Cure For Cancer

Jimmeh · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 10 2005, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ May 10 2005, 10:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 10 2005, 09:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ May 10 2005, 12:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Eat healthy -> Get healthier -> Have a stronger immune system -> Fight off disease easier. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That has no affect on cancer, I can assure you on that one. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Why not? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I was the prime example of health. That is how I know.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Notice how CForrester said "Fight off disease easier" not "Totally immune to disease".

CForrester · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 10 2005, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ May 10 2005, 10:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 10 2005, 09:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ May 10 2005, 12:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Eat healthy -> Get healthier -> Have a stronger immune system -> Fight off disease easier. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That has no affect on cancer, I can assure you on that one. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Why not? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I was the prime example of health. That is how I know.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
And what about others who have successfully fought off cancer, partially because they improved their eating and exercise habits?

Also, have you taken every factor in to consideration? Perhaps your immune system was compromised, there are so many factors that you can't say "someone who is much healthier than someone else still has the same risk of getting cancer".

In the end, Jimmeh is right. I said what I meant.

Cyndane · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ May 10 2005, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 10 2005, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ May 10 2005, 10:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 10 2005, 09:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ May 10 2005, 12:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Eat healthy -> Get healthier -> Have a stronger immune system -> Fight off disease easier. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That has no affect on cancer, I can assure you on that one. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Why not? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I was the prime example of health. That is how I know. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
And what about others who have successfully fought off cancer, partially because they improved their eating and exercise habits?

Also, have you taken every factor in to consideration? Perhaps your immune system was compromised, there are so many factors that you can't say "someone who is much healthier than someone else still has the same risk of getting cancer".

In the end, Jimmeh is right. I said what I meant.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Then they must have had really bad health to begin with.

Even after I was sick, and still ate healthy and it didn't completely help, nor did I heal any faster then anyone.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ May 10 2005, 10:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Since when is radiation therapy or chemotherapy peddled on TV? And hell, writing someone of for dead is the honest thing to do if there is no treatment deemed to be usefull. Cleaning up their bank account or getting their friends and family in debt to supply some false hope is so imoral it's not even funny.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ummm...have you not seen all the drugs advertised to alleviate problems associated with conventional treatments.

It is only immoral if the advertised cure is known to be false.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So? You being angry changes nothing. A statistical sample of one changes nothing.

Flecing someone and leaving them for dead is infinetly worse than giving them a small but REAL hope.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'm not angry, I'm annoyed at your apparent disdain for methods like Gerson which you haven't even bothered to research properly.

And a statistic of one does change something: It means the treatment is not 100% effective.

It's only worse if its proven wrong.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I don't need to do any serious research on gerson because neither did Gerson himself(if you wish to claim that he did, point me to that peer-reviewed paper in a non-crummy journal please).

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And there we have it, without a paper in a non-crummy journal it ain't worth jack.

Shame.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quick overview of gerson therapy as I see it: 'invented' circa 1930's and is based on the belief that toxins are the cause of cancer(even when the cancer is established), and that removing the toxins will remove the cancer.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If you're interested see:

Max Gerson,M.D. A Cancer Therapy. Results of fifty cases.

I'm assuming you're not, then fine, have a nice day.

Btw...what line of work are you in? You seem to have more than a casual interest here.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 10 2005, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ May 10 2005, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 10 2005, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ May 10 2005, 10:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 10 2005, 09:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ May 10 2005, 12:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Eat healthy -> Get healthier -> Have a stronger immune system -> Fight off disease easier. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That has no affect on cancer, I can assure you on that one. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Why not? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I was the prime example of health. That is how I know. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
And what about others who have successfully fought off cancer, partially because they improved their eating and exercise habits?

Also, have you taken every factor in to consideration? Perhaps your immune system was compromised, there are so many factors that you can't say "someone who is much healthier than someone else still has the same risk of getting cancer".

In the end, Jimmeh is right. I said what I meant. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Then they must have had really bad health to begin with.

Even after I was sick, and still ate healthy and it didn't completely help, nor did I heal any faster then anyone.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Define "ate healthy" please Cydane

theclam · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 10 2005, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm not angry, I'm annoyed at your apparent disdain for methods like Gerson which you haven't even bothered to research properly.
...
And there we have it, without a paper in a non-crummy journal it ain't worth jack.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Exactly. People shouldn't go peddling medical treatments, especially ones that preclude conventional medical treatment, without proving that those treatments are effective. Would you like to return to the 19th Century, when "curative tonics" were peddled without any evidence that they actually worked?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And a statistic of one does change something: It means the treatment is not 100% effective.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't think anyone claims that radiation therapy is 100% effective.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Max Gerson,M.D. A Cancer Therapy. Results of fifty cases.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It would be helpful if you provided a link.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 10 2005, 07:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 10 2005, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm not angry, I'm annoyed at your apparent disdain for methods like Gerson which you haven't even bothered to research properly.
...
And there we have it, without a paper in a non-crummy journal it ain't worth jack. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Exactly. People shouldn't go peddling medical treatments, especially ones that preclude conventional medical treatment, without proving that those treatments are effective. Would you like to return to the 19th Century, when "curative tonics" were peddled without any evidence that they actually worked?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And a statistic of one does change something: It means the treatment is not 100% effective.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't think anyone claims that radiation therapy is 100% effective.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Max Gerson,M.D. A Cancer Therapy. Results of fifty cases.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It would be helpful if you provided a link.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Well,

The point is the act of publishing a paper has no bearing on whether something in reality works or not.

I'm not claiming that all "alternative" treatments are sound. As far Gerson goes I'm not even an authority but the idea of nutrition to fight cancer and other diseases makes good sense.

As for the statistic, I was pointing out that 1 death makes a difference. I did not claim that anybody else claimed radiation to be 100% effective.

For a link I'm afraid I just a have a book:

You may be able to see some pages/reviews on amazon here:

<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0961152621/qid=1115772472/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-9261338-6869749' target='_blank'>Gerson on Amazon</a>

Not that those people's stories count for good scientific evidence or anything, naturally. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' />

Cyndane · May 2005

Unlike some people, I prefer to keep my personal life personal (If you really wish to know details I will share, but not on a main message board.) however, if you wish to know what I was advised to do before and after treatments.

<a href='http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MBC/content/MBC_6_2X_What_to_do_before_treatment.asp?sitearea=MBC' target='_blank'>Before cancer treatments</a>

<a href='http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MBC/content/MBC_6_2X_Nutrition_after_treatment_ends.asp?sitearea=MBC' target='_blank'>After treatments</a>

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 10 2005, 08:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Unlike some people, I prefer to keep my personal life personal (If you really wish to know details I will share, but not on a main message board.) however, if you wish to know what I was advised to do before and after treatments.

<a href='http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MBC/content/MBC_6_2X_What_to_do_before_treatment.asp?sitearea=MBC' target='_blank'>Before cancer treatments</a>

<a href='http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MBC/content/MBC_6_2X_Nutrition_after_treatment_ends.asp?sitearea=MBC' target='_blank'>After treatments</a> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I do not wish to pry here Cydane. I was just interested though because something like the Gerson treatment has very extreme dietary demands such as drinking fresh (from an organic source from a low-heat juicer) vegetable and fruit juices hourly.

All I'm saying is that I don't think you can write it off totally unless you went through a Gerson-like diet.

Cyndane · May 2005

Actually I am not talking about the gerson diet, I was referring to Forresters statement that healthier diet means you can fight cancer better, whichi is not the case.

Cancer cells are regular cells that have mutated on their own usually due to raditation or some form of mutatation depends on the cells. That is why a healthy diet won't do anything against them. The body, until they start spreading treats them like regular cells.

Soylent_green · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ummm...have you not seen all the drugs advertised to alleviate problems associated with conventional treatments.

It is only immoral if the advertised cure is known to be false.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, but that might be because I don't live in the US.(we get things like anti-dandruff schampoo, various vitamin/mineral supliment and aspirin commercials over here.)

It's highly immoral when the cure is unproven, claims miraculous results and steers people away from non-hokus pokus medicine.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I'm not angry, I'm annoyed at your apparent disdain for methods like Gerson which you haven't even bothered to research properly.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But neither did Gerson, if he did proper research he would have a paper in a peer reviewed journal. Anyone can write their own book, that counts for nothing.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And a statistic of one does change something: It means the treatment is not 100% effective.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

We all knew that, so it doesn't change anything.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And there we have it, without a paper in a non-crummy journal it ain't worth jack.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is correct. If it doesn't stand up to peer review, it's not interesting.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If you're interested see:

Max Gerson,M.D. A Cancer Therapy. Results of fifty cases.

I'm assuming you're not, then fine, have a nice day.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I don't want to read a huge book by the guy himself, it will be far from peer reviewed. You can publish any mumbo jumbo if you want to, hell, nothing is stopping you from outright lying or sweeping the cases where it did jack all under the rug and pretending they don't exist. Besides, the basic idea is known to be rubbish, cancer is not dependent on toxins for it's continued 'survival'.

I'm not an M.D. and neither are you, so why would you be the least bit interested in reading non-peer reviewed books? Things are peer-reviewed as a safety net so that you don't have to be a research scientist in the field to be able to sift through what is a proper study and what is not.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Btw...what line of work are you in? You seem to have more than a casual interest here.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So do you, *wink wink* <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />.

It just annoys me to see people waste time, money and health on the same alternative medicine mumbo jumbo peddled by the same dubious means they did 100 years ago.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ May 10 2005, 10:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> . </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
No, but that might be because I don't live in the US.(we get things like anti-dandruff schampoo, various vitamin/mineral supliment and aspirin commercials over here.)

It's highly immoral when the cure is unproven, claims miraculous results and steers people away from non-hokus pokus medicine.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Here its a continual barrage of things like procrit (red blood cell production). Though we have the fair share of what you mentioned as well.

Unproven ? Perhaps by your standards

Miraculous claims: Yes, but this comes from ordinary people as well that followed the diet.

non-hokus-pokus steerage: Well, medicine that destroys cells versus one that is supposed to help heal naturally probably are not the best partner therapies.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
But neither did Gerson, if he did proper research he would have a paper in a peer reviewed journal. Anyone can write their own book, that counts for nothing.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, apparently he did:

" But, because it did cure many cases of advanced tuberculosis, heart disease, cancer and numerous lesser conditions, the Gerson Therapy was established as a major contribution to the medical field, through the publication of articles in peer reviewed medical literature. Gerson first published on the topic of cancer in 1945, almost forty years before the adoption of the current official U.S. National Cancer Institute program on diet, nutrition, and cancer.'"

I don't have a link I'm afraid.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I don't want to read a huge book by the guy himself, it will be far from peer reviewed. You can publish any mumbo jumbo if you want to, hell, nothing is stopping you from outright lying or sweeping the cases where it did jack all under the rug and pretending they don't exist. Besides, the basic idea is known to be rubbish, cancer is not dependent on toxins for it's continued 'survival'.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes but science in general continually revalidates its ideas about old theories. If for example the theory of electrictiy is not entirely accurate: fine...but does that mean that our current model precludes deriving any useful applications from it ? no

If Gerson's original working premise was off base - does that necessarily mean that any means of treatment he developed is automatically garbage ? Of course not. He may have stumbled onto something amazing while not fully understanding the how and why of it.

As for your idea about double-blind studies etc etc. How many drugs get recalled from the market because they mess people up ? Plenty! So how successful is this type of testing really?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It just annoys me to see people waste time, money and health on the same alternative medicine mumbo jumbo peddled by the same dubious means they did 100 years ago.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I agree with you that some of it is mumbo jumbo. Gerson is legitimate as far as I'm concerned.

Mintman · May 2005

From the news yesterday, I don't get involved with discussions but it is relevant information: <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4532569.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4532569.stm</a>

theclam · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 11 2005, 01:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
But neither did Gerson, if he did proper research he would have a paper in a peer reviewed journal. Anyone can write their own book, that counts for nothing.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, apparently he did:

" But, because it did cure many cases of advanced tuberculosis, heart disease, cancer and numerous lesser conditions, the Gerson Therapy was established as a major contribution to the medical field, through the publication of articles in peer reviewed medical literature. Gerson first published on the topic of cancer in 1945, almost forty years before the adoption of the current official U.S. National Cancer Institute program on diet, nutrition, and cancer.'"

I don't have a link I'm afraid.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Did Gerson publish in a major medical journal, or did he publish a book? Your quote doesn't say.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes but science in general continually revalidates its ideas about old theories. If for example the theory of electrictiy is not entirely accurate: fine...but does that mean that our current model precludes deriving any useful applications from it ? no

If Gerson's original working premise was off base - does that necessarily mean that any means of treatment he developed is automatically garbage ? Of course not. He may have stumbled onto something amazing while not fully understanding the how and why of it.

As for your idea about double-blind studies etc etc. How many drugs get recalled from the market because they mess people up ? Plenty! So how successful is this type of testing really?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Double blind studies are the best way to prove drug efficacy. The proof that Gerson has is anecdotal. When I hear about drugs getting recalled from the market, it's because they have bad side-effects, not because they don't work (see Vioxx).

Do you have any better way of proving that a treatment works?

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 11 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Did Gerson publish in a major medical journal, or did he publish a book? Your quote doesn't say.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The impression I got from gerson.org is that he did both. That's unfortunately the extent of what I can provide at this stage.

Perhaps you know of some kind of archive?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Double blind studies are the best way to prove drug efficacy. The proof that Gerson has is anecdotal. When I hear about drugs getting recalled from the market, it's because they have bad side-effects, not because they don't work (see Vioxx).

Do you have any better way of proving that a treatment works?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, drug A may treat ailment B, as noted in the study. The problem though is that if drug A causes C then it is not an acceptable treatment.

The idea of whether they "work" or not is irrelevant if the cure is not viable due to side-effects. If the study in question does not capture side effects then again, what is the point of the study in the first place? I.E. it is not good enough to merely prove that it treats A, but it must also _ prove it does not cause C _.

As for a better way of proving a treatment works:

Well, apart from observing numerous case studies over a long period of time I can't really imagine how you can prove that anything works conclusively. And yes I realize that it is pretty much impossible to lock someone up in a room and eliminate all possible variables to conclusively show that healing is due to certain factors only.

Such is life though, we learn by experience over time. Is it ever possible to eliminate every single variable? Gerson at least has _decades_ of case history behind it with modifications to the treatment that were added/eliminated over time as results (either good or bad) took place. This is much like the way a baby learns to walk; it doesn't follow some 'proven' theory, it learns by experience.

Regardless though: It seems that drugs go through plenty of conventional studies and yet harmful side effects are either glossed over or not discovered till later.

What if side-effects take years to show up? This is a major flaw with conventional treatments and thinking. It is the mindset of I'm going to treat A and only worry about A. Nevermind that the body tends to adjust to the drug and cause even more problems down the road.

Alternative treatments like Gerson usually target the body as a whole system and encourage healing naturally with almost no side-effects. It is the belief that we should give the body more credit for its recuperative ability and make sure it is helped and _not controlled_.

Soylent_green · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The impression I got from gerson.org is that he did both. That's unfortunately the extent of what I can provide at this stage.

