Talk:Max Gerson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Medical career influenced by anti-semitism?

Why was Gerson's "choice of career in medicine...highly influenced by the general anti-Semitism of German science at the time."? Was Gerson Jewish? If so, please could someone put that in the page, as it is not clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.98.93 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Gerson was Jewish. His original penchant for mathematics, at which he demonstrated an early excellence, was discouraged by his family, since they noted that there were no Jewish University level mathematicians. Thus, his career possibilities in mathematics would have been seriously limited. In family conference, it was decided that the most promising career for young Max would be medicine, where Jews were less limited. --Howard Straus (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My take

I know hardly anything about Max, but i am giving him the benefit of the doubt and would say he was a good doctor to the best he knew at his time. Besides he was on to something regarding thyroid diseases which could acount for virtually all his mystery cases and the use of dessicated thyroid as treament. But he has nothing todo really with what can now be considered the Gerson therapy which is driven by sheer greed. I am sure given Max would have had more time todo research he would have revised a lot of things. His daughter however knows nothing and also seems to only be a part in a bigger scheme of people (as she really isn`t the brightest) - who keep this gerson engine running. I watched the propaganda movie "The Gerson Miracle" (actually entirely because i am interested in propagana movies to learn how to best influence human psychology et al). But for some reason i feel like i should do the right thing and comment on Max anyways, namely he is nowhere in it, no historical material nothing - so he cannot speak for himself. So anyone interested in psychology should definitly watch it amongst the "eternal jew", and newer propaganda movies such as "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", "Universe - The Cosmology Quest". You can also see a nice evolution of propaganda movies - although their purpose of course is still the very same. Slicky 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like people on this site to take what you say seriously, perhaps you should use proper English grammar and spelling. The butchering of the language (ignorance of grammar, lack of proper punctuation, and improper spelling throughout the piece) merely makes this contribution seem like it came from an uneducated and ignorant source. Also, please stay on topic. Another reason this contribution can't be taken seriously is that, midway, it takes a tangent onto the unrelated subject of propaganda. As a psychological operations specialist, I know when someone is simply trying to sway opinion a certain way as opposed to contributing objective factual information. Although this attempt is so clumsy that I don't think that you would have to be in the propaganda business to recognize it as such...

I, personally, really know very little about the Gerson treatment and Max Gerson, so I would like to learn something about him that is not so blatantly biased. It angers me to come to this page and then encounter tripe such as this which does nothing to increase my knowledge on this subject, but instead distracts from the actual discussion. It would be nice if the editor of this page would promptly delete these two contributions as soon as possible (his and mine) so that we can continue with a serious discussion of the topic without this distraction.Lugh (joatmon) (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And a Response

I see by your bio that you are from Austria. Because you "hardly know anything" about Dr. Gerson, you would not know that after WWII the University of Vienna offered Gerson the Chair of Nutritional Medicine, a sign of great respect. He turned the Chair down because by that time, Gerson had established himself in the United States, and his family was well-settled there, too. In addition, his memories of Austrians' Nazi sympathies remained too fresh. Even today, the "eternal Nazi" in Austria continues to infect national politics there more than the rest of Europe is comfortable with, so Gerson was not imagining things.

Coming from someone who "knows hardly anything" by his own admission, the slander against Charlotte Gerson is specious and irrelevant. To all who would take this critique seriously, you should consider the source.

The criticism of "driven by sheer greed" simply invites comparison of Gerson Therapy practitioners with chemotherapy oncologists, who, recent studies have shown, prescribe, dispense and administer chemotherapy drugs more on the basis of which one will be most profitable than on any other consideration. In the United States, this widespread practice is known as the "chemotherapy concession" and it nets these practitioners in the neighborhood of a million or two dollars a year. I can assure you that never in the history of the Gerson Therapy has even ONE practitioner netted a million dollars a year, so I guess your baseless criticism there underscores the fact that you know little or nothing. But you certainly are passionate in your ignorance.

I suggest that if you are sincerely out to stop an exercise in greed, you should go after the murderous pharmaceutical companies, whose products kill a documented 100,000 people annually in the US alone, and who are the most profitable industry on the planet! Howard Straus 13:00, 23 October 2006

Okay, but I'm curious; how many of those 100,000 were going to die anyway, and how many people did those same drugs save from death? I know the question of how many were going to die anyway seems callous (in which case the next statement will also), but you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. Lugh (joatmon) (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

  Oh god!  I just know that the fates have suddenly decreed that I will die due to complications from prescription drugs. Lugh (joatmon) (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality/accuracy

Major POV/factual cleanup needed on completely pro-Gerson article (see also Gerson therapy. 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 17:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Please point out the facts that need to be clarified or documented. As Dr. Gerson's biographer, I have done the research necessary, and have posted the relevant references, as well as linked the user to hundreds of other references. The ACS, which disputes the facts, has not posted a single scientific publication that supports their contention. (The idea that skeptics must prove the negative is simply absurd. The burden is on Gerson and his followers to prove their contentions, and they have failed at every turn to do so. How many patients does a typical Clinic treat each year? What is their incoming diagnosis? What is their diagnosis after 1, 5 and 10 years? The publication of "cherry picked" cases does not qualify. Even simple checks by Sloan-Kettering of the results shows nothing more than random success, from the little data available. Why do you persist on this paranoid theory when the data must be provided by Gerson followers?) If the simple fact that I am Dr. Gerson's ONLY biographer disqualifies me, and you accept unsubstantiated disputes equally with facts that are thoroughly documented in over a hundred published scientific articles by many medical scientists, I must question your own neutrality. I will be happy to back up any statement on the contribution with documentation, something that the ACS will not do. This comment is true for both this page and for the Gerson Therapy page.

Regarding Major POV problems, you need to also check out the POV of the ACS, an organization that is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and has a provision in its charter requiring it to disband if a "cure for cancer" is ever found. That alone should give you pause as to its own neutrality.

- Howard Straus

Those external links are mostly biased as one is the main chemo centre in the USA, and Quackwatch is an obvious pharma shill outfit. john 12:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The last remark is an obvious immunization tactic. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically not credible, so any argument against your opinion is automatically dismissed, and your opinion is immune against criticism.

Quackwatch is a skeptic organization, trying to protect science and rationality, not some industry. --Hob Gadling 13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, it is well documented all quack outfits like quackwatch, CSICOP etc are industry fronts. Martin Walker has done most of that research on UK ones and blown them out of the water. I have collected some. It is easy to fool most of the people most of the time (as they are asleep and reading only corporate media), along with the ones who have an interest in being fooled, like allopaths. john 20:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! That's just a collection of opinions and conspiracy theories, not "documentation". --Hob Gadling 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

'Conspiracy theory' is ad hominem. Really. I don't expect the shills to roll over and admit it. Ad hominem is an admission there is no argument. Which was why they tried to delete Martin Walker [2].Dr Victor Herbert, Stephen Barrett and William Jarvis are on the Scientific Board of the American Council on Science and Health. Founded in 1978, this organisation is funded solely by the large pharmaceutical and chemical companies, the AMA and industry supported Foundations. Bit obvious I would have thought, even for people with 2 brain cells. john 08:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course "conspiracy theory" is not "ad hominem". Conspiracy theories are recognizable by the following properties:

• Opponents of the theorist are claimed to hide evidence.
• The absence of evidence is used as evidence for the conspiracy theory - it is missing because someone is hiding it.

So, where is your evidence that American Council on Science and Health is "funded solely by the large pharmaceutical and chemical companies, the AMA and industry supported Foundations"? Also, what's wrong with the AMA?

BTW, one can become a member of ACSH, and that costs money! [3] Doesn't that disprove your claim?

That they all disagree with you is not evidence that they are paid for disagreeing with you - maybe you are just wrong and the are right. Did you consider that possibility? --Hob Gadling 14:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Another point: you say "they tried to delete Martin Walker". As I said, conspiracy theorists lump everybody who disagrees with them into on big "they". Sorry, but since you duck (arguments) like a quack, I guess the label fits. --Hob Gadling 14:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

'Conspiracy theorists' is ad hominem. To be specific, the medical boys. I wasn't aware I duck arguments, do you think I have all day to trawl pages for arguments? The AMA run the medical monopoly. Fine if you like that sort of thing, or work for them. john 17:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, 'conspiracy theorists' is not ad hominem. It has nothing to do with your person, it points out the structure of your argument. And your argument is that opponents are opponents because they are paid for it (now this is ad hominem), but when I ask you to show that they are, you can't. Instead you duck my argument again and talk about something else instead. --Hob Gadling 12:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is the propaganda technique called Name Calling---1. Word Games Name Calling---"The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence." Conspiracy theorist is the term most often used . john 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with name calling. "all quack outfits like quackwatch, CSICOP etc are industry fronts" is pure fantasy not backed up by evidence. Making such unevidenced claims connecting different persons as conspiring together is called a conspiracy theory. And your attempts at sticking a fallacy on me is a straw man as well as a red herring. --Hob Gadling 18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A cursory look from an outside participant very quickly reveals this "John" character to be right off his rocker. John, I recommend you imagine for a moment that this argument is between two other people and is not about Gerson therapy. You do, indeed, appear to be a quack, and every point you've made thus far has been refuted beyond question by Hob.67.193.141.180 (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just two quotes from the literature should clear up the factual nature of the effectiveness of the Gerson Therapy, and the bias of its critics:

"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. Interesting, too, is the report submitted by Simon and Kaplanskaja which shows the necessity for adhering to the salt-poor diet for an adequate period of time." – Erich Urbach, MD, FACA and Edward B. LeWinn, BS, MD, FACP, Skin Diseases, Nutrition and Metabolism, p. 530. Grune and Stratton, New York, 1946.

I challenge the ACS to quote the scientific underpinnings of their assertions with published papers. And why is the ACS, a lobbying organization with interest in cancer, commenting on the effectiveness of the Gerson Therapy against tuberculosis? They clearly have little or no knowledge in this area.

Such papers exist, and hilariously, are readily available by google search. Also, this horrifying meandering thing you have buried the talk page under speaks to the degree of your fantacism.67.193.141.180 (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And I challenge the Gerson clinics to publish how many patients they recieve each year, what they are diagnosed with and what the outcomes are. The lack of data is amazing, as is the purely paraniod assertion that doctors want to kill their patients, so they surp[ress Gerson theropy results. get a life, and get a grip. It is up to you, the salesman, to show us the data. Please do not insult us with 1929 and 1946 one liners. Where is the literature on the thousands who are suckered every year into spending $5000 a week to eat carrots in Mexico? - Nick Lappos 1/23/06

Better carrots than chemo. Suppression of non-pharma med is well documented. john 09:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Just two quotes from the literature should clear up the factual nature of the effectiveness of the Gerson Therapy, and the bias of its critics"

1. You folks were not asked to clear up "the bias of its critics", you were asked to back up your claim of "industry shill".
2. Those quotes don't even talk about critics. They are the opinions of proponents, and the proponents say that they are proponents. Big deal. --Hob Gadling 12:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

March 03, 2006: Did some minor cleanup, removing redundant passages, rewording poor phrasings and removing some biased language (just a few adverbs, adjectives, etc). This is an interesting entry that should be preserved, but it must always be made clear where the source of facts is only Gerson himself or his followers.

March 11, 2006: In response to Nick Lappos, here is some historical and factual data: The Gerson clinics in Mexico over the past 28 years have had from ten to 28 rooms, and have seldom operated at 100% capacity. The current clinic has 10 rooms, with a turnover of approximately three weeks, or 17+ per year. This means that the total annual capacity of the clinic is 10 x 17 or about 170 patients per year. Most of the patients arrive having been told by their own oncologists that their situation is "terminal", and they should go home and get their lives in order in the time remaining to them. So much for the claims that "thousands" of patients are treated each year, and that a few survive. It would take six years at maximum capacity to treat 1,000 patients.

Now, since a certain number of these patients (about 25-30%) survive, (my wife and my mother included) when conventional medicine counted most of them as "terminal", conventional medicine should at least do a fair and unbiased test of the Therapy.

And that is exactly what is going on in Japan right now. There are two five-year studies being done, one with 50 patients and one with 500. We welcome these studies. One is being done by one of Japan's top oncological surgeons, who uses the Therapy postoperatively to surprisingly good effect. The other is being done by a medical school professor who cured himself of colon cancer with liver metastases over 11 years ago using the Gerson Therapy, and wrote a book about his experience. He and two other physicians are using the Gerson Therapy in their own clinic, and have been for some years, also with excellent effect. The surgeon, Dr. Takaho Watayo, has presented his results to date at a Tokyo symposium, and has published them as well.

Doesn't sound like unbiased science to me. Lugh (joatmon) (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The British newspaper (since when are they authoritative?) got it wrong as well. The cost of a stay at the clinic in Mexico is $5,500 per week, not $4,900. That is expensive compared to a Big Mac, but a small fraction of the cost of a stay at an American cancer ward, with much better results. Where I live, a DAY in a cancer ward costs in the neighborhood of $15,000, before the $25 Tylenol or any other medical treatment or tests. Accusing the Gerson clinic of "profiting from desperate people" invites comparison with US facilities. Before the oil spike, pharmaceutical companies were the most profitable industry on the planet, making hundreds of billions of dollars annually in the US alone. The annual US medical bill is over $1.6 Trillion dollars, and we get the 28th ranked medical care system in the world, somewhere after Rumania! Talk about profiting!

Please include sources. It makes it easier for me to verify your information is accurate instead of doing an exhaustive search via google or yahoo or (god forbid I can't find it online) the university library...Lugh (joatmon) (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Another criticism from the same source was that the quotations from the published literature were over 50 years old. I take it that the critic doesn't believe in Einstein's theory of relativity, Newton's law of gravity, or the laws of planetary motion, all of which were formulated well over 50 years ago, and all of which are just as relevant today as they were then. Human physiology has not changed that much since 1900. The quoted statements were not made by "proponents", but were published by respected medical scientists. The medical scientists who published their own research were serious medical researchers and physicians (Ferdinand Sauerbruch held the second chair in surgery at the University of Berlin) who published in the finest peer-reviewed journals of the time, something that the critics always request. The two statements are far from the only confirming statements, as a glance at the list of publications both by Gerson [4] and by dozens of medical scientists [5] will readily show. I just didn't want to quote from hundreds of papers in the discussion. Any competent researcher can find the literature in a few days of literature search; I have all Gerson's papers if you can't locate them and need them.

