Discussion Board

Hi Jeff,

What do you and Dr. McDougall think of the Gerson Therapy? Are you familiar? It falls somewhat in line with your thinking.

http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/Gerson-therapy.htm

http://www.gerson.org/GersonTherapy/gersontherapy.htm

I am not sure this diet is raw.....but I know a few people who really benefited from it.

Why the heck even post a link to Quack Watch? That guy is such a fraud and criminal, come on now. He would probably say the McDougall diet is bogus.

If you don't drink the kool aide, you end up on QuackWatch.

Like my post said, "for what it's worth." Yes, McDougall's newsletter is on his "questionable" list. It doesn't say why -- may not have to do with nutritional advice at all, but rather with the non-nutrition-related controversial stances McDougall sometimes takes (e.g. sleep deprivation to cure depression based on a few studies, when there are as many studies showing sleep deprivation increases depression).

I look at Quackwatch as a resource. They also report facts that are hard to find elsewhere, and post the actual court cases. They have their bias, but clearly it's NOT from the hugely profitable supplements/"natural" food industry.

In summary, you don't have to agree with their opinions to find the information they report useful. Especially when making decisions about important things like cancer treatment. We can be critical readers and separate the opinion from the facts.

As my dad likes to say, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Quackwatch does tend to disregard worthwhile therapies IMO. But in this case they got it right.

Charlotte Gerson claims that treatment at the clinic has produced high cure rates for many cancers. In 1986, however, investigators learned that patients were not monitored after they left the facility [19]. Although clinic personnel later said they would follow their patients systematically, there is no published evidence that they have done so. A naturopath who visited the Gerson Clinic in 1983 was able to track 21 patients over a 5-year period (or until death) through annual letters or phone calls. At the 5-year mark, only one was still alive (but not cancer-free); the rest had succumbed to their cancer

There needs to be some proof that these strange cancer therapies work for claims to be made. Otherwise, it is quackery.

It will be difficult to ever see large scale legitimate studies on something like this due to the fact that there isn't a lot of money to made in the long run. If anything, Big Pharma would lose out.

I agree with Bob.



Not true.

Specifically

Austin S, Dale EB, DeKadt S. Long-term follow-up of cancer patients using Contreras, Hoxsey and Gerson therapies. Journal of Naturopathic Medicine 5(1):74-76, 1994.

American Cancer Society. Unproven methods of cancer management: Gerson method. CA -- A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 40:252-256, 1990.

"Overview of the Gerson Regimen". Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. March 18, 2009. http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69233.cfm.

Weitzman S (1998). "Alternative Nutritional Cancer Therapies". International Journal of Cancer Supplement II: 69–72.

And in general,

http://drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8172

For instance, there are over 25 well done studies specifically on the raw food diet and there are over 25 studies on the raw/vegan/vegetarian diet on arthritis of which there would be no money or pharma benefit from that.

In Health
Jeff

Thanks Jeff, so you think the Gerson thing is a joke and no real merrit???

No. I think even Atkins made some good points as did Gerson.

However, there is no credible evidence supporting the "Gerson" therapy and evidence to the contrary. The "Burden Of Proof" is on them and so far, they have failed it.

In Health
Jeff

I asked Mr. Quackwatch personally a while back why he thinks McDougall is a quack. Mr. Quackwatch said that it's because McDougall criticizes dairy products.

Holy cow! Or should I say, "Sacred cow"?