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

I was made aware of an advertisement announcing that the ‘international health lecturer’, Barbara O’Neill, is soon (19-26 June) coming to the UK.

Who is Barbara O’Neill? I hear you ask.

Here is more interesting information about her:

The NSW Health Care Complaints Commission conducted an investigation into the professional conduct of Mrs Barbara O’Neill, an unregistered practitioner who provides services as a naturopath, nutritionist and health educator.

Complaints received by the Commission alleged that Mrs O’Neill makes dubious and dangerous health claims that are not evidence based or supported by mainstream medicine, regarding: infant nutrition; causes and treatment of cancer; antibiotics; and vaccinations.  Some of the non-evidence based comments made in Mrs O’Neill’s publications include:

  • raw goat’s milk is an appropriate substitute for breast milk in infant nutrition;
  • cancer is a fungus that can be treated with bicarbonate soda and can be cured by following a program that includes the cancer conquering diet and sodium bicarbonate wraps for the body;
  • pregnant women diagnosed with Strep B do not have to take antibiotics;
  • there are no safe vaccines; vaccinations have caused an epidemic of ADHD, autism, epilepsy and cot death.

The investigation found that Mrs O’Neill has limited qualifications in the area of nutrition and dietetics, which she attained more than 10 years ago. Of particular concern to the Commission is that Mrs O’Neill is providing health advice beyond the limits of her training and experience. Mrs O’Neill considers herself qualified to provide health advice in highly complex and specialised areas such as cancer treatment, use of antibiotics for Strep B and immunisation, in circumstances where it is clear her knowledge is limited.

The investigation also found that Mrs O’Neill does not recognise that she is misleading vulnerable people (including mothers and cancer sufferers) by providing very selective information.  The misinformation has real potential to have a detrimental effect on the health of individuals because Mrs O’Neill also discourages mainstream treatment for cancer, antibiotics and vaccinations.

The investigation determined that Mrs O’Neill breached the Code of Conduct for Unregistered Health Practitioners under Schedule 3 of the Public Health Regulation 2012 in respect of:

  • Clause 3(1): a health practitioner must provide health services in a safe and ethical manner;
  • Clause 5(1): a health practitioner must not hold himself or herself out as qualified, able or willing to cure cancer or other terminal illnesses;
  • Clause 7(1): a health practitioner must not attempt to dissuade clients from seeking or continuing with treatment by a registered medical practitioner;
  • Clause 12(1): a health practitioner must not engage in any form of misrepresentation in relation to the products or services he or she provides or as to his or her qualifications, training or professional affiliations;
  • Clause 15: a health practitioner must maintain accurate, legible and contemporaneous clinical records for each client consultation.

The Commission is satisfied that Mrs O’Neill poses a risk to the health and safety of members of the public and therefore makes the following prohibition order:

  • Mrs O’Neill is permanently prohibited from providing any health services, as defined in s4 Of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, whether in a paid or voluntary capacity.

The Commission has determined to make its Statement of Decision publicly available under section 41B(3)(c) of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 but has removed material which it considers to be confidential information.

The full Public Statement of Decision can be read here

____________________________

Barbara has clear and concise messages:

  • Vaccinations have caused an epidemic of ADHD, autism, epilepsy and cot death.
  • Cancer is a fungus that can be treated with bicarbonate soda.

Just what we needed in the UK!?

Or maybe not.

Yes, we did get used to being lied to by our PM. We are also slowly getting used to our NHS being vandalized by our Tory government. But that does not mean that we now should opt to cure cancer with baking soda.

Perhaps it would be better to use existing legislation (e.g. the cancer act) and stop this ‘international health lecturer’ in her tracks?

 

PS

In case you wonder who might organize such an event, it is this one:

Manna House Health Education & Wellness is a community interest company that works with people to improve their health. Manna House has been using natural health principles to help the body heal itself. It was established for the purpose of educating people in the principles and laws of healthful living.

85 Responses to A residential health programme that poses “a risk to the health and safety of members of the public”

  • I wonder if she ever names the fungus that she claims cancer to be? I doubt it.

    Horrible. An excess of hubris. Dunning-Kruger.

  • The first sentence from Wikipedia reads:

    Barbara O’Neill is an Australian naturopath and lecturer on health issues who, in 2019, was banned for life by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) from providing free or paid health services.

    She is known in Australia (or more precisely the state) as a dangerous quack. But Manna House deliberately conceals this fact.

  • ‘Poses a risk’ is an understatement. ‘Serial killer’ gets closer.

    • Indeed. If a person of known extremist racial or political or religious views was trying to come to the UK to disseminate hate speech, the Home Office would likely refuse a visa for entry to Britain. Similarly for a known consumer fraudster attempting to come to perpetuate a scam.

      This lady appears to be coming to spread potentially deadly consumer fraud.

      • “If…”

        • What are you trying to say, Old Bob? Are you suggesting that the contingency of Visa refusal by the Home Office in the UK, for the reasons I suggest, is a remote one?

          • Australia has refused entry visas to antivax cranks over the years. May I suggest that UK citizens approach the appropriate British authorities. For example https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-31/anti-vaxxer-kent-heckenlively-denied-australian-visa/8859586

          • Ken McLeod on Wednesday 08 June 2022 at 06:44 said:
            “Australia has refused entry visas to antivax cranks over the years. May I suggest that UK citizens approach the appropriate British authorities. For example https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-31/anti-vaxxer-kent-heckenlively-denied-australian-visa/8859586”

            Heckenlively applied for, and got an Aussie visa, then he decided to have a little fun with their government by sending this letter:
            *quote*
            “The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP
            Prime Minister
            Parliament House
            CANBERRA ACT 2600

            Re: The “Dangerous Science” Tour of Australia

            Dear Prime Minister Turnbull:

            I am very excited to visit your country in December of 2017 on my“Dangerous Science” tour…

            …If you wish to obtain more information about this effort, you can go totinyurl.com/vaccinemoratorium

            Since you are not an American citizen, you cannot sign either of the petitions. I wouldn’t want you to get in trouble, but perhaps it might give you some ideas for similar legislation in Australia.

            I understand there is a great deal of confusion over the nomenclature among many in our community, with some wishing to be called “pro-safe vaccine” or “vaccine safety”, but after much study in this field, I think I should simply be referred to as the “World’s Number One Anti-Vaxxer.” I understand there are others who may feel they deserve this title, and I am happy to share it, but let’s simply use it for the sake of convenience.

            I think you would find my book, INOCULATED: How Science Lost its Soul in Autism, to be especially revealing, as it is based upon documents provided to me by US Congressman William Posey, who in turn received these documents from whistle-blower, Dr. William Thompson, a vaccine safety scientist at our Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Thompson is currently waiting to be called to testify in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in our Congress. He has been waiting to testify for three years. I hope things move quicker in Australia, especially considering Thompson’s testimony about how the MMR vaccine is devastating our African-American male population. I imagine it is also doing the same to your aboriginal population.

            My intention in coming to Australia is to make both PLAGUE and INOCULATED the two best-selling books in Australian history, as well as to create a movement for a similar Australian FIVE YEAR MORATORIUM ON CHILDHOOD VACCINES.

            If you wish to greet me at the airport when I land I would be amenable to such an effort, or if you think our meeting should be at The Lodge, the primary residence of the Prime Minister, I would accept that as well. After all, I will be a guest in your country.

            Please don’t make too much of a fuss over my efforts, but if you would like to give me an award in recognition of my work to liberate Australia from the grip of the pharmaceutical industry, I like the sound ofThe Order of Australia, Officer of the Order. Maybe it’s the imperialist in me, but it just sounds so regal!

            I am also enclosing two articles for your review, “Australia Bans Autism Mom as an ‘ENEMY OF THE STATE’” (Bolen Report, August 10, 2017) and “Kent Heckenlively – World’s #1 Anti-Vaxxer” (Bolen Report, August 8, 2017) so you will have greater familiarity with my work.

            I look forward to visiting your beautiful country and meeting the brave citizens of Australia!

            Your Humble Servant,

            Kent Heckenlively, JD – Co-Author of PLAGUE, and author of INOCULATED, Creator of the FIVE YEAR MORATORIUM ON CHILDHOOD VACCINES campaign, World’s #1 Anti-Vaxxer.

            P.S – I really LOVE your new automated visa application form. I should already be approved by the time you get this letter! Throw a shrimp on the barbie for me, mate!

            Looking forward to the trip…

            Kent Heckenlively, JD”
            *end-of-quote*

            After this letter, the Australian government got the idea that Heckenlively was the world’s #1 anti-vaxxer and canceled his visa…

          • Only an idiot of the first order would write a letter like this to the Australian authorities to confirm he is too dangerously stupid to be admitted and let loose in the country 🙄

  • I sent the following to Manna House. I have not been given the courtesy of a response. It seems that they have no consideration for the health of their customers.

    ‘TO: ‘[email protected]’ Tue 7/06/2022 8:53 AM (Australian Eastern Standard Time.)

    ‘Dear Manna House

    ‘I see that Manna House intends to host seminars conducted by Australian ‘naturopath’ Barbara O’Neill from 19 to 26 June 2022.

    ‘Are you aware that O’Neill has been issued with a permanent Prohibition Order by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) banning her for life from providing free or paid health services? Are you aware that the ban followed an HCCC investigation which found she lacked any health-related qualifications, a degree, diploma, or membership in an accredited health organisation? Are you aware that the investigation also found that she provided dangerous, unsupported health advice to vulnerable groups?

    ‘If you are aware of all of the above, why are you intending to ignore that and proceed?

    ‘Yours sincerely

    ‘Ken McLeod’

    The text had links to the HCCC’s Prohibition Order and Investigation Report, but are not shown above. Now that Manna House are fully aware of the risks they are taking in hosting O’Neill, I wonder if they are disclosing that to their public liability insurers.

  • When you visit the Manna House website https://www.mannahousehealth.com/ a chat popup appears saying “Hi there! Welcome to the site. Let me know if you have any questions”.

    It might be an idea to ask questions about the qualifications and status of Barbara O’Neill…….

  • I have read the Testimonials on the Manna House website.

    None indicate a restoration to ‘wellness’ from any serious health condition – no cures from glioblastoma, epidermolysis bullosa, amyotrphic lateral sclerosis, etc etc.

    Sensible advice about a healthy diet, exercise and controlling thinking, are hardly secret, and any NHS GP would provide such information/advice for free.

    • “ Sensible advice about a healthy diet, exercise and controlling thinking, are hardly secret, and any NHS GP would provide such information/advice for free.”

      It would be interesting to know how many and how often they provide this free service.

      • All GP consultations in the UK are free.

        I am sure that almost everyone in the UK has at least a basic awareness that a balanced sensible diet, excercise and occupying the mind with positive things, all contribute to general health.

        • Doesn’t address my query.

          Regardless, being aware and doing it aren’t equivalent.

          Regarding being physical active:

          https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/health/diet-and-exercise/physical-activity/latest

        • I should clarify that GP consultations within the National Health Service (NHS) are free. Private, paid, GP consultations are also available from various private health service providers.

        • @DavidB

          Free GP consultations is a foreign concept for us here in US. Over the past few generations the mantra ‘socialism is bad’ has been hammered into the heads of US populace. As a result, it is very very hard for an average person in US to wrap their heads around socialized healthcare.

          • R. Daneel on Thursday 09 June 2022 at 21:16 said:

            “Free GP consultations is a foreign concept for us here in US…”

            Free-at-the-point-of-delivery:
            https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/

          • @Old Bob

            Thanks for pointing the obvious. It goes without saying that the society has to bear the cost (via taxation) of providing socialized healthcare and largely depends how the system is implemented and the politics behind it.

            When it comes to health care, US lacks the social safety net that UK has resulting in high rates of bankruptcy due to medical bills: https://www.thebalance.com/medical-bankruptcy-statistics-4154729

          • Old Bob,

            Well, of course the NHS has to be paid for, but this is through taxation and not directly by the user. The NHS is a frequent topic in the news media; politicians know that the it is a subject that everybody in the UK feels strongly about, and they try to make political capital out of it. It does have its problems (generally through certain parts of it being under-resourced), particularly when it comes to long waiting lists for routine surgery. However, if you are acutely or seriously ill you will get world-class care with no concerns about your ability to pay for it.

            The NHS is not profit-driven. Instead, treatments are assessed for cost-effectiveness. It is large enough to be able to negotiate substantial discounts from pharmaceutical companies and other suppliers. One result of this is that there is a big emphasis on preventative medicine, and a lot of what GP’s do is screening for incipient problems that stand to benefit from early interventions such as lifestyle changes.

            Most people in the UK are very proud of their NHS and are strongly opposed to any changes that could make it less effective. It has always struck me as odd that US citizens seem to feel the same way about their own healthcare system, which somehow manages to spend a great deal more money than any other country in the world but with worse outcomes than most of them.

          • The NHS is not profit-driven. Instead, treatments are assessed for cost-effectiveness. It is large enough to be able to negotiate substantial discounts from pharmaceutical companies and other suppliers. One result of this is that there is a big emphasis on preventative medicine, and a lot of what GP’s do is screening for incipient problems that stand to benefit from early interventions such as lifestyle changes.

            They also have prescribing budgets to keep to, don’t they? Non-pharmaceutical options must help with those.

          • In reply to:
            R. Daneel on Friday 10 June 2022 at 16:09 and
            Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Friday 10 June 2022 at 11:26 above.

            Both UK and US “health care” assume a right-to-health-care – that is the error: see Peikoff (December 1993):
            https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/health-care-is-not-a-right/

            quote:
            “bureaucrats begin to split hairs about how many hairs a barber should be allowed to split.”
            end of quote

          • @Old Bob,

            Ah…the Randian philosophy of Objectivism, no one can deny that it is one of the major achievements of mankind: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/05/new-right-ayn-rand-marx

            Just so everyone is clear, the difference between possibility of going bankrupt because one cannot afford their medical bills vs having a social safety net to avoid that, is basically splitting hairs according to you.

          • R. Daneel on Sunday 12 June 2022 at 15:52 said:

            “…the difference between possibility of going bankrupt because one cannot afford their medical bills vs having a social safety net to avoid that, is basically splitting hairs[?]…”

            Yes.
            Quote:
            “…an honest man is one who knows that he cannot consume more than he has produced.”
            end-of-quote.

          • Nice quote there Old Bob. You seem like a person of integrity of the highest order. I hope you keep track of monetary value of the publicly funded services (roads, education, electricity, mail etc.) that you use every day to make sure you are not consuming more than you have paid for in taxes.

          • R. Daneel on Monday 13 June 2022 at 14:59 said:
            “Nice quote there Old Bob. You seem like a person of integrity of the highest order.”

            If it were possible to have 10 minutes or more to consider (and “rewrite”) my every reply in all conversations – I could strive to be a veritable saint – enough of the fantasy…

            “…I hope you keep track of monetary value of the publicly funded services (roads, education, electricity, mail etc.) that you use every day to make sure you are not consuming more than you have paid for in taxes.”

            Having been lucky enough to be healthy all of by working life, and fully employed, by definition my ordinary-working-man’s tax-output *must* be in credit (otherwise the State would be bankrupt – it is? Well that’s no surprise – we had better all get unretired and back to work, and then some (the future generations…)).

          • Having been lucky enough to be healthy all of by working life, and fully employed, …

            Lucky enough to be healthy and working is a prerequisite for Randian Objectivism to work in real life. Many people are not so lucky enough thru no fault of theirs. Screw them, says Rand and Co.

            by definition my ordinary-working-man’s tax-output *must* be in credit

            You are making assumptions there, OldBob. You wouldn’t know unless you keep track of such things, that is of course if you wish stay true to the following quote “…an honest man is one who knows that he cannot consume more than he has produced.” that you have gleefully quoted earlier, but can’t find time to even cite it’s source as being from Ayn Rand.

            Online conversations will go more smoother if you find time to write a bit more of what you think in your posts rather than responding with obscure quotes and leaving it up to others to guess what is on your mind. But hey! enough of the fantasy. Like you said, who has the time.

          • R. Daneel on Monday 13 June 2022 at 21:27 said:

            “Lucky enough to be healthy and working is a prerequisite for Randian Objectivism to work in real life.”

            Absolutely – without the producers, we all starve.

            “Many people are not so lucky enough thru no fault of theirs…”
            This is one’s personal choice, to help or not to help, (using only one’s own resources.)
            Abandoning that responsibility to everybody else is slavery. For example, Angela Merkel’s “We welcome all refugees…” – except not in her house and as it turned out, not in anybody else’s either, likewise the UK shipping refugees to Rwanda.

            “You wouldn’t know unless you keep track of such things, that is of course if you wish stay true to the following quote “…an honest man is one who knows that he cannot consume more than he has produced.” that you have gleefully quoted…”

            Everybody knows when they are gaming the system or not (without having to employ an accountant) the difference is guilt or happiness (and, as a side effect, good health).

            “but can’t find time to even cite its source as being from Ayn Rand.”
            That was deliberate, it forces anyone who is unfamiliar to go to the source and not e.g. to your link above (e.g. that link uses “billionaires” where Rand always uses “looters” (in today’s context of “private-public” partnerships)).

            “Online conversations will go more smoother if you find time to write a bit more of what you think in your posts rather than responding with obscure quotes and leaving it up to others to guess what is on your mind…”
            Who is John Galt 🙂 Sorry, I could not resist! “…never use humor…” (Rand).

            The pattern with Rand is that everybody quotes the tunnel disaster (e.g. that link above) as “proof” (that is left to the mind of the reader – there are two opposite “opinions” – but only one is true).

            Suppose I try to justify one of those opinions. In a couple of paragraphs… me, an unknown nobody, explain, what has taken a work of art, half the book (it’s long e.g. Galt’s speech is 50 pages (I am guessing)) (my quote from the money-speech is probably ten pages long) to reach (the point is still the same point being made throughout the entire book).

            Instead, Rand had already written at length (e.g. The Fountainhead) about Objectivism, but the critics seemed to think that it was “…[a book about architecture]” (the closet Rand gets to humor) so in Atlas, it is made more explicit, again and again, as “Who is John Galt”, in such a way that the reader “can” guess, right from the start, but at the same time, cannot (in other words, the message, evolves in the mind of the reader in advance, before it is made absolutely explicit (Galt’s speech) and then again absolutely explicit in Hank Rearden’s mind when he is proportioned by Mr Thompson…

            A critic of Atlas said “It’s just a love story.”
            To which Rand replied, “That’s all it ever was.”

            A critic of We The Living said, “What does she know about communism?” (left as an exercise for the reader).

            The same thing is happening today all around us: one group thinks that vaccines are “safe and effective” while the other group says the opposite. Whichever is true depends on the mind of the reader and is a matter of life and death: either to think or to blindly follow (both sides accuse the other of doing this: only one can be true).

          • @OldBob

            Absolutely – without the producers, we all starve.

            Therefore, they need to be put on a pedestal and worshiped, and a start of class-based system to discriminate against different groups of people.

            This is one’s personal choice, to help or not to help,

            I am not talking about one’s choice. I am talking about the collective choice (via the government). You wouldn’t understand because you drank the cool aid that is called individualism.

            Everybody knows when they are gaming the system or not (without having to employ an accountant) the difference is guilt or happiness (and, as a side effect, good health).

            Or delude themselves that they are not gaming the system and that system owes them. That is in essence the backdrop of several of Rand’s writings.

            That was deliberate, it forces anyone who is unfamiliar to go to the source ..

            A brilliant cop out for not having to cite quotes of others.

            Suppose I try to justify one of those opinions. In a couple of paragraphs… me, an unknown nobody, explain, what has taken a work of art, half the book

            Another cop out for being lazy. I suppose you are neither a “producer” of thoughts nor an effective communicator of Rand’s philosophy.

            The same thing is happening today all around us: one group thinks that vaccines are “safe and effective” while the other group says the opposite. Whichever is true depends on the mind of the reader and is a matter of life and death: either to think or to blindly follow (both sides accuse the other of doing this: only one can be true).

            Depends on evidence and science. One can delude themselves that vaccines are unsafe (we see several commenters on here in this boat) against all evidence to the contrary.

          • R. Daneel on Tuesday 14 June 2022 at 15:35 said:

            “Therefore, they need to be put on a pedestal and worshiped…”

            Quote
            “…Or did you say money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? Not the strength of guns or muscles. Money is the product of man’s capacity to think, then is money made by the man who invents the motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? By the intelligent at the expense of the fools, by the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made, before it can be looted or mooched, made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows he cannot consume more than he has produced.” (Rand – Francisco’s money speech, circa paragraph 5).
            end-of-quote

            R. Daneel also said:
            “I am not talking about one’s choice. I am talking about the collective choice (via the government)…”

            The “collective choice” of “lockdown”, “masking”, “mandated-medical-intervention” etc – who makes these “collective decisions”? The government, as you say: a small elite of “experts” or an emperor? Based on nothing at all e.g. 6 feet for “social distancing” – where’s the science for that?.

            As we know, since the forced release of FDA data, there is no science, only fraud – that is *always* the result of “the collective” from history as generalised in Animal Farm, 1984, Atlas etc.

            “The collective” means the necessary sacrifice of individuals for “the common good” because group rights destroy individual rights, destroy individuals, for example: Maddie de Garay.

          • watch it OB: just because you are paranoid does not mean THEY are not following you!

          • @Old Bob

            You were barely coherent earlier but now you are not making any sense at all. It appears that my usage of the word “collective” caused a short circuit in your brain. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

          • We might be losing sight, in this thought-swamp, of the fact that this woman, who has no health qualifications at all and who is banned in Australia from giving health advice for money or for free, is being given a platform in the UK to practice consumer fraud and to endanger people’s health.

          • precisely

          • R. Daneel on Wednesday 15 June 2022 at 03:50 said:

            “You were barely coherent earlier but now you are not making any sense at all. It appears that my usage of the word “collective” caused a short circuit in your brain. 🤣🤣🤣🤣”

            Hey guys, we have this terrific idea! Let’s start a collective! Everybody will work for everybody else and no one will own anything, let’s call it The Great Leap Forward…

          • DavidB on Wednesday 15 June 2022 at 09:41 said:

            “We might be losing sight, in this thought-swamp, of the fact that this woman, who has no health qualifications at all and who is banned in Australia from giving health advice for money or for free, is being given a platform in the UK to practice consumer fraud and to endanger people’s health.”

            So what’s wrong with the law, why is she not in jail? For all the people she has harmed.

            The problem with mob-rule is… (left as an exercise for the reader).

          • The Law in Australia has dealt with her in Australia. She has been banned from ‘practice’ for money or for free in Australia.

            The law in the UK has not yet caught up with her. In general, the law is probably insufficiently robust when it comes to consumer health fraud.

            The situation with Mrs O’neill might be compared to that with the Gerson Clinic, set up in Mexico because it cannot legally operate in the USA.

          • DabidB on Wednesday 15 June 2022 at 11:07 said:

            “…The situation with Mrs O’neill might be compared to that with the Gerson Clinic, set up in Mexico because it cannot legally operate in the USA.”

            Quote p 258, 266 Dr Max Gerson by Straus:
            “For the ten years after he had first opened his medical practice in New York City in 1937…in 1950, he [switched to] a building located at 815 Park Avenue…”

            He lived on merit alone – by results paid for by the people he treated.

            He was such a threat to the medical fraternity that he was under constant attack while he lived including the theft of his manuscript (2 years of work) that he rewrote at 75 – 77 years of age.

            The fact that Gerson Therapy clinics are banned from the US is the *proof* of his success, but if not convinced, see his book that is still successful today:
            https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Therapy-Results-Fifty-Advanced/dp/0961152621/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=a+cancer+therapy+max+gerson&qid=1655296086&sprefix=a+cancer+the%2Caps%2C253&sr=8-1

            So you are comparing this woman to Gerson? Are you sure?

          • OB: your paranoia is shining through again, I fear.

          • Old Bob,

            The fact that Gerson Therapy clinics are banned from the US is the *proof* of his success, but if not convinced, see his book that is still successful today

            The book might be successful but the same cannot be said of the treatment.

            I have had a look at Max Gerson’s original case series, and most of the successes claimed were in people who had already had conventional treatment, which seems to me to be a more likely explanation for their outcomes.

            I have also seen the effects of Gerson Therapy first-hand, and the treatment is so difficult and the diet so strange and un-physiological that people attempting it feel very unwell as a result and often stop because they can’t keep it up.

            I have only seen one person with cancer survive longer than three weeks after starting Gerson therapy. There is no good evidence that it is effective treatment for cancer or anything else, and no plausible mechanism whereby it might be. The ideas behind it are nearly a century old and our knowledge of physiology and pathology has moved on somewhat in the intervening years. However, it is still an effective way of separating desperate people from their money.