The question, of course, should be, "How did these patients get so desperate that they were willing to leave sterile, shiny, insurance-covered US hospitals to travel to a Mexican clinic, which all the 'authorities' claim is quackery?" The US cancer industry is hugely expensive, hugely ineffective, and has seen a rise in cancer of some twenty-fold since the foundation of the American Cancer Society. If allopathic, scientific, American medicine had any kind of a decent record with cancer patients, the Gerson clinic would be out of business in a heartbeat. Instead, Gerson clinics are springing up all over the world, because physicians (except for American ones) are seeing for themselves the benefits of this Therapy. Interestingly, even the American Cancer Society touts their suggestions for preventing cancer (eat more vegetables and fruits), and the program is surprisingly close to the Gerson Therapy, while they claim that Gerson was a quack.

Whether you want to believe the ACS or Albert Schweitzer is, of course, your choice.

Howard Straus, Author, Dr. Max Gerson: Healing the Hopeless.

Good god man. This is a wikipedia talk page. Impassioned appeals like this are totally outside the scope and aim of the talk page, and belong elsewhere. This sort of thing does nothing at all to give the impression of a reasonable or thoughtful individual, so much as a crusading zealot. 67.193.141.180 (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all knowledgeable about Max Gerson and was actually only researching for the first time when I came across this Wikipedia article and discussion. I am however quite familiar with new media, wiki projects, and in particular the hub of the open encyclopedia experiment that is Wikipedia. And so I'm aware of what's now a tradition of users decrying anything that might resemble authoritarian influence. That is, when a topic is being compiled -- and especially when it comes under scrutiny -- they are prone to adamant rejection of any intervention by the figures themselves.

In this case, the mere presence of a would-be insider in the topic (admittedly, on one side) raises the question of neutrality, and for good reason. But that his very defense and justification should be discredited for excess of effort, and furthermore branded as zealotry, is truly disappointing in terms of what the Wikipedia project stands for, especially in this blatantly distasteful, anti-elitist tone.

For what it's worth, I thought that Straus's comment was a completely appropriate interjection, and regardless of whatever the author might actually be, his comments completely thoughtful and reasonable. For all intensive purposes, it is not Gerson that is being questioned here in regards to his neutrality, but the contributor who also posted the above comment -- Howard Straus. He makes clear his bias, that he is a proponent of the Gerson Therapy, and offers details that while inappropriate for the main article because of their opinionated nature, are nonetheless worth hearing, and thus deserve their place in the context of this discussion. They are precisely the sort of comments that one should hope to find on talk page, because of the relative exposure such a position allows for.

Unless of course a lack of exposure is what you're inherently suggesting by saying that this belongs elsewhere, simply because you belong to the group that finds it incredible, and would aim to reserve the final say on the matter for your own. The bias of the commons, it seems, is deemed more worthy than bias of a potential authority, so much so that the former is barely recognized as bias at all.

All in all, rather than simply commenting that I found your reply both rude and disheartening, I thought I'd add an impassioned reply of my own -- because a talk page is exactly where such things belong (note: so long as it remains relevant to the discussion or how a particular article should be -- which Straus's does, and perhaps mine does not). --Dan Lowe 11:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bravo. I agree with the above, especially staying on topic. However, I must make a minor hair-splitting correction at the risk of appearing tight-assed (especially since it is off-topic); the phrase is "intents and purposes" not "intensive purposes." Thank you. Lugh (joatmon) (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Presently this article reads as anti-Gerson bias, unlike the statement below to the contrary. This article should present BOTH sides of the story, not one bias or the other.

Things that ought to be included are links, if any, to patients that claim to be successfully cured/treated for various illnesses by Gerson's nutritional therapy. Also, the various other diseases treated by Gerson's nutritional therapy should be included.

Yes, keep some of the detracting statements, of course, but also present the other side. It seems the pendulum swung too far from pro-bias to anti-bias, it needs to be brought back to neutral.--70.92.238.225 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a biomedical related issue. WP:RSMED applies. Patients that claim/claimed to have been cured/successfully treated by Gerson's "nutritional therapy" will often by in primary sources and should not be used for such claims. Additionally, such sources are often not reliable for such claims. Finally, the claim that Gerson's highly unusual "therapy" and the extraordinary claims made for it "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field", identifying it as a fringe theory. As such, we do not present his theory/the therapy "alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that there's more than one article...

I've trimmed this article by a fair margin. I would remind contributors here that this article is a biography of Gerson. While his novel therapy is certainly one aspect of his life, it is certainly not the only aspect. Further, Wikipedia has a separate, extensive article on the Gerson therapy; detailed discussion about the therapy (methods, pros and cons, etc.) belongs there. Otherwise that discussion is apt to overwhelm the remainder of this article and turn it into a coatrack. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the discussion of "The Gerson Therapy TM", which was trademarked only in 1996 by Charlotte Gerson Straus, belongs in another section, if for no other reason than that the proponents claims have generated copious reactions and justifiable criticisms. None of this should really pertain to Max Gerson.Ghildenbrand (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger

I would like to propose that the eponymous Gerson therapy be merged with its creator, Max Gerson. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support merger. I think these could be merged. Much of the Gerson therapy page is excessively detailed. We should try to grab all the references from that page, however. II | (t - c) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support merger. Gerson seems to be notable solely for his therapy, so merging the two seems sensible. I also think it's worth pointing out that the Gerson page (not the therapy page) contains not a single footnote. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support merger. As I understand it, Gerson was personally involved in the therapy for a significant amount of his life. He was closely connected with it. Bhimaji (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support merger. Of course, per arguments above. -- Fyslee / talk 06:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support merger. Good arguments above. Currently the two articles are poorly referenced. I don't think Gerson therapy has enough references to stand on its own. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. There is still a great deal of clean up work to be done on the new article, but I am tolerably happy with at least the GS section. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Petition to re-open the question. Merger is a bad idea. It constitutes a paradoxical ad homonym attack on a man too dead, for far too long, to defend himself. In my opinion, "The Gerson Therapy TM", a relatively recent confabulation authored chiefly by Charlotte Gerson Straus and Howard Straus, is a marketing strategy to sell after-market materials such as books and movies, and to recruit medical converts. It is my opinion that they have imagineered a pseudo-religion that, while not entirely fact free, is laced with dangerous medical fictions. In short, "merger" makes the historical Max Gerson, a basically honest man, look like a fool. I beg the colleagues represented here to reconsider this well-intended but ill-advised decision to conflate the sins of the progeny with the story of their progenitor.Ghildenbrand (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support to re-open. This is a biography page. It should remain a biography page of one Max Gerson. While Gerson Therapy may be based on nutritional medical theory by Max Gerson, it is not the person himself. Furthermore, "Gerson Therapy TM" is trademarked by Charlotte Gerson, not Max, her father.--70.92.238.225 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Provide some reliable sources that demonstrate we could overcome the concerns listed, or find new arguments based upon existing policies. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Beautiful Truth movie

A film is coming out called The Beautiful Truth. Expect a whole heckova lot of people to see this film and edit this page. --BlueNight (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If by "a whole heckova lot of people" you mean the amount you can squeeze into a couple showings in 3 theaters "a lot" then sure. Such a quack movie won't get distribution, it impresses me they actually got enough money for even one theater to show it. --74.197.235.53 (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be a "quack" movie? Just because you say so? Sorry, I need proof. Also, Netflix effectively increases the available audience of the film by quite a margin. Just saw the film, and I am quite sceptical, but I have only barely begun my personal research on the truth of its claims. I didn't see a lot of science supporting these claims, just anecdotal evidence. However, my preliminary (purely online so far) research into the claims of the movie seem to support the claims about dental amalgam and mercury. Something I wish I had heard about earlier. I feel like the boyfriend who is the last to find out about the "other" guy. Haven't really delved too deep into the other issues yet though. Although I have seen that the AMA and the ACS do agree that fruits and vegetables as opposed to processed foods do help prevent cancer, while they're not keen on coffee enemas. I'm not either for that matter. Lugh (joatmon) (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Random pointless comment, but that's what I think would make Gerson's Therapy more credible, if it focussed on prevention instead of 'curing,' which it simply can't do. Sure I'd buy that a good diet and avoiding toxins will help you avoid cancer (though health nuts get cancer too). But after you get cancer? Cancer doesn't need to feed off of anything, it's the body's natural process gone haywire and there is no need for 'toxins' to keep that process going. Eating fruits and veggies isn't going to make a tumor just shrink, it just makes you healthier overall. But while curing cancer through a diet is a stupid idea that fails to grasp what cancer is, coffee enemas are absolutely psychotic. Oh I know I too must work for that evil behemouth 'pharm' industry. Everyone who disagrees with these people must be apart of some massive conspiracy that operates without leaving a single shred of evidence that it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.144.125 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference to quackwatch needs to include details on quackwatch's lack of credibility.

[libelous comment deleted per WP:BLP

This point has been raised at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, with the consensus that the source is usually reliable. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to check out our policy on parity of sources. Compared to the Institute of Medicine, I would agree that Quackwatch is not a great source. However, in this article we cite doctoryourself.com and gerson.org - Quackwatch is leaps and bounds ahead of those by the criteria of reliability in use here. The bar is going to be a bit lower here since there are so few decent sources - that's one of the difficulties in covering a fringe topic (by which I mean Gerson's therapy). MastCell ^Talk 04:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

doctoryourself.com ? That needs fixing. It's definitely not a RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved to talk for discussion - The Beautiful Truth

I've moved the following [6] from the article for discussion. It violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV as is, but there may be something here that can be salvaged and sourced: --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

However, it is important to bear in mind the fact that there is ample opportunity for corruption and bias in this field, and the pharmaceuticals industry has much to lose if Gerson were ever proven right. Furthermore, the revolving door policy that seems to be had between many of these regulatory and research groups (including the FDA) and big-pharm companies leaves one with a sense that it would be wise to undertake a personal review of the scientific literature rather than blindly trust those who stand to lose a great deal if Gerson's treatments prove more effective than the over-priced "medications" with all of their negative and unpredictable side-effects. A good place to begin learning about this angle of the story would be the documentary film "The Beautiful Truth"

Life in the U.S.

Just a little bio correction/addition/trivia here. Dr. Gerson actually arrived in the U.S. via Canada separately in early 1937. Mrs. Gerson & their three daughters arrived in the U.S. on 12/24/1936. The Gersons almost immediately applied for citizenship, but that did not happen until 1944. At the time of granting of their citizenship, Mrs. Gerson, who claimed the given name of "Gretchen Rosa", had it changed to "Margaret Rose" (Gerson). Their citizenship applications are both currently on-line at genealogy sites. 65.55.67.213 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

1947 review

The article says "In 1947, the National Cancer Institute reviewed 10 "cures" submitted by Gerson; however, all of the patients were receiving standard anticancer treatment simultaneously, making it impossible to determine what effect, if any, was due to Gerson's therapy." I can not actually find this in the source. The closest I get is [7] "In 1947 and 1959, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed the cases of a total of 60 patients treated by Dr. Gerson. The NCI found that the available information did not prove the regimen had benefit." This might well mean exactly what it states in the article, but it does not clearly say so. It seems the true source for the statement is something else, not mentioned, and so the statement does not actually have a source. I haven't gone through the rest of the article in a similar way, but this seems unfortunate. --Concordelia (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

Editors seem to disagree with the presentation of his tuberculosis treatment. They want to present it in the lede and give it a more positive light, supported by a 1946 source. While there may be some good rationale for giving more emphasis to his tuberculosis work, I find the addition of the information without any context of the 1946 date to be misleading. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I, too, find this misleading. If his work was indeed accepted by most tuberculosis doctors, recent sources should be found to synthesise this for us from the historical record. The products of original research using a single half-century-old primary source don't tend to be particularly encyclopaedic. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If a 1946 publication by Urbach of the Dept of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, is inadequate to establish Gerson's contribution to skin tuberculosis management, why is a 1947 publication by NCI considered sufficient to back statements in the same entry? Being "old" does not make medical literature either false or true, e.g. Krebs discovered the citric acid cycle in 1939, and it is still true.Ghildenbrand (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In 1946, Erich Urbach was summarizing Gerson's primary contribution. From the time of his dissertation in 1912 through 1945, Gerson had published with a central focus on tuberculosis. At the time Urbach listed the clinical studies and the publishing authors who had approved the dietary management of skin tuberculosis, Gerson was 33 years into his medical career. His presence in the literature of cancer spanned only 13 years.

At present, there are 3 threads in the Max Gerson entry, 1) the biographical data on Gerson, 2) the unrealistic claims of proponents and 3) the institutional responses of ACS, NCI, and Quackwatch to those claims. This needs to be cleaned up. Using language like patients who were "cured", with the quotation marks around cured, is just snarky sounding. For a value-neutral read on Gerson, see this 1995 peer-reviewed NIH report: . The section on Gerson starts on page 227. As you will see, the authors of this chapter found Gerson's TB career to be of greatest historical importance. Perhaps it would be better to have a separate entry on The Gerson Institute to discuss unreasonable claims and the critics of those claims. Gerson's story should stop in March of 1959, when he died of pneumonia.Ghildenbrand (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A biography must not necessarily end with the subject's death; post mortem developments relating to the subject's notability may be discussed.

As for older sources, I fear I didn't explain well. I don't claim that the age of the source correlates with being "true" or "false"; in any case, these are terms with limited applicability. Rather, we must be careful to avoid synthesis and original research when using primary sources such as Urbach. Unlike Urbach, et al, the NCI is a secondary source: experts from a government agency reviewed the available primary evidence and published their conclusions. As part of a paragraph including the ACS and the MSKCC, the information from this source provides relevant insight into how the medical profession responded and continues to respond to the claims of Gerson and his followers.

Finally, the value neutrality of the workshop summary presented to the NIH (but represented as a "peer-reviewed NIH report" above) can be assessed by noting that the writing of the Gerson organisation's own G. Hildenbrand in Healing Newsletter is cited on par with the peer-reviewed literature. And as the foreword reveals, the report is a "series of opinions" not endorsed by the NIH, which goes so far as to urge readers "not to seek the therapies described in this document...without consultation with a licensed physician". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The cochairs of the editorial review board of NIH publication No. 94-066 correctly note, "This report establishes a baseline of information on alternative medicine, which may be used to direct future research and policy discussions." In the forward, authored by NIH, it is explained that NIH published the report "for the purpose of furthering the dialogue between the alternative-complementary medicine communities and the biomedical research establishment." The NIH report is a mix of fact and opinion, just as are your comments regarding the same.Ghildenbrand (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but my comments are not being proposed as a reliable source for an encyclopaedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The NIH document is cited as a source for the ACS text on Gerson, which is linked as citation 2 in the wikipedia Gerson entry. It was good enough for ACS, and it is good enough for wikipedia. Should we accept the NIH document as reliable, or reject the ACS website as being unreliable?Ghildenbrand (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources supporting recent, contested changes

As another editor noted, the sources supporting the recent, contested changes are poor. As well as http://gerson-research.org and http://garhildenbrand.com, the use of http://www.mskcc.org needs to be done with extreme care to not violate WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz. We must also be careful when interpreting sources over a half-century old. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerson died over half a century ago; hence the need to use half-century-old sources, as these were his contemporaries. Erich Urbach was a well respected dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania when he wrote about Gerson in 1946. His publication should be just as acceptable as the 1947 NCI document if the concern is interpreting sources over a half century old. It is my opinion that the Max Gerson entry should be historical, and that there should be a separate entry for the Gerson Institute, which is the primary source of current claims regarding Gerson's therapy. It is not fair to saddle Gerson's bio with the opinions of his descendants. Gerson was a legitimate investigator with a large following in the European scientific community.Ghildenbrand (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't address my concerns. One example:

It is also well known, albeit among a silently majority, that the AMA is also in the business of treating sickness not curing sickness and condemn any and all treatment that actually cures people. This has been going on since the early part of last century. Consumers should be aware of this when researching and/or considering treatment."

--Ronz (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. First, what is your cite? I could not find this. Also, what concerns does this broad-brush generalization illustrate? Can you give me context? Thanks.Ghildenbrand (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't give more context. The example above was in the content that you have repeatedly restored. It's an example of extreme fringe material sourced from www.mskcc.org. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what Ronz is getting at is that the edit you keep restoring contains a lot of completely inappropriate material. Scroll past the lead section of the diff here. You're reinserting lunatic conspiracy theories about Gerson being poisoned, and additionally you're misrepresenting a source. http://www.mskcc.org is not a fringe source - it's the website of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, one of the top cancer research centers in the world. Of course, the Sloan-Kettering website doesn't contain ludicrous conspiracism about people being "maimed and killed" by doctors with an interest in promulgating cancer. That was vandalism, inserted at some point in the past, which you're restoring. Take a look at the material you keep restoring - you don't really stand behind an effort to blatantly misrepresent sources, I assume, but that's the end result. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I was not aware of how much I was undoing. I will certainly be more careful. There is an enormous amount of fabricated history about Max Gerson, mostly written at least 25 years after Gerson's death, and it is interwoven with negative assertions about the allied professions of medicine. Gerson did not die of arsenic poisoning; I have read his medical chart, and the cause of death was pneumonia. It is not my intent to restore any of that BS; but I am very interested to see this entry on Max Gerson become historically accurate. I think it was a bad idea to tear down the Gerson Therapy entry and merge it with Max Gerson. The "Gerson Therapy TM" did not exist until more than 30 years after Gerson's death. Gerson never called his cancer management the Gerson Therapy, although he did call his TB management the Gerson-Sauerbruch-Herrmannsdorfer diet. My bottom line is that the Max Gerson entry is now mostly purged of fictitious and outrageous claims; but it is sadly lacking in factual data from the historical record; and it has become a sort of mixed idea salad. This needs to be corrected.Ghildenbrand (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I didn't look to verify any of the information against the sources provided. It was only recently added by 70.179.42.132 (talk · contribs). I had started this discussion topic in response to the edit summary by TenOfAllTrades, and added mskcc.org because of the example above. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The decline of TB sanatoria

Our article states: "Current advocates of the therapy claim that many Swiss tuberculosis sanatoria were put out of business by Gerson's discoveries, and are now ski resorts." I've tagged this as dubious (it's also unsourced, but let's start somewhere). It should be obvious that the decline of TB sanatoria coincided with the development of effective antitubercular medications; streptomycin and isoniazid were both pioneered against TB in the 1940s/early 1950s. It was the development of truly effective medical treatments for TB that put sanatoria out of business and turned them into ski resorts. I'd welcome some sourcing for the claim that Gerson's diet was responsible, but the claim seems rather incredible, and should probably be treated as such. MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that streptomycin and isoniazid deserve so much credit for the decline of TB sanatoria. It was very important that Koch demonstrated (1882) that the disease was an infection, introducing the concept of transmissibility, which led to measures like prohibition of public spitting, quarantine of the diseased in sanatoria, the development of BCG (1920) and the post-WWII vaccination of millions, institution of milk pasteurization (1935), etc., all of which preceeded antibiotics. The curative effect on TB of streptomycin was not demonstrated until 1944; isoniazid followed several years later (1952). Coincident with the sequential institution of the above public health and hygiene measures during the first half of the 20th century, TB incidence dropped by approximately 90% by the 1950s. Antibiotics were the trump cards that allowed physicians to cure cases that occurred despite these preventive measures. BTW, I do not believe that Gerson's contribution fits the above timeline, and therefore I am in agreement that the claim by Gerson's biographer (grandson Howard Straus) is unfounded. In fact, Gerson's popularity among sanatorium directors peaked in the pre-WWII 1930s. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to cast Gerson's history in the context of the sanatorium era, clearly preceding effective antibiotics. This way, one can correctly portray the documented acceptance of Gerson's dietotherapy as an advancement in the treatment of tuberculosis, while at the same time demonstrating in the larger context that the post-WWII development of antibiotics completely overshadowed it and led to sweeping changes in the acute management of TB.Ghildenbrand (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. I don't see that laws against public spitting are particularly effective in a) stopping people from spitting if they are so inclined, or b) preventing the spread of TB. I'm also not sure I agree with your characterization of sanatoria. They were decidedly not viewed as a means of "quarantine". The guiding principle was that the fresh mountain air was directly beneficial to TB sufferers - that is, people went there as a form of treatment, not as a way to isolate themselves and prevent contagion. Furthermore, as sanatoria were typically expensive and available only to people of substantial wealth, they presumably had little impact on the public-health dimension of TB, which has always disproportionately affected those living in cramped, squalid, disadvantaged circumstances. The overall proportion of TB sufferers who were in sanatoria at any given time is certainly negligible from an epidemiological perspective.

I agree that milk pasteurization probably helped, although again most TB was, and always has been, spread by the pulmonary route. BCG probably played a role, although its efficacy in preventing pulmonary TB has always been (and remains) the subject of controversy. Interestingly, our own article on sanatorium states unequivocally that the discovery of streptomycin led to the decline and closure of TB sanatoria (then again, the claim is unsourced, so perhaps worth taking with a grain of salt).

Anyhow, I'm certainly not opposed to your proposals about covering Gerson's therapy for TB; I just think we'll need some solid sources to make it work. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's good by me. Question: Why is the lead paragraph about the "Gerson Therapy" instead of Max Gerson? It makes little sense in a biographical account, and frankly reads as a polemic rather than a measured, scholarly introductionGhildenbrand (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC).

Anecdotal Evidence?

Some would be nice from cancer patients who have undergone the therapy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.39.101 (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia it wouldn't. We need information in reliable sources, not hearsay. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A first person account, with proof IS a reliable source. However this belongs on a separate page about Gerson Therapy TM, not this bio page about Max Gerson, a person.--70.92.238.225 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"with proof" That proof would have to be from a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

is this article neutral?

im not sure how this works, but i do notice that the article is pretty biased as far as the comments being anti- gersen. it mainly deals with how nothing he ever did was ever proven to be effective. did this author get both sides of the story? why are hundres of people claiming the therapy works?just like hundreds claim it doesn't mostly old school doctors,"mayoist"as i see them, who dont want to aknowledge alternatives to treatment.there is big money in traditional cancer treatments, right?i think this article even though the historical parts are true it would still lead you to belive that the gersen therapy is inefective and dangerous. i am not a doctor. i belive that if one is going to write an article about what ever, at least get both sides.i will ask one last question before i close. where is the neutrality in the article? or is it me being biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.71.34 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe 'illegal to market in the US' results in a biased wikipedia article. And how many editors are being paid by the medical industry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.27.156 (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a cite for the therapy's status in the U.S.

Gerson's therapy purports to "cure cancer and most chronic, degenerative diseases". This is an extraordinary claim, demanding extraordinary evidence. As such evidence has not been produced by anyone unaffiliated withe the therapy, the subject is "fringe". As it concerns biomedical information, WP:MEDRS applies. While we can, and do, cite sources that are not independent of the therapy, they may only be used as sources for the therapy's supporters' claims. More weight is given to the scientific consensus. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

gerson.org

I don't think this meets any WP:ELOFFICIAL, WP:ELYES, or WP:ELMAYBE criteria. It fails WP:EL per WP:ELNO #1, 2, 4, 5, 13, and 19. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The link in question is off topic. The article is about the person. The link is to a site promoting an organization promoting a therapy created by the person. This would be similar to adding a link for a hospital to an article about a vaccine inventor. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have requested indefinite semi-protection because of the constant vandalism and promotion. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

This article seems terribly inaccurate, and overly biased by personal agendas. There are other sources of information independently researched by investigative experts that are far more reliable and with far greater credentials than what seems to be appearing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.27.24 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying the article is "terribly inaccurate and overly biased" is not helpful. Telling us how and where the article is biased would be helpful. Telling us there are "other sources... that are far more reliable and with far greater credential" is not helpful. Telling us what those sources are would be helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Testimonies"

I have just removed the above titled section which stated, "Testimonies of patients with documented medical records showing remission of their cancer following treatment with Gerson therapy abound. Current documentaries containing these testimonies include The Beautiful Truth (2008), Dying to Have Known (2006) and The Gerson Miracle (2004)." Documentaries fail WP:MEDRS: "it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." The edit claims that these documentaries show that Gerson therapy works. Current medical knowledge says it does not. "The therapy is considered scientifically unsupported and potentially hazardous." Essentially, we are left with non-reliable, non-notable sources saying something about a therapy connected to Max Gerson. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately Gerson's therapy is used widely enough to be notable only for that. Every coffee-enema clinic in Tijuana is due to this guy. SBHarris 23:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha, something I can check. The superlongevous Norman W. Walker

Since I'm interested in aging, and know that there are no verfied cases of a human male living to 116, I was interested to hear Charlotte Gerson in The Gerson Miracle (2004) claim that Norman W. Walker, the father of "juicing" lived to age 117. Nope, multiple independent sources show 99 years, 6 months. A good run, but no cigar. See supercentenarian and centenarian.

Also, if you watch the latter film, it's of considerably irony that it it goes through all the vegan stuff about colon toxins (mostly due to Walker) and how humans were not meant to eat meat, and then find out that Gerson started by having people drink large amounts of pureed calf's liver. This would be advanced therapy for 1928 (see the history section for vitamin B12) but was out of date a few years later. And what happened to the idea of the badness of nuts and berries? SBHarris 23:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted your recent edits, this movie don't appear to be appropriate source for independent information, especially as something as controversial as if he was poisoned to death or not... Surely there are better? Yobol (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't have them. In any case, a movie made by the Gerson institute is certainly a reliable source about claims made by the Gerson Institute, is it not? This entire article is unsourced, and yet you've removed some of the few sources it actually had. As it reads now, the man didn't die of anything. Either you improve it, or I'll put it back. You can't remove other people's stuff and then add nothing that is better. This is not a BLP. Stop it. SBHarris 01:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's better to use no source than to use a poor one. If the cause of his death is not important enough to be included in a reliable source, then we shouldn't mention it. We don't make an article with poor sourcing better by using more poor sources. Yobol (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You say: It's better to use no source than to use a poor one. Let me see you back that up with any part of WP (non-BLP) policy. I understand it's your personal opinion, but I believe that's all it is.SBHarris 16:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You were actually pointed to the appropriate policy point by SummerPhD below from WP:V. Yobol (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, try again. That bit of policy only applies to NO source. It doesn't attempt to compare or contrast the goodness of unsourced material with unreliable-sourced or possibly unreliably-source or contexturally-possibly-reliable source, or whatever. Frankly, I do not see how they can be compared. Nor do I know of anywhere in WP policy that attempts this. I think you are mistaken, or else made it up. SBHarris 19:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going from this, but I have no desire to get into a discussion on whether or not you agree that any material that isn't supported by reliable sourcing can be removed. You added material, I objected and reverted, and stated on the talk page why I reverted (i.e. WP:BRD). If you're trying to say no one can revert or remove contentious material which they believe to be unreliable sourced, I would say that to me is a gross misreading of our policies and guidelines. This will be my last word on this topic. Yobol (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

...and I added a source from a newspaper regarding the date of his death. Quick search did not find a reliable source noting his actual cause of death so far. Yobol (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: While this certainly is not a BLP, any editor can remove any info that is not supported by a reliable source. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." WP:V Given the claim hidden within the poisoning claim ("Oooooo, the big, scary Medical Establishment Cabal killed him..."), I'd like solid sourcing on this as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the light. The article now exists with all material at the same standard of reliability, and is much cleaner. The Gerson's Institutes various claims about things have been removed, as they are not a reliable source. Also, unsourced material no longer plagues the article. Voila. One standard applies to all. If you have problems with this, I'll see you all at RfC, and later ArbComm. From WP:V: <blockquote=WP:V>Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them.

I observe that the editors removing my material did not follow good practice, as it was imediately removed without giving me time to find a more reliable source. However, I actually have followed good practice, by removing material which has been in the article for a long time with no source, and the section tagged as such. I urge you all to follow Wikipedia policy scrupulously, which you have NOT been doing. SBHarris 16:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that was sort of funny... and to be honest, we're better off without all that unsourced material. We could construct a reasonable biography of Gerson using reliable sources (for example, the U.S. National Cancer Institute provides this overview). On the other hand, it might be more appropriate to move this from a biography to an article on "Gerson therapy", since most of the reliable sources discuss the treatment rather than the biographical aspects of Gerson's life. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, if we refocused the article to the Gerson Therapy instead of Gerson himself (there was a big fight about that) we'd run into the fact that the term Gerson Therapy is trademarked. And it wouldn't get us out of any of the present problems, since most of the information available on Gerson therapy is available from the Gerson Institute. Thus, per WP:V it is self-published AND unduly self-serving (see qualifation #1 under the self-published sources section). Now that the scales have fallen from my eyes about the wisdom of WP policy, I see that this is the road to happiness. We cannot allow self-published material about Catholicism by the Catholic church, or about Wikipedia by the WMF. It is partisan, and unduly self-serving, and therefore will not be NPOV, and certainly not reliable. People writing about themselves tend to make themselves look good (there's a newsflash), and thus we cannot use autobiography EVEN AFTER THE PERSON DIES and BLP standards no longer apply. Just because the person has passed on, aftre all, doesn't mean his own writing about himself/herself is any LESS self-serving than it was during life!

So. Let's get our shoulders to the wheel and fix this, folks. I've discovered my inner-zealot and I demand rigor and no slopiness. People and institutions writing with passion in materials that their own institution publishes, must be removed from Wikipedia. It is the only way to neutrality, and I pledge to help fix it. (Thank you; Thank you very much).

Oh, BTW, I think the Gerson Clinic as it stands in 2011 is a bunch of quackery, though Gerson himself in 1928 was back in the pre-antibiotic dark ages of medicine along with Galen, where conventional medicine didn't have much to offer, but diet sometimes did (I don't think Galen was a quack, either). However, that's my personal feeling, and what do I know? Even if I was an expert on medicine, it wouldn't count. So, this is all liberating for me. ONWARD! (Say, does the A.M.A. self-publish anything...? Is it unduly self-serving??) SBHarris 17:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point (and sense your frustration). On the other hand, I think you're pushing the reductio ad absurdem a bit too far. This project's goal is ostensibly to create a serious, respectable reference work. Given that goal, material published by major mainstream organizations, like the AMA or the Catholic Church, is of more potential use than material published by small groups marketing what has widely been described as quackery. At least, that's how I look at it. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see their point. Now, if Sbharris would like to reconsider making that point in such a clearly disruptive manner... - SummerPhD (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that there clearly is a difference between citing the Gerson Institute's self-published position on a product they are actively selling and us repeating an unconfirmed speculation of a vast conspiracy of murder 50 years ago of the namesake of the institute. It seems to me that most reliable sources discuss Gerson's therapy and not his biography; I actually think about moving this information to 'Gerson therapy' with a short biographical portion in that article would make more sense. Yobol (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I observe that a huge fraction of "published" literature of the world consists of conspiracy theories of one sort or another. Generally published by people who believe in conspiracy themselves. Is it within Wikipedia's provenance to document these theories as reported by those who hold them, or not? For example: John F. Kennedy assassination theories is a separate article from John F. Kennedy assassination which gives the "official" view. How did it manage to make it into Wikipedia, based as it is on unreliable sources (by definition, since it does not agree with the government view). And Apollo moon landing hoax accusations repeats a lot of unconfirmed conspiracy theories of 40 years ago, which also do not agree with the official view. Say, are you one of those "official view" people? As noted, that must save you a lot of time in thinking. SBHarris 20:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If a conspiracy theory is prominent enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it will be mentioned in independent, reliable, secondary sources. I will not be going down this rabbit hole about other scenarios other than to note that there are plenty of independently published secondary sources that document the relevant views of those conspiracies you mentioned; that does not seem to be true of the conspiracy as espoused about Max Gerson. Let's focus on finding independent reliable sources rather than getting off track, shall we? Yobol (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't look now, but your fellow sagacious editor has been adding things to the article with the same justification that you took them out, when I added them. Namely, that they are in a partisan work about Gerson: [8]. He seems to think the Gerson Institute is a reliable source for what the Gerson Institute thinks! The Gerson Institute also thinks that Gerson was poisoned. That's not a reliable source for whether he WAS poisoned, but I would think it is "reliable source" for the fact that the Institute's spokeman and their movie THINKS and CLAIMS he was poisoned. If you understand the difference. Is that notable? Well, if you google "Max Gerson" "arsenic" and "death" you will get 3700 hits-- a fact which bears on the notability of this theory. Including a hit on this TALK page, of course, since this is Wikipedia, and page-rank hath its privileges. But make sure you keep that fact off this page, as it must be supressed, and you're here to help suppress it.

Tell me, what sort of reliable source would have to have, for the existence of a conspiracy theory that Gerson was poisoned? Obviously you're not taking the word of those who believe the conspiracy, perhaps make up the conspiracy, and have written a book and two films about it. Perhaps you're waiting for a peer-reviewed medical journal to report its existence as a belief? Would that make it real? You're hilarious, Yobol. Don't take yourself too seriously, okay? BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors, which would not exactly be yourself. That is because it requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. Which is the case here. SBHarris 06:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The best possible source for "John Smith said (whatever)" is John Smith saying exactly that. The question then hinges on whether or not we are giving undue weight to the claim. So, for example, some lone nut claiming NASA never landed people on the Moon is trivial. Some lone nut making the same claim with significant press coverage and NASA responding is notable. The Gerson Institute's absurd claim that every peer-reviewed journal in the world conspired (!) to hide his magic can be reliably sourced, IMO, to the Gerson Institute. Why anyone would question that a cite showing the Gerson Institute said that would be a reliable source for that is beyond understanding. Weight is a separate issue.

The issue of the absurd claim that someone killed Gerson after his magic was well publicized in order to somehow hide that magic does not, IMO, address the weight issue. Independent reliable sources do not address the claim. Thus, to me, the claim is trivial, so far. Now, if you have meaningful sources denying that he was murdered (no, saying he died of some other cause is not the same), then you'd have something. Otherwise, you have the equivalent of someone claiming JFK's cause of death was poisoning.

The movie. Oh brother, the freakin' movie. The non-notable freakin' movie by a director taught the Gerson method as a 15 year old surprisingly finds that it's not just magic, but magic suppressed by an international conspiracy that makes the alleged JFK cover-ups look like a theory that a 7 year old lied about the dog and his homework. This huge conspiracy, involving every medical professional on the planet (except for the two or three who endorse the magic, of course) was easily exposed by the 15 year old, of course. The kicker, of course, is the long drawn out argument that you can't trust doctors (other than those who agree with Gerson, of course...) because doctor's approved of adding "flouride"<sic> to drinking water just like ... wait for it ... the Nazis. I get it. He's 15. Godwin's Law is a mystery to him. Then we get into Kirlian photography, live foods, doctors who (like, OMG!) endorsed smoking (60 years ago), etc. I half expected him to pull out a Ouiji board to ask Gerson who killed him. The movie is a reliable source for what the movie claims. However, the complete lack of independent reliable sources giving its claims coverage (outside of a handful of movie reviews) makes citing it a weight issue: "<ref>Some 15 year old.</ref>" - 14:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As it turns out, I was only slightly wrong with my Ouiji board joke. Actually, Gerson spoke from beyond the dead via radio. Seriously. The claim that Gerson was murdered came from <spooky music> beyond the gra-a-ave </spooky music>. Really. Unfortunately, right before the spirit of the dead Gerson could reveal his killer, the book's author turned off the radio. Honest. Or maybe a representative from the NCI was there to make sure the truth was never revealed.[9] - SummerPhD (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you've run across one of the references that I added to this article, and Yobol removed, a few days ago. It is of course self-published, and Ross's Ph.D. is in languages (I've met him several times and he's a tireless reporter on alternative therapies). But his information is good, as it comes from a book written by Charlotte Gerson's son-in-law, Dego the Gonzo, and correctly reports what the book says about Dego's "communication" with Gerson. It is unclear whether or not Charlotte ever reported the arsenic idea before Dego suggested it to her. She does blame the first "poisoning" incident, plus a thieving secretary and a hostile physician, for the loss of the first draft of Gerson's book. (The dog poisoned me and stole my homework). If you keep working hard, but might actually find out something about the topic you're editing. Good for you! SBHarris 18:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. What you feel is clear (without a source) is immaterial. Your snide comment is completely off topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The article would be greatly improved if some of the editors here went back to edit on Wikipedia topics they actually knew something about. I know that WP doesn't actually discourage editors from getting involved in content fights where they are ignorant, but they should. Couldn't you just check spelling, or go back to your usual topics? SBHarris 18:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you are a world renowned expert on bunk cancer treatments, the chemical elements, the gunfight at the O.K. Corral and supercentenarians, most of the rest of us edit outside of our field on occasion. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but if you have bothered to check my edits you will note that whenever I do run across somebody who does know more than I do about the subject at hand, I let them edit freely, and don't harangue them with my ideas on Wikipedia policy. So far as policy goes, we have the policy WP:IAR for a reason, and that reason is to not let the other giant amount of legalistic crap stop people from improving Wikipedia as a reference. It should not be a chore to add material on non-BLP subjects, unless the material is clearly wrong and not cited as being at least controversial (in the case that very many people believe it, like your average organized religion). If the material is controversial and held by some and laughed at by others, tag it as such and add cites as you find them, just as we do with relgions (the Gerson Insitute's program now is much like Scientology, and can be treated on WP as such). That's how WP historically came into being. Yobol doesn't seem to "get" this. Whether you do or not, remains to be seen. SBHarris 19:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

While I await your evaluation of my edits, I'm going to just keep on keepin' on, thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought, why don't you stop trying to wax philosophic about my intentions or understanding of Wikipedia here on the article talk page, and either take it up with me on my talk page if it's that important, or take me up to one of the noticeboards if it's so egregious. I have no desire to defend myself or my understanding of policy. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" seems very appropriate here. Yobol (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever asked the same independent reserchers who verify for the Cancer Socity to conduct a study on the Gerson therapy? Would they do it? Have they done it? Would it make them any money? What about all the other therapies known or claimed to cure cancer and other chronic diseases? Two of my relatives where cured one from chronic arthritis by a shot of wheatgrass a day, the other from cronic handicaping abdominal pain (she went for treatment everywhere including Mayo clinic and nobody could even tell her what was wrong) by raw juice and raw food diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.9.155 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break (RS vs. Reality Cagematch)

I see your point (and sense your frustration). On the other hand, I think you're pushing the reductio ad absurdem a bit too far. This project's goal is ostensibly to create a serious, respectable reference work. Given that goal, material published by major mainstream organizations, like the AMA or the Catholic Church, is of more potential use than material published by small groups marketing what has widely been described as quackery. At least, that's how I look at it. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see that it simplifies things considerably to view the reliability of things by whether or not they are published by "mainstream organizations," and at the same time judge how mainstream organizations are, by whether or not they publish stuff that is likely to be true, and are thus "reliable sources." The only small problem is getting into the cycle somewhere, in the first place. I suppose when we start out, we'd need to decide the "reliable-ness" and "mainstream-ivity" of an organization together, as a pair of attributes, in parallel. Perhaps we could do this on the RS notice board: WP:RSN. There, we could decided at the same time, if (say) Mormonism or Scientology or Christian Science are "mainstream" religions (and thus, their publications "reliable") and vice versa. The same with just about anything else. Example: is the goverment of China a "reliable source"? En.wiki will decide. And so forth. Don't laugh-- I can see it happening.

The only other alternative is to give our judgement over to other organizations that do epistemology and judgement in their own areas, as recommended in context in the RS section of WP:V policy (avert your eyes from WP:RS itself, which is mere guideline and makes attempts to codify many strange ideas).

Bertrand Russell says somewhere that without a "realism" viewpoint (idea of objective truth), the only thing we can say about a lunatic who thinks he is a poached egg, is that his view is not the majority one (or, if not a democracy, that he doesn't agree with the government). On Wikipedia we can therefore give things article-space based on the government's view, or on the popular view. Or perhaps the business/capitalist view. Is a medical treatment "mainstream"? You could ask the government (will medicare pay for yoga?). Or look it up to see if there's a yoga article in JAMA. (Do they have any yoga advertising-- there's sure lots of drug ads in there). Or ask your doctor (does your doctor do yoga?) or easiest of all, an insurance company. Aetna pays for hardly anything, so to make it really, really easy, we could ask Aetna if they pay for yoga. Case closed.

Or, we could base our viewpoint of "mainstream-ness" upon the space given to the view in publications as recommended by WP:NPOV, but that gets into the problem of judging the reliablity of the publications, and then we're just back to Square One. If we don't think yoga has value, then the Journal of Yoga is not going to meet our reliablity standards.

None of this is helped by the canard that WP is about verifiablity NOT truth, since one leg of verifiability is RS, which means (by definition) a source likely to be TRUE. So there's no tension of one over the other; we're stuck with trying to figure out RS

Rather than extend this general problem, I will simply say that I care more about utility than "truth," on WP, since the people who write WP are no better judges of truth than I am, but the site does have a lot more digested information (some good, some bad, some who-knows?), than I do. Where can I find all the pro and con on Gerson in one place, well written, and with connections to all other sources I can look up? Then I can judge truth for myself. I don't care where the information and various claims from both sides on Gerson and his therapy go, in WP-- two articles or one, and what the ONE is named. So long as it's all in there (I'm a radical inclusionist, except for BLP, where I think should all be deleted). Let the reader judge the reliability of the sources, so long as they can be verified by going to see if they exist and are quoted correctly. If the material itself must be split between true-believers and dissenters (ala the JFK assassination) WP is large enough to include both, in separate sections or even separate articles if it gets too long. The people who write Wikipedia (a large fraction of which, I am afraid, are jobless nerds with neckbeards) don't need to be involved in such decisions. The few experts who do edit WP ("Doctor, doctor! Before you look at your pager, I have a question....!") will be drowned out by everybody else, so there's no point in attempting to have things in accord with the majority view of the people with letters after their names. We leave that for things like "consensus view" AHA statements published in Circulation [10]. Which tends to publish consensus views precisely in areas where there is little consensus, anyway (and what consensus exists, is changing fast). SBHarris 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "truth". Wikipedia is about verifiability. No, we don't need "mainstream" sources, we need reliable sources. There is a chasm of difference. When discussing Gerson's therapy, the specifics under WP:MEDRS apply. If you are here to expose the truth blah blah blah, you have a long, unpleasant road ahead of you. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Same to you. The problem is that I realize the problem and you haven't, yet. WP:V has a section on reliable sources, without which it would be nowhere. And reliable source is wikispeak for "likely to be TRUE." That's how the policy itself defines it, not me. They just hope you won't notice, but it's in the policy. So you can't escape that problem. You think you have escaped it; but you haven't. So now where are you? The policy is that you need to look for truth somehow. So where are you going to start? SBHarris 21:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there something that is directly relevant to this article, which wouldn't be more appropriately discussed at the talk page of WP:V? This talk page is supposed to be discussing material directly related to improving the article. Philosophical discussion of policy belongs on the relevant talk pages. Yobol (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Articles follow policies and guidelines. Those wishing to overturn those policies should address those concerns on the appropriate talk pages. Thus, we're sticking to verifiable information from reliable sources:. The threshold is " whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WP:V - SummerPhD (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And just what do you think that sentence you just quoted means? Do you even understand it? [11] SBHarris 01:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you manage to make a significant change to one of our core policies there, we can deal with its impact here. Until then... - SummerPhD (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you have no idea which side of the "core policies" you're actually on, here, I would not hold your breath. Your sockpuppet idea [12] more or less demos that you're out to sea, and you're flailing around quite a lot in this article, too. You don't know what to do, and you're doing something different from Yobol. It wouldn't surprise me if any other people working here head for the hills. Frankly, I've had it with you. You're not constructive, you have some lame idea that you know what WP's "policy" is regarding alternative medicine articles, and when it comes right down to it, you're not helping. Your previous editing history shows that a number of people here have felt much the same way about you in other areas. SBHarris 06:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep civility in mind, please. Insulting other editors gives little support to one's arguments. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Gerson's death

Gerson's supporters seem to take it as an article of faith that Gerson was poisoned by them (read as: doctors, NCI, AMA, the government, big pharma... you know, those who want to keep his magic out of textbooks). The earliest and clearest reference I can find to it is discussing a book where the author claims that the quite dead Gerson told him via radio (from beyond the grave) that he had been poisoned. The official cause of death is reportedly pneumonia.

Personally, this is stuff is far too crazy not to include, but weight is an issue. Unless we can find reasonably reliable sources discussing the murder poisoning claim, I can't really see including it. So, we have the claim in a marginal book, apparently echoed in a film by a 15 year old.

I'd like to be able to firmly establish this before trying to add it.

First, we need to solidly establish that the rumor has meaningful supporters. While we have sites saying Gerson's daughter and grandson buy it.www.naturalnews.com/027004_cancer_coffee_health.html That said, I'd like either a reliable source saying they believe it or a primary source (i.e. them, their institute, his book, etc.) saying it. They are living people, of course, and the most outlandish aspects (the dead Gerson on the radio) might be particularly hard to nail down. I can't find any use of "arsenic" at gerson.org. The book mentioned here seems to be a decent source for the belief. Before I bother to have the library pull such nonsense for me, though, I need to believe we can get past the second hurdle:

We'll need a meaningfully reliable source mentioning it, debunking it, laughing at it, whatever. Yeah, Skeptic's Dictionary has a good chuckle about it, but they're hardly the gold standard of reliability (but great for a general survey of such nonsense).

At the very least, some basic biographical details are needed. I understand there are those who are fighting to keep X in and remove Y. That said, I can see no meaningful dispute about his basic details, setting the bar fairly low for this info. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources haven't covered the issue, it's not an issue. The ralphmoss book, if published by a reputable publishing house, could be RS. naturalnews is certainly not. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is not whether or not the Ralph Moss book's publisher is a "reputable publishing house". If we can generally trust that he speaks for himself, we have Gerson's grandson making the claim. In terms of establishing that Gerson's supporters make the claim, I'd say that would be halfway done. Gerson's daughter would nail it down, and I'm reasonably sure we can find an interview with her making the claim, we're just left with finding a truly reliable source calling it bunk and citing pneumonia as the cause of death. Essentially, if a new-ish religion claims (though their publishing house) some unlikely claim about their founder, it's not a matter of whether or not their publishing house is "reputable", it's just a matter of whether any reliable source has gone about calling it bunk. Rather than beating a theoretical horse, let's see what we can find, then discuss it. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If no independent source is able to provide the appropriate context (I've tried to find independent reliable sources that have reported his actual cause of death to no avail), then it probably shouldn't be given any WP:WEIGHT here. Yobol (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

While I still have nothing solid for the nutbar assasination poisoning theory, I've found an obit for solid sourcing on the date and official cause of death. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Just what makes you think anything in a obituary constitutes a "solid source" of information on anything except that fact that the newspaper ran an obituary that day? Newspapers don't fact-check obituaries, but simply print (without anything but copy-editing) information that comes from the family (unless the person is VERY famous, in which case the paper sometimes sends the live person their own obituary in advance, and relies on the live person to check it. No, I do not kid you- the NYT does this and it saves them a lot of time). Even the NYT gets caught not fact-checking far more important things [13] so why would they waste journalist-time on obituaries?

Although the entire idea of "reliable sources" presumes an extra layer of checking every time the (re)publisher is somebody more well-known, it's not necessarily so, and when it isn't, using the "big name" source for what is only re-packaged information from a less-certain and less-well-known source, only adds a false patina which at best can be embarassing, and at worst can be frankly dangerous. It been known to become a giant game of telephone, with many lives at stake. (Do you know the story of how the U.S. invaded Iraq?)

Let's see: I notice you've got an official American Cancer Society/Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center www.cancer.org article as a cite for the information that Gerson immigrated to the U.S. in 1936 and started treating cancer in 1928. Impressive sounding source, but how do THEY know THAT? That article has no author, no peer review trail, and they themselves don't give a specific citation. Their list of biographical sources shows no official public records, but they do give Stephen Barrett's quackbuster site. However that site gets its biographical information on Gerson the same place everybody else does (at least they are honest about it), which is the biographies of Gerson done by himself and his family. Using those sources, as-is, at least identifies the source and allows the reader to mentally correct for bias. Not doing that ends up having the reader see "New York Times" and "American Cancer Society" and so on, and (in the end) it's all just poor Colin Powell siting in front of the U.N., telling a third-hand story. The information-quality is no better, but the presenter now is a big name, so the listener makes certain assumptions. Which may well be false.SBHarris 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks:"No sources are reliable blah blah truthifulness blah blah" I've now added the Strauss book as a second source for the pneumonia claim. It also adds the source of the infection. (Apparently, he backed off the absurd radio transmission from beyond the grave bit when no one would publish it.) If you'd like to challenge the cause of death given by the New York Times and Gerson's grandson, good luck. Feel free to take that to the noticeboard. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You are still amusing. And why would I want to do that? I don't care what sources you use for this. I'm just curious as to why you don't follow your own (somewhat arbitrary) standards for "reliability." For example, you quote from a book by Gerson grandson Howard Straus, Gerson's daughter's son, but you won't use material from books published by Straus' mother herself (who has co-written several). Your idea that Gerson's grandson-in-law's book is tainted by his mad beliefs about contacting the dead Gerson so that "no one would publish it" is cute, but I'm afraid is naive. Book publishers will publish anything that sells. In the case of Straus' book subtitled Healing the Hopeless (the cite you use), that's not even a constraint, since the book is self-published anyway, so the money is all up-front from the author, and publisher risks nothing. Quarry Press (Kingston, Ontario, Canada, info@quarrypress.com) is the same vanity-publisher used by the rest of the Gerson family (and a lot of other alternatives types as well). Do you really think they are a "reputable publishing house" or indeed that they have any publishing fact-standards at all? They have eight employees; which one do you suppose reads the biomedical literature for them? [14].

I am curious, BTW, what you think Straus, who must have been a teenager when his grandfather died, knows about Gerson's death that his mother doesn't. Why do you believe him, and use him for a source, and not her? Do you think they showed the teenaged grandson the chest X-ray in 1959 and the daughter not? (there was no autopsy and really no diagnosis to be sure of, except the man had something wrong with his lungs by X-ray, so says everyone). You didn't like the 15 year-old in one film (your comments above), but Straus himself was just about that age, when Gerson, his grandfather, died. Anyway , here's your man Straus in an interview. Later, he had a failed run with "Gerson Healing Center" in Sedona, Arizona.[15]. Just for your treat, in case you think that Giuliano Dego is too far out, here [16] is an interview with Straus for you, about Gerson's death (to avoid the spamfilter, you need to change the "hale" to "whale" in the previous link):

START QUOTE

HS [Howard Straus]: So, what would happen if we actually cured cancer? If you could prevent cancer or cure it, there goes about ten-percent of the medical-pharmaceutical industry. That’s roughly 160 billion dollars a year. They don’t want to see that much money go away.

Now, add to that equation the revenue from the fast food industry; artificial fertilizers, pesticides, and chemical industry for commercial farming; food packaging, super-markets, and commercial advertising for all of it – it widens so rapidly that pretty soon you’re talking about a few trillion dollars worth of economic activity that is threatened by what we teach, how we treat and ultimately prevent disease based upon Dr. Gerson’s discoveries.

This is why Dr. Gerson was assassinated. Even though in the end, he actually died of a fungal lung infection – his immune system was not able to fight it off because there were high levels of arsenic in his blood.

PJP [interviewer]: What a shock that must have been. How did arsenic get into his blood?

HS: As it turned out, about three years prior to his death he went on a radio talk show and announced that he was writing a book on everything he knew about treating and preventing disease. He was publishing it himself and having it translated into as many languages as possible in order for the public to have this vital information. He also declared that he would give the book away free if necessary. That's how important it was for him to share this knowledge.

The “alarm bells” were surely ringing off walls in the pharmaceutical companies and in organized medicine, right?

Shortly thereafter, his secretary – which had been subverted by someone in the medical association – started bringing him a cup of coffee every day. Since he was a busy physician at seventy-five years old, he had begun to drink a little coffee to give him a boost in the afternoon.

He was close to finishing his manuscript when he suddenly fell ill. He took time off from his busy schedule to nurse himself back to health. It was during this time that his manuscript disappeared from his office. Then he found out that his secretary had been stealing his patient files and had turned them over to the American Medical Association.

He later discovered that twenty-five to thirty percent of his patients – his most successful therapy cases – were mysteriously called in by their former doctors and were somehow prevented from continuing with the Gerson therapy – or they were given a substance to cause death. They all died. Is this a case of mass murder? We think so.

Needless to say, he fired his secretary. It wasn’t until later, that he realized she was probably slipping arsenic into his afternoon coffee. So “they” tried to kill him and the book at the same time.

He had to write his book all over again from scratch – which he did.

This time, he secured the manuscript and published it himself. He sold three-thousand copies before being overcome by the fungal lung infection – a condition similar to Valley Fever. When Dr. Gerson died, the American Medical Association widely publicized his death as a result of lung cancer – in order to discredit him.

There was no biopsy and no autopsy performed – there was nothing to substantiate their claims – it was just a rumor that they spread far and wide.

PJP: That is certainly a disturbing story. It seems to be a recurring theme when it comes to those who openly share life-saving discoveries that threaten the control of corrupt powers.

I really admire your courage for continuing to promote your grandfather’s work. You’ve been very busy giving interviews on the radio and lectures to audiences worldwide. Now that the word is finally getting out about this important information, have you found an increasing interest in the Gerson Therapy?

HS: Our newly completed documentary - The Gerson Miracle - just won the Golden Palm Award for Best Picture at the 2004 Beverly Hills Film Festival. It's the event known as the "Little Oscars" and is quite prestigious. It's a feature-length film that examines the Therapy, healed patients, the reasons for degenerative diseases and their solution. It's a beautifully made film that is quite stirring. We expect the film to make a great impact - so you'll be hearing more about it. ( Skip to the Movie Review report on this page). END OF QUOTE

COMMENT The viral pneumonia has mutated to fungal pneumonia in this account. Perhaps somebody saw large tumor-like shadows, which viral pneumonia would not give. Who knows? By the way, you'll be glad to know that as a result of putting in Straus as a cite in this Wikipedia article, this article comes up on the first page in all searches for his book. I'm sure he's glad for the extra publicity, and would thank you. SBHarris 02:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So, the New York Times and a book by Gerson's grandson agree he died of pneumonia. Gerson died of pneumonia is reliably sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not, because the New York Times got its information from the same place the grandson did. That's called "family tradition". Putting it on paper doesn't change that. We don't have a death certificate. By the way, Howard Straus was born in May, 1943 so he was indeed 15 when his grandfather died. He would reach 16 two months later. SBHarris 03:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, the New York Times reports he died of pneumonia, as does a book written by his grandson. If you wish to dispute this, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you ask, perhaps I will. But only because it raises interesting issues that need to be dealt with at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, and this gives me a chance to do that. At this point, you're reduced to directing me to that place because you can't follow WP policy, because it's not really clear. However, neither of your sources, which are the same source, actually, is "reliable." SBHarris 04:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would remove the Straus book reference (self-pub is self-pub) but keep the NY Times obit as a source, unless someone can point to me where there's been consensus that NY Times obituaries are not RS.Yobol (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For clarity here, I added pneumonia and the date of death as sourced in the biography (written by his grandson, who seems to have started the arsenic rumor) and the New York Times. I would positively love to include the claim from the grandson that dear old dead granddad came back to him via radio to say he was poisoned (said grandson said he turned off the radio before the murderer was named...). However, he's the only one to make that claim and no one else seems to be interested. The arsenic rumor, though, is all over the net, but I have yet to find a reliable source for anyone of any significance making the claim. (Supposedly, Gerson found a magic cure-all and some doctor, nurse, drug company rep, NCI/AMA representative killed him to protect their racket.) Anywho, lots of internet searching later, other than vague claims of poisoning, everyone says he died of pneumonia. Unfortunately, as God hasn't returned my calls, the best source I can manage to find is the New York fucking Times and a book by the guy who claimed otherwise. So, we have both sides of the argument agreeing on his date of death and ultimate cause, sourced to the New York Times. Someone who dislikes WP:V, WP:RS, etc. has decided that's not good enough. Wow. In any case, I included the Strauss book because otherwise some true believer in Gerson's magic is going to come along and cite some forum posting somewhere saying that it was <cue spooky music>mur-r-rder!!! - SummerPhD (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Another source for the cause of death being pneumonia just added: CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians Volume 23, Issue 5, "Unproven methods of cancer management: Gerson Method for Treatment of Cancer". p. 314-317. Of course, if we're seriosuly challenging the New York Times as a reliable source, which is still ongoing elsewhere (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Other stuff exists, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources...), I'm hard pressed to think what would be a reliable source that someone wouldn't challenge. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Proof

the part near the end where it says that there is no proof that the Gerson therapy works is wrong. I can't figure out how to edit it. Max Gerson tried multiple times to get his work published and approved by other doctors. He even published a book of fifty of his patients "A Cancer Therapy, Results of Fifty Cases & The Cure of Advanced Cancer by Diet Therapy". He is now dead but his daughter, Charlotte Gerson, and his grandson Howard Straus continue his cancer therapy work. If any body is the least bit skeptical of the Therapy I suggest reading the above book and also the book "'Dr. Max Gerson: Healing the Hopeless By Howard Straus which is a biography and also explains how Dr. Gerson discovered each aspect of his therapy. Read these and then tell me there is no proof!!! Also the official website is [17]--71.161.195.98 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see a website but nothing that would qualify as "evidence." If you like testamonials I can get you better "evidence" that Scientology or Mormonism are "true." Why doesen't this website publish serial PET scans, along with pathology and biopsy reports of these pancreatic cancer and metastatisized colon and other cancers they've clained to cure? I will volunteer to personally check out any reports of a stage IV cancer metastasized to the liver and documented by biopsy and PET/CT, more than 5 years old, with the patient claiming to still be alive and well right now. Bring them on. Gerson claims to salvage many failures of the standard medical system. Okay, let's see some! I want to see metastatic solid tumor cancer cured. Not breast lumps, no local prostate cancer-- all that's cured every day, and misdiagnosed every day, too. I want to see cancer in the liver. Considering what a large fraction of cancer winds up there, that shouldn't be too hard to do. I have no stake in cancer; I'd love to rub the medical establishment's nose in this, if only there was some hard evidence. I have seen none. --Steve Harris, MD. SBHarris 21:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

All medical records are available at the institute, if you are looking for hard evidence, then go over there and look at the medical records. September, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.63.183 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 September 2012‎

Oh, yeah? Who are you, and how do you know what they will and will not show me, if I show up at their front door in Tihuana? Eh? SBHarris 00:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, it doesn't matter if they will show us the records. We cannot cite primary sources for this nor can we evaluate the records, even if "we" happen to include someone who is qualified to do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed – WP:NOTAFORUM Alexbrn talk
contribs
I called the office and asked them that's how I know, also I have a friend who had stage 3 prostate and bone cancer who the doctors told him he had 6 months to live, he chose not to do chemo, did the Gerson therapy, and he is now healed 2.5 years later, he has no trace of cancer, NONE! His conventional doctors found that his scars from previous surgeries and injuries have dissolved, his hair is returning to a darker colour than before the cancer and his arthritis is GONE, I've seen how his arthritis affected him, it broke his heart because he couldn't play guitar any-more 2 years ago. Now, after the therapy he is able to play guitar like he did 15 years ago. It's not that hard to know people that have outlasted conventional doctors' prediction by the patients' choice of eating healthy rather than drink a poison to hopefully kill the bad cells.unsigned comment added by 173.238.63.183 (talk • contribs) 00:48 (EST), 10 June 2013‎

You should keep in mind that it's virtually impossible to conduct a double-blind experiment using the Gerson Therapy. It's a lifestyle. We measure evidence through the scientific method and inductive reasoning. And to undergo an experiment like this with a placebo aspect to it would be considered morally wrong. And since Gerson Therapy can not virtually undergo this, it is usually talked down upon since it can not fit the criteria to undergo this scientific method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.nguyen0012 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, "You should keep in mind that it's virtually impossible to conduct a double-blind experiment using magic pixie dust. It's magic. We measure evidence through the scientific method and inductive reasoning. So since magic pixie dust can not virtually undergo this, it is usually talked down upon since it can not fit the criteria to undergo this scientific method." Heck, given your claim that Gerson Therapy is unfalsifiable, how do we know anything about it? Maybe it results in earlier deaths. Maybe it turns mere mortals into super heroes. It makes a testable claim (with no empirical basis). Starting with the claimed successes: we cannot verify that the diseases existed before and did not exist after. Hmm. Well, perhaps, despite the complete lack of any reason to believe this would work we randomly assign people to three groups:

• Group one follows the current Gerson therapy (vegetarian diet buttloads of organic juices, buttloads of coffee and castor oil enemas, oral and rectal hydrogen peroxide, rectal ozone, supplemented vitamin C and iodine and for the love of God, don't drink water or eat berries or nuts).
• Group two gets Gerson Classic (all of the above nonsense, plus several glasses of raw calf liver extract daily). Presumably, that's vegetarian calf liver.
• Group three gets sham Gerson therapy: fake vegetarian food (it looks and tastes like TVP, but it's really ground beef), tea and olive oil enemas, oral and rectal saline, fake supplements, lots of water and berries.

After they're all dead and we're all in jail, we publish. As an alternative, we can examine the basis for Gerson's therapy. 1) "Toxic substances accumulate in the body, causing disease." Really? What toxic substances? Is a virus a toxic substance? 2) "Chemical contaminants in food reduce its potassium content while elevating its sodium content." Oooooo! Science! Easily testable. Yet not tested...? 3) "This imbalance changes cellular metabolism, causing cancer." Easily testable in animal models and population studies. Yet not tested...? 4) "Reduce sodium and increase potassium in patients cells through a fruit and vegetable diet, coffee enemas and various injections, enzymes and nutritional supplements." Again, easily testable. But, again, not tested...? These four items (and a few others) are the foundation of the Gerson therapy. Supporters of the therapy have not tested these foundational claims, all of which are easily falsifiable. No foundation = no building. If it ducks like a quack...

Long story short, the reliable sources in the article document 1) there is no empirical basis for the therapy, 2) science demonstrates no positive effects and several negative ones (death is generally considered "negative"), 3) those selling the therapy claim it works any way. (This pattern in pseudoscience is as cliched as "boy-meets-girl,-boy-loses-girl,-boy-gets-girl-back" is in bad fiction writing.)

If you have reliable sources for additional information not currently in the article, feel free to add it. Otherwise, there's nothing more to discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't edit your comments after I have responded to them. It makes it seem like I haven't read part of your comment. Yes, an experiment to test Gerson's wild theory would be "morally wrong", with or without a placebo control. This is partially because the placebo would be, at best, minimally effective. More importantly, Gerson's therapy has documented hazards associated with it and absolutely no reason to believe it would help in any meaningful way. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I don't demand double-blind or even propectively-controlled experiments. Since we know that 99% of pancreatic cancer patients are dead in 5 years, we can use historical controls. All the Gerson people need to do is publish a list of some of their stage 4 colon, pancreas, esophageal and glioblastoma patients still alive and cancer-free after 5 years. People have looked at Gerson patients (the Gerson people can't be bothered to follow them, but others have) and they don't look good at 5 years. In fact, they look 94 and 44/100 % purely DEAD at 5 years. And nobody cured. See reference 14 in the article. Come on, if there was anything to this therapy, it should have done better. SBHarris 04:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for editing the "morally wrong" section, that was what I meant. Have you seen the documentary "Food Matters" or "Gerson Therapy"? They have a numerous amount of patients that have survived many different stages of cancer. Even his books fifty of his patients "A Cancer Therapy, Results of Fifty Cases & The Cure of Advanced Cancer by Diet Therapy" there are patients that have been cured. If you would like to argue that this may be media propaganda the same can be said of yours. Why don't we all go down to Tijuana and diagnose the patients and see how they are living their life and how the "Gerson Therapy" is doing for them. Tim.nguyen0012 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You first, bub. Feel free to fax me any biopsy and histopatholgy records you can get hold of. The patients in Gerson's book don't have any such things-- there's no way to tell whether they EVER had cancer. They were not enrolled in a cancer registry, nor seen by independent doctors to check their stories. Without all that, his book is a collection of fairy tales. WHat's in there to assure me that it's not entirely fiction? If I report cancer cases in a scientfic paper, I'm supposed to keep the patient files, in case some body doesn't believe me. Same with the original data for any paper I publish. Where's Gerson's? Can I go independently look up his patient Jane Doe and see what happened to her? Hell, no. SBHarris 20:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to go to whatever poorly regulated region you want to talk to all of the allegedly saved people you want. That said, this is Wikipedia, not "Stufftimnguyenbelievespedia". We need reliable sources for these claimed miracles. Otherwise, there are, quite literally, thousands of supposed "cures" with equally suspect claims fighting for space here. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

While you're at it, you can update the Hulda Clark article. She had the cure for all cancers, but unfortunately died of cancer two years ago (her followers say it was a spinal cord injury, but multiple myeloma was eating her spine). Here's a link: [18]. Tijuana is a great haven for quacks (so long as you pay off the authorities in licence fees, you can do anything there). Clark's clinic per se is closed, but her legacy lives on in a bunch of Tijuana dentists who can use her "synchrometer" and aren't shy about promoting themselves as Clark's successors. [19] Should our encyclopedia have "information" about them?

There is a decent chance that that Charlotte Gerson will in time contract cancer also (her chances as a human being her age are at least 1 in 3, after all). She will deny it. It will kill her, and her relatives will say she died of an injury or poison (the only way health gurus ever die, it appears). Then they'll bury or cremate her, without any autopsy. So it goes. SBHarris 20:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A quote from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." These words ring hollow when you attempt to edit the information on the subject of Max Gerson, much less try to get balanced information on the man and his work. The views of the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute--historically biased against the work of Max Gerson-- are the only points of view apparently allowed on the write up of this subject. Attempts by myself as well as others to edit it with information that meets all of Wiki's standards and rules is routinely rejected. References to journals and medical papers by well respected national and international doctors are rejected by Wiki moderators because they, the Wiki moderators, don't feel it belongs on Wikipedia. A biased double standard exists. Whether it's because of ignorance of the subject of Max Gerson or some kind of hidden agenda remains to be seen. I've been effectively told by moderators that any points of view other than those of the ACS or NCI will be rejected. Please refer to this discussion This standoffish, closed minded attitude by Wiki moderators is frustrating to those of us who understand the debate, who understand that the rest of the world is benefiting from Gerson's work while we continue to labor and die by the millions under the continual failures of the American medical establishment's laughable "fight against cancer". Wikipedia is a source of information for millions of people each day. If someone is sick and hears about Gerson somewhere and decides to look them up, they are hit with the one-sided, obviously biased write up of Max Gerson on Wiki. And after reading it, the casual reader will most likely be left with the feeling that Gerson is a crackpot and the sick person will seek conventional cancer treatment (chemo, radiation) that is a proven failure and killer. Has it really come to this kind of farce, where one-sided Wiki moderators hold some kind of power of life or death? Is that REALLY the "sum of all human knowledge" that Jimbo Wales espouses? Amusedspaceman (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Dec.23, 2011

Your ridiculous attempts to promote delusional quackery have no place in an encyclopaedia, and that is all that needs to be said on the matter. It isn't going to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It is easily verifiable that Gerson's therapy is considered rank quackery. If it actually works, it should be trivial to run a well-controlled trial matching cancers of similar stages and seriousness against each other and marking who dies faster. Though Gerson's ideas lack prior probability, the main reason they are not embraced is because there is simply no good proof that they work. All the whining about how evil and greedy the drug companies are won't magically cause an empirical test of Gerson therapy to appear. Take 20 people with stage IV colon cancer, give half conventional chem and half the absurd Gerson approach (or chemo+Gerson), then see who dies when. Chances are there will be no difference, but the ones taking coffee enemas will feel like shit while they die. Proof, not ideology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is your completely arbitrary definition of "verifiability". That's the real problem here. Your definition switches to whatever works for your agenda. We know there's paid editing on Wiki. And the word is out on how some Wiki moderators are paid to push special interests.(removed as per WP:TPG talkpage guidelines, a forum chat unreliable post that has no possibility of benefiting this article - Youreallycan (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)) I predict we'll see Wikipedia in court before long. Until then, I hope people save their money when Wiki comes panhandling for donations. And when people read Wiki I hope they know this and give it the skepticism it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amusedspaceman (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No. What's ridiculous is <redacted, in the spirit of the season - ATG> like yourself spouting ludicrous conspiracy theories and other hogwash to try to justify a failed and dangerous quack cure. As for scepticism, I somehow doubt that you actually understand the meaning of the word. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on content not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Verifiablity does not mean "someone said it". It means we are reasonably certain that someone relevant said it. Yes, those who are selling Gerson "Therapy" claim it works. Shocking news, that. Every crackpot theory has a crackpot who believes it. Most crackpot theories -- and most crackpots -- are not notable. Their opinion that the theory works and their crackpot theory that 99.999% of all of the doctors, nurses and medical researchers in the world are involved in a huge, worldwide conspiracy to let people die is of no importance. Crackpot theories, a.k.a. "fringe" theories are only notable when independent reliable sources have something to say about them. The book you're pushing is not a reliable source. The sources you dislike are.

The link you provided (visible in the edit history for anyone interested) does indeed make it undeniably clear that there are people who have edited this article for their own benefit. The person complaining that people with a financial interest are editing is (drum roll...) Gerson's grandson. In posting his own book, pushing people to buy his dubious "services", he was shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, that other editors saw this as a conflict of interest. This is your smoking gun that the OTHER editors are biased? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases article content on published reliable sources, not on anecdotal 'evidence'. AndyTheGrump (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is nothing dangerous about this therapy. I have been on it for 2 years. I lost 100 lbs , along with my backache, joint pain , high blood pressure , my hepatitus went dormant again after it was awakened by my chemo therapy, my eyesight improved and hair(which had fallen out from chemo therapy) grew back in brown instead of grey. I can now run miles every day and have huge energy, even the memory loss that chemo-therapy induced is improving somewhat. Now I do not have some huge tumor or something that was cured by the therapy but there are many sample cases that have. I have recovered from chemo-therapy though and although I am afraid of getting leukemias from that, have nothing to fear from Gerson therapy side-effects. Read any of the Gerson therapy books and it will give you case studies. Go to the clinic and there are xrays and patient progress records. For 60 years the basic advancement of cancer treatment has been miniscule compared to the deaths and impact of the disease it'shard to belive that the state of this treatment is so primitive in our 'modern medicine'. Yet this Gerson treatment offers hope. take any cancer patient and add my results, even if it didn't cure the cancer this wodl be a much better result than the current treatment which calls you cured after 5 years and then kills you with a luekemia in ten. This is not snakeoilism. There is little profit to be gained. The accusation " The Gerson sham will just take all my money" is easily countered by " sorry doctor that's impossible you already did". If you would truly love to how did you put it ' stick in the ear' of the medical proffesion? Then instead of coming here to debate the subject try the diet. You don't have to do the enemas but if nothing at all else happens I am sure you will experience a huge increase in well-being. Also these days the core of the diet is being proven in many ways. There are now mountains of evidence that natural food is the way to go. Max Gerson is one of the pioneers of diet of teh future. In that way he was a true visionary of preventativemedicine. Who can disagree that a healthy diet is cacner preventative? Even the FDA won't. There may be sections of his therapy that need revision the organization may have been a little slow updating his therapy for modern times. It's hard to change the work of a master, but there have been some updates. So you have a therapy that is not dangerous if followed properly, has no negative side effects, is priced reasonably and will help you lose wieght, reduce blood pressure , increase energy, prevent diabetes and just about any other metabolic disease. The proof is what you call anecdotal. No double-blind studies, but there have been lots of other studies around the world on similar therapies, copy-cat therapies( avfascinating case in Japan wwere a prominent medical doctor cured his colon cancer with the therapy and started using it in his clinic). Unfortunately the AMA and governmental agencies have done their darndest to make sure that this man's work will never be seen. becasue if it is exposed for what it is the cancer mill would stop and so would 500 billion plus US dollars a year. If you think that is a conspiracy theory you are wrong. this stuff is well documented, that is what they did to Max Gerson during his witch hunt. Signed Alton O'Briant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.164.86.205 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Evidence

In the paragraph that is listed as "Evidence" the sentence that says " Anecdotal evidence collected outside the Gerson Institute suggests that the Therapy is not effective against cancer. When a group of 13 patients sickened by elements of the Gerson Therapy were evaluated in hospitals in San Diego in the early 1980s, all 13 were found to still have active cancer.[11] has no concrete reference. I would click on the 11th reference and it would take me to the http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6789105 site and all it would say is "Campylobacter sepsis associated with "nutritional therapy"--California." with no scientific documentation. I find this very flawed and I'm planning to delete this uncredible statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.nguyen0012 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You have to dig up this 1981 MMWR report (all you see on medline is the abstract, which is PMID 6789105, and see what it really says. This is a concrete "reference"-- it's MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1981 Jun 26;30(24):294-5. It is just not a reference to a work that is on-line. Everything isn't available online yet, you know.SBHarris 05:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As I research for MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1981 Jun 26;30(24):294-5 it takes me back to the medline page and when I search for Campylobacter sepsis associated with "nutritional therapy" it either takes me back to medline or other sites that lack scientific documentation. Would you be able to supply me with the scientific documentation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.nguyen0012 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I also found one on Campylobacter sepsis with multiplate organ failures in IgB Subclass deficiency and it doesn't state anything about nutrition therapy being associated with Campylobacter sepsis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.nguyen0012 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To read this, you'll have to visit a library. Typically this is a large building filled with documents, many of which are on paper. It's a unique experience, and if you've never seen one, I highly recommend it.

Gerson stopped using raw liver juice in 1989, as a result of infecting a number of patients with Campylobacter with it in the 1980's, and that's what this report is about.

Between 1980 and 1986 at least 13 patients treated with Gerson therapy were admitted to San Diego area hospitals with Campylobacter fetus sepsis attributable to the liver injections . None of the patients was cancer-free, and one died of his malignancy within a week. Five were comatose due to low serum sodium levels, presumably as a result of the "no sodium" Gerson dietary regimen. As a result, Gerson personnel modified their techniques for handling raw liver products and biologicals. However, the Gerson approach still has considerable potential for harm. Deaths also have been attributed to the coffee enemas administered at the Tijuana clinic.

SBHarris 23:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Recommend we remove reference 3. When read, it refers back to reference 2. This is essentially duplicating the same information. While I'm on the issue, should we have references to scholarly documents (i.e. 10) not accessible to the general public? I thought we generally weren't doing that anymore. Further, paragraph two and three seem to contradict each other--the second paragraph saying that cure rates weren't backed up by survival rates, and the third paragraph implying they were backed up by "simple survival rates". Well, we'd need a definition there, or an explanation, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.75.10 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ref 10 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1981 Jun 26;30(24):294-5 is not top secret, and you (the general public) can get it. It's in most good medical libraries. If you have a new iPhone, go to your map button and enter "medical libraries" and it will give you directions to the nearest. Or, you can just ask Siri (there's my nearest one 29 miles away). However, I'll do your homework for you: old CDC issues are actually on line if you know where to look: including the one you're looking for. There are the 10 patients who got Campylobacter fetus sepsis (a very rare type), and wound up in San Diego are hospitals, 5 of them comatose. 9 had cancer and had been to Tijuana getting coffee enemas and Gerson raw therapy, and the other (a man) followed the protocol at home. Which means that the Gerson clinics actually did this to a 13 year-old girl who did NOT have cancer, but Lupus. One of the 10 died of cancer within a week. The rest presumably survived, but no thanks to Gerson. They had very low serum sodiums-- presumably nobody told Charlotte Gerson that human beings need salt to survive (I'm thinking of a wonderful old Star Trek episode, The Man Trap). SBHarris 04:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oookay. So we're still going with subscription-only scholarly articles. Right. How about removing reference 3 and fixing the contradictions in the paragraphs (or at least clarifying simple survival rates vs. survival rates? If I make the changes are y'all going to change it back and call me a vandal, or what? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.75.10 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And can't figure out how to fix the nonexistent reflist. Not that I'm trying that hard. Ubiquitous editors? Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.75.10 (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have time to note that MMWR 1981 was subscription in 1981, but it's free on the web now, and I gave you the link above. Did you look? CLICK HERE. I'll deal with reference 2 and 3 later. Note that references renumber themselves, so there's no need (and no way) for you to renumber them. If you simply delete one, the rest will sort out their numbers automatically in the reference list. Perhaps you shouldn't undertake to edit here until you learn to edit here? There is a tutorial and a sandbox. For the first thing, sign your entries with four tildes ~~~~

Finally,reference 3 (Memorial Sloan Kettering) indeed refers to 2, but isn't a complete duplicate of it, and has its own references and conclusions and is quoted directly, so all references to it cannot be simply removed. When you removed the primary cite to the reference and one subcite, the other two (elsewhere in the article) led nowhere, which is what screwed up the list. I've left the two places you removed out, but left the other cites to Sloan Kettering in (replacing one with the primary cite), at least until you convince me the quote should go. Do we care what Memorial Sloan Kettering thinks? Sure we do. SBHarris 03:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Food Matters

I would like to add to this Max Gerson page the summary and the messages conveyed through the documentary "Food Matters". Since it is based on the "Gerson Therapy" I think it would be appropriate for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.nguyen0012 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Find some independent sources that share your opinion, and we'll see if we can come up with something that's appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

For this subject I'm not trying to share my opinion but to convey the messages from "Food Matters" since it is based off the "Gerson Therapy". If you mean opinion by saying that I believe the movie is appropriate for this page then I believe you should see the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.nguyen0012 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Without independent sources, it should be left out of this article. --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerson Therapy Clinic Locations

I would like to add in the locations of the Gerson Clinics in the Gerson Therapy paragraph of the article page not for advertisement but to be able to be informed on the location of these clinics due to the relevancy of the clinics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.nguyen0012 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a directory nor a means of promotion. --Ronz (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia that provides information to the viewers who are interested on certain topics. And this particular topic, if one was interested, as have I, would want to know where they would practice the Gerson Therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.nguyen0012 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Then to be clearer, no, such information is inappropriate to include. --Ronz (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And what are the reasons being? It's odd to be able to learn about the Gerson Therapy but not know where and what countries it is being practiced in Tim.nguyen0012 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. People can find that information very easily on the internet. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that provides a neutral point-of-view on a subject and I can not learn where it is being practiced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.nguyen0012 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions "In Europe" and "In the United States." That indicates that it's practiced in at least those two locations. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is not a directory, resource for conducting business, yellow pages, etc. It has an article on iPhones but no information as to where to go to buy one. You dig? SBHarris 03:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes because the iPhone is a very elusive and enigmatic and we have no idea how it impacts our society as a whole. We have no idea where it is being sold at and we have no idea how to get our hands on it. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Tim.nguyen0012 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you are looking for snake oil, we'll tell you it's snake oil, but not where to buy it. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Schweitzer quote

The following was added and I've moved it here for discussion and reformatting (it also needs a RS before use in the article):

Conspiracy Against Gerson

In reflecting on Dr. Gerson's work, Albert Schweitzer, the renowned doctor and humanitarian who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952 (and whose wife Gerson had cured of tuberculosis) said, "I see in him one of the most eminent medical geniuses in the history of medicine. ...Unfortunately, he could not engage in scientific research or teach; and he was greatly impeded by adverse political conditions. http://www.quackcenter.com/gerson.html

We can't use an unreliable source (a private website that openly boasts of being for quacks!?!), but the quote probably exists somewhere else on the internet. I can imagine using this quote as an example of a notable supporter of Gerson. That's important enough for inclusion. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an exceptional (though not entirely unbelievable) claim, and thus requires very solid sourcing (per policy). There are all sorts of misattributed quotes floating around the darker corners of the Internet (and being echoed uncritically), so we need a really good source here before deciding whether to include this. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence section

The following sentence with citation #14, "In 1994, a study published in the alternative medical literature described 18 patients treated for cancer with the Gerson Therapy. Their median survival from treatment was 9 months. Five years after receiving the Gerson treatment, 17 of the 18 patients had died of their cancer, while the one surviving patient had active non-Hodgkin lymphoma.[14]" is an incomplete and misleading characterization of the original study. I've attempted three times to add the full context of this study which is as follows: "A preliminary study conducted between 1983 and 1984 attempted to collect any available retrospective data on three nonallopathic treatments offered in clinics in Tijuana, Mexico: Gerson, Hoxsey, and Contreras.[5] The authors did not have access to medical records and relied on patient interviews for all information. The self-reporting was incomplete and inconsistent, lacking precise information in areas such as how far the disease had advanced. In the Gerson segment, only 18 of the 38 patients stayed in the study for 5 years or until they died; their mean survival was 9 months from the beginning of the study. The other 20 patients were lost to follow-up. At 5 years, 17 of the 18 had died, and one patient with advanced non-Hodgkin lymphoma was alive but not disease free. Overall, this study did not offer meaningful data to support the clinical efficacy of the approaches studied" (as quoted from the National Cancer Institute's own webpage: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gerson/healthprofessional/page5). Originally, an editor told me that I couldn't post this because of copyright infringement laws. Really, even though I've cited it directly from their own website? I don't understand then how any of the other citations and statements listed on this page don't violate some sort of copyright law. Please note the context of the second statement and how it explicitly states that the 1983-84 study by Dale (not 1994 as incorrectly mentioned in the Wikipedia entry) was considered "Not Meaningful." Therefore, why is it even mentioned in this encyclopedia at all?

Likewise, I created a You Tube link in the Reference section to the 2006 documentary, "Dying to Know" by Steve Kroschel which was removed each time. I then entered the name of the documentary, just like the others listed but without any link whatsoever, and that too was removed! Something very suspicious about this subject matter, or am I missing something here?

RoiArtu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roiartu (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It is unsurprising that your edit ([20]) was reverted, as it was a straight copy-and-paste of a substantial direct quote, in a situation where you didn't clearly identify the material as being a direction quotation of another writer's work (by marking it off with blockquoting or quotation marks, see WP:Plagiarism for guidance), and where it wasn't necessary to use a direct quote to convey the information—paraphrasing could have been sufficient. Nothing suspicious here; you're just unfamiliar with the expected standards for attributing quotations.

It's not clear why you believe that the summary in our article is 'misleading'; unless you are hoping to argue (without evidence) that the only patients who were cured by the therapy deliberately evaded follow-up, our article appears to contain a reasonable, concise summary of the study's outcome. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Claims about TB cure

I have removed an entirely unsourced claim about Gerson therapy curing skin TB and Type II diabetes. On further investigation, the claims appear to be drawn directly and uncritically from the Gerson Institute's website. These claims are already touched on elsewhere in our article; given the self-published nature of the source, it would be inappropriate to further repeat, amplify, or emphasize the assertions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I went to your link and still found the assertion there on skin TB.

Dr. Gerson's death

I would be happy to know how come he died at the age of 70, from a desease cured by antibiotics. I think it is crucial in the case of someone claming to have found the way to live a healthy and long life. 2.1.167.63 (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, his claims were false, as our article makes clear. Note however that this talk page is intended for discussions relating to improvements to the article, and isn't a forum for general discussions of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Pneumonia (lower respiratory tract infection) is the number four cause of death in the developed world. Not all types of pneumonia are caused by bacteria and treatable with antibiotics; of those that are, not all patients respond successfully to treatment. Among the elderly, recovery is often slow, and may be complicated by the presence of other disease. Death at 70 from pneumonia is unfortunate, but not unusual. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Checking with the article, he was born in October 1881, and died in March 1959 - at the age of 77, unless my maths is even worse than usual. This makes me wonder whether the statement in the article that "Gerson's medical license in New York was suspended in 1958" really belongs there - it is sourced, but the source cited doesn't say why it was suspended, and it looks to me to be implying more than can reasonably be assumed. Regardless of the benefits or otherwise of his 'therapy', we shouldn't be using sources to imply that this was anything to do with the suspension of the medical license of a 76-year-old man, when there are other equally plausible explanations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Safety Concerns

I think the final section on safety concerns is alarmist and gives a false sense of risk versus alternative "conventional" therapy. If I look at the side effects on the Chemotherapy page, they are long and suggest that the risks of this therapy are far greater than the handful of cases where Gerson Therapy has not worked.

The reference to electrolyte levels should not be specific to the Gerson Therapy. This is a form of dehydration and more indicative of mismanagement of hydration than a direct effect of the therapy. I'm sure there are many cases of dehydration with convention Chemotherapy.

Anyway, bottom line is that this Wiki page is to document a form of therapy and should therefore be consistent in layout/format with other descriptions of treatments/therapies, where safety concerns are listed as "potential side effects" so as not to mislead and to compare treatment options like for like, so as not to steer those who cannot think for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.57.212.13 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing real medical treatment (where the risks and benefits are incredibly well-researched and weighed) to a non-medical treatment where there's no credible evidence of benefits and no serious research into risks. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the diet?

I read the whole article and remain equaly uninformed as before as to what is the diet about? Is it drinking cofee? that is the only thing it talks about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.95.120 (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"a predominantly vegetarian diet including hourly glasses of organic juice and various dietary supplements" ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If you're drinking the coffee, you're doing it wrong: "enemas of coffee, castor oil and sometimes hydrogen peroxide or ozone." (Really, though, you'd be better off drinking it.) - SummerPhD (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a neutral article

Sorry if I'm not doing this right. I am new to this kind of editing. I'm not an expert on alternative or traditional medicine and not a particular fan of Gerson's therapy. But I found this article blatantly one-sided. Gerson's methodology and claims are certainly disputed and disputable, but the American Cancer Institute's is too. Lots of people claim to have been cured by his methods - here's just one example I happened to see: http://annieappleseedproject.org/oldsite/www.annieappleseedproject.org/britmantalab.html - and that needs to be acknowledged and those sources cited too.

I'm not in a position to make these edits but I feel like this article is really problematic. Katrap40 (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

All sources are not equal, reliable ones must always prevail. So, the view of the American Cancer Institute will always outweigh even an infinity of anecdotal/non-expert stuff. A good place to read up on sourcing for medical articles on Wikipedia is WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, if you think that American Cancer Institute's 'methodology and claims' are 'disputed and disputable', you are on the wrong website. Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and not on unverifiable anecdotal evidence. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and in particular Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Our concept of neutrality does not extend towards providing a platform for purveyors of potentially-lethal quack 'cures'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn and AndyTheGump are both right on the mark here. Buy way of clarification, imagine something far out that you believe is nonsense. Believe we live on the outside of a solid planet? How about the theory that we live on the inner surface of a Hollow Earth? Believe humans have walked on the Moon, George Bush and the Queen of England are humans or that vitamin B12 is a necessary nutrient? There are crackpot theories that dispute all of this and a whole lot more. In such cases, we report on the fringe theory based on what the relevant academics have to say about the matter. Geologists assert the Earth is (basically) spherical and we live on the outside (astronomers and cartographers agree). Historians report on the human ancestors (rather than lizardmen from a planet in the constellation Draco) of various world leaders, and so on. Balance is called for when reliable sources have not resolved an issue (such as: How many billions of years old the universe is (rather than whether it is 6,000 or 10,000 years)). Crackpot theories, such as Gerson's therapy, are discussed when they are notable. They are not, however, treated as if they are correct. Notable fringe theories are both WP:NOTABLE and WP:FRINGE and are treated as both. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral and factual wording

It would be appreciated if certain editors, such as AndyTheGrump, ceased falsely arguing that I am promoting a fringe view. I am not doing anything of the sort. The wording I am using is factually correct and neutral and no other editors should have any problem with it. Afterwriting (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with Agricolae that my edits included "excessive detail", I am satisfied with his/her latest wording. On any controversial issues we should only ever state what the mainstream views are ~ not assert that these views are actually "the truth". This is called neutrality and is a non-negotiable principle of editing. Afterwriting (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edits gave a distinct impression that the statement "the therapy is scientifically unsupported and potentially hazardous" was the opinion of particular organisations, rather than being the general mainstream perspective. There has been no accepted scientific evidence presented to support the therapy, and there can be no question that the therapy is hazardous - it has led to the deaths of several people, as the article makes clear. And no, 'neutrality' does not extend to giving equal weight to the promoters of quack 'cures' - see WP:FRINGE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If my edits gave you a "distinct impression" of anything then that is a problem with your own thinking. It should have been obvious, even to you, that my edits were intended to make it clear that this was the mainstream position as supported by notable mainstream organisations. Mentioning these organisations is important. Afterwriting (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a WP:FRINGE topic. Additionally, "biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." There are zero MEDRS sources that support this theory in any way. WP:MEDRS As a result, the broad scientific consensus that Gerson Therapy is bunk is appropriately presented as factual.

Your efforts to break this down to it being the opinion of the American Cancer Society and the Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center are incorrect in limiting the consensus to them. Additionally, the lead section is intended to convey a quick summary of the main points of the article. The main point here is that the therapy is bunk, not that the American Cancer Society and the Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center have said that it is bunk. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop deliberately distorting my intentions. I am not breaking this down to the opinions of these organisations at all. I am more than happy to say something like "the mainstream medical consensus is that the therapy is scientifically unsupported and potentially hazardous" without mentioning the organisations in the lead section. This adequately represents WP:MEDRS. Afterwriting (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a 'mainstream' medical consensus. It is the only medical consensus - there is no evidence whatsoever that Gerson Therapy even approximates to medicine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is what WP:MEDRS refers to as the "prevailing consensus". This allows the possibility that a consensus might change and is not an unalterable truth. This is also a fundamental principle of science. Afterwriting (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

...which is true, but utterly irrelevant. We write articles according to current knowledge, not according to some hypothetical future when shoving a funnel up your backside and pouring in coffee, castor oil and hydrogen peroxide turns out to be a cure for cancer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Influenza, commonly known as "the flu", is an infectious disease of birds and mammals caused by RNA viruses of the family Orthomyxoviridae, the influenza viruses." Geeze, that is the "prevailing consensus". Why do we present it as fact? Ditto gravity, round Earth, ... - SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed, unsourced info about Gerson Institute research

In case this can be verified, I've copied it here after it was removed for being unsourced: --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, several case series by Gerson Institute staff published in the alternative medical literature suffered from significant methodological flaws, and no independent entity has been able to reproduce the claims.

The NCI source includes several subpages, but only one was cited in the article. I changed the citation to the top page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the neutrality of this article

This is quite obviously NOT a neutral article, and discredits Wikipedia with the blatantly biased opinion it presents.

It is almost unbelievable that it remains as it is. Are there editors - or an editor - who continuously change the information added back to reflect their negatively biased opinion? A call to neutral, balanced editors to PLEASE spend some time on this very important topic. As it is it reflects extremely poorly on the standards of information presented on this website.

Ginger4572 (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ginger - have you got any suggestions as to how the article could be improved?, rather than just suggestion of negative bias? If so, why don't you present your ideas here? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 07:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV does not require neutral articles. It requires a neutral presentation of what reliable sources say (WP:RS), and for medical issues that means WP:MEDRS. Not all topics have inherrent balances. WP does not give equal space to idea that the Earth is a spheroid vs. the theory that it is flat. Or that Hulda Clark's machine cures all diseases, vs. the idea that it's a piece of quackery. Gerson's idea have been tested. Originally his raw liver juice gave some of his patients Campylobacter infection.

There are no careful reports showing a cure using Gerson theory for any cancer at a stage where it is known to be incurable, such as stage IV pancreatic or colon cancer. We have CT and radioisotope scans, now. Where are the Gerson cases showing Gerson cures of these diseases at these stages? The burdon of proof is on the Gerson Institute. You must present your cures at modern meetings, just as everybody else does. I would be glad to review such cases myself and encourage publication, just as I recently did with a man who experienced complete remission of large cell lymphoma with nothing but dichloroacetic acid (a very cheap unpatentable alternative treatment). I'm happy to push for publication when you have a good result with good testing, good results, and documented followups. There's nothing I like more than to tweak the nose of the orthodox chemo establishment. The Gerson Institute is not holding up to its end of the bargain, however. SBHarris 08:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"Negative bias"? Yes, this article is largely negative: It reports on repeated failures and lack of evidence to support claims. No, it is not biased: It does not exclude successes and evidence to support claims without considering their possible merit. We report what Gerson claimed and what is claimed by those selling the "treatment" that bears his name. We report what reliable sources say about those claims and the treatment. As Sbharris explains, we do not entertain false equivalencies between competing ideas, we report what reliable sources have to say. Otherwise, for example, our article on rats would give equal weight to the idea that baby rats come from mommy rats and the competing idea that they are spontaneously generated by piles of rotting garbage. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not an editor, only calling on editors to pay attention to this article. SummerPhd the simple fact that you put the 'treatment' presented by this particular institute in quotation marks reveals your bias. Using random analogies about hollow earth and rotting garbage does nothing to improve your case for neutrality.

Ginger4572 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the complete failure to demonstrate that Geerson's methods achieve anything, the quotation marks are entirely appropriate. If someone wishes to describe something as 'treatment', the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that it actually does so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

..........................................................................................................................

I agree with Ginger - I also find this article biased - I feel it should be more neutral showing both schools of thought and allowing the reader to decide the merits and demerits of this treatment.

to this I have 2 suggestions -

1) I suggest that the articles on Max Gerson and Gerson therapy be separated (at the moment, they seem fused... a lot like an article on Kepler being fused with one on his laws of planetary motion!)

2) Also, the current tone of the article seems rather one sided. I think it should be neutral. The Gerson therapy 9and most alternative medicine) is ridiculed in USA, even if it is followed in other countries.

Here is an example :

In the opening paragraph, rather than " The therapy is both ineffective and dangerous", I feel it should be "The studies found the therapy to be ineffective and dangerous"

(PS - I read the studies and do not see any statistics of the number of people whose health worsened after Gerson therapy. The study results themselves have been been worded rather loosely.

Finally, the article on Gerson Therapy is (and will always ) remain controversial, hence I feel this wikipedia article should give a balanced account of both view points.

I read the fringe theories wiki guideline - but the Gerson article (imho) seems more akin the fringe theory prevalent in the 1500s that the earth is round and not the center of the solar system.

Do let me know what you feel. Notthebestusername (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't give equal validity to fringe views by unduly juxtaposing them with mainstream views, and we should not attribute the fact the GT is ineffective and dangerous, as this implies that's just opinion or somehow in dispute. These aspects of the article are fine as-is. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a question of bias. Yes, dependent unreliable sources have a POV that is in opposition to independent reliable sources. If we were simply in the business of presenting both sides of every issue, we would not have clear conclusions in germ theory denialism, holocaust denialism, etc. The idea that pumping your ass full of coffee (etc.) and switching to a bizarre diet (with or without the raw calf's liver) will somehow (magically?) kill or fix the damaged cells taking over various organs is a distant fringe idea supported by the dead speaking through radios and a "clinic" hiding from regulation in Tijuana. People walked on the Moon, humans evolved from earlier life forms and Obama was born in the Hawaii. We don't "teach the controversy" because there is no controversy to teach. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup - Wikipedia policy is entirely clear over this - we don't aspire to be 'neutral' when describing unverified fringe claims regarding supposed 'cures' for cancer. This is an encyclopaedia, and presents the consensus of current knowledge and understanding, as obtainable from appropriate and reputable published sources. It is not a platform for the promotion of quackery, or of unproven and potentially dangerous 'cures' with no basis whatsoever in science. The burden of proof for this alleged 'cure' lies firmly with those promoting it - get it accepted as legitimate and beneficial treatment by mainstream medical science, and Wikipedia will report the matter accordingly. Meanwhile, neither comparisons with Copernicus, anecdotal 'evidence', nor pleas for a sham 'neutrality' are going to alter Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

................................................................................................................

I agree in part with what has been stated by Andy, but I believe that by writing about the fact that mainstream research has not found any evidence that shows this therapy's claims to be valid, in itself, shows the more prevalent point of view.

The claims of Dr. Max Gerson and Charlotte Gerson are described in detail only in the later paragraphs, thus showing that the prevalent opinion of medical science is that it does not work, and that the claim of Dr. Charlotte Gerson is that it does.

Hence, I still feel that this is a biased article and needs to be made more objective (and as a corollary, thus more scientific) Notthebestusername (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC) ............................................................................................................................

You are entitled to your opinion - but the fact remains that the article complies with Wikipedia policy, and an article that gave equal weight to the unverified claims of proponents of Gerson therapy as to contemporary medical knowledge would be in violation of said policy. This is how Wikipedia works, and we couldn't agree to ignore policy here even if we wanted to. Not that you have given any convincing argument as to why we should - you seem to be arguing that 'objectivity' requires a complete disregard for pre-existing knowledge, and a complete disregard for verifiable evidence. To my mind that isn't 'objectivity' at all, and is entirely at odds with the purpose of an encyclopaedia. We state that the Earth is (almost) spherical, because that is the overwhelming scientific consensus. We don't suggest that it might actually be flat after all, because a few cranks argue otherwise. There are plenty of places on the web where flat-Earth-theories and Gerson therapies can be promoted - but this encyclopaedia isn't one of them. Supposed 'objectivity' of the type you seek will have to be found elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

.................................................................................................................. Thanks Andy - yes, I can see your point, but still feel this article seems one sided to a reader and not objective. it still feels like an opinion (which is not what wiki articles are supposed to be) - not a piece of information (which is what wiki articles are supposed to be)

I have given my suggestion above regarding paraphrasing of some sentences - I am curious to know the opinions of other wiki editors.

Notthebestusername (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC) ......................................................................................................................

Credulity vs. WP:MEDRS

Proponents of Gerson therapy make numerous claims: It cures cancer, Gerson was murdered, clear evidence of both of these was available in Senate testimony/published articles/Gerson's ghost speaking through a radio (I swear I am not making this up), etc. All of these claims hinge upon a worldwide conspiracy between every major medical organization in the world, tens of thousands of doctors/nurses/medical researchers/etc., various world governments, etc.

All of this might be true, along with similar conspiracy theories regarding global climate change, a disproved connection between MMR/thimerosal/vaccine schedules (the claim keeps changing), the Moon landings, claims we're all about to be rounded up into FEMA camps, collusion between aliens and various governments, involvement of various groups in the 9/11 attacks and countless other theories.

However, none of these claims are verifiable: We do not have independent reliable sources for any of them. Our policy on this is very clear: "(I)t is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content."

Editors seeking to expose "The Truth" about various versions of the conspiracy theory often attempt to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to that effect. It is always removed, usually quite quickly. It always will be removed unless and until there are independent reliable sources confirming the information. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that Gerson's diet (with or without the raw calf liver), enemas, etc. will one day be shown to cure every illness known to humankind, it will be proven that Gerson was murdered and a conspiracy will be uncovered that makes the Axis alliance look like a pickup basketball game. That will not happen on Wikipedia. If it happens outside of Wikipedia, we will add it to Wikipedia. Wikipedia, for better or worse, only reports what independent reliable sources report.

Go forth! Prove it to the world! Make the media see the huge story (Pulitzer anyone?)! Then add it to Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It is not possible that Gerson's diet (with or without the raw calf liver), enemas, etc. will one day be shown to cure every illness known to humankind, or any of the other things you said may happen. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

To qualify and quantify my statement: There is a very small but non-zero chance that those things will happen. There is also a very small but non-zero chance that I will spontaneously disappear from the shower and reappear on stage at Wembly Stadium, but I don't exactly take precautions. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WHERE IS TRUE?

Wikipedia is very unreliable and biased in this object. There are some articles proving effectiveness of the therapy:

http://gerson-research.org/docs/HildenbrandGLG-1995-1/

"CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year survival rates reported here are considerably higher than those reported elsewhere. Stage IIIA/B males had exceptionally high survival rates compared with those reported by other centers."

And also http://ict.sagepub.com/content/6/1/80.short

What is more, I didn't find any proof that Gerson therapy doesn't work - it is only said that there is no proof that it works and by this way one wants to "convince" that Gerson method is false. -PJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.79.135 (talk • contribs) 22 August 2014‎

Read WP:MEDRS - and it isn't up to anyone to prove that so-called therapy doesn't work. It is up to those who claim it does to provide the necessary evidence. Which won't be done by producing anecdotal evidence. Which is exactly what the abstract to the second article you link states. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unreliable source of this issue because people read only critique of Gerson therapy. But if they read articles that I linked, they would see the object in different light. The fist article gives direct proof that Gerson method can work - maybe in some conditions. The second article is more mild, because the research touches only 6 cases. But also gives new evidences. You concentrated on one sentence contextual cut. If you read the full article, you would see that authors give hope. Please, below is a link to it:

http://pl.scribd.com/doc/49198249/Analysis-of-Gerson-Therapy-for-Cancer

"Although the effectiveness of the Gerson regimen has not been rigorously proved, equally it has not been disproved either.".

It is worth to read it carefully and then "judge" where is true. -PJ

We'll just follow MEDRS instead. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt that anyone has disproved my theory that bouncing around on a pogo stick stark naked while clenching a daffodil between ones buttocks and whistling the Internationale is a cure for cancer either... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Can anybody lend me a pogo stick, and plane fare to Holland to buy Daffs? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't get sicked in, Roxy, you don't need the daffodil. Andy is just another shill for Big Flora. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If you neglect evideneces in these two articles which are fully scientific and free from bias, you are biased and not objective. Probably you don't want to accept that previous tests could give false scores, maybe becasue these "scientists" very wanted to overthrow this theory because they treated it as pseudo-science. In these two articles is stressed that important thing seems to be "quality of life" and diet as lifestyle, so laboratory tests are difficult to achieve - tests must last by years and with rule "all or nothing". -PJ

Whether or not you mean the Gerson diet that cures everything with the veggies and raw calf liver (but for the love of God no nuts or fruit juice) or the one that cures everything without the death inducing raw calf liver is immaterial. This article must adhere to WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. We need material from reliable sources, not unconfirmed anecdotal reports from those selling the snake oil. If there are portions of WP:FRINGE and/or WP:MEDRS that you do not understand or sources that you feel are appropriate but have been removed, feel free to ask. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"which are fully scientific and free from bias" Yes, we seem to be headed to FRINGE territory when such claims are made. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)