer, those who chose gemcitabine-based chemotherapy survived more than three times as long (14.0 v 4.3 months) and had better quality of life than those who chose proteolytic enzyme treatment.

Considering all this, I believe, it would be hard to name a cancer quackery that is less credible than the GT.

49 Responses to The Gerson Therapy: possibly the worst cancer quackery of them all

  • The Gerson Support Group is a registered charity (1063646), and has been subject to complaints to the Charity Commission since August 2019, on the grounds that it fails the public benefit test under the Charities Act 2011. The Commission has taken no action. To submit further complaints, use this form:

    https://forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/raising-concerns/

    • The current issue of Private Eye magazine (No. 1568, 4th-17th March 2022) has a heartening article on Page 41.

      It reports that the complaints to the English Charity Commission which Les Rose reports above, have now resulted in the Gerson “charity” being wound up, and removed from the charities register. Mr. Rose has been instrumental in this, and is mentionend in the article.

      This is a positive step in protecting vulnerable patients from health frauds.

  • Ah, Gerson. Worked so well for Jess Ainscough that she didn’t just kill herself, she killed her mom too. Probably a few others too, as she was peddling it herself for ego and profit up until she died.

  • Considering all this, I believe, it would be hard to name a cancer quackery that is less credible than the GT.

    Clark’s “liver flukes”. Simonici’s “fungus”. Young’s “acidic blood”. And that’s just from memory; I know I’ve read more.

    You’d think after a while Alties would notice that all of these claims of One True Cause and Cure of cancer are mutually incompatible with each other, then reason from there that all but one of them must be wrong. But it’s a big tent which they’re all very happy to cohabit since everyone there’s in total agreement that it’s modern medicine that’s wrong.

    Paranoid narcissism. It’s one helluva drug. If only it worked against cancer cells, instead of replicating them.

    • I read an article a few months ago on in either New Scientist or Scientific American which was about conspiracy theories. It seems that individuals who subscribe to one conspiracy theory tend to believe them all, even when they are mutually contracdictory.

      • Ahhh, but that’s only what ‘they’ WANT you to think……

        “Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not all out to get you”…….

    • Clark’s “liver flukes”. Simonici’s “fungus”. Young’s “acidic blood”. And that’s just from memory; I know I’ve read more.

      You’d think after a while Alties would notice that all of these claims of One True Cause and Cure of cancer are mutually incompatible with each other, then reason from there that all but one of them must be wrong. But it’s a big tent which they’re all very happy to cohabit since everyone there’s in total agreement that it’s modern medicine that’s wrong.

      Paranoid narcissism. It’s one helluva drug. If only it worked against cancer cells, instead of replicating them.

      Perhaps you could cite the claims and explain the contradiction? I’m not aware of any of this. What interests me most is the application of logic. Thanks in advance for your effort.

  • So, what does the GT amount to?

    proponents had ~100 years to produce evidence;
    they failed to do so;
    thus the therapy is at best unproven;
    it is also biologically implausible;
    moreover, it is expensive;
    crucially it is not free of serious adverse effects;
    it is promoted only by those who seem to make money from it.

    This seems to perfectly describe the pharm industry.

    I see more and more people getting cancer all the time, so the allopaths sure don’t seem to have a clue.

    You don’t talk about how Gerson and daughter only got to treat people who the allopaths with their evil cartel decided were as good as dead. Even then they had to be very careful.

    If allopathy really worked, it wouldn’t need to stop others from practicing their own ideas.

    Like Richard Pryor said, if democracy was so good, you wouldn’t have to force it on people at the point of a gun, they’d come and steal it.

    Your refutation of the GT seems to be based on cherry picked cases.

    It’s hard to take you seriously. Perhaps you should expose your own funding.

    • ” Perhaps you should expose your own funding.”
      HERE YOU ARE:
      https://edzardernst.com/about/

      • I should expose my own funding? I don’t have funding you twat. I’m just a guy who likes to read and likes to separate the wheat from the chaff. And I noticed that you are chaff, and that’s being too polite.

        I guess my “funding”, the thing that permits me to have time to call you out for the shill that you are is that I’ve set up a business which helps people to do things they want to do for less than it would cost if they were aligned with your type of shmuck.

      • ” Perhaps you should expose your own funding.”
        HERE YOU ARE:
        https://edzardernst.com/about/

        Ok. I looked at the link and I looked at your paragraph on wikipedia. Since wikipedia likes you, I have to figure you’re a sell-out and just haven’t been caught (by them) yet.

