100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Cure for Cancer? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
My sister had cancer. Luckily it was contained and removed, but now she can't eat or digest certain foods. She has to eat very healthy food or it just does not digest.
If I ate like she did, I'd be in great shape.  I think your diet is extremely important when it come to preventing (and curing) cancer. But there comes a point when a large tumor has to be removed with a knife. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You made the claim of quackery and you have failed miserably to provide any data when asked.. You must have missed the post where I asked for the research that shows the therapy has merit? Dismissed... Remember science is zero sum where the burden is on the person making the claim. If you cannot provide it, and yet people are making money off of it, its the definition of quackery. http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/DietandNutrition/gerson-therapy Gerson Therapy Its pretty laughable really. Other common name(s): Gerson diet, Gerson method, Gerson treatment, Gerson program Scientific/medical name(s): none Description Gerson therapy is a form of alternative cancer treatment involving coffee enemas, supplements, and a special diet that is claimed to cleanse the body, boost the immune system, and stimulate metabolism. Overview Available scientific evidence does not support claims that Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer, and the principles behind it are not widely accepted by the medical community. It is not approved for use in the United States. Gerson therapy can be dangerous. Coffee enemas have been associated with serious infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte imbalances, and even death. How is it promoted for use? Gerson therapy is considered a metabolic therapy (see Metabolic Therapy), and it is based on the theory that disease is caused by the body's accumulation of toxic substances. Practitioners believe that fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals contaminate food by lowering its potassium content and raising its sodium content. Food processing and cooking adds more sodium, which changes the metabolism of cells in the body, eventually causing cancer. According to practitioners of Gerson therapy, people who have cancer have too much sodium and not enough potassium in their cells. The fruit and vegetable diet that is part of Gerson therapy is used to correct this imbalance and revitalize the liver so it can rid the body of malignant cells. Coffee enemas, also part of Gerson therapy, are claimed to relieve pain and eliminate liver toxins in a process called detoxification. The goal of metabolic therapies is to eliminate toxins from the body and enhance immune function so that the body can "fight off" cancer. Liver extract injections, pancreatic enzymes, and various supplements are said to stimulate metabolism. Proponents of metabolic therapy claim that it addresses the underlying cause of disease rather than treating the symptoms. What does it involve? Gerson therapy requires following a strict low-salt, low-fat, vegetarian diet and drinking juice from about twenty pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables each day. One glass of juice is consumed each hour, thirteen times a day. In addition, patients are given several coffee enemas each day. Various supplements, such as potassium, vitamin B12, pancreatic enzymes, thyroid hormone, and liver extracts, are used to stimulate organ function, particularly of the liver and thyroid. Sometimes other treatments such as laetrile may also be recommended (see Laetrile). Treatment is usually begun at an inpatient clinic over several weeks. The Gerson Institute does not own or operate any medical facilities and instead it refers patients to clinics it licenses. Currently the only licensed clinic is in Tijuana, Mexico. Clinic fees often exceed $4,000 per week. Treatment may last from a few months to 10 years or more. It is generally recommended for at least 2 years in cancer patients. The Gerson Institute also offers a home therapy package. What is the history behind it? One of the oldest nutritional approaches to cancer treatment, the Gerson therapy was developed by Max Gerson, MD, a German doctor who immigrated to the United States in the late 1930s. He designed the dietary program to treat his own migraine headaches. He later expanded his method to treat other conditions such as arthritis, tuberculosis, and cancer. In 1945, Gerson published a preliminary report of his results in treating cancer in the Review of Gastroenterology. The National Cancer Institute and New York County Medical Society examined records of his patients and found no evidence that the method was effective against cancer. After his death in 1959, his work was carried on by his daughter, Charlotte Gerson, who established the Gerson Institute in the late 1970s. What is the evidence? There have been no well-controlled studies published in the available medical literature that show the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer. In a recent review of the medical literature, researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center identified 7 human studies of Gerson therapy that have been published or presented at medical conferences. None of them were randomized controlled studies. One study was a retrospective review conducted by the Gerson Research Organization. They reported that survival rates were higher than would normally be expected for patients with melanoma, colorectal cancer and ovarian cancer who were treated with surgery and Gerson therapy, but they did not provide statistics to support the results. Other studies have been small, had inconclusive results, or have been plagued by other problems (such as a large percentage of patients not completing the study), making it impossible to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment. Some ideas put forth as part of the Gerson regimen, such as eating large amounts of fruits and vegetables and limiting fat intake, can be part of a healthy diet if not taken to the extreme. Researchers are continuing to study the potential anti-cancer properties of different substances in fruits and vegetables, but their actual effects are not well understood at this time. Because of this, the best advice may be to eat a balanced diet that includes 5 or more servings a day of vegetables and fruit, choosing whole grains over processed and refined foods, and limiting red meats and animal fats. Choosing foods from a variety of fruits, vegetables and other plant sources such as nuts, seeds, whole grain cereals, and beans is likely to be healthier than consuming large amounts of one particular food. Based on currently available evidence, diet is likely to play a greater role in preventing cancer than in treating it. There is very little scientific evidence to support the use of other components of the Gerson regimen, such as consuming only fresh, raw juices prepared in a certain way, eliminating salt from the diet, and “detoxifying” the liver through coffee enemas and injected liver extracts, have very little scientific evidence to support their use against cancer. Are there any possible problems or complications? These substances may have not been thoroughly tested to find out how they interact with medicines, foods, herbs, or supplements. Even though some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published, full studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions below should be considered incomplete. Use of the Gerson therapy can lead to a number of significant problems. Serious illness and death have occurred from some of the components of the treatment, such as the coffee enemas, which remove potassium from the body and can lead to electrolyte imbalances. Continued home use of enemas may cause the colon's normal function to weaken, worsening constipation problems and colitis. Some metabolic diets used in combination with enemas cause dehydration. Serious infections may result from poorly administered liver extracts. Thyroid supplements may cause severe bleeding in patients who have cancer that has spread to the liver. Gerson therapy may be especially hazardous to women who are pregnant or breast-feeding. Relying on this treatment alone and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer, may have serious health consequences. What's laughable is that you think this supports your claims of quackery... Pay attention to the bolded sentences above mr. scientist...  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You made the claim of quackery and you have failed miserably to provide any data when asked.. You must have missed the post where I asked for the research that shows the therapy has merit? Dismissed... Remember science is zero sum where the burden is on the person making the claim. If you cannot provide it, and yet people are making money off of it, its the definition of quackery. http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/DietandNutrition/gerson-therapy Gerson Therapy Its pretty laughable really. Other common name(s): Gerson diet, Gerson method, Gerson treatment, Gerson program Scientific/medical name(s): none Description Gerson therapy is a form of alternative cancer treatment involving coffee enemas, supplements, and a special diet that is claimed to cleanse the body, boost the immune system, and stimulate metabolism. Overview Available scientific evidence does not support claims that Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer, and the principles behind it are not widely accepted by the medical community. It is not approved for use in the United States. Gerson therapy can be dangerous. Coffee enemas have been associated with serious infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte imbalances, and even death. How is it promoted for use? Gerson therapy is considered a metabolic therapy (see Metabolic Therapy), and it is based on the theory that disease is caused by the body's accumulation of toxic substances. Practitioners believe that fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals contaminate food by lowering its potassium content and raising its sodium content. Food processing and cooking adds more sodium, which changes the metabolism of cells in the body, eventually causing cancer. According to practitioners of Gerson therapy, people who have cancer have too much sodium and not enough potassium in their cells. The fruit and vegetable diet that is part of Gerson therapy is used to correct this imbalance and revitalize the liver so it can rid the body of malignant cells. Coffee enemas, also part of Gerson therapy, are claimed to relieve pain and eliminate liver toxins in a process called detoxification. The goal of metabolic therapies is to eliminate toxins from the body and enhance immune function so that the body can "fight off" cancer. Liver extract injections, pancreatic enzymes, and various supplements are said to stimulate metabolism. Proponents of metabolic therapy claim that it addresses the underlying cause of disease rather than treating the symptoms. What does it involve? Gerson therapy requires following a strict low-salt, low-fat, vegetarian diet and drinking juice from about twenty pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables each day. One glass of juice is consumed each hour, thirteen times a day. In addition, patients are given several coffee enemas each day. Various supplements, such as potassium, vitamin B12, pancreatic enzymes, thyroid hormone, and liver extracts, are used to stimulate organ function, particularly of the liver and thyroid. Sometimes other treatments such as laetrile may also be recommended (see Laetrile). Treatment is usually begun at an inpatient clinic over several weeks. The Gerson Institute does not own or operate any medical facilities and instead it refers patients to clinics it licenses. Currently the only licensed clinic is in Tijuana, Mexico. Clinic fees often exceed $4,000 per week. Treatment may last from a few months to 10 years or more. It is generally recommended