            Gerson Therapy has been discussed at length in another thread.

          • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Wednesday 15 June 2022 at 23:58 said:

            “I have had a look at Max Gerson’s original case series, and most of the successes claimed were in people who had already had conventional treatment, which seems to me to be a more likely explanation for their outcomes.”

            Gerson’s reply:
            The AMA, “You are banned for advertising!”
            Gerson, “I don’t need to advertise, I have too many patients.”
            “Where do you get your patients from?”
            “First they go to you, then a chiropractor, then they come to me, why don’t you cure them?”

            JMK continued with:
            “I have only seen one person with cancer survive longer than three weeks after starting Gerson therapy. There is no good evidence that it is effective treatment for cancer or anything else…”

            In that case there would be no Gerson and no Gerson Therapy.

          • OB: please try to make some sense and comment on the subject of the post.
            Otherwise, you are out.

          • The Geriatric Roberto looks to me like a Troll now.

          • Edzard on Thursday 16 June 2022 at 09:57 said:

            “OB: please try to make some sense and comment on the subject of the post.
            Otherwise, you are out.”

            The subject is: should we use force to censure another human being? What are the criteria?

            The answer is “science” or “the scientific method” such as “clinical trials” – everything rational, exact, perfect, deterministic -> everything that is inhuman and inhumane (and unnatural) in the name of humanity – a contradiction – that is why force is required: because nature will not be controlled, not by man or anything else – that is the beauty of it all, the mystery: we don’t know, we cannot know, what is the future, the reality that is buried in the root of science: the unknowable.

            If this woman is to be tried by mass formation, then ultimately so shall the rest of us, in our turn, by blind compliance to… nothing at all: some “rational” target of “perfection” as defined by someone who is “perfect”? In some hellish eutopia? By the rule of Fear?

            Everyone here has judged this woman by… watching her videos? Listening to what she has to say? And yet you *know* all about her, by omniscience? Who is going to cast the first stone? Evidently “everybody” because everybody else says so. “If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” (Patton).

        • DavidB: “All GP consultations in the UK are free.”

          Except the ones that are not.
          Patients are entitled to seek private GP consultations, and GPs are entitled to conduct them.

  • @DavidB

    “a balanced sensible diet” ?

    Please, David you left the barn door wide open, that means different things to everyone. Most of the general public wouldn’t know what’s a sensible diet if their life depended on it…. (and it does).
    Even if they read five books on the subject, they would come away with differing opinions.
    Do you really think MD’s that have little to no formal education in nutrition are going to teach their clients how to eat ?
    hmmm

    The diet recommended in the link below (food pyramid -click to enlarge) is completely outdated and misses the mark. This is probably something like MD’s today might recommend to patients. In other words, the authorities are recommending a diet of at least 60% carbohydrates… OUCH ! … a sugar diet.

    https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-clinics/cancer-nutrition-services/reducing-cancer-risk/food-guide-pyramid.html

    • @Roger

      “a balanced sensible diet” ? – Please, David you left the barn door wide open, that means different things to everyone.

      Yes, you are correct (hurrah!). This indeed means different things to everyone – since nutritional needs differ from person to person, depending on the current state of health, age, amount of exercise … An elderly overweight person with a sedentary lifestyle has completely different nutritional needs than a lean 25-year-old professional athlete. Then again, the basic advice is sound: the optimal diet should indeed be varied and balanced. How much of each food group is optimal, depends on the person.

      Do you really think MD’s that have little to no formal education in nutrition …

      Well, bugger me with a fish fork! You are correct again! Both doctors and educators indeed find the attention for nutrition in the medical curriculum lacking, and advise changes to address this.

      …are going to teach their clients how to eat ?

      Despite the above, most doctors (and laypeople for that matter) know that most persons with overweight should cut down on carbohydrates and fat, and that people with high blood pressure should reduce their salt intake etc. And of course they can refer patients to properly trained nutritionists who are experts on the subject matter, and are also better capable of coaching people with regard to their nutrition. The greatest difficulty lies not so much in determining the appropriate dietary and other lifestyle changes, but in getting patients to adopt permanent changes in their diet and exercise patterns. There are of course details that need to be addressed, such as making certain that people who severely cut down on animal-sourced foods still get enough vitamin B12, for instance.

      he authorities are recommending a diet of at least 60% carbohydrates

      Well, yes? Most people primarily need food for their energy, so the proportion of carbohydrates and fat is relatively high compared to proteins and fibres. Also note that this is a percentage.

      … OUCH ! … a sugar diet.

      Um, not exactly. Sugar = carbohydrates, but carbohydrates ≠ sugar. The recommendation is that actual sugars make up less than 10% of this proportion – see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_(nutrition). The bulk of the carbohydrate intake should come from starches and other complex carbohydrates.

      • @Richard Rasker

        Sorry Richard, but you know little on this subject, you can count yourself among the ignorant MD’s I refer to. There is more to the equation than you imply with your useless bantering.
        I’ll inform you now that the human body NEEDS ZERO sugars to be consumed to survive and be healthy. If the body reaches a state that it needs sugars, it will produce the sugars itself.
        Thousands and thousands… perhaps millions live year after year eating only protein and fats. They are in fact not only healthy, but in better health after halting the consumption of all sugars and carbs. Many leaving behind chronic disease with their former standard diets. Treat yourself to 50-100 grams of carbs per day….enjoy !

        I’ll refer you to one of the best sources of information on the subject of insulin. The presentation available in the link is quite good, even you might learn something. (video presentation at lower end of website link).
        https://www.goodfat.bar/benjamin-bikman/

        • Mr Joromat,

          perhaps millions live year after year eating only protein and fats. They are in fact not only healthy, but in better health after halting the consumption of all sugars and carbs.

          I am curious to know what they eat. There aren’t many foods that don’t contain carbohydrates, unless the protein and fat has been extracted artificially.

          Sugars ARE carbohydrates, of course.

          • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle
            The Inuit traditionally live on a diet that is very low in carbohydrates, and very high in protein and fat. Also, palaeolithical hunter-gatherers are believed to have had a diet consisting of almost only meat and fat – at least as long as it was available, and in places and times where other food sources were scarce.

            But apart from these exceptions, there is nothing inherently wrong with carbohydrates being a substantial part of our diet; they’re a perfectly fine source of energy. Just don’t eat too much of it, that’s all – and cut it down even further when overweight.

            But I think Roger James is just trolling by pretending to have superior knowledge, complete with a matching new-found guru.

          • Richard,

            Meat still contains sugars, of course, which is what causes the delicious smell and taste when you brown the meat and they caramelise (the Maillard reactions).

            The Masai in Kenya also have an extreme diet. They are cattle herders and subsist almost entirely on a diet of blood (from venesecting bulls) and milk, which they mix together and ferment to give a disgusting-looking liquid that resembles bloody pus. I once had the opportunity to try it but declined. Occasionally they will kill an animal and eat meat. They have hardly anything plant-based in their diet at all. They are remarkably healthy and often live to a ripe old age. They are also very tough – I spoke to a doctor once who treated a Masai who had been mauled by a lion and walked 70 miles to hospital holding his intestines in. It is unusual for one of them to be attacked by a lion as they are the only thing that lions are frightened of, and they have a distinctive appearance, being tall and thin, wearing a red blanket and carrying a spear, and often standing still on one leg. From a distance they look like knitting (with the needles through the ball of wool).

          • @ Dr. Julian

            Yes doctor, I am aware that sugars are carbs. I sited both because though similar, they can be different.

            What do we eat ? Well, I’ll admit, the total options to consume are far less than what Bikman refers to as the Standard American Diet.
            I personally eat large amounts of avocados, eggs, red meat, pork, fish and chicken. There are many vegetables that are also low in carbs. Broccoli lettuce kale broccoli bell pepper garlic asparagus green beans … among others.

            I also eat full fat dairy (un-sweetened yogurt), some nuts (mostly walnuts), which both do give me small amounts of carbs. Coconut is also a healthy option. I also get a few carbs via an occasional low-carb beer or low sugar wine (Pinot Noir among others).

            If the diet is too restrictive, take one or two days per week and go off the diet. Or, use IF to alter food consumption to restrict insulin spiking. It’s a matter of changing habits.

          • James Joromat (a.k.a Listener, Ruthy and RG) says:

            It’s a matter of changing habits.

            Richard Rasker said

            The greatest difficulty lies not so much in determining the appropriate dietary and other lifestyle changes, but in getting patients to adopt permanent changes in their diet and exercise patterns.

            James Joromat (a.k.a Listener, Ruthy and RG),

            You came to the same conclusion as Richard did earlier, all the while bitching and moaning about how you are right and Richard is wrong. Any mention of diet, diabetes or related terms brings you out of the woodwork like cockroaches in a dark kitchen, screaming insulin resistance and Bikman diet. Before you go on and on about your damn diet (which you have done again and again under different pseudonyms) do you have anything to say about the topic of this blog post? If not, I recommend that you be banned from posting about your stupid diet on unrelated posts.

          • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle

            Meat still contains sugars, of course, which is what causes the delicious smell and taste when you brown the meat and they caramelise (the Maillard reactions).

            There’s a bit of a conundrum then, as I’ve always understood that meat contains no carbohydrates to speak of. The main carbohydrate naturally present in muscle tissue is glycogen, but that is rapidly converted into lactic acid after the animal is slaughtered.
            Yet Maillard reactions obviously take place when grilling or frying meat. So what sugars are involved if not glycogen? I’m genuinely curious.

          • Yes doctor, I am aware that sugars are carbs. I sited both because though similar, they can be different.

            Nope, you claimed (or at the very least implied) that carbohydrates are sugars, not that they are different.

          • JM-K wrote: Meat still contains sugars, of course, which is what causes the delicious smell and taste when you brown the meat and they caramelise (the Maillard reactions).