        I compare you with Vernon Coleman. The time machine shows me that wikipedia loved him until they didn’t.

        They stopped loving him when he pointed out accurately that covid19 is a scam.

        I knew it was a scam immediately. The mask wearing is shown by all real science I can find to be somewhere between utter stupidity and trauma-based mind control. It reminds me of the Roman slave forced to wear masks to keep them from silently communicating with each other while toiling for rotten slavers.

        So as long as wikipedia likes you, I take that as proof that you are a liar and a shill or simply too unimportant for wikipedia to notice you.

        • “So as long as wikipedia likes you, I take that as proof that you are a liar and a shill or simply too unimportant for wikipedia to notice you.”
          How interesting!
          You almost convinced me that you are an 18 carat idiot.

    • The biggest risk factor for cancer is age, and the reason why more people are getting cancer is that they are living longer, which is a success of modern medicine.

      We are also getting better at diagnosing it, which will always push the numbers up.

      Happily we are getting much better at treating it, too.

      If allopathy really worked, it wouldn’t need to stop others from practicing their own ideas.

      Most people are sensible enough to seek proper treatment if they get cancer. However, some are scared off by misconceptions and inaccurate information about what cancer treatment actually involves, and others are unable to recognise charlatans and are easy prey.

      • you don’t even know it, but you are one of the charlatans. I don’t doubt that you mean well and that you believe what you say. Unfortunately for you, you will finish your life always having believed things which others have programmed you to believe. Can you see a way to have an actual debate with someone like me without you running straight to your logical fallacy of the appeal to authority?

        Here’s what I see wrong with what you have written.

        The biggest risk factor for cancer is age, and the reason why more people are getting cancer is that they are living longer, which is a success of modern medicine.

        I don’t see that at all. I see people dying young from cancer. Cancer in old folks generally moves very slowly. Do you have statistics to back this up? Show your sources. You seem to think that the “m.d.” after your name, if there is one somehow gives you a right to say things with no footnotes, but others must provide footnotes.

        Most people are sensible enough to seek proper treatment if they get cancer. However, some are scared off by misconceptions and inaccurate information about what cancer treatment actually involves, and others are unable to recognise charlatans and are easy prey.

        Yes. Most folks are easy prey to the charlatans known as allopaths. All day long I see examples of total b.s. coming from the mouths of people like yourself. You probably agree with this person who is playing the role of POTUS Joe Biden (note the attached versus not attached ears) that Joe mercola is spreading disinformation. Tell me, have you seen any of the documents coming from Mercola’s site? I ask to know if you are so thoroughly brainwashed that you are unable to see any truth at all.

        • It’s good to know that you have all the wisdom and knowledge – now try a bit of critical thinking.

          • try a bit of critical thinking? Up till now, all you’ve done is speak as though you have the answer to everything. You provide zero sources for your fountain of (fake) knowledge, yet you ask your respondants for that. Doesn’t that show that you are the one who thinks he knows everything?

            show me where you arrived at the conclusion that people in any age group under 60 haven’t had their cancer rates shooting up these last 50 years since the fake vaccines have poisoned every body as have the unnecessary pesticides and herbicides.

            You claimed the cancer rates aren’t increasing, where’s your proof?

          • https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

            my critical thinking tells me that you either think that you’re more of an expert than the american heart association or that you don’t think that heart health has any link with overall health.

            what part of this have you failed to understand oh critical thinking one?

            I bet you don’t publish my messages since they expose you for the liar or fool that you are.

        • Cancer in old folks generally moves very slowly.

          Do YOU have statistics to back up that statement?

      • “and others are unable to recognise charlatans and are easy prey”

        But they are able to recognize through trial and failure that CONmed doesn’t have all that many solutions.

      • The biggest risk factor for cancer is age, and the reason why more people are getting cancer is that they are living longer, which is a success of modern medicine.

        We are also getting better at diagnosing it, which will always push the numbers up.

        Especially when doctors realize that the white coat mentality prevalent in our silly society permits them to diagnose cancers which don’t exist, and of course cure them easily by the fact that they never existed.

        Should I find the list of m.d’s in prison for having done that?

        Happily we are getting much better at treating it, too.

        The statistics don’t show that unless you count the people I’ve mentioned above.

        If allopathy really worked, it wouldn’t need to stop others from practicing their own ideas.

        Most people are sensible enough to seek proper treatment if they get cancer.

        no, mostly they’re fooled and scared and go and see doctors who have nothing useful for them at all.

        However, some are scared off by misconceptions and inaccurate information

        you mean they read the papers and see that most of m.d.’s convictions are from a judge and not from their heart?

        about what cancer treatment actually involves, and others are unable to recognise charlatans and are easy prey.

        Everybody who thinks a guy in a white coat who has the ability to make the taxpayer pay for his treatment is unable to recognize charlatans and is easy prey for the offenders in their white coats.

  • Silly Charlie. Soft heart, soft brain. Means well. He believes in believing and has faith in all faiths. Homeopathy, Gerson and so on and so forth: all manner of faiths shall be well.

    He got it right on climate change by chance. The science sat well with his heart. Envionmentalism is touchy-feely science. His undiluted faith in the power of distilled water remains implacably impervious to science.

    • Silly Charlie. Soft heart, soft brain. Means well. He believes in believing and has faith in all faiths. Homeopathy, Gerson and so on and so forth: all manner of faiths shall be well.

      He got it right on climate change by chance. The science sat well with his heart. Envionmentalism is touchy-feely science. His undiluted faith in the power of distilled water remains implacably impervious to science.

      you have expressed opinions and have offered no substance. Surely just an oversight. Please correct that so that I can rip whatever you find to shreds easily while I cut my toe-nails.

  • Science has not explained the mechanism of action, not least because the action has never been verified. There are no robust clinical trials of Gerson’s therapy. Evidently, 100 years were not enough to conduct any – or perhaps the proponents know only too well that they would not generate the results they hoped?

    It’s impressive that the fool who wrote that doesn’t realize that the only people gerson could treat at first were people whose doctors told them that they had nothing for them. Those people were almost dead. And yet enough of them lived to tell the tale that he started getting people coming to him as soon as diagnosed. He did even better with them.

    The medical/pharmaceutical cartel prevents these things from being possible and the cynical turd who wrote the above makes it sound like the gerson people are trying to be sneaky or are incompetent.

    Well I hope that people like you keep getting treated by allopathy and that you enjoy your drawn out painful pocket emptying deaths after which you have to go back to square one, maybe reincarnated as a dung beetle because you so horrendously wasted your opportunity of being a human being.

    You are some sad sacks of crap who are too stupid to recognize such an obvious hoax as allopathy.

    • not as sad as you, it seems

      • Science has not explained the mechanism of action, not least because the action has never been verified. There are no robust clinical trials of Gerson’s therapy. Evidently, 100 years were not enough to conduct any – or perhaps the proponents know only too well that they would not generate the results they hoped? It’s impressive […]

        Damn Edzard, you have absolutely nothing between your ears.

        Why are you about the only one around who doesn’t know that they are not free to do such tests?

        Because you are wilfully ignorant. I’m answering for you so that somebody not reading carefully might later mistakenly accuse you of having uttered something that wasn’t an absolute lie.

        You are defending the same arseholes (surely because you’re one of them) who immediately after the fake experiment on the fake vaccine decided unilaterally to vaccinate all of the placebo group.

        They try to pass it off as compassion. If you don’t see the lie in that you are daft. It’s all about eliminating the control group.

        Two reasons to force everybody to get “vaccinated”. To kill almost everybody and to keep it from being visible that unvaccinated people are much healthier than vaccinated people.

        As has ALWAYS been the case.

        Too bad Edzard that you will likely never do anything positive in your life. It’s your choice.

        • ” It’s your choice.”
          Indeed, it is my choice not to be nearly as ignorant as you.

          • keep acting like you’re sincere. Do you laugh about the people that you fool? The people that you fool are not stupid. They are victims of their own irrational fears. You are the sort who would profit from that.

            You know of Dr. Klenner from North Carolina. You know that he brought cases of “polio” to zero one year by announcing as the state’s chief health official that eating ice cream was a factor in that syndrome which was caused mostly by DDT exposure.

            Please, do me the honor of explaining to me how you’re sure that that was just a coincidence.

            I could name hundreds of successful actions like that one. You’d need to call them coincidences, or perhaps your favorite, the one that drew me hear, the ad-hominem attack on somebody with so much more value as a human being than your own self. I’m sure you have the usual other “weapon” of cowards. The appeal to authority.

            In fact, I’m sure if I look carefully at what you do I’ll find most of the logical fallacies, but with a heavier dependence on these two.

            so bubba, how about it? Tell me how I’ve misinterpreted that year in North Carolina.

            Then maybe you can react to the british gov’t data on smallpox in which we see the rate of smallpox drop by 99% over 80 years, the “vaccine” arrives and the curve continues nearly the same except for the cases of smallpox created by the “vaccine”. Looking forward to your explanation of how these data must be ignored in favor of the official narrative of the psychopaths you admire for their ability to suck the money out of people who don’t know how to deal with their own fear.

          • thank you for making it clear that you are a troll

          • you are a shmuck. that’s the only solution.

            you prove it now by calling me a troll. You prove it by cherrypicking. That means that you ask about the speed of cancer in older folks rather than taking up the conversation regarding polio and smallpox. True, these are not cancer, your financial specialty, but it shows the disgraceful (too nice a word) behavior of the medical “profession”. It’s unfortunate how it works. The people who will believe your lies are the people who will be hurt the most by your deception.

          • thanks again for all the amusement you brought to us – but I think it is enough now
            https://edzardernst.com/2017/05/a-method-of-ending-discussions-with-belligerent-twits/

    • @le_berger_des_photons

      Just curious, do you do yours with cream and sugar? If not, you should try that sometime, it has a calming effect.

  • it sure would be easier to tell horror stories about chemo radiation and surgery. You people have found some people who have abused the trust of vulnerable fools. You don’t talk about whether what they did respected Dr. Gerson’s teachings.

    You only talk about somebody using gerson’s name to sucker some doofus out of their money. A person too lazy or sick to even read Gerson’s writing to know whether what the “therapist” was doing agreed with dr. Gerson.

    The people who got Gerson off of the charities list were probably paid to do so by the American Medical Association.

    I knew already that you people are of bad faith. I can’t waste a lot of time trying to help people make good decisions who are so lame-brained that they’d make an important decision based on something that people like you folks would write.

    You are just a minor annoyance, so I’ve spent 5 minutes exposing your b.s. for anybody who may still be capable of critical thought. I doubt there are many. I think to arrive here thinking that there’s some good information to be had you’ve probably been wearing your mask too tight for a couple of years.

    • Are you aware that there is more than one country?

      What has the Charity Commission in England got to do with a medical association in the United States of America?

      In a century, ‘clinics’ offering Gerson Therapy have not demonstrated efficcacy beyond placebo. Instead, patients undergoing Gerson treatments have been shown to die in a shorter time.

      • Are you aware that there is more than one country?

        Why aren’t you aware that they are all owned by the people who own blackrock and vanguard?

        What has the Charity Commission in England got to do with a medical association in the United States of America?

        Each is owned by the same “people”.

        In a century, ‘clinics’ offering Gerson Therapy have not demonstrated efficcacy beyond placebo. Instead, patients undergoing Gerson treatments have been shown to die in a shorter time.

        That statement reminds me of the joke in which one asks a rabbi a doctor a mathematician and an accountant how much is two plus two.

        The punchline is when the accountant says “how much do you two and two to make?”

        I doubt you’re as naive as you come off. I believe that you are paid by subsidiaries of the owners of black rock and vanguard.

        You could be brainwashed and sincere, that is certainly also possible. You should be flattered that I think you work for the owners of Vanguard, it means I think you’re probably fairly intelligent

        • l@e_berger_des_photons

          “The people who got Gerson off of the charities list were probably paid to do so by the American Medical Association.”

          It’s in the public domain that I am the lead person who lobbied the Charity Commission to get them to take this action. Your statement is defamatory. You can be traced. You will withdraw that libellous claim right now.

          “I believe that you are paid by subsidiaries of the owners of black rock and vanguard.”

          Unless you can provide evidence of that claim, that is also a defamatory statement. I for one have never heard of Blackrock and Vanguard.

          Do you really think that we on this board have never heard such idiotic rants before?

          • I have not heard of Vanguard or of Blackrock either.

            I second the observation that those remarks against Les Rose are defamatory (Defamation was part of a media law unit I used to teach).

            Everyone is entitled to hold an opinion and to express it, but no-one is entitled to traduce the reputation of another. The law protects against that.