for at least 2 years in cancer patients. The Gerson Institute also offers a home therapy package. What is the history behind it? One of the oldest nutritional approaches to cancer treatment, the Gerson therapy was developed by Max Gerson, MD, a German doctor who immigrated to the United States in the late 1930s. He designed the dietary program to treat his own migraine headaches. He later expanded his method to treat other conditions such as arthritis, tuberculosis, and cancer. In 1945, Gerson published a preliminary report of his results in treating cancer in the Review of Gastroenterology. The National Cancer Institute and New York County Medical Society examined records of his patients and found no evidence that the method was effective against cancer. After his death in 1959, his work was carried on by his daughter, Charlotte Gerson, who established the Gerson Institute in the late 1970s. What is the evidence? There have been no well-controlled studies published in the available medical literature that show the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer. In a recent review of the medical literature, researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center identified 7 human studies of Gerson therapy that have been published or presented at medical conferences. None of them were randomized controlled studies. One study was a retrospective review conducted by the Gerson Research Organization. They reported that survival rates were higher than would normally be expected for patients with melanoma, colorectal cancer and ovarian cancer who were treated with surgery and Gerson therapy, but they did not provide statistics to support the results. Other studies have been small, had inconclusive results, or have been plagued by other problems (such as a large percentage of patients not completing the study), making it impossible to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment. Some ideas put forth as part of the Gerson regimen, such as eating large amounts of fruits and vegetables and limiting fat intake, can be part of a healthy diet if not taken to the extreme. Researchers are continuing to study the potential anti-cancer properties of different substances in fruits and vegetables, but their actual effects are not well understood at this time. Because of this, the best advice may be to eat a balanced diet that includes 5 or more servings a day of vegetables and fruit, choosing whole grains over processed and refined foods, and limiting red meats and animal fats. Choosing foods from a variety of fruits, vegetables and other plant sources such as nuts, seeds, whole grain cereals, and beans is likely to be healthier than consuming large amounts of one particular food. Based on currently available evidence, diet is likely to play a greater role in preventing cancer than in treating it. There is very little scientific evidence to support the use of other components of the Gerson regimen, such as consuming only fresh, raw juices prepared in a certain way, eliminating salt from the diet, and “detoxifying” the liver through coffee enemas and injected liver extracts, have very little scientific evidence to support their use against cancer. Are there any possible problems or complications? These substances may have not been thoroughly tested to find out how they interact with medicines, foods, herbs, or supplements. Even though some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published, full studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions below should be considered incomplete. Use of the Gerson therapy can lead to a number of significant problems. Serious illness and death have occurred from some of the components of the treatment, such as the coffee enemas, which remove potassium from the body and can lead to electrolyte imbalances. Continued home use of enemas may cause the colon's normal function to weaken, worsening constipation problems and colitis. Some metabolic diets used in combination with enemas cause dehydration. Serious infections may result from poorly administered liver extracts. Thyroid supplements may cause severe bleeding in patients who have cancer that has spread to the liver. Gerson therapy may be especially hazardous to women who are pregnant or breast-feeding. Relying on this treatment alone and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer, may have serious health consequences. What's laughable is that you think this supports your claims of quackery... Pay attention to the bolded sentences above mr. scientist... If a person supports this therapy the onus is on them to get research with valid and repeatable data. Where is your data? I keep asking, and you point out you have none and pretend that favors your argument. The reasons other researchers are not interested is becuase there is NO proposed mechanism for why such therapies would work. What toxins are supposedly removed by a coffee enema? What toxins are avoided by eating raw foods? How are these toxins responsible for cancer? Why does the body not deal with these toxis? The failure to answer these questions is why no one takes gerson therapy seriously. The fact that no explanation for these mechanism can be created . . . . is why its a non-starter. I understand . . you dont get it, you think anyone can claim anything and if the scientific community doesn't immediately pick it up and run expensive large RCT's then there must be some kind of conspiracy. Sir, you are BSC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Thu 06/07/12 10:40 AM
|
|
Raw foods are full of anti-nutrients. Cats are stealthy and have claws to protect themselves from predators. Rabbits have long ears, sensitive noses and can run quickly to avoid predators. But plants can only sit there, so they have developed poisons to discourage their consumption. Oxalic acid, lectins, glycoalkaloids, phytates, various enzyme blockers, etc. These are all reduced or eliminated by cooking and fermenting. Eating raw foods fills your digestive tract with poisons that will prevent you from absorbing the nutrition you consume.
Fruits are basically poison free, they are made to be eaten. It's a symbiotic relationship. An animal eats the fruit and deposits the seeds and fertilizer someplace else. But vegetables, seeds, nuts and tubers are all filled with anti-nutrients to protect them from consumption. The spinach plant is not benefited by you eating it, neither is the potato or broccoli. Why would it be good for the walnut tree to have the walnuts eaten? That is how it reproduces! Where in nature is that species that encourages it's offspring to be eaten by predators? It doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raw foods are full of anti-nutrients. Cats are stealthy and have claws to protect themselves from predators. Rabbits have long ears, sensitive noses and can run quickly to avoid predators. But plants can only sit there, so they have developed poisons to discourage their consumption. Oxalic acid, lectins, glycoalkaloids, phytates, various enzyme blockers, etc. These are all reduced or eliminated by cooking and fermenting. Eating raw foods fills your digestive tract with poisons that will prevent you from absorbing the nutrition you consume. Fruits are basically poison free, they are made to be eaten. It's a symbiotic relationship. An animal eats the fruit and deposits the seeds and fertilizer someplace else. But vegetables, seeds, nuts and tubers are all filled with anti-nutrients to protect them from consumption. The spinach plant is not benefited by you eating it, neither is the potato or broccoli. Why would it be good for the walnut tree to have the walnuts eaten? That is how it reproduces! Where in nature is that species that encourages it's offspring to be eaten by predators? It doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You made the claim of quackery and you have failed miserably to provide any data when asked.. You must have missed the post where I asked for the research that shows the therapy has merit? Dismissed... Remember science is zero sum where the burden is on the person making the claim. If you cannot provide it, and yet people are making money off of it, its the definition of quackery. http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/DietandNutrition/gerson-therapy Gerson Therapy Its pretty laughable really. Other common name(s): Gerson diet, Gerson method, Gerson treatment, Gerson program Scientific/medical name(s): none Description Gerson therapy is a form of alternative cancer treatment involving coffee enemas, supplements, and a special diet that is claimed to cleanse the body, boost the immune system, and stimulate metabolism. Overview Available scientific evidence does not support claims that Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer, and the principles behind it are not widely accepted by the medical community. It is not approved for use in the United States. Gerson therapy can be dangerous. Coffee enemas have been associated with serious infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte imbalances, and even death. How is it promoted for use? Gerson therapy is considered a metabolic therapy (see Metabolic Therapy), and it is based on the theory that disease is caused by the body's accumulation of toxic substances. Practitioners believe that fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals contaminate food by lowering its potassium content and raising its sodium content. Food processing and cooking adds more sodium, which changes the metabolism of cells in the body, eventually causing cancer. According to practitioners of Gerson therapy, people who have cancer have too much sodium and not enough potassium in their cells. The fruit and vegetable diet that is part of Gerson therapy is used to correct this imbalance and revitalize the liver so it can rid the body of malignant cells. Coffee enemas, also part of Gerson therapy, are claimed to relieve pain and eliminate liver toxins in a process called detoxification. The goal of metabolic therapies is to eliminate toxins from the body and enhance immune function so that the body can "fight off" cancer. Liver extract injections, pancreatic enzymes, and various supplements are said to stimulate metabolism. Proponents of metabolic therapy claim that it addresses the underlying cause of disease rather than treating the symptoms. What does it involve? Gerson therapy requires following a strict low-salt, low-fat, vegetarian diet and drinking juice from about twenty pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables each day. One glass of juice is consumed each hour, thirteen times a day. In addition, patients are given several coffee enemas each day. Various supplements, such as potassium, vitamin B12, pancreatic enzymes, thyroid hormone, and liver extracts, are used to stimulate organ function, particularly of the liver and thyroid. Sometimes other treatments such as laetrile may also be recommended (see Laetrile). Treatment is usually begun at an inpatient clinic over several weeks. The Gerson Institute does not own or operate any medical facilities and instead it refers patients to clinics it licenses. Currently the only licensed clinic is in Tijuana, Mexico. Clinic fees often exceed $4,000 per week. Treatment may last from a few months to 10 years or more. It is generally recommended for at least 2 years in cancer patients. The Gerson Institute also offers a home therapy package. What is the history behind it? One of the oldest nutritional approaches to cancer treatment, the Gerson therapy was developed by Max Gerson, MD, a German doctor who immigrated to the United States in the late 1930s. He designed the dietary program to treat his own migraine headaches. He later expanded his method to treat other conditions such as arthritis, tuberculosis, and cancer. In 1945, Gerson published a preliminary report of his results in treating cancer in the Review of Gastroenterology. The National Cancer Institute and New York County Medical Society examined records of his patients and found no evidence that the method was effective against cancer. After his death in 1959, his work was carried on by his daughter, Charlotte Gerson, who established the Gerson Institute in the late 1970s. What is the evidence? There have been no well-controlled studies published in the available medical literature that show the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer. In a recent review of the medical literature, researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center identified 7 human studies of Gerson therapy that have been published or presented at medical conferences. None of them were randomized controlled studies. One study was a retrospective review conducted by the Gerson Research Organization. They reported that survival rates were higher than would normally be expected for patients with melanoma, colorectal cancer and ovarian cancer who were treated with surgery and Gerson therapy, but they did not provide statistics to support the results. Other studies have been small, had inconclusive results, or have been plagued by other problems (such as a large percentage of patients not completing the study), making it impossible to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment. Some ideas put forth as part of the Gerson regimen, such as eating large amounts of fruits and vegetables and limiting fat intake, can be part of a healthy diet if not taken to the extreme. Researchers are continuing to study the potential anti-cancer properties of different substances in fruits and vegetables, but their actual effects are not well understood at this time. Because of this, the best advice may be to eat a balanced diet that includes 5 or more servings a day of vegetables and fruit, choosing whole grains over processed and refined foods, and limiting red meats and animal fats. Choosing foods from a variety of fruits, vegetables and other plant sources such as nuts, seeds, whole grain cereals, and beans is likely to be healthier than consuming large amounts of one particular food. Based on currently available evidence, diet is likely to play a greater role in preventing cancer than in treating it. There is very little scientific evidence to support the use of other components of the Gerson regimen, such as consuming only fresh, raw juices prepared in a certain way, eliminating salt from the diet, and “detoxifying” the liver through coffee enemas and injected liver extracts, have very little scientific evidence to support their use against cancer. Are there any possible problems or complications? These substances may have not been thoroughly tested to find out how they interact with medicines, foods, herbs, or supplements. Even though some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published, full studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions below should be considered incomplete. Use of the Gerson therapy can lead to a number of significant problems. Serious illness and death have occurred from some of the components of the treatment, such as the coffee enemas, which remove potassium from the body and can lead to electrolyte imbalances. Continued home use of enemas may cause the colon's normal function to weaken, worsening constipation problems and colitis. Some metabolic diets used in combination with enemas cause dehydration. Serious infections may result from poorly administered liver extracts. Thyroid supplements may cause severe bleeding in patients who have cancer that has spread to the liver. Gerson therapy may be especially hazardous to women who are pregnant or breast-feeding. Relying on this treatment alone and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer, may have serious health consequences. What's laughable is that you think this supports your claims of quackery... Pay attention to the bolded sentences above mr. scientist... If a person supports this therapy the onus is on them to get research with valid and repeatable data. Where is your data? I keep asking, and you point out you have none and pretend that favors your argument. The reasons other researchers are not interested is becuase there is NO proposed mechanism for why such therapies would work. What toxins are supposedly removed by a coffee enema? What toxins are avoided by eating raw foods? How are these toxins responsible for cancer? Why does the body not deal with these toxis? The failure to answer these questions is why no one takes gerson therapy seriously. The fact that no explanation for these mechanism can be created . . . . is why its a non-starter. I understand . . you dont get it, you think anyone can claim anything and if the scientific community doesn't immediately pick it up and run expensive large RCT's then there must be some kind of conspiracy. Sir, you are BSC. I would expect no more from you than lame ad-homs... The data is there, you just refuse to evaluate it. You're only happy if the data comes from your "approved" sources, which of course would be a direct opponent of the poisons you and others like you bombard cancer patients with. Would you recommend radiation or X-rays for a heathy person? Didn't think so... You're dismissed... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would expect no more from you than lame ad-homs... The data is there, you just refuse to evaluate it. You're only happy if the data comes from your "approved" sources, which of course would be a direct opponent of the poisons you and others like you bombard cancer patients with. Would you recommend radiation or X-rays for a heathy person? Didn't think so... You're dismissed... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would expect no more from you than lame ad-homs... The data is there, you just refuse to evaluate it. You're only happy if the data comes from your "approved" sources, which of course would be a direct opponent of the poisons you and others like you bombard cancer patients with. Would you recommend radiation or X-rays for a heathy person? Didn't think so... You're dismissed... Cannabis can help your eyesight problems... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you are able to confidently call someone a quack who makes claims without real supporting evidence? Does that mean zero evidence or do you make up the rules as to what evidence is acceptable and disregard those of which you do not agree? I am concerned that you may still be focused on the potential effectiveness of the treatment, rather than the use of grand unjustified claims to sell a product or treatment. I consider it to be a fact that aspirin is generally, but not universally, helpful in reducing or eliminating certain kinds of pain. I hope we can agree on this. If you lived in a world in which hardly anyone had heard of aspirin, then after you experienced it, you went out into the world, and said: "Hey, if you have a headache or minor physical pain, you should try this aspirin. It worked for me and for my friends, it may work for you. I don't know why it works, and I can't promise that it works, but you should at least give it a try. It seems to work on most pains, but sometimes it only helps a little. While I don't know of any side effects, I also don't know whether its been studied for side effects, so you are taking it at your own risk - but it seems harmless to me." To me, that's not quackery. But if someone says: "Try this miracle drug! Its guaranteed to eliminate all of your aches and pains! It works instantly, and the effect last for days! It literally soaks up your pain the way a sponge soaks up water! It's derived from willow trees, so know its naturally completely harmless!" Well, I'd say they were a quack, trying to rip people off. It doesn't matter that aspirin actually works for some purposes - making such grandiose claims that exceed the abilities of the drug, in order to to promote it makes them a quack in my book. 'Quack' is a pejorative term, but I've never met anyone who assumed it to be a precise term. So yes, I feel comfortable making up the rules for what I would personally consider a quack - and those rules are proportional to the claims being made. For the person speaking in the style of the first quote above - they don't need to do studies. They are making conservative claims based on a limited data set, and they are transparent about their data set. I'm cool with that. But if you want to claim that a treatment works on 100% of people with a particular condition - you need to do studies first to show this, or you are going to be a quack in my book. It doesn't matter that it seemed to you to have worked for a large number of individual cases - you need to document your work carefully and do controlled trials. What do you call someone who labels another person a quack without any real supporting evidence of their own??? A scientist??? As I implied before, it completely depends on the person, the circumstances, and the claims. I might call them "reactive" or "prejudiced", or I might call them "reasonable". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because so many doctors are expected to find a name for your disease or problem and then prescribe a drug, that could be one of the reasons people are turning to alternative medicine. Many deaths and side effects are caused by prescription drugs. True. It's also the result of unscrupulous marketing tactics employed by people in the CAM industry. Have you watched any of the advertisements from law firms who are soliciting for clients to sue a drug company for some terrible side effect caused by some drug? There are a lot of these. Yes, I've seen/heard countless of those ads, as well as.... Have you watched the commercials put out by drug companies telling you to "ask your doctor about this drug?" The commercial part that lists the possible side effects is usually LONGER than the commercial and the side effects are WORSE than the thing the drug is supposed to be helping. ...and I think its horrible. The marketing forces behind pharma are pure evil. The only significant forces keeping them in check are the twin threats of criminal liability and of being sued. They try as hard as they can to use quack tactics, without running afoul of the law. They do everything they can to stop you from noticing or remembering the list of scary side effects that they are legally required to inform you of. They are already marketing themselves to doctors, but they also try to prey on people by trying to market directly to them, tellin them to 'ask their doctor'. Yeah, that's who I'd trust to push me in some particular direction - the marketing department of a big pharma company. When I see these things I wonder why anyone even goes to a doctor anymore. While they are clearly intertwined, its totally unfair to science-based medicine to see them as 'one and the same as big pharma'. They aren't. Big pharma is a separate industry, with its own agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 06/07/12 05:13 PM
|
|
Raw foods are full of anti-nutrients. Cats are stealthy and have claws to protect themselves from predators. Rabbits have long ears, sensitive noses and can run quickly to avoid predators. But plants can only sit there, so they have developed poisons to discourage their consumption. Oxalic acid, lectins, glycoalkaloids, phytates, various enzyme blockers, etc. These are all reduced or eliminated by cooking and fermenting. Eating raw foods fills your digestive tract with poisons that will prevent you from absorbing the nutrition you consume. Fruits are basically poison free, they are made to be eaten. It's a symbiotic relationship. An animal eats the fruit and deposits the seeds and fertilizer someplace else. But vegetables, seeds, nuts and tubers are all filled with anti-nutrients to protect them from consumption. The spinach plant is not benefited by you eating it, neither is the potato or broccoli. Why would it be good for the walnut tree to have the walnuts eaten? That is how it reproduces! Where in nature is that species that encourages it's offspring to be eaten by predators? It doesn't exist. That's very interesting Spider. I had not heard of that. It makes sense. I like to cook my veggies anyway. And sunflower seeds.... I love them roasted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus far I have had no position on whether Gerson was a quack, or whether gerson therapy is a quack therapy, because I didn't recognize the name. All I knew about was that Peter has shown that some people agree that there is a lack of formal, quality evidence one way or another for its effectiveness.
I think Bushido's reasoning is fine - that which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence; but dismissing something is not the same as saying its a quack therapy. So I took a look at gerson.org, and it looks like a therapy that I had heard all about, again and again, years ago. At the time, I filed it under "that raw-oriented regime with the coffee enemas". If someone wants to try the gerson regime, doing it themselves for free, that's cool with me. It looks to me like a kind of 'fast' (without necessarily a calorie reduction, just a limited set of allowable food types), and I feel I have benefited greatly from similar fasts. But if its true, as I read, that there are clinics just south of the border where cancer victims pay $4,900 a week to go through the gerson treatment, then yes I'd say its probably quackery. You need to prove your treatment is useful, through proper studies, before you can take advantage of the fears and desperation of people with cancer to the tune of $4,900 a week. I'm sure there are medical doctors here and there who have ****ed up, mis-diagnosed someone then recommended the wrong treatment to them - which is almost as bad. The difference is the gerson method has no real evidence of its effectiveness. And gerson himself seems to have been sloppy: http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=929127 This is why we really like to see multiple studies being done, by several different organizations. Gerson was evidently not qualified to properly interpret his own data. Which is not to say that the treatment is useless. Just that we should not take it seriously as a powerful cancer cure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the question I find myself asking everyday
My mother died of cancer 2 years ago today. My dad died of cancer 6 years ago both in their late 40s. Long story short The better question how is Magic Johnson still alive? (BECAUSE HE HAS MILLIONS TO SPEND)  My mom tried everything. Every diet known to man it didnt help. It didnt make her feel any better than my dad who tried the chemical approach and went with radiation and chemotherapy.  My thoughts and prayers go out to anyone fighting this horrible disease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the question I find myself asking everyday My mother died of cancer 2 years ago today. My dad died of cancer 6 years ago both in their late 40s. Long story short The better question how is Magic Johnson still alive? (BECAUSE HE HAS MILLIONS TO SPEND) My mom tried everything. Every diet known to man it didnt help. It didnt make her feel any better than my dad who tried the chemical approach and went with radiation and chemotherapy. My thoughts and prayers go out to anyone fighting this horrible disease. I know how you feel. It took my mother five years to pass from cancer. Our hopes went up and down with each remission. Watching her suffer from the chemo was tough. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the question I find myself asking everyday My mother died of cancer 2 years ago today. My dad died of cancer 6 years ago both in their late 40s. Long story short The better question how is Magic Johnson still alive? (BECAUSE HE HAS MILLIONS TO SPEND) My mom tried everything. Every diet known to man it didnt help. It didnt make her feel any better than my dad who tried the chemical approach and went with radiation and chemotherapy. My thoughts and prayers go out to anyone fighting this horrible disease. I know how you feel. It took my mother five years to pass from cancer. Our hopes went up and down with each remission. Watching her suffer from the chemo was tough. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/08/12 07:31 AM
|
|
So you are able to confidently call someone a quack who makes claims without real supporting evidence? Does that mean zero evidence or do you make up the rules as to what evidence is acceptable and disregard those of which you do not agree? I am concerned that you may still be focused on the potential effectiveness of the treatment, rather than the use of grand unjustified claims to sell a product or treatment. I consider it to be a fact that aspirin is generally, but not universally, helpful in reducing or eliminating certain kinds of pain. I hope we can agree on this. If you lived in a world in which hardly anyone had heard of aspirin, then after you experienced it, you went out into the world, and said: "Hey, if you have a headache or minor physical pain, you should try this aspirin. It worked for me and for my friends, it may work for you. I don't know why it works, and I can't promise that it works, but you should at least give it a try. It seems to work on most pains, but sometimes it only helps a little. While I don't know of any side effects, I also don't know whether its been studied for side effects, so you are taking it at your own risk - but it seems harmless to me." To me, that's not quackery. But if someone says: "Try this miracle drug! Its guaranteed to eliminate all of your aches and pains! It works instantly, and the effect last for days! It literally soaks up your pain the way a sponge soaks up water! It's derived from willow trees, so know its naturally completely harmless!" Well, I'd say they were a quack, trying to rip people off. It doesn't matter that aspirin actually works for some purposes - making such grandiose claims that exceed the abilities of the drug, in order to to promote it makes them a quack in my book. 'Quack' is a pejorative term, but I've never met anyone who assumed it to be a precise term. So yes, I feel comfortable making up the rules for what I would personally consider a quack - and those rules are proportional to the claims being made. For the person speaking in the style of the first quote above - they don't need to do studies. They are making conservative claims based on a limited data set, and they are transparent about their data set. I'm cool with that. But if you want to claim that a treatment works on 100% of people with a particular condition - you need to do studies first to show this, or you are going to be a quack in my book. It doesn't matter that it seemed to you to have worked for a large number of individual cases - you need to document your work carefully and do controlled trials. What do you call someone who labels another person a quack without any real supporting evidence of their own??? A scientist??? As I implied before, it completely depends on the person, the circumstances, and the claims. I might call them "reactive" or "prejudiced", or I might call them "reasonable". I am always happy to review research data, and form my own opinions. I can change my mind, but it doesn't happen over night. I want to fully absorb the material first, but when the only citations are faulty, or lacking, my provisional opinion is unlikely to change. This is why we really like to see multiple studies being done, by several different organizations. Gerson was evidently not qualified to properly interpret his own data. However I think there is one additional component. Research dollars are scarce. Plausibility of interaction is paramount to being able to place limited research dollars into the best therapies to really make a difference. Which is not to say that the treatment is useless. Just that we should not take it seriously as a powerful cancer cure. The idea that coffee enemas, and raw foods will detoxify, what exactly no one says, is not only without a plausible mechanism, but defies logic when you understand the basic pathways of cancer. If the claim was that it was preventative vs curative it may have more support, but one would still need to detail what toxins and how they cause cancer to be taken seriously. Long story short The better question how is Magic Johnson still alive? Magic Johnson has HIV, not cancer. Some of the richest men in the world have died from cancer no matter how much money they could throw at it. I am sorry about your losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know Magic Johnson has Hiv my point was when you have alot of money you have alot more choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know Magic Johnson has Hiv my point was when you have alot of money you have alot more choices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know Magic Johnson has Hiv my point was when you have alot of money you have alot more choices. A common element between HIV and cancer is that, often, it isn't the original disease that kills you. The cancer and chemo can beat your immune system down so far that the common cold can kill you. This is where someone like Magic Johnson has a big advantage. He can hire full time expert nursing care and unlimited doctor care to make sure the secondary infections either don't happen or are taken care of quickly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/08/12 09:39 AM
|
|
I know Magic Johnson has Hiv my point was when you have alot of money you have alot more choices. A common element between HIV and cancer is that, often, it isn't the original disease that kills you. The cancer and chemo can beat your immune system down so far that the common cold can kill you. This is where someone like Magic Johnson has a big advantage. He can hire full time expert nursing care and unlimited doctor care to make sure the secondary infections either don't happen or are taken care of quickly. Sad really. |
|
|
|
|
