General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Prince Charles backs Gerson

Started by Anth · · Last activity · 40 posts · 2,822 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
5 July 2004
Last activity
5 July 2004
Original author
Anth
Posts
40
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,822
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 40
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. ..and rightfully so, about time these Gerson Institute had a
    fair crack? The truth will win sooner or later..

    observer.guardian.co.uk0,6903,12482
    82,00.html

    Now Charles backs coffee cure for cancer

    Angry doctors warn of dangers as Prince of Wales lends
    support to controversial alternative treatment. Health
    Editor Jo Revill reports

    Sunday June 27, 2004 The Observer

    Prince Charles has never made a secret of his love affair
    with alternative medicine. Now he has infuriated the medical
    profession by backing a controversial cancer treatment which
    involves taking daily coffee enemas and drinking litres of
    fruit juice instead of using drugs. Charles gave an
    enthusiastic endorsement last week to the Gerson Therapy,
    which eschews chemotherapy in favour of 13 fruit juices a
    day, coffee enemas and weekly injections of vitamins. Cancer
    specialists have told The Observer that there is no
    scientific basis for the theory and that it can be dangerous
    because patients who are seriously ill often come off their
    normal treatment to try something unproven which may leave
    them badly dehydrated. Speaking to a room of 200 healthcare
    professionals at a conference, Charles said: 'I know of one
    patient who turned to Gerson Therapy having been told she
    was suffering from terminal cancer and would not survive
    another course of chemotherapy. Happily, seven years later,
    she is alive and well. So it is vital that, rather than
    dismissing such experiences, we should further investigate
    the beneficial nature of these treatments.' Charles's
    spokesmen last night refused to say whether the patient he
    referred to is a close friend or someone he met in his role
    as patron of four cancer charities. What has become clear is
    that a tight network of friends and associates are advocates
    of the therapy. Dudley Poplak, an interior designer who has
    a client list of the great and the good, is the man who is
    thought to have first alerted Charles to the treatment.
    Poplak redecorated Highgrove House for Charles and Diana and
    designed their apartment in Kensington Palace. He gave
    Charles a copy of the book A Time to Heal: My Triumph over
    Cancer - Beata Bishop's story of how she beat malignant
    melanoma 23 years ago by following the strict dietary
    regime. Bishop would not comment yesterday on whether the
    prince had read her book, but said: 'For years the orthodox
    medical profession has been totally ignorant of the immense
    potential of nutritional therapy. Finally they have admitted
    that if you eat the right food you can prevent serious
    illness, but they still say that if you are ill, you can do
    nothing. I am not the only one who has survived on Gerson;
    there are many others like me.' Max Gerson, a German-born
    physician, gave his name to the rigorous diet, which he
    initially used to cure his own migraines. He gained a huge
    following and moved to the US after practising in Paris, but
    incurred the wrath of the American medical profession for
    presenting five patients alive and well to a US
    congressional committee, years after they had been sent home
    to die. He believed that cancer was the symptom of a
    diseased, polluted body in which tumours form when the
    liver, pancreas and other organs are out of balance, and
    reasoned that animal and dairy products and other chemicals
    must be banned. The coffee enemas are used to strip the gut
    of harmful bacteria and pollutants, but specialists argue
    they often lead to other problems such as dehydration.
    Advertiser links Charity - British Red Cross As part of the
    world's largest humanitarian network, the...
    reports.redcross.org.uk Charity Organisations - Cancer
    Research One of the UK's leading charity organisations.
    Conducting... cancerresearchuk.org WaterAid Charitable
    Organisation WaterAid is the UK's only major charity
    dedicated... wateraid.org Today the Gerson Institute, run by
    Max's 82-year-old daughter Charlotte, has an office in
    California but runs its main clinic in Tijuana, Mexico,
    because the US forbids doctors to practise it. Treatment
    costs $4,900 a week and usually lasts for around three
    weeks. Another of Charles's associates, the hereditary peer
    and crossbencher Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, went to the
    Tijuana clinic in 1996 when his wife Sally was seriously ill
    with breast cancer. She spent eight weeks at the clinic,
    followed by another two years of using the regime at home.
    Her disease recurred and she died three years ago. Lord
    Baldwin, who has known the Prince of Wales for many years,
    invited Charlotte Gerson to address the House of Lords in
    1999 and expound her theory. From his home in Oxford,
    Baldwin said yesterday: 'The subject does arouse passions on
    both sides but there is an enormous need for proper studies
    into these treatments. I watched my wife's tumours shrink
    away but the treatment is a very difficult one to follow.
    The drugs companies have millions to spend on research, but
    there's nothing to spend on research into how nutrition
    might work.' Charles set up the Foundation for Integrated
    Health, an initiative to integrate different systems of
    medicines and therapies, six years ago and has managed to
    persuade ministers to put millions of pounds more funding
    into alternative medicine in the NHS. Surveys suggest it is
    growing in popularity with some 20 per cent of people using
    an alternative treatment such as acupuncture between two and
    five times a year. In his speech, delivered on Thursday in
    London, Charles argued that it was impossible to separate
    the mental and physical states of wellbeing, and that the
    NHS should be developing more funding to different
    approaches. 'We must commission and produce research that
    looks at the efficacy of complementary medicine. For
    example, many patients use and believe in Gerson Therapy,
    yet more evidence needs to be available as to who might
    benefit or what the adverse effects might be.' One of the
    patients, Frances Carroll from Cheshire, said at the
    conference she had benefited from Gerson Therapy for the
    past seven years. Carroll was diagnosed with breast cancer
    eight years ago and turned to the therapy after she did not
    appear to respond to conventional treatment. She said: 'It
    is a means of staying alive. I think it has extended my life
    expectancy. One might say I've beaten the odds.' But the
    American Cancer Society warns that the therapy may be
    dangerous. On its website it states: 'Gerson Therapy can be
    very harmful to the body. Coffee enemas have been associated
    with serious infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis
    (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte (salt and mineral)
    imbalances, and even death.' One prominent British proponent
    of Gerson Therapy is the Oxford don Michael Gearin-Tosh, who
    wrote a book about his 'medical mutiny' after he was
    diagnosed with cancer nine years ago. He converted to the
    Gerson Therapy and has stuck to the rigorous regime of fruit
    and vegetables. Professor Tony Goldstone, head of the North
    London cancer network, said there was evidence that some
    patients reached a 'natural plateau' in their disease which
    could last for years. He attacked the raising of 'false
    hopes' which 'lead patients in the wrong direction'. Other
    cancer doctors pointed out that many units, including
    Goldstone's, are now offering an array of complementary
    therapies alongside conventional treatment, because it is
    popular with patients and because it can be relaxing and
    mentally helpful for them. But there is still an enormous
    lack of evidence, as Prince Charles pointed out, to show
    what works. One eminent cancer specialist who asked not to
    be named said: 'If I start to see patients coming off
    treatment to embrace this therapy, I'm going to be very
    angry. Charles is abusing his position to put around wacky
    ideas which have no scientific credence. Imagine the row
    there would be if Tony Blair did something like this.' Yet
    leading cancer specialist Professor Karol Sikora says the
    role of diet in treating cancer is extremely important and
    needs more research. 'There is no rationale for the Gerson
    diet, which is quite radical. Why would a coffee enema work?
    It's very popular among the higher end of the middle
    classes, partly because it's expensive and because there's
    an element of religious mania to it. 'I think that some of
    what the prince has done in calling for assessment of
    complementary medicine is a good thing because it can help
    improve the quality of life. But the idea that huge amounts
    of Vitamin C can cure you of cancer is simply wrong.' ·
    Additional reporting by Mark Hudson The Gerson regime What
    is it? A gruelling nutritional regime which would typically
    consist of 13 glasses a day of fresh organic carrot apple or
    broccoli juice, vegetarian food, weekly injections of liver
    extract and vitamin B12, and five coffee or camomile enemas
    a day. Yoga is also recommended. How popular is it? An
    estimated 1,000 people are following it worldwide, but the
    cost of the injections - more than £20,000 a year - means
    many cannot afford the treatment. So what is the theory? Its
    creator Max Gerson believed cancer was caused by poor
    nutrition and long-term exposure to pesticides, chemical
    fertilisers, air and water pollution, and that the right
    foods and enemas boosted the body's ability to eliminate
    these toxins - and the cancer. Is there any evidence for
    this? There is growing evidence that eating lots of fruit
    and vegetables has a protective effect against cancer, but
    studies on the role of food during treatment are sparse.
    Scientists say there is no evidence that huge doses of
    vitamin C or enemas can destroy tumours completely.

    Special reports Medicine and health

    Useful links British Medical Association Department of
    Health General Medical Council Health on the Net Foundation
    Institute of Cancer Research Medical Research Council NHS
    Direct World Health Organisation

  2. "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    ..and rightfully so, about time these Gerson Institute had
    a fair crack? The truth will win sooner or later..

    observer.guardian.co.uk0,6903,12482
    82,00.html

    Now Charles backs coffee cure for cancer

    Angry doctors warn of dangers as Prince of Wales lends
    support to controversial alternative treatment. Health
    Editor Jo Revill reports

    Come now, Anth, you have looked at the Gerson data. You
    don't seriously think it is the answer to cancer, do you?
    Hildebrand (of the clinic) admits that the NCCAM asked the
    clinic for a dozen cases of remission of cancer with the
    promise that a proper clinical study would ensue, and they
    were unable to produce them. And that clinic treats at least
    five hundred cancer patients yearly. It just doesn't make
    sense if the claims of such clinics are true.. The only way
    they can drum up clientele is to foster the impression that
    conventional treatments don't help anyway. That is partly
    true for a lot of patients with advanced cancer, but it says
    absolutely nothing about the worth of the "alternatives".

    You are never going to find out the truth while you accept a
    pitiful few testimonials and think that the opinion of Royal
    nincompoops means anything. Cancer cure is too important a
    claim to too many people to be left to hang upon extremely
    rare third hand accounts of cure. Don't you know that we get
    the occasional spontaneous remission and unexpected good
    outcomes with conventional treatments too?

    The proponents of such treatments have to be able to
    produce a significant number of cured patients, who would
    not otherwise have any likelihood of cure. The NCCAM
    committee (with Ralph Moss , Hildebrand and many other
    prominent alt cancer proponents) tried very hard to find
    alt cancer treatments worth subjecting to further trial and
    it says much about the whole American and Mexican
    alternative cancer industry that the only thing they could
    come up with was Gonzales little case series of highly
    selected patients within which it is not even clear if
    there were any long term survivors.. They were even looking
    at a trial of a homeopathic clinic in India that produced
    cases of apparent cure of lung cancer, but found that the
    record keeping of alt clinics was of such a nature that
    they wouldn't have a clue what they were acheiving. The
    only clinic with decent record-keeping to publish results
    that I have been able to find is the Livingstone -Wheeler
    clinic, and only 25 of 193 of their patients with a variety
    of cancers were alive five years later - about what you
    might expect from the conventional treatments most patients
    received..

    This is utterly shameful, and completely indefensible, for
    an industry that is fleecing billions of dollars off
    hundreds of thousands of desperate and worried people
    every year.

    Peter Moran

  3. Anth said:


    The truth will win sooner or later..

    observer.guardian.co.uk0,6903,12482
    82,00.html

    Now Charles backs coffee cure for cancer

    <snipped> Speaking to a room of 200 healthcare
    professionals at a conference, Charles said: 'I know of
    one patient who turned to Gerson Therapy having been told
    she was suffering from terminal cancer and would not
    survive another course of chemotherapy. Happily, seven
    years later, she is alive and well.

    news.scotsman.comlatest.cfm Frances
    Carroll, from Manchester was diagnosed with breast cancer
    eight years ago "

    There you go, find her and find out what surgery she had,
    radiation therapy, which type of breast cancer she had.

    Per Tim on the breast cancer newsgroup (when speaking about
    another who is taking nothing).... "about 25% of cancers do
    not have excess estrogen receptors etc, and in those cases
    there is little benefit in prescribing hormone therapy.
    Right now she does not have cancer, so there is no cause for
    any intervention. Remember that the hormone therapy
    prescribed to others is a prophylaxis, they are taking it
    'just in case' the cancer tries to recur, not to cure an
    existing condition."

    So some (depending on the details which you nor the press
    has) take no treatment at all.

    Quoted message said:

    So it is vital that, rather than dismissing such
    experiences, we should further investigate the beneficial
    nature of these treatments.' Charles's spokesmen last
    night refused to say whether the patient he referred to is
    a close friend or someone he met in his role as patron of
    four cancer charities.

    In case, this is the same one, there's a contact number
    there and there is a Royal nincompoop connection.... mndassociation.orgfull
    site/care/advisors.htm motor neuron disease Frances Carroll
    peterkurth.comFERGIE.htm She's patroness of the
    Motor Neuron Disease Association If it's not the same one,
    then find her yourself.

    Quoted message said:

    What has become clear is that a tight network of friends
    and associates are

    nincompoops? <g> J

  4. "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    ..and rightfully so, about time these Gerson Institute had
    a fair crack? The truth will win sooner or later..

    observer.guardian.co.uk0,6903,12482
    82,00.html

    Now Charles backs coffee cure for cancer

    <snip>

    This is a classic appeal to (uninformed) authority. Just
    because Charles is Prince of Wales and heir to the throne
    does not make him medically knowledgable.

    The Royal Family also has a homeopath on their staff, and if
    I remember correctly, an astrologer as well. Does this mean
    anything to you?

    I'm all for investigation of novel therapies as long as
    there is a bare minimum of preliminary data to start with.
    This would include well-documented case studies, followup
    data, etc. A slickly presented claim that they had 100% cure
    rates is meaningless unless they can produce evidence that

    #1) the patients actually *had* the condition in question
    # to start
    with,
    #2) the Gerson method was the only one employed,
    #3) there was sufficiently stringent followup.

    Preliminary data isn't expected to be the final answer, but
    it has to pass some minimum criteria before anyone is going
    to spend the kind of money and time it takes to perform
    large, powerful, more definitive investigations.

    Mark, MD

  5. "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CfmdnVyqG4Hd9X3dRVn-
    [email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    ..and rightfully so, about time these Gerson Institute
    had a fair crack? The truth will win sooner or later..

    observer.guardian.co.uk0,6903,1248
    282,00.html

    Now Charles backs coffee cure for cancer

    Angry doctors warn of dangers as Prince of Wales lends
    support to controversial alternative treatment. Health
    Editor Jo Revill reports

    Quoted message said:

    Come now, Anth, you have looked at the Gerson data. You
    don't seriously think it is the answer to cancer, do you?
    Hildebrand (of the clinic) admits that the NCCAM asked the
    clinic for a dozen cases of remission of cancer with the
    promise that a proper clinical study would ensue, and they
    were unable to produce them. And that clinic treats at
    least five hundred cancer patients yearly. It just doesn't
    make sense if the claims of such clinics are true.. The
    only way they can drum up clientele is to foster the
    impression that conventional treatments don't help anyway.
    That is partly true for a lot of patients with advanced
    cancer, but it says absolutely nothing about the worth of
    the "alternatives".

    I have looked at the Gerson data and I'm wondering how 100%
    of their stage 1 melanoma had 5 year survival - they should
    be dead if they had no treatment at all. I think Gerson
    should be studied in a scientific manner like the rest of
    therapies. The points are that people are doing Gerson and
    getting well - why is that?

    Quoted message said:

    You are never going to find out the truth while you accept
    a pitiful few testimonials and think that the opinion of
    Royal nincompoops means anything. Cancer cure is too
    important a claim to too many people to be left to hang
    upon extremely rare third hand accounts of cure. Don't you
    know that we get the occasional spontaneous remission and
    unexpected good outcomes with conventional treatments too?

    Spontaneous remissions are terribly rare in mainstream, you
    are never going to find the truth if it isn't tested. I
    think Gerson should be tested (In the Gerson clinic not some
    independant source, with a good methodical study that is
    designed both by the Gerson Institute and some of the higher
    experts on oncology in mainstream) - this would settle it
    once and for all. If they come up trumps then that is a good
    thing. If they don't come up trumps then have no excuse as
    the study was done in their clinic with their methods. If
    the study fails then they should shut down.

    Quoted message said:

    This is utterly shameful, and completely indefensible, for
    an industry that is fleecing billions of dollars off
    hundreds of thousands of desperate and worried people
    every year.

    How much do you think Gerson makes from a typical patient -
    not a terrible lot? I could reverse this and apply this to
    mainstream, there is an abundance of people being treated
    (at a huge cost) where there isn't a snowballs chance in
    hell of them getting an outcome from it.

    Quoted message said:

    Peter Moran

    Anth

  6. "J" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Anth said:


    The truth will win sooner or later..

    observer.guardian.co.uk0,6903,1248
    282,00.html

    Now Charles backs coffee cure for cancer

    <snipped> Speaking to a room of 200 healthcare
    professionals at a conference, Charles said: 'I know of
    one patient who turned to Gerson Therapy having been told
    she was suffering from terminal cancer and would not
    survive another course of chemotherapy. Happily, seven
    years later, she is alive and well.

    news.scotsman.comlatest.cfm Frances
    Carroll, from Manchester was diagnosed with breast cancer
    eight years ago "

    There you go, find her and find out what surgery she had,
    radiation therapy, which type of breast cancer she had.

    Per Tim on the breast cancer newsgroup (when speaking
    about another who is taking nothing).... "about 25% of
    cancers do not have excess estrogen receptors etc, and in
    those cases there is little benefit in prescribing hormone
    therapy. Right now she does not have cancer, so there is
    no cause for any intervention. Remember that the hormone
    therapy prescribed to others is a prophylaxis, they are
    taking it 'just in case' the cancer tries to recur, not to
    cure an existing condition."

    So some (depending on the details which you nor the press
    has) take no treatment at all.

    Quoted message said:

    So it is vital that, rather than dismissing such
    experiences, we should further investigate the beneficial
    nature of these treatments.' Charles's spokesmen last
    night refused to say whether the patient he referred to
    is a close friend or someone he met in his role as patron
    of four cancer charities.

    In case, this is the same one, there's a contact number
    there and there is a Royal nincompoop connection.... mndassociation.orgfull
    site/care/advisors.htm motor neuron disease Frances
    Carroll peterkurth.comFERGIE.htm She's
    patroness of the Motor Neuron Disease Association If it's
    not the same one, then find her yourself.

    Quoted message said:

    What has become clear is that a tight network of friends
    and associates are

    nincompoops? <g> J

    You can pick at people who had Gerson all you want, it isn't
    going to resolve anything. I could pick others who did
    Gerson and are alive much beyond their expectations - free
    of cancer. The question should be why are they free of
    cancer? Anth

  7. "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<CfmdnVyqG4Hd9X3dRVn-
    [email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    ..and rightfully so, about time these Gerson Institute
    had a fair crack? The truth will win sooner or later..

    observer.guardian.co.uk0,6903,1248
    282,00.html

    Now Charles backs coffee cure for cancer

    <snip>

    This is a classic appeal to (uninformed) authority. Just
    because Charles is Prince of Wales and heir to the throne
    does not make him medically knowledgable.

    Yup this is true.

    Quoted message said:

    The Royal Family also has a homeopath on their staff, and
    if I remember correctly, an astrologer as well. Does this
    mean anything to you?

    It means they are well advised.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm all for investigation of novel therapies as long as
    there is a bare minimum of preliminary data to start
    with. This would include well-documented case studies,
    followup data, etc. A slickly presented claim that they
    had 100% cure rates is meaningless unless they can
    produce evidence that

    #1) the patients actually *had* the condition in question
    # to start
    with,
    #2) the Gerson method was the only one employed,
    #3) there was sufficiently stringent followup.

    Preliminary data isn't expected to be the final answer,
    but it has to pass some minimum criteria before anyone is
    going to spend the kind of money and time it takes to
    perform large, powerful, more definitive investigations.

    Gerson should have been investigated, as I recall it came to
    within 2 votes of being so.

    Quoted message said:

    Mark, MD

    Anth

  8. "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    You can pick at people who had Gerson all you want, it
    isn't going to resolve anything. I could pick others who
    did Gerson and are alive much beyond their expectations -
    free of cancer. The question should be why are they free
    of cancer?

    Show how you know that they didn't have any other form of
    treatment. Also show how you know they were correctly
    diagnosed. Without this information verified, it's premature
    to ask for full scale clinical trials.

    moo

  9. Anth said:

    "J" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Anth said:


    The truth will win sooner or later..

    observer.guardian.co.uk0,6903,12
    48282,00.html

    Now Charles backs coffee cure for cancer

    <snipped> Speaking to a room of 200 healthcare
    professionals at a conference, Charles said: 'I know of
    one patient who turned to Gerson Therapy having been
    told she was suffering from terminal cancer and would
    not survive another course of chemotherapy. Happily,
    seven years later, she is alive and well.

    news.scotsman.comlatest.cfm Frances
    Carroll, from Manchester was diagnosed with breast
    cancer eight


    years

    Quoted message said:

    ago "

    There you go, find her and find out what surgery she
    had, radiation therapy,

    Quoted message said:

    which type of breast cancer she had.

    Per Tim on the breast cancer newsgroup (when speaking
    about another who is taking nothing).... "about 25% of
    cancers do not have excess estrogen


    receptors

    Quoted message said:

    etc, and in those cases there is little benefit in
    prescribing hormone


    therapy.

    Quoted message said:

    Right now she does not have cancer, so there is no cause
    for any


    intervention.

    Quoted message said:

    Remember that the hormone therapy prescribed to others
    is a prophylaxis,


    they

    Quoted message said:

    are taking it 'just in case' the cancer tries to recur,
    not to cure an


    existing

    Quoted message said:

    condition."

    So some (depending on the details which you nor the
    press has) take no treatment at all.

    Quoted message said:

    So it is vital that, rather than dismissing such
    experiences, we should further investigate the
    beneficial nature of these treatments.' Charles's
    spokesmen last night refused to say whether the patient
    he referred to is a close friend or someone he met in
    his role as patron of four cancer charities.


    No reply from Anth (above) Looks like Anth would rather
    believe testimonials than get the facts. (pathology
    reports, surgeries reports, conventional treatments she had
    (if any). J

  10. "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:40e081f4$0$15052$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
    02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CfmdnVyqG4Hd9X3dRVn-
    [email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    ..and rightfully so, about time these Gerson Institute
    had a fair


    crack?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The truth will win sooner or later..

    observer.guardian.co.uk0,6903,12
    48282,00.html

    Now Charles backs coffee cure for cancer

    Angry doctors warn of dangers as Prince of Wales lends
    support to controversial alternative treatment. Health
    Editor Jo Revill reports

    Quoted message said:

    Come now, Anth, you have looked at the Gerson data. You
    don't seriously think it is the answer to cancer, do
    you? Hildebrand (of the clinic) admits that the NCCAM
    asked the clinic for a dozen cases of remission of
    cancer with the promise that a proper clinical study
    would ensue, and they were unable to produce them. And
    that clinic treats at least five hundred cancer patients
    yearly. It just doesn't make sense if the claims of


    such

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    clinics are true.. The only way they can drum up
    clientele is to


    foster

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the impression that conventional treatments don't help
    anyway. That is partly true for a lot of patients with
    advanced cancer, but it says absolutely nothing about
    the worth of the "alternatives".

    I have looked at the Gerson data and I'm wondering how
    100% of their stage


    1

    Quoted message said:

    melanoma had 5 year survival - they should be dead if
    they had no


    treatment

    Quoted message said:

    at all. I think Gerson should be studied in a scientific
    manner like the rest of therapies. The points are that
    people are doing Gerson and getting well - why is


    that?

    Anth, how did they know these folk had melanoma unless they
    were subjected to excision biopsy? And simple excision
    biopsy is curative of most melanomata. More will have had
    lymph node dissections, which can also improve survival. The
    Gerson crowd decptively made their figures look better by
    including level 1 melanoma in their figures. That has a
    hundred per cent cure rate after simple excision.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    You are never going to find out the truth while you
    accept a pitiful few testimonials and think that the
    opinion of Royal nincompoops means anything. Cancer
    cure is too important a claim to too many people to be
    left to


    hang

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    upon extremely rare third hand accounts of cure. Don't
    you know that we get the occasional spontaneous
    remission and unexpected good outcomes with conventional
    treatments too?

    Spontaneous remissions are terribly rare in mainstream,

    So are the testimonials in proportion to the several
    hundreds of thousands of patients who we know use
    alternaitves for established cancer every year. There are
    subtantially fewer worthwhile testimonials if you exclude
    those that lack accurate diagnosis or staging and where
    potentially curative conventional treatemnts were also used.

    Quoted message said:

    you are never going to find the truth if it isn't tested.

    And it is never going to be tested unless clinics like
    Gerson can produce cured patients in numbers beyond that
    likely from spontaneous remissions or other treatments the
    patients received. There is no getting around that, and that
    is where people like you should be exerting pressure. You
    are wasting your time trying to pressure those with research
    moneys (such as the NCCAM) into testing methods that can't
    even produce a few well-documented cured patients.

    Quoted message said:

    I think Gerson should be tested (In the Gerson clinic not
    some independant source, with a good methodical study that
    is designed both by the Gerson Institute and some of the
    higher experts on oncology in mainstream) - this would
    settle it once and for all.

    Why can't they do a simple phase 11 study of the next ten or
    twenty patients in good condition that they see with
    measurable cancer? It is utter [censored] that they can't produce
    any worthwhile evidence if their treatment is doing what
    they claim, or what their clients actually expect of a
    useful cancer treatment. Any new chemotherapeutic agent is
    tested out that way initially, and it will usually be
    dropped if it can't produce worthwhile remissions in at
    least twenty per cent of cancers (less with the dificult
    cancers such as melanoma or pancreatic). As you have seen
    with Coley's toxins and IV vitamin C a few good results can
    generate interest, but only if they occur at an unexpected
    RATE i.e. a unexpected percentage of patients. A cancer cure
    that seems only to be "working" for one in a thousand is not
    going to divert resources from looking for something that
    works better,

    Quoted message said:

    If they come up trumps then that is a good thing. If they
    don't come up trumps then have no excuse as the study was
    done in their clinic with


    their

    Quoted message said:

    methods. If the study fails then they should shut down.

    Quoted message said:

    This is utterly shameful, and completely indefensible,
    for an industry that is fleecing billions of dollars off
    hundreds of thousands of desperate


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    worried people every year.

    How much do you think Gerson makes from a typical patient
    - not a terrible lot?

    I would guess about 25000 per month.

    Gerson is one of the more honest clinics. I think they
    believe in what they
    do. But they don;t have any experience of cancer outside
    their own clinics by which to judge whether they are
    really helping patients. That is why cancer quacks are
    invariably dentists, psychiatrists, naturopaths,
    biochemists etc. They are people who don't understand
    how variable a thing cancer is, or what to expect from
    conventional care..

    Quoted message said:

    I could reverse this and apply this to mainstream, there
    is an abundance


    of

    Quoted message said:

    people being treated (at a huge cost) where there isn't
    a snowballs chance in hell of them getting an outcome
    from it.


    I assume you refer to a trial of chemotherapy for a couple
    of months when the patient has a cancer which doesn't often
    respond to chemotherapy. It is interesting that doing one's
    utmost for patients who are in desperate straits is seen as
    a virtue within alternaitve medicine but something sinister
    if within convetional medicine. Of course doctors try
    anything that might help. The patient and their relatives
    expect that of them. I agree that it can be wasteful and
    that it can be overdone, but I can understand how much such
    futile endeavour arises, having been there myself..

    Peter Moran

  11. Happy Dog said:

    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    You can pick at people who had Gerson all you want, it
    isn't going to resolve anything. I could pick others who
    did Gerson and are alive much beyond their expectations -
    free of cancer. The question should be why are they free
    of cancer?

    Show how you know that they didn't have any other form of
    treatment. Also show how you know they were correctly
    diagnosed. Without this information verified, it's
    premature to ask for full scale clinical trials.

    Cue Anth to ask you to prove that they were incorrectly
    diagnosed or had other treatments. Cue Anth to criticize you
    for not accepting the validity of the claims that Gerson
    makes. Cue Anth to top post.

    Aloha,

    Rich

    Quoted message said:


    moo

    -------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------

    The best defense to logic is ignorance

  12. "J" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    No reply from Anth (above) Looks like Anth would rather
    believe testimonials than get the facts. (pathology
    reports, surgeries reports, conventional treatments she
    had (if any). J

    The facts are Gerson who was a doctor (and qualified) used
    this therapy to heal people. He reported 100% cure of
    tuberculosis in a sanitarium, he wrote books and articles
    about it. People have used it and got well. Do you believe
    your doctor J, who does he believe ad nausia? Anth

  13. I've read Gearin Tosh's book, spoke to him, read the lab
    reports etc. I've also spoke to a few people who have done
    Gerson on the phone. Anth

    "Happy Dog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    You can pick at people who had Gerson all you want, it
    isn't going to resolve anything. I could pick others who
    did Gerson and are alive much beyond their expectations -
    free of cancer. The question should be why are they free
    of cancer?

    Show how you know that they didn't have any other form of
    treatment. Also show how you know they were correctly
    diagnosed. Without this information verified, it's
    premature to ask for full scale clinical trials.

    moo

  14. Read the book A Cancer Therapy: Results of Fifty Cases and
    the Cure of Advanced Cancer Anth

    "Happy Dog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    You can pick at people who had Gerson all you want, it
    isn't going to resolve anything. I could pick others who
    did Gerson and are alive much beyond their expectations -
    free of cancer. The question should be why are they free
    of cancer?

    Show how you know that they didn't have any other form of
    treatment. Also show how you know they were correctly
    diagnosed. Without this information verified, it's
    premature to ask for full scale clinical trials.

    moo

  15. "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    [Anth/snip] Anth, how did they know these folk had
    melanoma unless they were subjected to excision biopsy?
    And simple excision biopsy is curative of most melanomata.
    More will have had lymph node dissections, which can also
    improve survival. The Gerson crowd decptively made their
    figures look better by including level 1 melanoma in their
    figures. That has a hundred per cent cure rate after
    simple excision. [Anth/snip] And it is never going to be
    tested unless clinics like Gerson can produce cured
    patients in numbers beyond that likely from spontaneous
    remissions or other treatments the patients received.
    There is no getting around that, and that is where people
    like you should be exerting pressure. You are wasting your
    time trying to pressure those with research moneys (such
    as the NCCAM) into testing methods that can't even produce
    a few well-documented cured patients.

    1st you see when someone mentions a Gerson cure the 'me know
    all me unscientific type' usually runs off to goggle and
    tries to find out of the person had other treatments then
    proudly presents the 'proof' that it wasn't the Gerson that
    healed them.

    Cases likes this involve mainstream treatment (debulking
    therapy) then Gerson afterwards and then you get long term
    remission if not complete remission.. Would you not agree
    that Mainstream then Gerson afterwards is _not_ the same as
    Mainstream alone - the survival rates could be different
    because the Gerson effects the long term remission/cure
    rate? CHEMO/RAD/SURGERY (debulking) then GERSON (long term
    recurrence prevention/clean up) should be compared to GERSON
    or CHEMO/RAD/SURGERY alone in a study. . The rational behind
    Gerson is that you use a main-stream debulking therapy which
    kills a lot of the cancer (even tho the main mass could be
    static) - this brings down the 'tumour load' on the body.
    The body can then heal itself due to reduced tumour load.

    The problems with chemotherapy or radiation is that there
    might be a significant reduction in the activity of the
    tumour, only for the tumour to come back later with a
    vengeance and kill the patient. If you can kill enough of
    the tumour lower the activity, and let the Gerson take over
    from there then you can get more long term remissions that
    are less likely on Gerson or mainstream alone. People have
    had 'terminal cancer' (yes they are pronounced 'terminal'😉
    used a mainstream therapy as palliative or whatever, then
    took Gerson and achieved a long term cure - these cases are
    often wrote off as 'cured by mainstream.' can't you see the
    ignorance in this?.

    Similar mistakes are made with other alt treatments etc (Dr
    Rath vitamins is an example) - they had mainstream
    treatments, get frustrated because it isn't working, use alt
    method then achieve a long term cure. Then these cases are
    wrote off as delayed action of the mainstream treatment
    (whoever unlikely this acually is in their cases). These
    people usually proudly pronounce that it was the alt
    treatment that healed them.

    Quoted message said:

    I assume you refer to a trial of chemotherapy for a couple
    of months when the patient has a cancer which doesn't
    often respond to chemotherapy. It is interesting that
    doing one's utmost for patients who are in desperate
    straits is seen as a virtue within alternaitve medicine
    but something sinister if within convetional medicine. Of
    course doctors try anything that might help. The patient
    and their relatives expect that of them. I agree that it
    can be wasteful and that it can be overdone, but I can
    understand how much such futile endeavour arises, having
    been there myself..

    Yep this is what I was referring to.

    Quoted message said:

    Peter Moran

    Anth

  16. Rich Do you youself and crawl under a rock. Anth

    <Rich.@.> wrote in message news:40e8a37c.237122046@news-
    server.hawaii.rr.com...

    Quoted message said:
    Happy Dog said:

    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    You can pick at people who had Gerson all you want, it
    isn't going to resolve anything. I could pick others who
    did Gerson and are alive much beyond their expectations
    - free of cancer. The question should be why are they
    free of cancer?

    Show how you know that they didn't have any other form of
    treatment. Also show how you know they were correctly
    diagnosed. Without this information verified, it's
    premature to ask for full scale clinical trials.

    Cue Anth to ask you to prove that they were incorrectly
    diagnosed or had other treatments. Cue Anth to criticize
    you for not accepting the validity of the claims that
    Gerson makes. Cue Anth to top post.

    Aloha,

    Rich

    Quoted message said:


    moo

    -------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------

    The best defense to logic is ignorance

  17. Points I'd like to make :-

    (1)With Gerson (unless you stay in a 'Gerson' hospital) you
    can pay a single consultation fee which represents a few
    thousands dollars. The cost of supplementation and
    'food' is around 2-3x what you would normally pay for
    food alone.

    (2)Dr Day cures her cancer with Gerson. "She didn't have
    cancer - it was debulked" Dr Day claims it was the Gerson
    that did it. Opponents claim it was the debulking.

    (3) Michael Gearing Tosh had aggressive early stage multiple
    myeloma - he was a 'gonner' if he took chemo. He took
    the Gerson path and is still alive today, an
    astronomical amount of years later.

    (4)If Gerson was studied properly we would know if it
    'worked' or didn't and I wouldn't need to be
    writing this.

    Anth

  18. "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    I've read Gearin Tosh's book, spoke to him, read the lab
    reports etc. I've also spoke to a few people who have done
    Gerson on the phone.

    Well, get in line then. Can you even dream of an alternative
    cure claim that isn't worthy of full-scale trials? Didn't
    think so...

    moo

    Quoted message said:

    "Happy Dog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    You can pick at people who had Gerson all you want, it
    isn't going to resolve anything. I could pick others
    who did Gerson and are alive much beyond their
    expectations - free of cancer. The question should be
    why are they free of cancer?

    Show how you know that they didn't have any other form
    of treatment.


    Also

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    show how you know they were correctly diagnosed.
    Without this


    information

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    verified, it's premature to ask for full scale clinical
    trials.

    moo


  19. "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:40e0abbb$0$15067$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
    02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    [Anth/snip] Anth, how did they know these folk had
    melanoma unless they were


    subjected

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    to excision biopsy? And simple excision biopsy is
    curative of most melanomata. More will have had lymph
    node dissections, which can also improve survival.
    The Gerson crowd decptively made their figures look
    better by including level 1 melanoma in their
    figures. That has a


    hundred

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    per cent cure rate after simple excision. [Anth/snip]
    And it is never going to be tested unless clinics like
    Gerson can


    produce

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    cured patients in numbers beyond that likely from
    spontaneous remissions or other treatments the patients
    received. There is no getting around


    that,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    and that is where people like you should be exerting
    pressure. You


    are

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    wasting your time trying to pressure those with research
    moneys (such as the NCCAM) into testing methods that
    can't even produce a few


    well-documented

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    cured patients.

    1st you see when someone mentions a Gerson cure the 'me
    know all me unscientific type' usually runs off to goggle
    and tries to find out of the person had other treatments
    then proudly presents the 'proof' that it


    wasn't

    Quoted message said:

    the Gerson that healed them.

    Cases likes this involve mainstream treatment (debulking
    therapy) then Gerson afterwards and then you get long term
    remission if not complete remission.. Would you not agree
    that Mainstream then Gerson afterwards is _not_ the


    same

    Quoted message said:

    as Mainstream alone - the survival rates could be
    different because the Gerson effects the long term
    remission/cure rate? CHEMO/RAD/SURGERY (debulking) then
    GERSON (long term recurrence prevention/clean up) should
    be compared to GERSON or CHEMO/RAD/SURGERY


    alone

    Quoted message said:

    in a study. .

    I am not the one that made any comparisons. Gerson did,
    breaking their patients up into stages and comparing them
    with a single set of results in the world literature that
    are unlikely to even be representative.

    As I have said before, they had no survivors in the largest
    group, those with most advanced cancers. The numbers in
    other groups are too small to make any claims, especially
    when a large number of patients were lost to follow-up, but
    they mostly look comparable to me to expectations in such a
    variably behaved cancer without the Gerson treatment. I
    would also point out that despite in the end rather mediocre
    results, Gerson chose melanoma to study because they thought
    their results with it were particularly good. If the many
    patients lost to follow-up mostly died, which is very
    feasible, the results look even less convincing.

    They would have been better doing what I said. They attract
    patients with testimonials claiming reversal of incurable
    cancer. Why can't they produce a series of such patients?

    Quoted message said:

    The rational behind Gerson is that you use a main-stream
    debulking therapy which kills a lot of the cancer (even
    tho the main mass could be static) - this brings down the
    'tumour load' on the body. The body can then heal itself
    due to reduced tumour load.

    Do you have a source for this? That was not at all the
    original rationale behind Gerson. Debulking is a concept
    borrowed from conventional cancer treatment. If they are
    saying that now it must be a reaction to the fact that they
    cannot demonstrate visible cancer reversing with their
    treatment.

    Quoted message said:


    The problems with chemotherapy or radiation is that there
    might be a significant reduction in the activity of the
    tumour, only for the tumour


    to

    Quoted message said:

    come back later with a vengeance and kill the patient.
    If you can kill enough of the tumour lower the activity,
    and let the


    Gerson

    Quoted message said:

    take over from there then you can get more long term
    remissions that are less likely on Gerson or
    mainstream alone.

    But that is neither what the testimonials for Gerson claim,
    nor what the cancer patients hopes for. It also could only
    ever be demonstrated by careful prospective controlled
    trials. In the absence of those there are no grounds upon
    which you can make such a claim.

    Quoted message said:

    People have had 'terminal cancer' (yes they are pronounced
    'terminal'😉


    used

    Quoted message said:

    a mainstream therapy as palliative or whatever, then took
    Gerson and achieved a long term cure - these cases are
    often wrote off as 'cured by mainstream.' can't you see
    the ignorance in this?.

    That would be ignorant, but that precise scenario is
    extremely rare in testimonial. More usually the patient may
    have been offered a poor prognosisis but there was never any
    actual evidence of active cancer. Under those circumstances
    you cannot claim cure by alternaitves if you want any
    certainty about alt treatrments, and that is what everyone
    does want.

    Also I detect a lot of elaboration and exageration in
    testimonial. Doctors are credited with statements and
    foreknowledge that they could not possibly have made/had
    on the information given. It seems also within alt.med
    that no medical opinion is worth zip unless it involves
    condemning someone to a very early grave.

    Quoted message said:

    Similar mistakes are made with other alt treatments etc
    (Dr Rath vitamins


    is

    Quoted message said:

    an example) - they had mainstream treatments, get
    frustrated because it isn't working, use alt method then
    achieve a long term cure. Then these cases are wrote off
    as delayed action of the mainstream treatment (whoever
    unlikely this acually is in their cases). These people
    usually proudly pronounce that it was the alt treatment
    that healed them.

    There are a few good testimonials where there is little
    doubt that the patient had active cancer, sometimes even
    proved by biopsy, and subsequent ivestigation showed the
    cancer to have disappeared, with no recent (within three or
    four months) medical treatment. That is about the only kind
    of testimonial that is worth anything. Claims about
    prolongation of survival or other benefits cannot be
    sustained by testimonial or anecdotal evidence.

    Peter Moran

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    I assume you refer to a trial of chemotherapy for a
    couple of months


    when

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the patient has a cancer which doesn't often respond to
    chemotherapy.


    It

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    is interesting that doing one's utmost for patients who
    are in desperate straits is seen as a virtue within
    alternaitve medicine but something sinister if within
    convetional medicine. Of course doctors try


    anything

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    that might help. The patient and their relatives expect
    that of them.


    I

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    agree that it can be wasteful and that it can be
    overdone, but I can understand how much such futile
    endeavour arises, having been there myself..

    Yep this is what I was referring to.

    Quoted message said:

    Peter Moran

    Anth

  20. Anth said:

    Points I'd like to make :-

    (1)With Gerson (unless you stay in a 'Gerson' hospital) you
    can pay a single consultation fee which represents a few
    thousands dollars. The cost of supplementation and
    'food' is around 2-3x what you would normally pay for
    food alone.

    (2)Dr Day cures her cancer with Gerson. "She didn't have
    cancer - it was debulked" Dr Day claims it was the
    Gerson that did it. Opponents claim it was the
    debulking.

    If Dr Day was cured by Gerson, why doesn't she recommend
    Gerson to other cancer patients instead of telling them to
    pray and drink grass juice? Why does she compete with him
    in the marketplace and say that she is the only one with
    the answer? Is she lying when she says that she cured
    herself with the treatment she promotes in her books and on
    her web site?

    Quoted message said:

    (3) Michael Gearing Tosh had aggressive early stage
    multiple myeloma - he was a 'gonner' if he took chemo.
    He took the Gerson path and is still alive today, an
    astronomical amount of years later.

    Please define "aggressive early stage multiple myeloma".
    What was Tosh's Bence Jones reading? As people with indolent
    multiple myeloma can live for a long time, how do we know
    that he wasn't just one of the lucky ones. As the
    International Myeloma Foundation says, "Many patients go on
    to lead full lives for years, even decades, after
    diagnosis".

    Quoted message said:

    (3)If Gerson was studied properly we would know if it
    'worked' or didn't and I wouldn't need to be
    writing this.

    Let Gerson produce the people who have been properly
    diagnosed with cancer and have had no other treatment than
    his and do not have those cancers five years later. I will
    personally pay for his ticket to Stockholm to collect his
    Nobel prize.

    --
    Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project
    ratbags.comrsoles The Green Light
    ratbags.comgreenlight Quintessence of the Loon
    ratbags.comloon To email me use my first name
    only at ratbags.com

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.