Perhaps you know of some kind of archive?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Lovely unbiased source for info. Still, point at what journal and when.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes but science in general continually revalidates its ideas about old theories. If for example the theory of electrictiy is not entirely accurate: fine...but does that mean that our current model precludes deriving any useful applications from it ? no

If Gerson's original working premise was off base - does that necessarily mean that any means of treatment he developed is automatically garbage ? Of course not. He may have stumbled onto something amazing while not fully understanding the how and why of it.

As for your idea about double-blind studies etc etc. How many drugs get recalled from the market because they mess people up ? Plenty! So how successful is this type of testing really?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The problem is, you need to show that it works for it to be of any further use, otherwise it's not even a theory just random conjecture. Both classical mechanics and the theory of electricity works allmost perfectly in large regions of scientific inquiry, and break down in other areas to which they could not be extended without modification(by relativity or quantum mechanics). Gerson theory has yet to prove itself usefull at all.

If the basis for Gerson is wrong and it hasn't proven itself to be usefull, then it is as good as any random guess. Maybe caffeine enemas and all that sugar from drinking fruit juice helps the cancer spread even better?

And double blind studies are very succesfull: Before double blind studies we had a lot of medicines that were harmful AND useless.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>he idea of whether they "work" or not is irrelevant if the cure is not viable due to side-effects. If the study in question does not capture side effects then again, what is the point of the study in the first place? I.E. it is not good enough to merely prove that it treats A, but it must also _ prove it does not cause C _.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

When the alternative is death, rather severe side effects are acceptable.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for a better way of proving a treatment works:

Well, apart from observing numerous case studies over a long period of time I can't really imagine how you can prove that anything works conclusively. And yes I realize that it is pretty much impossible to lock someone up in a room and eliminate all possible variables to conclusively show that healing is due to certain factors only.

Such is life though, we learn by experience over time. Is it ever possible to eliminate every single variable? Gerson at least has _decades_ of case history behind it with modifications to the treatment that were added/eliminated over time as results (either good or bad) took place. This is much like the way a baby learns to walk; it doesn't follow some 'proven' theory, it learns by experience.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That's the worst possible immaginable way to test if a treatment works apart from consulting psychic mediums.

You know why blood letting was a major treatment for hundreds of years for EVERY affliction you could possibly have? They 'learned from experience' and annecdotal evidence. Is blood letting still around today? No because it fails double blind studies miserably.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Regardless though: It seems that drugs go through plenty of conventional studies and yet harmful side effects are either glossed over or not discovered till later. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Exactly, and alternative medicine has even less validation. The possibillity of doing more harm than good is huge.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Alternative treatments like Gerson usually target the body as a whole system and encourage healing naturally with almost no side-effects. It is the belief that we should give the body more credit for its recuperative ability and make sure it is helped and _not controlled_.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And that's why I accuse alternative medicine of being spiritualistic/allmost religious mumbo jumbo. It would be conventional medicine if you would do proper studies that show it to be usefull. But right now it's just a 'nice idea' without any merit.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ May 12 2005, 12:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> . </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Lovely unbiased source for info. Still, point at what journal and when.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh yes, conventional medicine _never_ suffers from biased research, how silly of me to forget that.

And sorry, I don't have a link and am at this point not interested in digging one up. Frankly even if I found one you'd still nit-pick something and so therefore I've declared the exercise futile.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
*snip*
Gerson theory has yet to prove itself usefull at all.

If the basis for Gerson is wrong and it hasn't proven itself to be usefull, then it is as good as any random guess. Maybe caffeine enemas and all that sugar from drinking fruit juice helps the cancer spread even better?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And again, it has failed to prove itself _only by your standards_. Oh I'm sure it does help spread the cancer...before eliminating it completely.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And double blind studies are very succesfull: Before double blind studies we had a lot of medicines that were harmful AND useless.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The lawyers agree. They are so useful that class-action type stuff gets filed all the time thanks to blind-studies that are apparently deficient.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
When the alternative is death, rather severe side effects are acceptable.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes...rather severe side effects like a stroke. Nice.

But when the alternative is death... no use trying a method like Gerson which forces someone to eat horrid fruit and vegetables all day long to try and give their bodies good nutrition to actually function as they should. Nope.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You know why blood letting was a major treatment for hundreds of years for EVERY affliction you could possibly have? They 'learned from experience' and annecdotal evidence. Is blood letting still around today? No because it fails double blind studies miserably.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So good nutrition is now equated to blood letting. Come now, even most jaded classical thinkers would probably admit a connection between diet and illness.

If you dispute the degree to which diet influences health then fine. But to dismiss it all completely is rather... interesting IMO.

Gerson was actually aware of 'fancy' things like....oh...x-rays to validate his results you know ? A little more sophisticated than the 'blood-letters' you amusingly refer to.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And that's why I accuse alternative medicine of being spiritualistic/allmost religious mumbo jumbo. It would be conventional medicine if you would do proper studies that show it to be usefull. But right now it's just a 'nice idea' without any merit.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And that's why I accuse conventional medicine of being corporate sponsored fool's gold and borderline criminal. It would be useful medicine if studies revealed all long term side effects that showed it to be viable for anything other than short term relief. But right now that is just a 'nice idea' without any merit.

Soylent_green · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh yes, conventional medicine _never_ suffers from biased research, how silly of me to forget that.

And sorry, I don't have a link and am at this point not interested in digging one up. Frankly even if I found one you'd still nit-pick something and so therefore I've declared the exercise futile.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Alternative medicine by the very definition of being alternative doesn't often concern itself with doing real reseach at all. When there is, it is allmost allways fake or biased research that isn't peer-reviewed but instead released in book form. That's also one of the reasons so few side effects are found, they don't go looking for them in the first place.

I'm not asking you to find me a link. I'm asking you to name the journal and date. Alternative medicine is so dense with frauds and outright liars that I regard most statements that aren't specific enough to be checked up on to be severe distortions of the truth or outright lies.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And again, it has failed to prove itself _only by your standards_. Oh I'm sure it does help spread the cancer...before eliminating it completely.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

We tried your standards for thousands of years, it doesn't work.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The lawyers agree. They are so useful that class-action type stuff gets filed all the time thanks to blind-studies that are apparently deficient.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Double blind studies are generally used to determine efficacy not side effects. Real medicine is held responsible for itself, while 'alternative' medicine seldom is and often opperates outside the confines of the law.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But when the alternative is death... no use trying a method like Gerson which forces someone to eat horrid fruit and vegetables all day long to try and give their bodies good nutrition to actually function as they should. Nope.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Indeed, if you cannot mix conventional treatment with gerson therapy by definition then gerson therapy is dangerous. Because the side effect IS death when you give up on trying a proper treatment and opt to try some mumbo-jumbo.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So good nutrition is now equated to blood letting. Come now, even most jaded classical thinkers would probably admit a connection between diet and illness.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sure there's a link, a complex biochemical one where we don't even know what food is healthy, when, why and in what amounts. That's the obstacle for real scientist, they seek actuall data instead of just assuming that eating excessive amounts of fruit and recieving coffee enemas is a cure-all because it sounds like it might be a nice idea. Real science is complicated, more so than bogus science that isn't held accountable for it's blatant flaws.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If you dispute the degree to which diet influences health then fine. But to dismiss it all completely is rather... interesting IMO.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There is no reason to think that nutritious is even better. If it's nutricious for you, then surely it might be just as 'nutricious' for the cancer.

On top of that it's not really well known what nutricious is. Some of these issues such as wheter eating more fruit than the norm may prevent cancer(note, not cure, reduce the risk of free radicals causing a cancerous cell in the first place) are disputed back and forth(usually happens because the media paints everything with a black and white brush and shouts inconclusive but interesting studies from the roof tops as being god given fact). Alternative medicine hippies catch a wiff of this and the a new crazy money making scheme is born.

And why would more be better? A little fruit might be good while eating a sickly amount of fruit might be downright unhealthy.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Gerson was actually aware of 'fancy' things like....oh...x-rays to validate his results you know ? A little more sophisticated than the 'blood-letters' you amusingly refer to.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Fat lot of good that is. Cancer is soft tissue and does not show up on regular x-ray plates, that's why people were given a dense compound like barium sulfate 'porridge' to eat when their intestinal tract is to be x-rayed. The diagnostic tools in Gersons time where allmost as limited as in the time of blood letters. Surgical or nothing in the way of viewing the inside of the body, no knowledge of the cause of cancer, no knowledge of DNA, little knowledge of enzymes and proteins and no good means of detecting their amounts in the blood.

The CAT scan was invented in 1972 and not in wide-spread use until early 1980's(US), it relies on x-rays as well, but it is much better suited to soft tissues than a conventional x-ray imaging from a single perspective. MRI and PET came in general use even later.

He could possibly have devised animal tests(might be awkward to give mice coffee enemas though), but I doubt it crossed his mind. In his time a lot of people deluded themselves that they can get something out of anecdotal evidence and the personal experience of people, but it has later been shown again and again that you are allmost as likely to come up with the opposite conclusion. Personal experience cannot be trusted. This is one of the biggest revolutions in medicine of the 20th century.

BTW, in the time of Gerson, there where people thinking radon laden water was good for just about everything because it was found naturally in a lot of spring waters.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And that's why I accuse conventional medicine of being corporate sponsored fool's gold and borderline criminal. It would be useful medicine if studies revealed all long term side effects that showed it to be viable for anything other than short term relief. But right now that is just a 'nice idea' without any merit.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That's rediculous. Some treatments have to be tested on humans when results of animal models are succesfull, but they do not allways suffer the same sideffects we do. There is no way to guarantee no side-effects will ever show up, not even if you device an irrelevant and ineffective bogus treatmeant out of thin air that's probably safe.

What nearly all alternative medicine treatments are based on is fashioning a treatment, then making up a cheesy cover story that will strike a coord with the alternative medicine user croud. Some nice sounding principle, outright mumbo jumbo most of the time, but none the less appealing to the target groups ideals.

Grendel · May 2005

Lolz. Some remarks based on things that have been said.

a) Corporations do not hate you. They do not love you. They do not care either way. They want money. Whatever they can do to generate the most money for their shareholders, they will.

Yes, useful medical research is blocked or dropped all the time. What's your point? You'll all still keep voting Tory/Republican so get used to it. Whilst we're revealing hidden secrets, perhaps I should explain something about santa claus.

b) Cancer formation

Cancers are created by errors in the replication process. There is a chance of approximately one in 100,000 cells suffering a mutation. This would be more frequent but for the error correction mechanisms present in the process.

The vast majority of the time, the mutation is harmless or trivial. Occasionally, it can lead to uncontrolled growth, which is then described as a malignant tumour.

<a href='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=mga.section.996' target='_blank'>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?...mga.section.996</a>

We do not fully understand the complex interactions that take place at the cellular level, however the evidence seems to suggest that there is a statistical correlation between the intake of certain foods and cancer rates.

c) Alternative medicine

There's plenty of evidence to support the efficacies of alternative therapies. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that a number of current medical practices in use should be terminated due to their dubious effectiveness. Both fields contain charlatans and frauds.

Rather than worrying about alternative medicine, mainstream medicine is bad enough. Here's something a little more realistic to think about...

A doctor will write out tens of thousands, if not hundreds (interferon, show yourself) of $/£/Yen worth of prescriptions per year.

You need treatment. Your doctor has a choice of two drugs he can prescribe you. Does he prescribe...

a) Brand A. Quite effective. Side effects are said to be very mild. The drug is old and thus not being pimped quite so much by the pharmaceutical company anymore.

b) Brand B. Limited effectiveness. Several side effects. However, the pharmaceutical company are flying him down to Hawaii next week for a seminar on allergenic disorders. They send him to these seminars because he prescribes over $50,000 worth of their medication every year.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ May 12 2005, 04:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> .. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I'm not asking you to find me a link. I'm asking you to name the journal and date. Alternative medicine is so dense with frauds and outright liars that I regard most statements that aren't specific enough to be checked up on to be severe distortions of the truth or outright lies.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Not going to happen, sorry. Oh and like conventional is not riddled with dubious claims and corporate greed that pushes harmful stuff into the market.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
We tried your standards for thousands of years, it doesn't work.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Who is we? Again, what is your line of work?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Double blind studies are generally used to determine efficacy not side effects. Real medicine is held responsible for itself, while 'alternative' medicine seldom is and often opperates outside the confines of the law.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And again, determining efficacy is useless if the ultimate treatment is not viable due to harmful side-effects. Real medicine kills plenty of people each year, and is held accountable _after people have actually freaken died or become seriously ill_.

'Alternative' medicine is often forced to operate outside the confines of law due to vested interest in making sure the status quo is preserved and financial investments protected.

Not nearly as much money involved in telling people that they should eat well as opposed to buy the next magic purple pill for the rest of their lives.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Sure there's a link, a complex biochemical one where we don't even know what food is healthy, when, why and in what amounts.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh I see how it is. You're applying a double standard here:

'Alternative Medicine' like Gerson is not real because the body is complex and we just don't know.

'Conventional Mediciine' like average drug X is real because the body is a simple predictable entity and we've discovered how to turn off the function we're looking to 'treat'.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BTW, in the time of Gerson, there where people thinking radon laden water was good for just about everything because it was found naturally in a lot of spring waters.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And you insist on this argument that Gerson can't be right because other treatments of the time were not.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
What nearly all alternative medicine treatments are based on is fashioning a treatment, then making up a cheesy cover story that will strike a coord with the alternative medicine user croud. Some nice sounding principle, outright mumbo jumbo most of the time, but none the less appealing to the target groups ideals.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The irony here is that nearly every argument you've made can be applied to conventional medicine as well. Who wants to hear that they:

_actually have to work to maintain their own health through diet and exercise_ as opposed to popping a red little pill ?

Now whom is appealing to whose ideals? The above fits perfectly with the modern instant-gratification/ I don't have time to eat right and be sick yuppie lifestyle.

theclam · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>'Alternative Medicine' like Gerson is not real because the body is complex and we just don't know.
...
And you insist on this argument that Gerson can't be right because other treatments of the time were not. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think we maintain that Gerson isn't real because it hasn't been proven to have efficacy.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The irony here is that nearly every argument you've made can be applied to conventional medicine as well.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The one great advantage that our arguments have, is that they are bolstered by double blind studies. You're right that many of our arguments against alternative medicine are similiar to our arguments for conventional medicine. However, proof is the key element that you are always ignoring. Gerson Therapy has been around for, what, 50, 60, or 70 years? And yet, in all that time, it hasn't been proven to be effective. I don't know why you continue to support Gerson Therapy when there is no evidence that it actually works. Yes, we acknowledge that diet, nutrition, exercise and other "all-natural" treatments are very important. Modern medicine embraces those treatments. However, <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_armstrong#Cancer' target='_blank'>even people who practice extremely rigorous diet and exercise regimes</a>, have to resort to conventional treatments (like chemotherapy, which uses the sort of poisons that you scoff at, even though it actually worked for Mr. Armstrong, saving his career and his life).

