Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dying To Have Known (A Gerson Therapy Documentary)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »The first part was a joke. I guess I'll have to go back to putting a smiley on every single joke I post on the CT board.
But the serious point remains - no drugs need to be developed, do they?
OK, fair enough -- the coffee part of the GT is a common cause of mirth.
The much more serious point is that the cost of conducting an RCT, if it is true that this would be in the order of €150 million, would be prohibitive for the Gerson Institute. Why should lack of such funds be a barrier to scientific enquiry and medical progress for the benefit of patients?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Government failure occurs when a government tampers with an existing market (e.g. NAMA). It's a slightly different case.Iwannahurl wrote: »According to the Wikipedia article, that could then lead to government failure.Iwannahurl wrote: »But isn't that one of the fundamental points made by (rational)
There's little money in many illnesses and treatments. You'll make a killing if you 'cure' male pattern baldness, but you'll never even recover your investment if you cure something terrible like progeria. That's where charitable foundations come in - they pay for research into things where the pharma companies won't make a sufficient return.Iwannahurl wrote: »proponents of the GT: that the sidelining and neglect of such 'alternative' cancer treatments has been the result of government failures and health/economic policies that favour the conventional medical model and the pharmaceutical industry, for example.
Well we've established (I think?) that the reason they haven't been conducted is that private companies don't see a return, and the charitable foundations (The Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation, Cancer Research UK (formerly the Imperial Cancer Fund) and thousands of others) haven't been convinced to put their money into funding such trials.Iwannahurl wrote: »Again, you don't have to postulate a conspiracy theory to allege that the system is rigged.
And again, absence of evidence does not mean absence of effect. The GT has not been rejected because clinical trials have shown it to be ineffective. Clinical trials have not been conducted for reasons that are more to do with politics than with science.0 -
victorhelsing wrote: »I'd like to try a little of whatever you are smoking.
Yeah it's good stuff, apparently it cures cancer too lol 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
From a report on the GT by Patricia Spain Ward PhD for the US Federal Government's Office of Technology Assessment:Despite the fact that he had no inpatient facility until 1946, when he opened a clinic in Nanuet, New York, Gerson managed, through his thriving Park Avenue practice and an affiliation at Gotham Hospital, to amass enough data to publish a preliminary report in 1945. He presented his rather remarkable case histories modestly, concluding that he did not yet have enough evidence to say whether diet could either influence the origin of cancer or alter the course of an established tumor. He claimed only that the diet, which he described in considerable detail, could favorably affect the patient's general condition, staving off the consequences of malignancy and making further treatment possible (Gerson, 1945).
Gerson may have struck an Establishment nerve with his statement that many physicians use surgery and/or radiation "without systematic treatment of the patient as a whole" (Gerson, 1945, 419). But it seems more likely that it was his growing success in practice, or perhaps even his opposition to tobacco, that first drew the wrath of organized medicine. (Philip Morris was then JAMA's major source of advertising revenue: see Rorty, 1939, 182 - 194).*
In any case the AMA did not openly attack Gerson until November 1946, a few months after he testified in support of a Senate bill to appropriate $100 million to bring together the world's outstanding cancer experts in order to coordinate a search for the prevention and cure of cancer. At hearings before Senator Claude Pepper's sub-committee in July 1946, Gerson demonstrated recovered patients who had come to him after conventional methods could no longer help. Dr. George Miley, medical director of the 85-bed Gotham Hospital, where Gerson had treated patients since January, 1946, gave strong supporting medical testimony (U.S. Congress, 1946).
In a surly editorial response, JAMA said it was "fortunate" that this Senate appearance received little newspaper publicity; the AMA was clearly outraged that Gerson's appearance had become the subject of a favorable radio commentary, broadcast nationwide by ABC's Raymond Gram Swing (U.S. Congress, 1946, 31-35; JAMA, 1946). The JAMA editorial focused on Gerson, even though it was not Gerson but a lay witness, immune to AMA retaliation, who had called Gerson's successes "miracles" and urged the Senators to secure their future cancer commission against control by any existing medical organization (U.S. Congress, 1946, 96,97).
It was not Gerson, but Dr. Miley, who told the Senators that a long-term survey by a well-known and respected physician showed that those who received no cancer treatment lived longer than those who received surgery, radiation or X-ray (U.S. Congress, 1946, 117). Perhaps because Miley was a Northwestern medical graduate, an established physician licensed in four states, and a fellow of the AMA and state and county societies of Pennsylvania and New York, Morris Fishbein did not attack him personally. Instead, he limited himself to intimations of fiscal impropriety in the Robinson Foundation, which owned Miley's Gotham Hospital, and to the scandalous revelation that the director of the section on health education of this Foundation (which was promoting "an unestablished, somewhat questionable method of treating cancer") was not an M.D. at all, but a Yale University professor of economics!
Compared to Miley's testimony, Gerson's was innocent, concentrating on the histories of the patients he brought with him and on the likely mechanisms whereby his diet caused tumor regression and healing. Only under pressure from Senator Pepper did Gerson state that about 30% of those he treated showed a favorable response (U.S. Congress, 1946, 115). Nonetheless, JAMA devoted two pages to undermining Gerson's integrity (JAMA, 1946). Showing no restraint where Gerson was concerned, Fishbein, contrary to fact, alleged that successes with the Gerson-Sauerbruch-Hermannsdorfer diet "were apparently not susceptible of duplication by most other observers. " He also falsely claimed that Gerson had several times refused to supply the AMA with details of the diet. (Fishbein said he could provide them in this editorial only because "there has come to hand through a prospective patient" of Gerson a diet schedule for his treatment.) Fishbein emphasized, without comment, Gerson's caution about the use of other medications, especially anesthetics, because they produced dangerously strong reactions in the heightened allergic state of his most responsive patients.
Fishbein attempted to tie together this strange patchwork of slurs against Gerson and against research supported by lay-dominated industrial corporations with his accustomed mastery of innuendo: "The entire performance, including the financial backing, the promotion and the scientific reports, has a peculiar effluvium which, to say the least, is distasteful and, at its worst, creates doubt and suspicion" (JAMA, 1946, 646).
*http://www.tobaccocampaign.com/american-medical-association-promoted-tobacco
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
victorhelsing wrote: »Of course my argument was specious. Just to be clear, are you claiming that a conspiracy between the AMA and tobacco companies has managed to suppress the success of the Gerson therapy for more than 50 years?
YES! The AMA, the FDA, National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, they're all at it...:
All screenshots taken from the documentary "Healing Cancer From Inside Out"
Doesn't all of this make you want to question everything you've ever been told before?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement