Talk:Gerson therapy/Archive 1

Neutrality/accuracy

Major POV/factual cleanup needed on completely pro-Gerson article (see also Max Gerson. The page history shows that the main contributor of this material -

69.109.140.164 (talk · contribs) / 69.109.140.199 (talk · contribs) / Howard Straus (talk · contribs) -

is Howard Straus, Gerson's grandson, biographer and promoter. Tearlach 17:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to second this, although I don't know enough about it to rewrite the article. For one important alternative view, The American Cancer Society describes 'serious illness and death', 'serious illness' and 'severe bleeding' in relation to this therapy [1]. They also state 'There have been no well-controlled studies to show that the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer.' This should definitely be included in the article. -- Mithent 00:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about it to rewrite the article. That's the problem for me also: the bias is abundantly clear, but I simply can't be arsed to separate out what's truth, what's spin, and what's outright untrue. It needs someone who knows the territory well enough to make clear bold edits. Whatever, Cancer Research UK concurs; it gets a well-referenced mention at Quackwatch's Questionable Cancer Therapies page; and there's Peter Moran's case study. Tearlach 02:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How biased can you get than to only have two links to orthodox sites, Memorial Sloane Kettering being the main chemotherapy hospital, and Quackwatch being an obvious shill outfit for the pharma industry. john 12:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Research and Quackwatch are industry shills, so biased. Peter Moran is on Barretts HealthFraud list. Martin Walker pointed out the industry connections of all the HealthFraud outfits like Barrett's. This is an 'incurable' bone cancer of an Oxford Professor, cured by Gerson. He lived 11 years and one month, after his diagnosis, (and initial prognosis of 18 months). john 10:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerson is pretty similar to Kelley therapy, more intense. You can see plenty of Kelley therapy testimonials. john 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post by Howard Straus

The below is repeated on the discussion page of Max Gerson, but so are the critical comments, so the rebuttals need to be as well.

There are two relevant quotes that come from the literature regarding the effectiveness of the Gerson Therapy against tuberculosis:

Under the influence of the Gerson-Sauerbruch-Herrmannsdorfer diet tubercular skin lesions, namely also lupus lesions disappear and heal. This fact cannot be argued. But how does disappearance and healing happen? -- Jesionek, A., Münch. Med. Wchnschr., 76:867, 1929

[Gerson’s original] dietary therapy for cutaneous tuberculosis has been extensively tested and approved by the majority of authors (Jesionek, Jesionek and Bernhardt, Bommer, Volk, Wichmann, Jadassohn, Stuempke and Mohrmann, Brunsgaard, Scolari, Dundas-Grant, Stokes, and others. Particularly noteworthy are the investigations which Jacobson and Brill and Gawalowski carried out over a number of years on extensive material. The Russian authors treated 124 patients who were under observation for five years, while the Czechoslovak investigator followed 127 cases. Both groups showed marked improvement. – Erich Urbach, MD, FACA and Edward B. LeWinn, BS, MD, FACP, Skin Diseases, Nutrition and Metabolism, p. 530. Grune and Stratton, New York, 1946.

The information on the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Research page regarding the extreme danger of electrolyte imbalance and even death from coffee enemas is complete nonsense. If it were not, the Gerson Clinics, which have been administering five OR MORE coffee enemas per day to their critically ill patients would be killing a majority of them, and would quickly receive a reputation for just that. There would need to be no more discussion, as the Gerson Therapy would be self-destructive. That is not the case. Thousands of extremely ill patients have passed through the Gerson Therapy clinics over the past 30 years, and none has been damaged by coffee enemas. Coffee enemas are safe and effective when properly administered in the context of the complete Gerson Therapy.

Another item of disinformation is included in the above site, perhaps due to poor research or perhaps not. Sloan-Kettering claims that several cases of campylobacter were contracted through liver injections in the 1980s. Their information is incorrect. Several cases of campylobacter occurred at a Gerson clinic, contracted from infected raw calf's liver juices given to the patients. Raw calf's liver juice was immediately discontinued when the source of the infections was identified, and no further cases of campylobacter have been experienced over the past 15 years.

The erroneous nature of the two main items of criticism from Sloan-Kettering should call the rest of their information into question.

Howard Straus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Straus (talk • contribs) 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages needing attention

Two comments moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing attention

Gerson therapy - extremely NPOV in favour of this dubious and possibly dangerous therapy. -- Mithent 00:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Max Gerson contains much redundant information with the above article. Edwardian 00:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Comments moved from WP:PNA] —Preceding unsigned comment added by R. S. Shaw (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

toward NPOV in introduction

"Gerson therapy, illegal in the US..." What, possession/use of carefully prepared fresh vegetable juices, additional vitamins, other supplements, with old fashioned enemas, etc is illegal? Do-it-yourself is illegal in the US? Don't think so. In fact, $10-15 at Amazon or a public library card for much of the US population is going to get someone started if they really want to. Ah, perhaps it is meant that if a licensed MD prescribes it, in the absence of an approved medical therapy, that doctor is going to have problems with a medical society/board/state functionary. Or perhaps that a physician would be well advised to avoid the name, "Gerson therapy" for any dietary advice in many locales. Let us at least identify and describe the item for a sentence or two before the ritual vilification begins. Disclaimer: 95+% of my lifetime exposure to vegetable juice drinks is the stuff that they serve in little cans while on airplanes; I admit to some canned tomato juice on the ground. --66.58.130.26 08:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to obtain a neutral point of view is inappropriate here, if you consider neutrality to require considering the views of conspiracy theorising muddleheaded apologists and commercially interested promotors of quack medicine to be of equal value with those of scientific researchers. Why do you have an article largely penned by a clearly self-interested promotor here, allowing perhaps desperate people to get the impression that this is a debate with two valid points of view? 80.168.87.20 07:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"For many years states had laws stating that is was illegal for any doctor to treat cancer using any method other than chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. Recently, a few states have begun to recognize alternative healthcare and begun to allow it with some oversight. In general, acceptance of alternative treatments is hard to come by. The small handful of states to allow alternative treatment clinics are: Washington state, Arizona, New York and Nevada." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.254.50 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to know whether by alternative you mean that these treatments are taken without any conventional treatment at all, or whether you are actually talking about complementary medicine, taken in addition ot to conventional treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.87.20 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

Shame this isn't piloted on hospital wards, as individuals trying to pursue it on their own waste an enormous amount of energy, when it would be more expedient to prepare for a number of people.--Darrelljon 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Criticism section

Cleaned up grammar and added links to Guardian article referenced in the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.215.87 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about NPOV writing

Just a reminder that it's not appropriate to describe it in its article as a 'con' or a 'scam'. We are responsible for presenting material in this encyclopedia from a neutral point of view, without allowing our own biases to colour our writing. We report on the verifiable statements of reliable sources. Original research is to be avoided—instead, we need to be able to cite published sources for any statements of fact.

To illustrate, the following phrase is not appropriate:

The Gerson therapy is a fraud and a sham.

Instead, you might write something like,

The American Cancer Society has reported that the efficacy of the Gerson therapy is unsupported by experimental evidence to date, and that some aspects of the therapy (including coffee enemas and the injection of liver extracts) are potentially harmful or fatal[2].

Note the use of an inline link to the outside web source, and the attribution of the statements of fact. Hope that helps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to obtain a "neutral" point of view is inappropriate here, if you consider neutrality to require considering the views of conspiracy theorising muddleheaded apologists and commercially interested promotors of quack medicine to be of equal value with those of scientific researchers. Science is not just one of all of the possible equally valid world views when it comes to medical matters. Why do you have an article largely penned by a clearly self-interested promotor here, allowing perhaps desperate people to get the impression that this is a debate with two valid points of view? Absolutely none of the claims made in the Gerson Therapy article have any basis in scientifically accepted research. You include links supposedly backing up their claims, but to anyone with a scientific background, as your profile says you have, it is clear that these are not evidence at all. Why have you allowed this?80.168.87.20 08:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that people get so emotionally involved in this topic. Yes, the Gerson Therapy is controversial. Yes, its strongest proponents have not done nearly enough to provide scientifically verifiable evidence of efficacy. However, it is simply inaccurate to state that there is no supporting data on the efficacy of the underlying biochemistry upon which much of the Gerson regimen is based. It's incredibly time consuming to research, but the data is, in fact, there. Hundreds of physicians (unrelated to the Gerson Institute) who have followed Gerson patients have observed with their own eyes and validated with laboratory testing the positive outcomes that the Institute claims. Although this is all anecdotal data, it is difficult to dismiss when there are so many professionals (unconnected to the promoters of the therapy) who recognize the value of the treatment.

Chip W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.228.204 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Institute overpromise and/or make statements that are difficult to support from the data? Yes. But does the data (both that in the medical literature and that observed by third-party physicians and observers) indicate the likelihood of efficacy, at least in some diseases? Yes, also.

The problem is that those who are critical of the therapy's value have in most cases made up their minds without reviewing all of the data necessary to arrive at a sensible and balanced conclusion, and those who are supporters are often so focused on conspiracy theories or are so non-rigorous/skeptical in their evaluative process that their assessment is equally biased in the opposite direction. Perhaps the most thoughtful insight can be had from Patricia Spain Ward's article, commissioned for the US Congress' Office of Technology Assessment. It is thoroughly researched, written with an open, skeptical mind. I would suggest that perhaps someone get hold of that and its supporting documents and consider updating with some of that information.

This submission makes clear the exact problem I am talking about. A neutral point of view in this case should surely be between positions with roughly equal weights of evidence, not between unsupported opinions. There is no proof whatever to the modern standards of evidence based medicine that this treatment does anything other than harm. Like all of the assertions of fact in the following, please see the "external sources" links in the article for verification.

I'm not sure who you are, Chip, or what your qualifications (if any) to comment on this matter are, but anyone with a scientific training should know that anecdotal evidence is worthless in scientific evaluation of medical claims. I did not say that "there is no supporting data on the efficacy of the underlying biochemistry", whatever that attempted obfuscation might mean. I said that "none of the claims made in the Gerson Therapy article have any basis in scientifically accepted research". See the Sloan-Kettering article for agreement with this statement. You are attacking a straw man.

I can see you are trying to be (or at least appear) even-handed, but if you do not understand the required standard of evidence, you are not going to get very far towards the truth. It is not difficult at all to dismiss the anecdotal reports you talk of, which even if made in good faith would make the evidence for Gerson exactly as strong as that for UFOs. The kindest possible interpretation of the data available at present is that a stage 1 trial might be of interest to establish whether there is any provable effect at all, and whether any such effect if shown seems to outweight the already known dangers.

We need far better proof than this to start recommending things as treatments for life-threatening illnesses. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. No double blind placebo controlled study has ever proven any effect for the Gerson Therapy. This is the only thing which would constitute "data" in any informed scientific opinion for making a medical claim of any magnitude, let alone one of curing more or less everything. The onus is on the claimant to produce such research, it is not for others to waste their time attempting to disprove every crackpot who comes up with a fad diet or money making scheme. The Gerson people are apparently very sloppy in their record keeping, and have produced no independently verifiable success in many decades of "therapy". Whether they would have some proven successes if they were better researchers is unknown. This is not the fault of the medical establishment.

There are therefore in fact no valid data to review, produced to the normal level of scientific rigour. The papers from the 1930s referenced on the article page are all anecdotal. They should not appear at all, as they fail the requirements for verifiable sources of reliable data, as does the majority of the article. The bold assertions made in your contribution, which fly in the face of all established medical opinion, are without reference to any data, of any standard. It is not concensus medical opinion that Gerson has any beneficial effect, just that it can cause harm. I'm not sure why you think you can contradict the qualified professionals and learned bodies listed under the external links section in the article, all of whom disagree with your assertions. I have no wish to become personal, but since you contradict the consensus medical opinion, the issue of who you are, and why you think we should join you in your opinion in the absence of any new evidence arises.

As for emotional involvement, if we aren't going to get angry about quacks exploiting vulnerable cancer patients with unproven but provably dangerous techniques for profit, what are we going to get angry about? Or are you perhaps trying to demonstrate a superior logical ability by a claim to be a creature of pure reason, Chip?

In that case, who did the research which leads you to be able to state that "those who are critical of the therapy's value have in most cases made up their minds without reviewing all of the data necessary to arrive at a sensible and balanced conclusion", Chip? Surely this is not yet another claim without verifiable sources?

If this is the standard of debate here I can't see much point in sticking around. A paid promotor, a crackpot conspiracist, and someone presumably without any relevant training who expects us to allow him to to contradict the prevailing medical opinion because he says he has reviewed the literature and he got a different answer. A blatantly biased, promotional piece on a harmful supposed treatment is allowed to stand unamended because they object.