            “Caramelization is an entirely different process from Maillard browning…”
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction

          • Pete Attkins,

            Thank-you for the correction, and that interesting and informative link.

        • Mr Joromat,

          I personally eat large amounts of avocados, eggs, red meat, pork, fish and chicken. There are many vegetables that are also low in carbs. Broccoli lettuce kale broccoli bell pepper garlic asparagus green beans … among others.

          I also eat full fat dairy (un-sweetened yogurt), some nuts (mostly walnuts), which both do give me small amounts of carbs. Coconut is also a healthy option.

          You said “They are in fact not only healthy, but in better health after halting the consumption of all sugars and carbs.”. These foods are low in carbohydrate, but if you eat them you are not halting the consumption of all sugars and carbs.

          • @Dr. Julian

            Yes, you are correct doctor.

            I confused the issue by including myself (low carb diet), with the carnivores that you inquired about that do not eat any carbs.
            A person that does not eat any carbs is considered a carnivore, so they would eat only proteins and fats. No nuts, avocados, or yogurt for them. That would eliminate many if not most plants also. No beer or wine either.

            These plants are considered carb-free;
            Olives, Spinach, Bok Choy, Cucumber, Broccoli.

            Apologize for the confusion

          • James Joromat:

            These plants are considered carb-free;
            Olives, Spinach, Bok Choy, Cucumber, Broccoli.

            “Green olives are 75% water, 15% fat, 4% carbohydrates and 1% protein”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive#Nutrition

            “Raw spinach is 91% water, 4% carbohydrates, 3% protein, and contains negligible fat.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinach#Nutrients

            “The raw vegetable [bok choy] is 95% water, 2% carbohydrates, 1% protein and less than 1% fat.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bok_choy#Nutritional_value

            “Raw cucumber (with peel) is 95% water, 4% carbohydrates, 1% protein, and contains negligible fat.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucumber#Nutrition,_aroma,_and_taste

            “Raw broccoli is 89% water, 7% carbohydrates, 3% protein, and contains negligible fat.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broccoli#Nutrition

            For comparison:
            “a typical raw potato is 79% water, 17% carbohydrates (88% is starch), 2% protein, and contains negligible fat”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Nutrition

            So they’re lower (in some cases considerably lower) in carbohydrate than potato, but by no means carbohydrate free.

            In cucumbers, a nearly half (46%) of the carbohydrates are present as sugars, and in broccoli about 25% of the carbohydrates are sugars (nutrition tables from the corresponding links above).

          • @prl

            I did not say those plants ARE carb-free. I said they are considered to be carb-free (by those seeking out foods to eat on a low carb diet).
            I stand by my comment.

          • that’s enough now!
            either you contribute something meaningful here or you are out.

  • @Richard Rasker

    You said;
    “But apart from these exceptions, there is nothing inherently wrong with carbohydrates being a substantial part of our diet”
    Sure Richard, you can own that narrative. Especially if you don’t mind being taking meds long term to attempt to inhibit your pains resulting from inflammation, and other meds to attempt to deal with more deadly chronic diseases.

    New Guru ? ….. I suppose, but not that new (18 months), and perhaps with reason since I live the diet. I also know others that have benefited from living Dr. Bikman’s dietary advice. He has had much more impact on my health than most any personal medical doctor I’ve visited in my 65 years. Some of which clearly had a negative impact.

    So Richard
    You agree, you disagree with Dr. Bikman ?
    I doubt you even heard his presentation. I know Richard, you’re busy looking for something you can scan in thirty seconds.

    • RG

      You are aware of how long carbohydrates have provided the bulk of human calorific demand?

      Your Appeal To Antiquity is yet another of the logical fallacies you so gleefully embrace.

      The rules of sensible eating for humans are very simple.

      Eat food.

      Not too much.

      Mainly plants.

      That a lot of people disregard this is their decision. But you’re a libertarian. Shouldn’t you be applauding this?

      • @Lenny
        The simple fact that we have amylase in our saliva tells us that throughout history, human diet must have contained significant amounts of starch and other complex carbohydrates.
        As the linked article suggests, this does not apply to all humans, and not all of the time – but obviously, prehistoric humans did consume carbohydrates, otherwise we would not have amylase(*).

        As a funny side note: there are amylase supplements available that help digest starch. These have legitimate uses for people who for some reason don’t produce enough amylase themselves, which results in all sorts of intestinal complaints. But it appears that lots of health loonies now take these supplements for no other reason than that they’re supplements, speeding up the uptake of sugars from starch – which is deemed unhealthy rather than healthy (cf. ‘fast carbohydrates’).

        *: E.g. obligate carnivores do not have amylase in their saliva.

  • here is the article in THE TIMES (behind a paywall; if someone could send me the complete article, I’d be thankful)
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/banned-wellness-lecturer-barbara-oneill-offers-1-400-course-in-uk-g9xs36wvt

  • Sadly the Scotland edition of The Times does not appear to have the article. A pity, since Pages 32 and 33 have a double-page spread on advances in cancer treatment.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

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

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

Archives
Categories