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 12 2005, 12:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>'Alternative Medicine' like Gerson is not real because the body is complex and we just don't know.
...
And you insist on this argument that Gerson can't be right because other treatments of the time were not. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think we maintain that Gerson isn't real because it hasn't been proven to have efficacy.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The irony here is that nearly every argument you've made can be applied to conventional medicine as well.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The one great advantage that our arguments have, is that they are bolstered by double blind studies. You're right that many of our arguments against alternative medicine are similiar to our arguments for conventional medicine. However, proof is the key element that you are always ignoring. Gerson Therapy has been around for, what, 50, 60, or 70 years? And yet, in all that time, it hasn't been proven to be effective. I don't know why you continue to support Gerson Therapy when there is no evidence that it actually works. Yes, we acknowledge that diet, nutrition, exercise and other "all-natural" treatments are very important. Modern medicine embraces those treatments. However, <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_armstrong#Cancer' target='_blank'>even people who practice extremely rigorous diet and exercise regimes</a>, have to resort to conventional treatments (like chemotherapy, which uses the sort of poisons that you scoff at, even though it actually worked for Mr. Armstrong, saving his career and his life).  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
The thing is we'll spend all day going around and around as to what constitutes "proof" that it works.

You feel that is has not been proven whereas I feel that it has. We may as well drop the point because no-one is going to budge here.

I'm glad that Mr. Armstrong seems to have recovered but I must point something out here.

Mr. Armstrong is a professional cyclist and it is well known that <a href='http://www.cyclingnz.com/science.phtml?n=42' target='_blank'>cyclists</a> have a greater risk of testicular cancer.

And so the thing is "diet and exercise" are very broad terms that can mean many different things in reality. So although he was obviously very fit (which almost certiainly upped his chances of survival regardless) the kind of exercise he did damaged his body. So you have to be careful of saying something like "he exercised and still got cancer !" when the exercise itself essentially caused the cancer.

And look at the amazon.com link I posted for additional amazing stories of recovery.

BloodySloth · May 2005

Your amazon.com link also has a story of how coffee enemas can kill you.

Wait, so your miracle cure has a small chance of making things even worse? It isn't 100% effective? I feel so cheated. Funny how Gerson never actually lets you know that his way of doing things carried risks, and the EVIL MAINSTREAM MEDICINE OF DOOM makes it well known that their treatment can be dangerous. Which seems more honest now?

And stories of recovery are all anecdotal, and could be made up completely by your average joe.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ May 15 2005, 05:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Your amazon.com link also has a story of how coffee enemas can kill you.

Wait, so your miracle cure has a small chance of making things even worse? It isn't 100% effective? I feel so cheated. Funny how Gerson never actually lets you know that his way of doing things carried risks, and the EVIL MAINSTREAM MEDICINE OF DOOM makes it well known that their treatment can be dangerous. Which seems more honest now?

And stories of recovery are all anecdotal, and could be made up completely by your average joe. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Interesting, so a negative review is always 100% truthful and a positive one is obviously "made up by your average joe".

Looking at the individual case it seems questionable, because the reviewer clearer states he did not have cancer and frankly - without that extreme motivation - I think it unlikely he followed it 100%.

Not being honest ? From gerson.org

"<b>No treatment works for everyone, every time. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not giving you the facts.</b> We know that when you have been diagnosed with a life-threatening ailment, choosing the best strategy for fighting your illness can be a bewildering task. Everyone claims to have either "the best treatment", "the fastest cure", or "the only therapy that works." In most cases your trusted family physician only has knowledge of conventional treatments, and is either unaware of, or even hostile toward alternative options. No matter how many opinions you receive on how to treat your disease, you are going to make the final decision on what to do, and you must be comfortable with your decision. Choose a treatment that makes the most sense to you."

From the amazon.com review:

<b>If you buy this blue book read it carefully. He mentions a ton of people he actually killed when giving them this or that, including a child; someone who ended up with cirrhosis of the liver, etc.</b>

So apparently he's still not honest enough for you?

Oh, and it's not my miracle cure Charlie. Lord, the original topic was not even about Gerson per se until I asked an opinion and all hell broke loose. I'm not an authority and I all I claim is that IMO it is a legitimate treatment option for cancer.

Still you do illustrate the point that "alternative medicine" will remain so because of the heavy bias most people in the west have against anything that isn't a red pill prescribed by their benevolent family doctor.

BloodySloth · May 2005

My first point was taking your stance, that every piece of information on that link was 100% accurate. I will readily admit that that particular story is possibly falsified, though it is backed up by a pinch of science and a chunk of common sense (coffee up the anus? Yeah, that's natural.) It also says something about Gerson's ethics, if the story is true.

The big moral for today is if the Gerson method carries a possibility of severe ailment and death its really not that much better than modern mainstream medicine. That is if it works to begin with, which in my eyes has yet to be proven in hard evidence. Personal opinions are fine and dandy but in the sceintific world dont amount to a hill of beans unless there's proof of what had been said, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

CMEast · May 2005

Doctors are, on the whole, good people. If they had discovered a cure it would be leaked out asap.

As there is no cure people will try absolutely anything and, if it seems to work, will then announce it to the world. If any one therapy like Gersons was actually effective then everyone would use it. When my mom caught cancer we obviously looked around for all the latest news and possible cures, as does every other person who's life has been touched by cancer (indirectly or otherwise). If a treatment worked then we'd all soon know about it.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ May 15 2005, 06:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> My first point was taking your stance, that every piece of information on that link was 100% accurate. I will readily admit that that particular story is possibly falsified, though it is backed up by a pinch of science and a chunk of common sense (coffee up the anus? Yeah, that's natural.) It also says something about Gerson's ethics, if the story is true.

The big moral for today is if the Gerson method carries a possibility of severe ailment and death its really not that much better than modern mainstream medicine. That is if it works to begin with, which in my eyes has yet to be proven in hard evidence. Personal opinions are fine and dandy but in the sceintific world dont amount to a hill of beans unless there's proof of what had been said, beyond the shadow of a doubt.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
There could well be truth to that story also. I surmise that - if gerson indeed performs as a detox method - there's a period where one would actually feel worse before better.

On the subject of common sense though; part of the main reason that I back Gerson is the idea of nutrition fighting disease. Logically if you give your body the optimum raw materials to work with it should then be in a much better position to do what it does best - keep one alive! I believe that the body has natural defenses against even something like cancer. It doesnt make sense that nature would have not equipped us with some sort of coping mechanism for dealing with rogue cells.

You are probably correct in that Gerson has not proved itself sufficiently via the scientific method, I just don't have sufficient knowledge about it to know what sort of studies have (or not) been done.

In general there's a fundamental mindset difference between most conventional and most alternative and this is really summed up by: Do you believe the body has the power to heal itself or does it require outside intervention to manage its functions. Conventional tends to subscribe to the latter while alternative appeals to the former.

Alternative focuses on the body as a whole. Do you really need that knee-joint replaced or do you need to re-educate the body as a system to move correctly and fix bad posture?

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ May 15 2005, 06:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Doctors are, on the whole, good people. If they had discovered a cure it would be leaked out asap.

As there is no cure people will try absolutely anything and, if it seems to work, will then announce it to the world. If any one therapy like Gersons was actually effective then everyone would use it. When my mom caught cancer we obviously looked around for all the latest news and possible cures, as does every other person who's life has been touched by cancer (indirectly or otherwise). If a treatment worked then we'd all soon know about it.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Oh, I'm sure there are well-meaning Doctors on both sides of the equation.

The problem with something like Gerson is really that even if a doctor wanted to; he/she will run into legal trouble by recommending it - regardless of whether it works or not.

Also keep in mind that Doctor's are human as well. They are highly trained but at the same time I think limited by that training.

At any rate I don't think alternative medicine should be viewed as "competition". Both conventional and alternative have their place in the grand scheme of things IMO.

I'm sorry to hear your family had to deal with cancer. My grandfather worked in an environment during a time when the dangers of Asbestos was not known; and he developed fatal lung cancer as a result.

theclam · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 15 2005, 09:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> On the subject of common sense though; part of the main reason that I back Gerson is the idea of nutrition fighting disease. Logically if you give your body the optimum raw materials to work with it should then be in a much better position to do what it does best - keep one alive! I believe that the body has natural defenses against even something like cancer. It doesnt make sense that nature would have not equipped us with some sort of coping mechanism for dealing with rogue cells.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
It does make sense that nature wouldn't give us any tools for fighting cancer. Many types of Cancer are caused by pollutants (radiation causes cancer, smoking causes cancer). For the vast majority of our time spent evolving, we weren't exposed to those pollutants. Also, cancer occurs more often in older people. For almost all of human evolution, eople didn't often survive until old age, because there was no modern medicine. Even if they did, they would have gotten cancer after they stopped reproducing, meaning that there would be no evolutionary pressure against people who have no cancer defenses.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 15 2005, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ May 15 2005, 09:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> On the subject of common sense though; part of the main reason that I back Gerson is the idea of nutrition fighting disease. Logically if you give your body the optimum raw materials to work with it should then be in a much better position to do what it does best - keep one alive! I believe that the body has natural defenses against even something like cancer. It doesnt make sense that nature would have not equipped us with some sort of coping mechanism for dealing with rogue cells. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It does make sense that nature wouldn't give us any tools for fighting cancer. Many types of Cancer are caused by pollutants (radiation causes cancer, smoking causes cancer). For the vast majority of our time spent evolving, we weren't exposed to those pollutants. Also, cancer occurs more often in older people. For almost all of human evolution, eople didn't often survive until old age, because there was no modern medicine. Even if they did, they would have gotten cancer after they stopped reproducing, meaning that there would be no evolutionary pressure against people who have no cancer defenses.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I agree that there is now more than ever an increase in the amount of cancer-causing material we come into contact with: perhaps more so than we are evolutionarily speaking equipped to deal with. You have a valid point here.

However, our ancestors were exposed to things like sunlight and just the usual risks of something happening during normal cell-division regardless. Which makes me believe that there must be some sort of in-built coping strategy for rogue cells.

Also, as well as in increase in pollution you must look at things like the modern diet. Our ancestors did not eat all the sugar-ridden/preservative added/pesticide contaminated etc. "food" that most people eat as part of daily life.

My argument is that you then have a double effect: Increased pollution and decreased nutrionally sound diets.

Cure For Cancer

Comments