Gerson Therapy (split from "is this world better off without humans?")

[Consistency]

All the times.. I don't understand the closed-minded views of the majority of people and their general LACK of morals and their sick selfish perversion of controlling the world as they are a God. Like doctors that keep telling Cancer patients that Cancer can't be cured while Max Gerson was curing Cancer in the early 1900's by curing the underlying vitamins and minerals deficiencies with natural foods and the body cured itself! Why is the truth always suppressed for greed?

Greedy humans without morals gotta stop playing God by controlling everything and calling it science.

Free the farm animals and the world will flourish just fine!

(general view, not a personal attack against anyone)

Edited February 14, 2013 by Consistency

[zapatos]

All the times.. I don't understand the closed-minded views of the majority of people and their general LACK of morals and their sick selfish perversion of controlling the world as they are a God. Like doctors that keep telling Cancer patients that Cancer can't be cured while Max Gerson was curing Cancer in the early 1900's by curing the underlying vitamins and minerals deficiencies with natural foods and the body cured itself! Why is the truth always suppressed for greed?

 

Greedy humans without morals gotta stop playing God by controlling everything and calling it science.

 

Free the farm animals and the world will flourish just fine!

 

(general view, not a personal attack against anyone)

I don't even know where to start...

[Moontanman]

I don't even know where to start...

 

 

I'd ask him to define morality but then he would just bury us in horse feathers...

[imatfaal]

All the times.. I don't understand the closed-minded views of the majority of people and their general LACK of morals and their sick selfish perversion of controlling the world as they are a God. Like doctors that keep telling Cancer patients that Cancer can't be cured while Max Gerson was curing Cancer in the early 1900's by curing the underlying vitamins and minerals deficiencies with natural foods and the body cured itself! Why is the truth always suppressed for greed?

 

Greedy humans without morals gotta stop playing God by controlling everything and calling it science.

 

Free the farm animals and the world will flourish just fine!

 

(general view, not a personal attack against anyone)

 

Whilst I agree with Zapatos, I won't let that sort of unsubstantiated, and in the case of Gerson Therapy dangerous, rubbish go unchallenged.

 

Max Gerson's treatments did not work - his page on Wikipedia is most illuminating.

 

Many Cancers are curable and Oncologists know this and tell their patients -check this out from Cancer Research UK

 

And the many Oncologists I used to work with at St Bartholomews Hospital would find your comments highly insulting - Barts Cancer Centre

[Consistency]

Whilst I agree with Zapatos, I won't let that sort of unsubstantiated, and in the case of Gerson Therapy dangerous, rubbish go unchallenged.

 

Max Gerson's treatments did not work - his page on Wikipedia is most illuminating.

 

Many Cancers are curable and Oncologists know this and tell their patients -check this out from Cancer Research UK

 

And the many Oncologists I used to work with at St Bartholomews Hospital would find your comments highly insulting - Barts Cancer Centre

 

And Chemotherapy isn't dangerous? Whats the PH of chemotherapy? 1.5-2? Pumping battery acid in the vains isn't dangerous?

 

The wikipedia page is extremely slanderous!

 

The body cures itself when it receives the vitamins and minerals it needs from natural foods. The body is self-regulating. Like when a person cuts their finger.. the cut heals on its own. Same applies to cancer.

 

I know. The truth angers.

 

The only reason why the Gerson therapy wasn't accepted was because nobody can make money without selling a drug. Absolute greed.

[imatfaal]

And Chemotherapy isn't dangerous? Whats the PH of chemotherapy? 1.5-2? Pumping battery acid in the vains isn't dangerous?

Who said it isn't a drastic and severe regimen of treatment? I said it worked - and it does. Could you provide some evidence that it is all universally counterproductive and dangerous. I provided a few sites with video testimony of cancer survivors.

 

The wikipedia page is extremely slanderous!

A. It's written down - that would be libel not slander (which is transitory or spoken)

B. He is dead and you cannot libel the dead

C. Truth is an absolute defence against libel or slander

So apart from A, B, and C above ...

 

The body cures itself when it receives the vitamins and minerals it needs from natural foods. The body is self-regulating. Like when a person cuts their finger.. the cut heals on its own. Same applies to cancer.

Hogwash - most cancers if untreated will most often lead to very serious and fatal consequences. There are cases of spontaneous remission - most of which we do not understand. Unfortunately they are few and far between - however they can provide hints for researchers looking to find new ways of fighting different cancers

 

I know. The truth angers.

It's not the truth - it's a dangerous and fallacious anti-scientific rant.

The only reason why the Gerson therapy wasn't accepted was because nobody can make money without selling a drug. Absolute greed.

You might like to check the comparison of earnings for vitimin companies versus drug companies. big pharma aint got nuffink on the vitimin-combines and the even more lucrative holistic/homoeopathic/natural remedy merchabts; life is so much easier for companies who do not have to prove that the crap they peddle is firstly safe and secondly works.

 

Gerson therapy was rejected cos it did more harm than good.

[Consistency]

Who said it isn't a drastic and severe regimen of treatment? I said it worked - and it does. Could you provide some evidence that it is all universally counterproductive and dangerous. I provided a few sites with video testimony of cancer survivors.

 

Correction: It works within 5 years. Most patients die after 5 years. Thats not a cure. Its a manipulated cure to distort the horrible truth. - Did you know that chemotherapy descendent from the nazi's?

 

Can you prodive scientific evidence on cancer "surival rates" AFTER 5 years?

 

 

A. It's written down - that would be libel not slander (which is transitory or spoken)

B. He is dead and you cannot libel the dead

C. Truth is an absolute defence against libel or slander

So apart from A, B, and C above ...

 

Its written by scientists. Its bias and the gerson therapy was never thoroughly tested.

 

 

Hogwash - most cancers if untreated will most often lead to very serious and fatal consequences. There are cases of spontaneous remission - most of which we do not understand. Unfortunately they are few and far between - however they can provide hints for researchers looking to find new ways of fighting different cancers

 

I agree with the first part mainly because the majority of people eat nutritionally deficienct diets. So.. its no surprise that their health remains the same.

 

Bold part: They went on the gerson therapy by drinking a lot of freshly squeezed carrot juice, green juices and 3 plant based meals a day. Just because a lot of people are incompetent, doesn't mean everyone is.

 

 

It's not the truth - it's a dangerous and fallacious anti-scientific rant.

You might like to check the comparison of earnings for vitimin companies versus drug companies. big pharma aint got nuffink on the vitimin-combines and the even more lucrative holistic/homoeopathic/natural remedy merchabts; life is so much easier for companies who do not have to prove that the crap they peddle is firstly safe and secondly works.

 

Gerson therapy was rejected cos it did more harm than good.

 

You are distorting what I said and/or making assumptions about what I mean. Just because I don't agree with you because of the doctors big pharma peddleing ways, it doesn't mean I agree with the hippies with the herbs. But the natural crap doesn't contain major side effects like the crap the doctors peddle.

 

The first gerson therapy probably did more harm than good. When they were using cod liver oil and juiced liver instead of carrot juice.

 

Do you seriously believe that the body can't fight its own battle when given nutrients from natural foods? As in vegetable juices?

 

Even with all the science; doctors will never admit that plant foods are superior than chemotherapy. Their reputation is more important than saving a life.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Consistency

[Moontanman]

Within 5 years. All patients die after 5 years. Thats not a cure. Its a manipulated cure to distort the horrible truth.

 

 

 

Oh hell, I only have two more years I better get my bucket list together...

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Consistency,

I've now made this into its own topic since it was rather off topic in the thread it was in originally. Be aware that you are required to provide evidence to support your assertions. If you can't do that, this thread will be closed.

[Consistency]

This for now... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/14/beautiful-truth-about-outlawed-cancer-treatment.aspx

I will add scientific facts tomorrow.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Consistency

[imatfaal]

Correction: It works within 5 years. Most patients die after 5 years. Thats not a cure. Its a manipulated cure to distort the horrible truth. - Did you know that chemotherapy descendent from the nazi's?

Godwin in 7 - most trolls managed to hold out for longer; you need practice, just not here.

 

Ovarian Cancer Survival Rates

Prostate Cancer Survival Rates

Oesophageal Cancer Survival Rates

Brest Cancer Survival Rate

 

Some are good some are not so good - surprisingly even highly metastised distant cancers that have spread now have survival rates for 5 years - ie that's people refuting your claim

 

Its written by scientists. Its bias and the gerson therapy was never thoroughly tested.

So how can you possibly claim it works?? The onus is on those promoting a therapy to show it is beneficial - not on those advocating an establised and beneficial therapy to show that they are wrong. A piece of meta-analysis by University of Texas has concluded that not one scientific study has shown Gerson therapy to be beneficial.

 

Pony up some proof!

 

I agree with the first part mainly because the majority of people eat nutritionally deficienct diets. So.. its no surprise that their health remains the same.

People under the care of a physician for a long term illness tend to have a much better diet than average - no physician and few patients will want to have the chances of recovery lowered due to a nutritional deficiency

 

Bold part: They went on the gerson therapy by drinking a lot of freshly squeezed carrot juice, green juices and 3 plant based meals a day. Just because a lot of people are incompetent, doesn't mean everyone is.

Hey let's claim that all cases of spontaneous remission were actually people doing the Gerson therapy course by mistake - it doesn't work like that.

You are distorting what I said and/or making assumptions about what I mean. Just because I don't agree with you because of the doctors big pharma peddleing ways, it doesn't mean I agree with the hippies with the herbs. But the natural crap doesn't contain major side effects like the crap the doctors peddle.

Really? I suggest you have a read of this website - whats the harm. And the first instance is a complete coincidence - but very telling.

 

The first gerson therapy probably did more harm than good. When they were using cod liver oil and juiced liver instead of carrot juice.

 

Do you seriously believe that the body can't fight its own battle when given nutrients from natural foods? As in vegetable juices?

Yes I seriously believe that. Have you seen a surgical intervention removing the myriad metastasizing parts of an aggressive malignant tumor? Cos I have - first hand, watching surgeons spend hours working to remove the tinest trace, seeing how a cancer will claim blood vessel to feed its abnormal growth, slowly tracking lymph nodes to find the first which seems unaffected. Cancer is the body fighting the body - and the cancer is an aggresive interloper that obeys no rules; you cannot just keep the environment fit for healthy life because the cancer benefits as much as the body.

 

Even with all the science; doctors will never admit that plant foods are superior than chemotherapy. Their reputation is more important than saving a life.

 

Because plant foods are not superior. Even if you wish to be super cynical; the doctor that shows that she has a cancer survival rate significantly above normal pharmalogical treatment and radiotherapy - BY ANY MEANS including Gerson - will win a Nobel Prize, be on the gravy train for life, have statues put up in their birthplace etc - so if it is only reputation they care about then I promise they would be trying anything. Unfortunately for your argument - they care about patient safety and results as well - so most tend to be risk-averse and stick to treatments that work.

 

I look forward to your scientific response - cos a link to a website that sell vitimins must, even to you, be obviously suspect - they are not exactly what one might call disinterested.

[Consistency]

Godwin in 7 - most trolls managed to hold out for longer; you need practice, just not here.

 

Ovarian Cancer Survival Rates

**Ten-year survival rates have been predicted for patients diagnosed in 2007 (using the hybrid approach)

Prostate Cancer Survival Rates - Of course it will have near 100% survival rate since the prostate is removed!

Oesophageal Cancer Survival Rates (5-Year Relative Survival Rate) What about 10 years?

Brest Cancer Survival Rate

*Ten-year survival rates have been predicted for patients diagnosed in 2007 (using the hybrid approach)

 

Some are good some are not so good - surprisingly even highly metastised distant cancers that have spread now have survival rates for 5 years - ie that's people refuting your claim

 

Show actual numbers of survival rates after 5 years. Not predicted numbers. Prediction is a guess and guesses aren't facts.

 

You just proved my previous point. Predictions are not facts and as you can see.. survival rates diminish over time.. people die from eating the same toxic diet.

 

 

So how can you possibly claim it works?? The onus is on those promoting a therapy to show it is beneficial - not on those advocating an establised and beneficial therapy to show that they are wrong. A piece of meta-analysis by University of Texas has concluded that not one scientific study has shown Gerson therapy to be beneficial.

 

Pony up some proof!

 

How can you possibly claim it doesn't work when you haven't personally tried it yourself?

 

I've drank a lot of fresh squeezed carrot juice and know very well first hand the benefits of it.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10559547

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333733

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21358592

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15550456

 

Antioxidants are primarely found in plants. Fresh squeezed carrot juice is the basis of the gerson therapy. Very high in beta-carotene.

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/questions/might-too-many-antioxidants-cause-cancer/

 

 

People under the care of a physician for a long term illness tend to have a much better diet than average - no physician and few patients will want to have the chances of recovery lowered due to a nutritional deficiency

 

Again.. not everyone is incompetent. There is a lot of people that have went the gerson therapy route and cured their cancer. She is an example of curing her skin cancer... http://www.thewellnesswarrior.com.au/

 

 

Yes I seriously believe that. Have you seen a surgical intervention removing the myriad metastasizing parts of an aggressive malignant tumor? Cos I have - first hand, watching surgeons spend hours working to remove the tinest trace, seeing how a cancer will claim blood vessel to feed its abnormal growth, slowly tracking lymph nodes to find the first which seems unaffected. Cancer is the body fighting the body - and the cancer is an aggresive interloper that obeys no rules; you cannot just keep the environment fit for healthy life because the cancer benefits as much as the body.

 

Cancer grows in an acidic and oxygen deprived environment. Cancer doesn't grow in an alkaline and oxygen rich environment.

 

Animal products contain high amounts of carcinogens(preservatives), raise uric acid levels and are acidic in the body. Plants are alkaline and rich in minerals like Iron which is needed for hemoglobin. More hemoglobin.. more oxygen to the rest of the body and less cancer.

 

 

Hey let's claim that all cases of spontaneous remission were actually people doing the Gerson therapy course by mistake - it doesn't work like that.

Really? I suggest you have a read of this website - whats the harm. And the first instance is a complete coincidence - but very telling.

 

A couple of incompetent gullible people doesn't refute the mountain of scientific evidence in favor of plants.

 

Because plant foods are not superior. Even if you wish to be super cynical; the doctor that shows that she has a cancer survival rate significantly above normal pharmalogical treatment and radiotherapy - BY ANY MEANS including Gerson - will win a Nobel Prize, be on the gravy train for life, have statues put up in their birthplace etc - so if it is only reputation they care about then I promise they would be trying anything. Unfortunately for your argument - they care about patient safety and results as well - so most tend to be risk-averse and stick to treatments that work.

 

You should refute this website and all the research along with it... http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/breast-cancer/

 

Cancer doctors are bullies and thats why alternative cancer treatments are banned in the US. And like I said.. Cancer doctors can't patent plants. Hence there is no profits. Hence doctors have to use toxic chemotherapy so they can have a nice mercedes-benz in their drive-way. Hence my original comment.. Doctors lack morals.

 

 

I look forward to your scientific response - cos a link to a website that sell vitimins must, even to you, be obviously suspect - they are not exactly what one might call disinterested.

 

Attack the argument. Not the person(mercola). Sure Mercola is a huckster but he didn't lie.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Consistency

[hypervalent_iodine]

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/survival-statistics-for-the-most-common-cancers

 

Took me approximately 15 seconds.

 

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to shift the burden of proof. You made the claims, so you back them up.

 

And FYI - cancer prevention is not the same as cancer treatment. Not a single one of the articles you linked was relevant or did anything to support your case, so try again. You're only going to get so many chances here.

[Consistency]

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/survival-statistics-for-the-most-common-cancers

 

Took me approximately 15 seconds.

 

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to shift the burden of proof. You made the claims, so you back them up.

 

And FYI - cancer prevention is not the same as cancer treatment. Not a single one of the articles you linked was relevant or did anything to support your case, so try again. You're only going to get so many chances here.

 

The 10 year chart is extremely misleading because its a mix of actual and predicted figures. The survival rates rise to unrealistic years when predicted values were inserted in the chart.

 

I've provided scientific articles.

 

How is cancer prevention not the same as cancer treatment?

 

Cancer prevention involves the body getting the essential nutrients in lower doses so the immune system can defend itself however the gerson cancer treatment involves the body getting the essential nutrients from vegetable juices in much higher quantities so the immune system can defend itself a lot more efficiently against the cancer. I don't understand what is so hard to understand.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Consistency

[36grit]

^{We should work on some drugs to cure the disease of greed and everything else will fall into place.}

[Consistency]

^{We should work on some drugs to cure the disease of greed and everything else will fall into place.}

 

Paul Zak: Trust, morality - and oxytocin

 

[Moontanman]

I know at least a dozen people who are cancer free after 10+ years, your premise of 5 years fails....

[ydoaPs]

Did you know that chemotherapy descendent from the nazi's?

</thread>

 

That's one of the rules, right? The first Godwin ends the thread?

[Moontanman]

</thread>

 

That's one of the rules, right? The first Godwin ends the thread?

 

 

Should be if it isn't...

[Consistency]

I know at least a dozen people who are cancer free after 10+ years, your premise of 5 years fails....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

 

Pony up some scientific evidence to your claims!

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Consistency,

 

Stop shifting the burden of proof. If you are making claims that are not within the realms of what is already accepted within the scientific community, you need to provide evidence for them. You will get no more chances after this. If you still refuse to back up your claims that Gerson therapy treats cancer (i.e. acts as a therapeutic agent to fight an existing cancer as opposed to preventing it from developing), then this will be closed.

[Consistency]

Dietary supplementation of lutein reduces colon carcinogenesis in DMH-treated rats by modulating K-ras, PKB, and β-catenin proteins.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21128180

 

Abstract

 

In colon cancer, disturbances have been detected in genes coding for proteins involved in cellular proliferation, such as K-ras, β-catenin, extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERKs), and the protein kinase B (PKB). Although carotenoids such as lutein have an important role to prevent and treat some types of cancer, there are very few studies about the effect of lutein against colon cancer and its activity at the molecular level. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the chemoprotective activity of lutein against colon cancer induced by dimethylhydrazine (DMH). The results showed a significant increase in protein expression for K-ras and β-catenin in tumors of DMH-treated rats. Simultaneously, we detected changes in the phosphorylation state of ERK1/2 and PKB in DMH-treated animals. Lutein given in the diet (0.002%), before (prevention) and after (treatment) DMH administration, diminished the number of tumors by 55% and 32%, respectively. Moreover, lutein significantly decreased in tumors the expression of K-ras (25%) and β-catenin (28%) and the amount of pPKB (32%), during the prevention, and 39%, 26%, and 26% during the treatment stage, respectively. This study demonstrates the chemoprotective effect of lutein against colon cancer by modulating the proliferative activity of K-ras, PKB, and β-catenin proteins.

 

Sources of Lutein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutein#In_nutrition

 

Large quantities of green juices, which contain lutein, are part of the Gerson Therapy.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Consistency