For the record, I don't think "scam" is an unfair description for a very expensive treatment with not a single proven success with any disease whatever in many decades of supposed treatment, but with several attributed deaths. If someone wanted me to view it more favourably, they should prove it works, and/or charge far less than they do.80.168.87.20 12:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) [09:25-12:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)][reply]

The medical establishment has a lot to loose if they were to agree with the Gerson Therapy. You are asking the competitors or a highly profitable business whether another very cheap alternative medicine works. No one has died or become severelly-ill because eating fruits and vegetables and taking coffee enemas The Gerson's books which are actually from the 1950's, have real names of people who participated in the studies. If you were to actually say how wrong the Gerson Therapy is, you would contact them and actually double check what the Dr. Max Gerson said against their testimonies. A double blind study for the Gerson Therapy would mean a very sick person would not get the therapy and possibly die. Has any of these experts actually made a study on the Gerson Therapy? Have they gone down to Mexico and made a study on the treatment and the effects of it? I'm sure not, so until then we have to rely on the people who were with the patients being treated by the Therapy. Many books have been written with names of real patients, including very recent ones; Including patients treated in 2001. If so many patients would have died from the Therapy you would see a huge move against it from the families in which they suffered a loss. The treatment works, there is written proof of this, and the fact that no one chooses to actually double check the effectiveness by studying the patients in Mexico goes to show how much the medical establishment wants it to fail. Specially since there is no medicine, its just a diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.254.50 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gerson Therapy has a lot of proven cases, but you actually need to read books. You need to read both sides of this issue, if you ever read any of Dr. Max Gerson books you would understand what you are trying to accuse. The fact that you think $4,900 for every week of treatments with everything paid including your own room with an extra bed and food for a friend included as really expensive, you must have never paid a hospital bill in the US. Organic foods are expensive, the price is actually very good for all that you get.

Calling it a "scam" is an extremely unfair description, specially when made by people who only rely on bad information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.254.50 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) and ("2 weeks" changed to "every week") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicktime (talk • contribs) 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am relying on the consensus medical opinion. This is the best information available. The Gerson "therapy" has no proven cases whatever. It's not my opinion against yours, it's all of the evidence ever produced to modern scientific standards versus some cranks, fools and promotors of quack medicine. Comment on the Gerson books by those better qualified than me features in the external links. In short, the books are tosh.

If you have insufficient relevant education,and you read the Gerson books, and you read the official papers, and you treat them as equal, and ask no difficult questions, it might seem that there are two sides to this. There are not.

As for the price, I do live in a country where healthcare is free, but if I was paying, I'd want treatments that work. Even $5 for a worthless treatment is expensive.80.168.87.20 07:38-07:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So YOU decide how much proof is needed till we can write an article without you giving it names? YOU are the authority in which can tell us and all other users that we cannot use the books published and reviewed since the 30's? YOU are the authority to call the books anecdotal, which leads me to think you've review them all? Hundred of physicians suppport this Therapy, you just have to research it. There have been many studies done by medical experts in Gerson clinics, you just need to research it. This therapy HAS helped many people in the past, it is recorded and they are quoted.

You are obviously biased because you have only reviewed one side of the argument. Either way, I agree that your concern for the Therapy should be voiced out, but it should be kept under a section of its own, not throughout the article explaining the Therapy.

Dr. Max Gerson had a famous patient, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, where Dr. Gerson cured him of diabetes at the age of 75. Schweizer returned then to Africa and won the nobel prize and lived till 90. He wrote in his diary "I see in Dr. Gerson one of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine."

Most recently, Dr. Gerson was recognized as a pioneer in his field when he was inducted into the Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame in Ottawa, Canada on May 14, 2005. He joined seven other giants of medicine whose seminal work has been influential in the medical and scientific worlds, and are considered pioneers in their respective fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicktime (talk • contribs) 17:15-17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought signing your contributions was mandatory? It hardly seems worth contributing to so uneducated a debate, but perhaps one last time:

No, it isn't me who decides on standards of evidence, see my link to evidence based medicine above.

No, I haven't read all of the books, but I have read the opinions of authorities more qualified than me to evaluate them, and do not suspect a conspiracy as you seem to.

No, no one has ever produced evidence to the usual standards to show that Gerson works, your assertions are meaningless. It isn't for me or anyone else to disprove Gerson, it is for its proponents to prove it. They have failed to do so to normal standards. If it is an effective treatment, they have done us all a grave disservice.

No, it isn't just a diet when it is claimed to cure cancer, it is a supposed therapy, as the article indeed calls it, and you seem to beleive yourself.

Yes, people have died as a result of coffee enemas, read the external links.

No, it does not matter who Gerson was, which societies he was a member of, or how famous his patients were. What matters is that he and his followers have failed to produce evidence to back their claims to normal scientific standards. Therefore beleif in them is a form of religious faith, not a matter for scientific debate.

Yes, I am biased, I beleive science and evidence based medicine are more reliable routes to truth than wishful thinking. 80.168.87.20 13:26-16:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are still wrong because there's plenty of science and evidence showing that the Gerson Therapy works.

Gerson Research

And his patients arent evidence enough showing it works? Not only that, if you are the authority in medical scientific standards, why dont you do a research for both sides before speaking so harshly about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicktime (talk • contribs) 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to even understand what I am saying. I can see that English is not your first language, but I don't think that is it. NO, a patient who thinks they have been cured by Gerson is not any sort of proof that Gerson works. This is a poor form of anecdotal evidence. Of course the Gerson Institute publishes "research" supposedly showing they are not quacks and fraudsters. Read the external links. All reputable medical authorities think there is no evidence for Gerson working. This is not on my authority, but on theirs. It's called using reliable sources. Look into it. 80.168.87.20 08:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sides. There is no debate. There is no valid evidence to debate. If there were, it is pretty clear that you would not be the person to debate it with. You are clearly unaware of the logical nonsense of your postings, and of the article presently on the main page. Why not look up the following logical fallacies and see how your thinking is riddled with them:

Observational Selection (cherrypicking); Attacking a straw man (setting up a false characterisation of the opposing view); Exploiting wishful thinking; False analysis of history; Unjustified Generalisation; Claim to have special knowledge(having personally read gerson and his supporters, but having no relevant training, is superior to having read an educated commentary, having had such a training); Using slanted language; Minimisation and denial; Obfuscation; Inconsistency(is it a therapy or isn't it?); The fallacy of one similarity; It ought to be true so it is; Misleading inference; Unsubstantiated Inference/Groundless claims; Argument from adverse consequences(we can't deny people this lifesaving treatment to do trials!); Reification; Taking undeserved credit(all patients who have gerson and don't die have been cured by gerson); The semi-attached figure(if you can't prove what you want to, prove soemthign else and say it is the same thing); Putting words in to others mouths; Testimonials and stories; Introduction of irrelevant information as "supporting evidence"; False analogy; False Equality(it really isn't my word against yours); Double bind(anyone who notices gerson has no evidence is clearly in the pay of the medical establishment); Using inflammatory language(OK, I do this sometimes too, stupid)

I could go on-you and Gerson's proponents on this page just can't seem to think straight. It's that simple. In addition, you do not follow the rules of this forum. You do not sign your posts. You do not use reputable sources. Your posts should be deleted, the entirety of the article on the main page is unattributed to valid sources and should be deleted. 80.168.87.20 09:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I've reverted the following section. Firstly, it's in breach of Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources to include such a long quote. Secondly, I doubt if it's up to the requirements of WP:RS: being written by a relative and proponent of Gerson, it is not from a reliable third-party published source. 82.25.238.167 10:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from "The Gerson Therapy":

In April 1997, Celia Collins, aged fifty-eight, a prefessional puppeteer, arrived at the Gerson clinic in Sedona, Arizona (now closed), diagnosed with breast cancer. Her pathology was described in medical records she had brought with her as "an infiltrating ductal carinoma (closed margins) of the right breast 1.5 centimeters in diameter and involving three lymph nodes." The tumor was classified by the woman's oncologist as stage II cancer at grade III (most agressive) and non-estrogen-receptive. ''In April 1997, the computerized axial tomography (CAT) scan that Mrs. Collins had undergone also showed some areas that doctors declared they needed to "watch" on her liver and lung. She chose to receive a lumpectomy breast procedure, after which the attending oncologist recommended that six months of chemotherapy be carried out. But her brest surgeon did not agree. He said that in his experience such a series of toxic chemical treatments had never prolonged anyone's life and he would not suggest that she accept chemotherapy. The oncologist also wanted Mrs. Collins to take seven weeks of radiation therapy with some extra radiation "swats" for the closed margins. The brest surgeon did not express enthusiasm for radiotherapy either. "I was staggered by being confronted with the oncologist's negative choices. They just did not add up and so I began to look for some options. I selected the Gerson Therapy rather than accept the chemo and radiation," Mrs. Collins stated for publication. She was intriged with Dr. Gerson's saltless diet, for the woman had for years suspected that most of us take in too much salt by excessive seasoning. And she often experienced cellular edema (swelling) from the sodium chloride added to foods. So Mrs. Collings thought she would adapt well to the Gerson theraupeutic saltless eating program. Thus, she immediately embarked on the full menu plan of the Gerson Therapy. "The decision made, my daughter and I took off for the Gerson Healing Center in Sedona where we involved ourselves in the healing atmosphere. It was so refreshing and invigorating. Everyone was exceedingly positive, happy, and encouraging, even the cleaning lady. The care, the wonderful saltless food, the other patients and staff...were all special and good. As a result, my healing took place swiftly. I underwent another CAT scan in September 1997, after being on the Gerson Therapy for six months, and all of the scans were reported as clear of cancer - my lesions are gone. And it's official from by breast surgeon too, who additionally reported on my diagnostic tests. He said that I am free of cancer without having taken any chemotherapy or radiation," said Celia Collins.'' "I'm so happy!"

"She chose to receive a lumpectomy breast procedure, after which the attending oncologist recommended that six months of chemotherapy be carried out."

So, she had had surgery (for which there is evidence) that alone accounts for her remission. Chemotherapy would be precautionary to attempt to kill any other cancer that MAY remain and prevent relapse. She was 'cured' by the surgery, a shame she turned down chemotherapy which might increase her chances of long-term remission (the follow up in the rave above was just 6 months.) Of course I hope Ms. Collins is in permanent remission. If she is, it is probably down to the surgery she received, and good luck Merkinsmum 10:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is unsupported nonsense, all sources quoted in the article in support of the "therapy" fall below normal scientific standards. I also see links to commercial organisation's websites. I'm new here, and liable to fall foul of the required etiquette if I were to try, but could someone with more experience remove everything without a reliable source from the page. I think you'll find that if you do, there will be no article left, only criticism.80.168.87.20 15:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Efficacy

I removed this from the "Efficacy" since whoever wrote did not do enough research on the topic and decided to write his opinion about it. As I found easily a 5 year study done by the University of California, San Diego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicktime (talk • contribs) 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While anecdotal reports abound the Gerson literature, no statistical scientific studies are available at any Gerson website or in their literature. For example, the many clinics listed below reportedly receive many patients for training, but no data has been published to define how many enter, what their actual medical history is, or what their actual outcome was after treatment. There is no scientifically valid evidence for the efficacy of this treatment.

Someone needs to do soemthing about the vandal ~~below~~ [above]. The removed text summarises medical opinion, and is entirely backed by the external sources links. It has been replaced by text backed only by a single study by the gerson institute.I think it's pretty clear that this vandal is the unsigned author of the nonsense in the last section. I dont want to get into childish tit for tat on this, I'm going to revert it all once. I think an admin needs to step in80.168.87.20 09:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Enema

What is a coffee enema? How is it performed? Can you used ground coffee or do you have to use whole beans? Regular or Decafe (Copyright W.W.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.192.10.219 (talk • contribs) 16:44-17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the facts: that they involve injecting cold coffee into your anus, that they occasionally result in death, and have no proven benefit, I don't think you want to know anything more. 80.168.87.20 18:18-18:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have cleared the references section, as these references were for the previous gerson propaganda version of the article, and are no longer applicable.80.168.87.18 14:26-14:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references have been put back in, as have the spelling mistakes and duplications of text which I removed at the same time. The person doing this claims the stuff reverted is "POV fluff". As the references are 100% uncritical Gerson Propaganda, and most of what was reverted was spelling mistakes and duplications, this seems an unsustainable argument. I'm going to take them out one more time. 80.168.87.18 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved from article

I have moved the following comments from the article to the discussion page, though as they are unattributed, unsupported personal opinion, and simple personal abuse it would perhaps be more valid to delete them entirely.

"The following section is corrupt and the negativity flowing from the writer proves that he/she has a slanted view. Do not believe the negative comments the writer has included, this person is obviously an unhappy individual who most probably doesn't have very many friends due to his/her agressive and insane behavior which was most probably created by the writers unhappiness with the size or shape of their genitals. We feel for you!" (Added to article 04:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC) by Special:Contributions/206.45.184.53)

They are unworthy of further comment 80.168.87.18 09:42-09:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]