cancer reversed by nutrition


Recommended Posts

I don't find your choice of topics uninteresting, but I would be more inclined to review the guts of your topics if you didn't simply flop a 5/10/15 minute video on the screen. The problem is, having no idea whether the video might go, your reader may well be wasting x minutes to find out.

Therefore, in this instance, I'll take a 12 minute pass.

Perhaps a summary of the videos you are tempted to flop might be in order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a summary of the videos you are tempted to flop might be in order.

The summary of both testimonial videos is that Gerson therapy (essentially overdosing on nutrition) reversed cancer. The details are:

1. The morbid details about the cancer.

2. The Gerson therapy (juicing etc.).

3. Doctors couldn't find the cancer.

In the first video it happened in only one month, which is a very short time. Usually it takes longer. Paradoxically the faster the cancer is growing, the faster it reverses, according to Dr. Patrick Vickers.

Chemo therapy has a 3% success rate (so I'm told). But what do they mean by success? They mean the cancer goes away. But it comes back worse. (Poison is poison.) In addition chemo therapy reduces the success of the Gerson therapy, because it must overcome the poison plus the cancer.

There are it seems 2 schools of thought in the Gerson community. One is it is written in stone, led by Charlotte Gerson, daughter of Max Gerson who invented Gerson therapy. The other is it is a work in progress capable of improvement in the light of modern nutritional science, led by Patrick Vickers, who worked with Charlotte Gerson and now runs his own place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more testimonial. There are a bunch more. Listing all of them probably would be pointless.

Proof by Youtube, once again. Are there any articles in proper medical journals supporting this guy?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more testimonial. There are a bunch more. Listing all of them probably would be pointless.

Proof by Youtube, once again. Are there any articles in proper medical journals supporting this guy?

Ba'al Chatzaf

If there were, I wouldn't believe it. A medical journal would not bash medicine.

I have a question for you. Are there any articles in proper medical journals supporting chemo therapy? Perhaps the emperor has no clothes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quackery worked. Was it a mistake?

That was a serious question. The quackery (as most people here see it) worked in this instance. Was doing it a mistake? Would chemo therapy (and failure) have been better? I'm trying to understand the thinking of people who argue with success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a serious question. The quackery (as most people here see it) worked in this instance. Was doing it a mistake? Would chemo therapy (and failure) have been better? I'm trying to understand the thinking of people who argue with success.

How about chemo and success as opposed to quack treatment and failure? Most quack remedies do not work.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a serious question. The quackery (as most people here see it) worked in this instance. Was doing it a mistake? Would chemo therapy (and failure) have been better? I'm trying to understand the thinking of people who argue with success.

How about chemo and success as opposed to quack treatment and failure? Most quack remedies do not work.

Ba'al Chatzaf

My question is based on the video. She was a nurse who administered chemo. She said it doesn't work. I doubt there is any peer reviewed evidence that chemo works. In her case the 'quack' remedy worked. I'm not talking about most quack remedies, only this one. The question is: Would chemo have been better than Gerson in her case?

You are trying to dodge the question by talking about generalities. The question is based on the video and on this specific case and on Gerson.

About 'quack': The word quack means not based on science. Nutrition is a science. I don't know what branch of health science chemo is based on. Max Gerson developed his therapy by trial and error, keeping what worked and discarding what did not work. His therapy was a work in progress to the end of his life.

I don't expect you or anyone else to answer the question straight. The answer would be generally accepted and failure is better than not generally accepted and success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a serious question. The quackery (as most people here see it) worked in this instance. Was doing it a mistake? Would chemo therapy (and failure) have been better? I'm trying to understand the thinking of people who argue with success.

How about chemo and success as opposed to quack treatment and failure? Most quack remedies do not work.

Ba'al Chatzaf

My question is based on the video. She was a nurse who administered chemo. She said it doesn't work. I doubt there is any peer reviewed evidence that chemo works. In her case the 'quack' remedy worked. I'm not talking about most quack remedies, only this one. The question is: Would chemo have been better than Gerson in her case?

You are trying to dodge the question by talking about generalities. The question is based on the video and on this specific case and on Gerson.

About 'quack': The word quack means not based on science. Nutrition is a science. I don't know what branch of health science chemo is based on. Max Gerson developed his therapy by trial and error, keeping what worked and discarding what did not work. His therapy was a work in progress to the end of his life.

I don't expect you or anyone else to answer the question straight. The answer would be generally accepted and failure is better than not generally accepted and success.

I didn't watch the videos --- I'm at my office --- but your comment, "I doubt there is any peer reviewed evidence that chemo works," strikes me as odd. I'm not an expert, but I would imagine that there are thousands if not tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies of chemotherapeutic agents. Any drug that is approved by the FDA including all new chemotherapeutic agents have to be reviewed by scientists at the FDA (who are arguably peers of the scientists that developed the drugs). In addition, the results of many (probably most) studies are presented at conferences and/or written about in journal articles, implying a peer review process. Many are initially developed in university laboratories and their results are presented at conferences and in journal articles.

There may be other approaches to treating cancer, but it strikes me as uninformed at best to suggest that there is no evidence that chemo works. In fact, there is an enormous body of evidence that chemo works. That body of evidence also shows that there is much left to be done.

Darrell

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't watch the videos --- I'm at my office --- but your comment, "I doubt there is any peer reviewed evidence that chemo works," strikes me as odd. I'm not an expert, but I would imagine that there are thousands if not tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies of chemotherapeutic agents. Any drug that is approved by the FDA including all new chemotherapeutic agents have to be reviewed by scientists at the FDA (who are arguably peers of the scientists that developed the drugs). In addition, the results of many (probably most) studies are presented at conferences and/or written about in journal articles, implying a peer review process. Many are initially developed in university laboratories and their results are presented at conferences and in journal articles.

There may be other approaches to treating cancer, but it strikes me as uninformed at best to suggest that there is no evidence that chemo works. In fact, there is an enormous body of evidence that chemo works. That body of evidence also shows that there is much left to be done.

Darrell

The FDA (Fraud and Deception Administration) also approved fluoride and MSG and aspartame. If you look at how they do research, you will find that they are outright dishonest. Search the story of how they approved aspartame and msg. Anything they approve, you probably should avoid. The FDA is crookeder than a dog's hind leg and lower than a snake's belly.

If chemo works, then why is a nurse who administers it saying it does not work? And why is it so much easier to find bad experiences with chemo than good experiences? And why am I unable to find evidence for chemo on Google Scholar?

Even if you find evidence for chemo, you should keep in mind that there are 2 kinds of science. There is real science to find truth and there is tobacco science to sell a product. If a product is very lucrative, they probably will fudge the data, as they did with tobacco and aspartame and MSG. "Money and honor are not found inthe same purse." -- Spanish proverb

The idea of chemo is to kill the cancer with poison without killing the patient. But cancer is a symptom of a general problem. Even if you get rid of the cancer (and weaken the patient in the process), the general problem that produced the cancer is still there, and is worse because the patient is poisoned. The general problem is still there to produce another cancer.

With Gerson therapy (or some similar variation on the idea of overdosing on nutrition), the patient is strengthened, the immune system is built up, and the body's ability to heal itself becomes powerful. And it's not just the cancer that is autolyzed but general health is improved.

You can't use chemo and Gerson together. They are in conflict. When a cancer patient tries chemo and fails and then tries Gerson (probably out of desperation), the chance of success is decreased because the Gerson must overcome the chemo and the cancer, both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JTS, Patients would do best to take Drs advice with a grain of salt. My experience is that patients who are proactive will find that standardized treatments while recommended by Drs arent fixing the cause, but treating the symptoms. The conundrum for getting Gersen treatment is its done as a last resort and as patients become more educated, when other milieus dont work.

An aside:

Recently a blood test revealed a high total cholesterol. Without so much as batting an eye (no bedside manner ;)) statins were prescribed. When push back was applied the dr retracted it for reasons the patient provided. The little detail is the Paleo diet as the Atkins diet did causes elevated readings.

The USPSTF has made a recommendation that PSA tests shouldnt be used as screening test for prostate cancer. Its the 2nd leading cause of death in men. http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2012/dec2012_PSA-Controversy-Part1_01.htm?source=search&key=uspstf

The future of medicine looks more grim thru the prism of ACA, as govt health care takes hold and its many affiliates set new standards and treatment thats drs cant - not wont, deviate from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JTS, Patients would do best to take Drs advice with a grain of salt. My experience is that patients who are proactive will find that standardized treatments while recommended by Drs arent fixing the cause, but treating the symptoms. The conundrum for getting Gersen treatment is its done as a last resort and as patients become more educated, when other milieus dont work.

An aside:

Recently a blood test revealed a high total cholesterol. Without so much as batting an eye (no bedside manner ;)) statins were prescribed. When push back was applied the dr retracted it for reasons the patient provided. The little detail is the Paleo diet as the Atkins diet did causes elevated readings.

The USPSTF has made a recommendation that PSA tests shouldnt be used as screening test for prostate cancer. Its the 2nd leading cause of death in men. http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2012/dec2012_PSA-Controversy-Part1_01.htm?source=search&key=uspstf

The future of medicine looks more grim thru the prism of ACA, as govt health care takes hold and its many affiliates set new standards and treatment thats drs cant - not wont, deviate from.

Where are the double blind studies evaluated this Gersen treatment?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the double blind studies evaluated this Gersen treatment?

Ba'al Chatzaf

First spell the word right. It's Gerson, not Gersen.

Second, the question makes no sense. How could you do a double blind study on Gerson therapy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

JTS, Patients would do best to take Drs advice with a grain of salt. My experience is that patients who are proactive will find that standardized treatments while recommended by Drs arent fixing the cause, but treating the symptoms. The conundrum for getting Gersen treatment is its done as a last resort and as patients become more educated, when other milieus dont work.

An aside:

Recently a blood test revealed a high total cholesterol. Without so much as batting an eye (no bedside manner ;)) statins were prescribed. When push back was applied the dr retracted it for reasons the patient provided. The little detail is the Paleo diet as the Atkins diet did causes elevated readings.

The USPSTF has made a recommendation that PSA tests shouldnt be used as screening test for prostate cancer. Its the 2nd leading cause of death in men. http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2012/dec2012_PSA-Controversy-Part1_01.htm?source=search&key=uspstf

The future of medicine looks more grim thru the prism of ACA, as govt health care takes hold and its many affiliates set new standards and treatment thats drs cant - not wont, deviate from.

Thanks for the link on the PSA test. Now I can use it. I printed out two copies. One for me and the other for my doctor.

The problem with this test not used and interpreted properly is inappropriate interventions off false positives.

Prostate cancer death is not the second leading cause of death in men (in the US), btw, but the second leading cause of cancer death.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

JTS, Patients would do best to take Drs advice with a grain of salt. My experience is that patients who are proactive will find that standardized treatments while recommended by Drs arent fixing the cause, but treating the symptoms. The conundrum for getting Gersen treatment is its done as a last resort and as patients become more educated, when other milieus dont work.

An aside:

Recently a blood test revealed a high total cholesterol. Without so much as batting an eye (no bedside manner ;)) statins were prescribed. When push back was applied the dr retracted it for reasons the patient provided. The little detail is the Paleo diet as the Atkins diet did causes elevated readings.

The USPSTF has made a recommendation that PSA tests shouldnt be used as screening test for prostate cancer. Its the 2nd leading cause of death in men. http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2012/dec2012_PSA-Controversy-Part1_01.htm?source=search&key=uspstf

The future of medicine looks more grim thru the prism of ACA, as govt health care takes hold and its many affiliates set new standards and treatment thats drs cant - not wont, deviate from.

Thanks for the link on the PSA test. Now I can use it. I printed out two copies. One for me and the other for my doctor.

The problem with this test not used and interpreted properly is inappropriate interventions off false positives.

Prostate cancer death is not the second leading cause of death in men (in the US), btw, but the second leading cause of cancer death.

--Brant

Youre welcome. Thanks for correcting the error I made on leading cause.

"false positives."

My gist is for psa to be done routinely (every year) allowing for proper diagnosis' that avoid screening unnecessarily by establishing a norm for the patient and upon seeing deviations making informed decisions which lead to better outcomes. I cant tell you how relieved I was on seeing a .4 and knowing it was within +- .1 over 10 yrs time. Ive seen a friend go from 6-9-11-14. The action by the unilateral govt medical association rec is similar to changing guidelines for a digital ou ha or colonoscopy when the methods seem to work. Nuff said. )

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quackery worked. Was it a mistake?

Testimonial is the surest sign of bullshit.

The only thing that counts are carefully constructed double blind studies.

Testimonials are ka ka.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Testimonial is the surest sign of bullshit.

The only thing that counts are carefully constructed double blind studies.

Testimonials are ka ka.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How would you do a double blind study on Gerson therapy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Testimonial is the surest sign of bullshit.

The only thing that counts are carefully constructed double blind studies.

Testimonials are ka ka.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How would you do a double blind study on Gerson therapy?

That is a problem isn't it. There is no way to demonstrate scientifically how well it works.

All we have is Youtube and Testimonials.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now