            The giveaway of course is that the English Gerson “charity”, challenged to produce evidence for their claims, could not, and were removed as a Registered Charity.

      • @DavidB
        Please note where this person’s nickname links to …
        Their comments are not to be taken seriously.

  • I have not heard of Vanguard or of Blackrock either.

    Maybe you should do a little bit of research then. You might find it refreshing compared to acting like you know everything while being so vastly ignorant.

    I second the observation that those remarks against Les Rose are defamatory (Defamation was part of a media law unit I used to teach).

    Your opinion seems as worthless as his. I’m not in England, so opinions are not diffamatory in my jurisdiction.

    The funniest part of your idiocies is that he defames me (by your silly standards) in the same post.

    And that is quite a good demonstration of how doofuses such as you are invertebrate cherry-pickers and incapable to see yourselves.

    Everyone is entitled to hold an opinion and to express it, but no-one is entitled to traduce the reputation of another. The law protects against that.

    show me the law. Remember that your colleague did the same to me in the same post.

    The giveaway of course is that the English Gerson “charity”, challenged to produce evidence for their claims, could not, and were removed as a Registered Charity.

    The charity system is such an obvious fraud. You will be unable to link the “gerson” charity to charlotte gerson.

    You are such a useless investigator that you haven’t even seeked to learn if the “information” you are believing is true.

    You just like it because it lets you believe what you want to believe.

    show the link between charlotte gerson or anybody authorized by the gerson family and this alleged charity.

  • Richard Rasker on Friday 18 March 2022 at 09:43

    @DavidB
    Please note where this person’s nickname links to …
    Their comments are not to be taken seriously.

    sure, why would you take whale.to seriously? all it does is prove everything it says using the british government archives or papers written by nobel laureates.

    whereas you cite the wisdom of edzard who can’t even get badmouthed by wikipedia in this age of total b.s.

  • What I see on this site is a bunch of cowards who hide when it’s time to debate. You don’t have facts, you have your opinions. Other folks’ opinions are criminal offenses if you don’t agree with them, yet you are always free to denigrate the person who expresses them.

    You seem, for the moment, to be a bit pathetic. I’m going to write it off to a misunderstanding on my part.

    I feel certain that you really want to and will shortly be ready to back up what you say with documented facts.

    I’m particularly interested to see the information on how this “gerson” charity is linked to the legacy of Charlotte Gerson and her father.

    Thanks in advance for enlightening me on that. I have zero information on it. That’s because all I know about it came from you and you are information allergic.

    • @le_berger_des_photons

      “..a bunch of cowards who hide when it’s time to debate.”

      Nobody is hiding, that’s why we reply to you. And you call your abusive language debate? You are free to express your opinions, nobody is preventing you. But you don’t have the right to invent your own facts.

      “I feel certain that you really want to and will shortly be ready to back up what you say with documented facts.”

      You misunderstand science. It is not for me to provide evidence, it’s for those making claims that Gerson therapy is effective. Please provide just one high quality randomised controlled trial that demonstrates that. I’ll wait. While I’m waiting, please provide evidence that I am paid by anyone to campaign for evidence based health care.

      I really don’t care who is linked to whom. The point is that the charity promoted a treatment that is not effective, and which carries risks. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/gerson-pdq#_4

  • @le_berger_des_photons

    “Do you know for a fact that this charity was actually following gerson’s rules to the letter?”

    That is not the point. The charity was asked to provide evidence that what they were promoting, whatever it was, could cure cancer. They admitted that they could not provide evidence, so agreed to close the charity. Neither have you been able to provide evidence.

    “Is it just a coincidence that this happens shortly after Charlotte died?”

    And you point is? She died in February 2019, 3 years ago. The charity started in 1997.

    “So whether you want to admit it or not, your whole life you’ve been taking this blood money.”

    Your grasp of defamation law is poor. What counts is not where the defamer lives, but where the libel is published and read. You can be sued through the English courts. I suggest you stop digging a hole for yourself to fall into. I am recording your accusations.

  • There is a followup article in the new edition (Number 1569) of Private Eye magazine. It clarifies where some of the financial assets of the closed-down Gerson Charity have gone. £80,000 went to an organisation called Yes to Life. Following a series of links on the Yes to Life website leands to https://yestolife.org.uk/therapy/gerson-therapy/?fld=1

    Les Rose is quoted in the article, making a cogent point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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

Recent Comments

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

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories