Dying To Have Known (A Gerson Therapy Documentary)

victorhelsing · 25-05-2011 8:14pm

Thank you for the excellent Sidney Harris cartoons. Like Gary Larson, he has a strong following in the scientific community.

You are correct, there is little to prevent people from studying and using Gerson therapy, or ayurvedic or Chinese medicine, in appropriate contexts. Whether they should be restricted from openly treating cancer in the U.S. is an interesting question, about which I am ambivalent. On the one hand, it should be allowed to develop new techniques, even if they are out of the mainstream, since that is the way innovation occurs. On the other, a patient with a serious health issue, such as cancer, should not be deceived into using a worthless therapy.

Are some conventional treatments of cancer worthless? It is reasonable to argue that they have limited value (worth _ less), but claiming they are worthless (if they can extend life by months or years) is a bit much. Are they worth less than we pay for them, as a society? Many times yes, as with so much end of life care. The answer to that question, for those who choose to ask it, is to refuse these therapies at the end of life in order to save resources. For the most part, we choose not to do that with humans, although we commonly (and quite humanely) make that decision for our beloved pets.

Although I believe there may be benefit to the Gerson approach, I thoroughly disapprove of their marketing techniques, including the videos "The Gerson miracle", "Dying to have known" and "A beautiful truth". These are obvious propaganda pieces, prepared to simulate investigative journalism, all directed by Steve Kroschel, who is apparently their loyal director of propaganda. By covering only the positive aspects of their therapy, and overlooking the other cards in the deck, I believe they leave a dangerously incomplete and deceptive impression with the viewer. I find myself watching (and sometimes rewatching) their videos, becoming enchanted and only after turning off the video am I able to shake off the emotional effect and focus back on the reality of what they are claiming.

Their materials also remind me of the work of Kevin Trudeau, a highly successful con man, who publishes books about miracle cures that "they don't want you to know". His half hour infomercials are also quite convincing. It saddens me, because I believe Max Gerson was a genuinely gifted physician who performed important pioneering work. Like Einstein and Freud, he was not always right, but the body of his work should not be discarded for that reason.

Until recently, advertising medical treatments and drugs on television was prohibited. The ban has been lifted, with the requirement that side effects of the therapy be included in the ads. If the Gerson people wish to produce a film railing against the imperfections of conventional medicine, that's fine. But if they are hoping to sell their own therapy at the same time, I would appreciate learning a little more about the dark side of the Gerson therapy, about which they are ever so silent.

(In case you are left with the impression that I have an unholy animus toward the Gerson therapy, I am sorry. In contrast to just about everyone I meet who believes in the therapy, I have read multiple Gerson books, watched multiple Gerson movies and videos and read multiple articles and studies related to the therapy. If my writing comes across as bitter scorn, I apologize. What I intend to convey, without success, is my bitter disappointment that the people currently promoting this approach do not appear to be advancing the cause of the therapy and the legacy of Max Gerson. Naturally, they would disagree with me. That's fine. They are not required to agree with me, just as I, and others, are not required to agree with them.)

Iwannahurl · 25-05-2011 10:36pm

victorhelsing wrote: »

Are some conventional treatments of cancer worthless? It is reasonable to argue that they have limited value (worth _ less), but claiming they are worthless (if they can extend life by months or years) is a bit much. Are they worth less than we pay for them, as a society? Many times yes, as with so much end of life care. The answer to that question, for those who choose to ask it, is to refuse these therapies at the end of life in order to save resources. For the most part, we choose not to do that with humans, although we commonly (and quite humanely) make that decision for our beloved pets.

To a certain extent, these are false choices. The public is occasionally asked, directly or indirectly, how it would like finite health resources to be allocated. What's on offer, however, is only what the State and the legally-protected medical profession allow. The options therefore become either (a) the full panoply of technological medicine or (b) little or nothing.

The GT is but one marginalised alternative that is never on offer in the standard clinical setting, and whatever about Gerson advocates' questionable "marketing" techniques their stated aim is treating the whole person, not their individual disease(s).

Biomedicine markets itself quite differently, and the result has been a steady and unsustainable growth in healthcare costs with little sign of a reduction in the societal burden of chronic (and iatrogenic) disease.

Forget about Gerson for the time being. Maybe in a hundred years his contribution will be recognised.

Maybe it's time we went back to Hippocratic first principles though. It is perhaps the case that biomedicine has been organised to serve itself and the needs of our Sickness (not Health) Services rather than the suffering human beings who are allegedly its raison d'etre. The reality of multimorbidity, which doctors have no answers for and researchers have paid scant attention to, demonstrates that the biomedical model, despite some spectacular successes, is still blinkered by reductionism and is still failing to recognise that chronic disease is "not simply an accumulation of conditions but rather an important collision of risk factors".

We have been seduced by an idea: a pill for every ill. That's a cliche by now, but it still holds true. According to a March 2009 report in the New York Times, 68 percent of Medicare spending goes to people who have five or more chronic diseases.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that polypharmacy costs America's health plans more than US$50 billion annually.

Worse than that, there is also the problem of potentially an ill for every pill: the cost of drug-related morbidity and mortality in the US was $177 billion more than ten years ago. And that's just "ethical pharmaceuticals", by the way.

The scale of these problems, and the resulting burden on society, puts the Gerson wackos, quacks and marketing hacks in the ha'penny place I reckon.

victorhelsing · 26-05-2011 12:54am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Biomedicine markets itself quite differently, and the result has been a steady and unsustainable growth in healthcare costs with little sign of a reduction in the societal burden of chronic (and iatrogenic) disease.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that polypharmacy costs America's health plans more than US$50 billion annually.

Worse than that, there is also the problem of potentially an ill for every pill: the cost of drug-related morbidity and mortality in the US was $177 billion more than ten years ago. And that's just "ethical pharmaceuticals", by the way.

Societal systems, including industries and religions, are designed, like animal species, to grow and multiply - to expand to completely fill an environmental niche, and hopefully, keep expanding. Species unable to propagate have long ago become extinct. Industries that fail to adapt to environmental change are virtually wiped out (railroads, film cameras, saddle makers).

However, some industries take advantage of changing environment to thrive and grow. Dwight Eisenhower lamented the "military industrial complex" that grew largely out of the second world war but adapted to the cold war and other changes that followed.

Health care, strangely enough, has grown along a similar, government supported path. Originally, people paid for basic health care with their own money, which naturally limited costs. During the second world war, price and wage controls prevented companies from paying more to attract labor to their (often) military related industries. Since they could not raise pay directly, they increased compensation by creating company paid health insurance, which has prospered since then.

Originally, health care costs and insurance were relatively inexpensive, but any beast, fed regularly enough, will grow larger and larger. In the 1950's Medicare was created and provided more governmental support for health care. The beast gets more to eat, he learns to eat more. Is this a surprise?

One of the really magical things about medical spending is that the individual buying the services is NOT paying for the services (at least directly). This is not generally true of food, veterinary care, dentistry, buying a car. So the buyer has relatively little motivation to control the amount or unit price of what he is buying. Naturally, since it is (perceived to be) "free", he wants more and more. In fact, he deserves more.

Alternative medicine is naturally more cost sensitive, since people are more commonly paying their own money. Therefore, it tends to be cheaper, unless the patient really feels that he has no choice (best examples of this are cancer and chronic pain). For these, the sky is the limit.

But the growth of the health care beast is our own doing. We continue to feed the monster, and snivel bitterly about how much it costs.

(Another simultaneous phenomenon, related to feeding, is the dramatic improvement in the efficiencies of agriculture, so that so much more food is available, at affordable prices, than a century ago. This allows us to eat what we prefer, a highly refined, highly digestible form of sugar and meat in large quantities, leading to its own health issues [diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer]. Fortunately, we have a health care system growing to meet the need.

And recently, the Obama administration added 30-40 million "uninsured" to the rolls of health care entitlement, paid by the government. It may surprise you to know that this reform will SAVE 1 trillion over the next ten years (according to its proponents). The beast continues to eat and grow!)

P.S. Uwe Reinhardt is a fascinating Princeton economist who has written and spoken much about this phenomenon. He described once giving a lecture before the American Medical Association in which he described the rate of growth of health care, and how in the absence of change, health care would suck up 100% of the U.S. economy by 2060 or so. The audience cheered.

Iwannahurl · 26-05-2011 2:32pm

victorhelsing wrote: »

And recently, the Obama administration added 30-40 million "uninsured" to the rolls of health care entitlement, paid by the government. It may surprise you to know that this reform will SAVE 1 trillion over the next ten years (according to its proponents). The beast continues to eat and grow!)

P.S. Uwe Reinhardt is a fascinating Princeton economist who has written and spoken much about this phenomenon. He described once giving a lecture before the American Medical Association in which he described the rate of growth of health care, and how in the absence of change, health care would suck up 100% of the U.S. economy by 2060 or so. The audience cheered.

They would, wouldn't they? Especially since nobody is really holding them to account, or insisting that they justify their existence.

I was going to add this to my previous post: Drug-related morbidity and mortality in nursing facilities represent a serious economic problem. For every dollar spent on drugs in nursing facilities, $1.33 in health care resources are consumed in the treatment of drug-related problems.

That's one of the beautiful things about the current medical model: the worse it does, the more money is made.

The thing is, the US can afford to cover all its uninsured, and could have a world-class system if the political will was there to do so.

The United States wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all its uninsured. Around a third of all spending goes on administration.

Based on expenditure in 2003, the US could save a total of $286 billion per annum by adopting a unified national health insurance system. The potential savings are equivalent to nearly $7000 per annum for each of the 40 million or more uninsured US citizens.

A more recent report from the Institute of Medicine estimated "excess costs" in the US 'healthcare' system to be in the region of $810 billion.

$210 billion of unnecessary products and services (eg brand name drugs instead of generics, unnecessary tests and procedures)
$190 billion in excessive insurance administration costs
$ 85 billion in excessively high fees for doctors and hospitals
$ 80 billion due to inefficient delivery of services
$ 75 billion because of medical errors and avoidable complications
$ 75 billion in fraud
$ 55 billion because of missed opportunities for disease prevention
$ 20 billion in excessively high prices for drugs and devices (relative to benchmarks)
$ 20 billion due to insurance company inefficiencies

The director of the Office of Management & Budget at the White House made this comment on the IOM report:

In other words, according to this new estimate, we spend more than $800 billion a year on health care that does not make us healthier. The result is higher premiums for us all and higher costs for the government — but it also means you may receive tests and procedures that you do not need, putting your health at risk.

The situation may actually be even worse than that. According to a report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers "wasteful spending in the health system has been calculated at up to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion spent nationally, more than half of all health spending."

With that kind of money there for the taking it's no wonder that health industry lobbyists outnumber the arms industry lobbyists in Washington DC.

If there is any doubt that President Barack Obama’s plan to overhaul U.S. health care is the hottest topic in Congress, just ask the 3,300 lobbyists who have lined up to work on the issue.

That’s six lobbyists for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate, according to Senate records, and three times the number of people registered to lobby on defense. More than 1,500 organizations have health-care lobbyists, and about three more are signing up each day. Every one of the 10 biggest lobbying firms by revenue is involved in an effort that could affect 17 percent of the U.S. economy.

These groups spent $263.4 million on lobbying during the first six months of 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group, more than any other industry. They spent $241.4 million during the same period of 2008. Drugmakers alone spent $134.5 million, 64 percent more than the next biggest spenders, oil and gas companies.

Just don't tell the conspiracy theorists -- they might smell a rat.

____________________________________________________

Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the
most shocking and inhumane.
~ Martin Luther King
____________________________________________________

.

victorhelsing · 26-05-2011 4:47pm

But it is a system that Americans have historically wanted, and resisted attempts to change the system.

One must remember that there are two ways to control use of a resource - price and rationing. In the U.S. we use price, and we snivel about the price. In socialist countries, they use rationing, and snivel about rationing. No system is perfect.

Iwannahurl · 26-05-2011 6:21pm

I guess it's part of human nature to be eternally dissatisfied, though it seems that some nations have more reasons to snivel than others:

Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.

The USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance). In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States" while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.

The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for infant mortality rate and 46th for total life expectancy. A study found that between 1997 and 2003, preventable deaths declined more slowly in the United States than in 18 other industrialized nations. For example, the United States was listed as 37th for life expectancy and 41st in low birth weight.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that the United States ranked poorly in terms of Years of potential life lost (YPLL), a statistical measure of years of life lost under the age of 70 that were amenable to being saved by health care. Among OECD nations for which data are available, the United States ranked third last for the health care of women (after Mexico and Hungary) and fifth last for men (Slovakia and Poland were also worse).

I've got to stop posting in this thread! Is there a 12-step programme for research addicts?

victorhelsing · 26-05-2011 6:59pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I guess it's part of human nature to be eternally dissatisfied, though it seems that some nations have more reasons to snivel than others:
Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.
...

I've got to stop posting in this thread! Is there a 12-step programme for research addicts?

There are many reasons that life expectancy in the U.S. is lower than you might expect, but I honestly doubt that modern medicine is significantly contributing to that.

It is fair to argue that medicine is not doing as well as you might expect to raise the average lifespan, given the amount of money being spent.

I agree that this thread has gone longer than it should, although it has been enjoyable. I will resolve this to be my last post. You can send me a private message if needed.

Pixel8 · 15-08-2011 12:44am

Well,

It looks like the skeptics are wrong once again. Dr. Mercola just posted this article about Max Gerson and he endorses him !!!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/14/beautiful-truth-about-outlawed-cancer-treatment.aspx?e_cid=20110814_SNL_Art_1

So Mercola believes that fruit juices and veg juices cure diseases as well!

TheOpenSource.TV has been saying this since Nov 2009, if you wanna hear it first folks, logon!

Di0genes · 15-08-2011 1:14am

Pixel8 wrote: »

Well,

It looks like the skeptics are wrong once again. Dr. Mercola just posted this article about Max Gerson and he endorses him !!!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/14/beautiful-truth-about-outlawed-cancer-treatment.aspx?e_cid=20110814_SNL_Art_1

So Mercola believes that fruit juices and veg juices cure diseases as well!

TheOpenSource.TV has been saying this since Nov 2009, if you wanna hear it first folks, logon!

So why should we care if one quack endorses another quack?

Jeboa Safari · 15-08-2011 1:17am

Pixel8 wrote: »

Well,

It looks like the skeptics are wrong once again. Dr. Mercola just posted this article about Max Gerson and he endorses him !!!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/14/beautiful-truth-about-outlawed-cancer-treatment.aspx?e_cid=20110814_SNL_Art_1

So Mercola believes that fruit juices and veg juices cure diseases as well!

TheOpenSource.TV has been saying this since Nov 2009, if you wanna hear it first folks, logon!

Says a lot when, even if what you posted was true, the main thing you can take from it is proving 'skeptics' wrong.

clever_name · 15-08-2011 1:43am

Pixel8 wrote: »

Well,

It looks like the skeptics are wrong once again. Dr. Mercola just posted this article about Max Gerson and he endorses him !!!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/14/beautiful-truth-about-outlawed-cancer-treatment.aspx?e_cid=20110814_SNL_Art_1

So Mercola believes that fruit juices and veg juices cure diseases as well!

TheOpenSource.TV has been saying this since Nov 2009, if you wanna hear it first folks, logon!

Thats great that he believes it, now if he can prove it then that would be even better.

Torakx · 15-08-2011 12:21pm

Lol pixel8
You had a lovely piece of cake and dropped it on the floor!
i have family members that subscribe to mercolas emails and site.
But i tend to get dissalusioned very quickly when i see advertisements for products and so on.
I take everything with a pinch of salt..even my cake hehe

However on a serious note i do subscribe very much so to the idea that my food is my cure.
I suffered with candida albacans for over 10years untill it was at a critcal stage.
Doctors over the years failed to spot it and instead i was treated for symptoms of depression and various stomach issues.
I did research on cancer and it seems very similar to candida cells in the intestinal wall.Which is a fungus at its worst stage.
While i only suspect i might have been diagnosed with bowel cancer if i had continued using the doctors and professors at the hospital,i feel much better and am recovering well with a healthy strategic diet and some herbal tablets for anti fungals.

Im still quite interested in these other therapies.the bicarbonate one was very interesting to me because it is also something that would kill off candida albacans in the intestines as its an alkaline type of treatment.
Whats scary to me is that i was due to have a camera look inside me to find the issue and i really dont know if they had seen those white cells would they have presumed it was cancer and given me chemo or cut it out instead of telling e to eat certain foods and so on.
Probably i am being overly wary of the medical community,but can you blame me after so many years of cronic depression.

It annoys me now to look at packaging in the shops.I sometimes throw the sausages into the shelf with disgust because they cant even supply one sausage product without puting sh1te into it lol
So if you see a guy pelting toxic food around a super market, it might be me! haha

Dave! · 15-08-2011 1:31pm

Pixel8 wrote: »

Well,

It looks like the skeptics are wrong once again. Dr. Mercola just posted this article about Max Gerson and he endorses him !!!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/14/beautiful-truth-about-outlawed-cancer-treatment.aspx?e_cid=20110814_SNL_Art_1

So Mercola believes that fruit juices and veg juices cure diseases as well!

TheOpenSource.TV has been saying this since Nov 2009, if you wanna hear it first folks, logon!

You're claiming an endorsement by Dr Mercola as a good thing...??!!!?

The guy is just another crank, why the fúck would anyone care what he thinks about anything?

Pixel8 · 15-08-2011 5:59pm

Dave! wrote: »

You're claiming an endorsement by Dr Mercola as a good thing...??!!!?

The guy is just another crank, why the fúck would anyone care what he thinks about anything?

Well if you actually believe that then you must be totally disillusioned, thats all i can say... Mercola is a genius.

Once again, the skeptics can argue about this til the cows come home, but the best proof is to TRY something for yourself and see what happens, rather than talk about it. Thats what most of us here have done who push these methods coz we know for sure that they work, coz we've tried them, while the rest of you are still looking for scientific proof... sad really. You could have tried it for yourselves at this stage and been cured already but instead you just want to prove each other wrong, massively egotistical idiots.

Pixel8 · 15-08-2011 6:04pm

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Says a lot when, even if what you posted was true, the main thing you can take from it is proving 'skeptics' wrong.

What i posted is the absolute truth. I just want the skeptics in this thread to shut up waiting for proof that it works and just try it yourself if you do end up sick and you'll quickly discover that its all true, simple as that. Am i trying to sell you anything? nope. How much are conventional treatments compared to fruit and veg drinks? We're obviously not in this for the money, we do this to create awareness of the truth, coz thats all we care about.

Why do skeptics even come onto the conspiracy theory forum when they don't believe any of it?! They are obviously just here to try and prove the believers wrong, and for no other reason...

hooradiation · 15-08-2011 6:05pm

Pixel8 wrote: »

but the best proof is to TRY something for yourself and see what happens

This is actually the worst possible 'proof'.

clever_name · 15-08-2011 6:12pm

Pixel8 wrote: »

but the best proof is to TRY something for yourself and see what happens, rather than talk about it.

Really? come on do i even need to give an example of why this is rubbish.

Pixel8 wrote: »

You could have tried it for yourselves at this stage and been cured already but instead you just want to prove each other wrong, massively egotistical idiots.

No need to be cured I'm quite healthy, in part that is thanks to a good doctor who can recommend anything I need, as he has done in the past to good effect.

As for your parting comment, I would suggest you try to take super massive doses of zinc - a deficiency in zinc can lead to aggression, but bear in mind I am not a doctor.

humanji · 15-08-2011 6:17pm

Pixel8, there's no reason to be abusive.

King Mob · 15-08-2011 6:18pm

Pixel8 wrote: »

What i posted is the absolute truth. I just want the skeptics in this thread to shut up waiting for proof that it works and just try it yourself if you do end up sick and you'll quickly discover that its all true, simple as that.

But if we are trying it ourselves, how do you recommend we make sure that we aren't being fooled by stuff like the placebo effect or other factors and biases?
How did you eliminate these possibilities to arrive at your truth?

And why exactly should we test it at all?
Do you personally test every medical claim you hear no matter how crazy and anti-scientific it is to determine if it works or not?

Pixel8 wrote: »

we do this to create awareness of the truth, coz thats all we care about.

And what if what you think is true, actually isn't?

Pixel8 · 15-08-2011 9:18pm

King Mob wrote: »

And what if what you think is true, actually isn't?

And what if it is? You see, i come from a background like you in terms of the ideas and information we were brought up to believe, the conventional perspective, and then i started spending a lot of time looking into suppressed, occult, hidden information etc. since about 2003 and finding out a whole body of knowledge relating to Law, Banking and Health, among other things that has apparently been covered up not because it doesn't work, but because it threatens the status quo, greedy, selfish high priced beast the medical industry has turned into.
You people still believe the medical doctors who treat cancer, heart disease and diabetes actually know what they're doing. Their knowledge is limited and controlled by the medical journals published by big pharma sponsored agencies etc. so can you really trust these people? Absolutely not, there are special interests everywhere in the medical industry and they are in this industry to make money, not cure people. Their primary interest is higher and higher profits, they don't care about curing people, they want to sustain your sickness and make the max amount of money possible from every gullible fool out there that falls for their false standards and FDA approved solutions to sustaining sickness and never curing the root cause of the problems.

Stop believing them and do your own research into this stuff! They are LYING! Even the ex-commissioner of the FDA was quoted saying that what the FDA are doing to people and what people think the FDA are doing to them, are as different as night and day.

It's time to start separating the LIES from the TRUTH and holy ****, there are some amount of lies out there...

King Mob · 15-08-2011 9:34pm

Pixel8 wrote: »

It's time to start separating the LIES from the TRUTH and holy ****, there are some amount of lies out there...

Yes, and how are you so confident that cranks like Mercola are telling the truth?
He makes quite a lot of money from promoting alternative therapies, but doesn't have to worry about stuff like backing it up with clinical proof or having to worry about being snared for false claims.

So why specifically do you trust Mercola and those like him when he's just as vulnerable to corruption as those evil mainstream doctors?

And have you considered the possibility that I have done research and found that the claims made by stuff like Gerson Therapy simply don't stand up to basic scrutiny?

Did you notice how you didn't actually address my questions?

But if we are trying it ourselves, how do you recommend we make sure that we aren't being fooled by stuff like the placebo effect or other factors and biases?
How did you eliminate these possibilities to arrive at your truth?

And why exactly should we test it at all?
Do you personally test every medical claim you hear no matter how crazy and anti-scientific it is to determine if it works or not?

Pixel8 · 16-08-2011 3:29am

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and how are you so confident that cranks like Mercola are telling the truth?

Because most good sites on the net let people comment on their articles and also 'Like' or tweet them. His site's articles have hundreds of thousands of Facebook Likes and tweets and hundreds of positive comments from the general public on each article praising him, giving him positive feedback from their own experiences too and improving his own knowledge along the way, everyone helps each other, and everyone benefits.
It's almost like an Open Source Health website, very comparable to how the Open Source software initiative works.

The true knowledge of whats actually going on is no longer confined to the medical journals to be controlled, everyone on the net is able to share their experiences and be honest with each other for no gain, other than to help each other solve each others problems once and for all and end living miserably with a condition that ends off rubbing off the whole of society.
A healthy world would be a nice place to live and it's completely possible without pharma drugs.

Theres a great documentary called Us Now which is all about Open Source initiatives being used in other industries around the world now, highly recommend it. Click the blue logo below and search for Us Now.

King Mob · 16-08-2011 7:31am

Pixel8 wrote: »

Because most good sites on the net let people comment on their articles and also 'Like' or tweet them. His site's articles have hundreds of thousands of Facebook Likes and tweets and hundreds of positive comments from the general public on each article praising him, giving him positive feedback from their own experiences too and improving his own knowledge along the way, everyone helps each other, and everyone benefits.
It's almost like an Open Source Health website, very comparable to how the Open Source software initiative works.

Really? That's why you trust him?

Tell me, what would happen if there was a negative comment posted on his site?
How do you know he's simply not just deleting ones that have people asking questions or pointing out the massive logical and scientific problems he usually makes?
If all he needs to get marks like yourself to swallow his nonsense is a bunch of facebook comments would he allow negative ones?

And again in your efforts to spread the truth, you've ignored some questions:

But if we are trying it ourselves, how do you recommend we make sure that we aren't being fooled by stuff like the placebo effect or other factors and biases?
How did you eliminate these possibilities to arrive at your truth?

And why exactly should we test it at all?
Do you personally test every medical claim you hear no matter how crazy and anti-scientific it is to determine if it works or not?

hooradiation · 16-08-2011 9:57am

Pixel8 wrote: »

Because most good sites on the net let people comment on their articles and also 'Like' or tweet them. His site's articles have hundreds of thousands of Facebook Likes and tweets and hundreds of positive comments from the general public on each article praising him, giving him positive feedback from their own experiences too and improving his own knowledge along the way, everyone helps each other, and everyone benefits.

Um, that's a textbook Argumentum ad populum - loads of people like or retweet it therefore it must be right.
Which is, of course, nonsense.

Also, the comparison to open source is flawed as the people who contribute to open source generally know what they are doing and their work is usually reviewed by other, equally competent people.
Which is shockingly similar to the current, legitimate peer review system for conventional sciences as opposed to this idea of validation by tweets.

Jeboa Safari · 16-08-2011 10:47am

Pixel8 wrote: »

Because most good sites on the net let people comment on their articles and also 'Like' or tweet them. His site's articles have hundreds of thousands of Facebook Likes and tweets and hundreds of positive comments from the general public on each article praising him, giving him positive feedback from their own experiences too and improving his own knowledge along the way, everyone helps each other, and everyone benefits.
It's almost like an Open Source Health website, very comparable to how the Open Source software initiative works.

The true knowledge of whats actually going on is no longer confined to the medical journals to be controlled, everyone on the net is able to share their experiences and be honest with each other for no gain, other than to help each other solve each others problems once and for all and end living miserably with a condition that ends off rubbing off the whole of society.
A healthy world would be a nice place to live and it's completely possible without pharma drugs.

Theres a great documentary called Us Now which is all about Open Source initiatives being used in other industries around the world now, highly recommend it. Click the blue logo below and search for Us Now.

the increase in life expectancy must have happened in spite of medical advances so :rolleyes:

I could easily post links to people criticizing and questioning Mercola, how will you decide who's right then?

ed2hands · 16-08-2011 11:47am

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

the increase in life expectancy must have happened in spite of medical advances so :rolleyes:

I think what pixel8s post was referencing was some pharma drugs and not general medical advances like improved surgical techniques, antibiotics etc.

While we're on the subject though, you're not suggesting that medical advances are the main reason for increased life expectancy are you?
Surely you know it's also a lot to do with better sanitation, clean water, access to better food and things like that.

It seems to be the case again that the Pharma industry is being wrongly given too much credit for making us live longer on the back of genuinely beneficial general medical advances. That is how i read your response anyway.

Jeboa Safari · 16-08-2011 11:58am

ed2hands wrote: »

I think what pixel8s post was referencing was some pharma drugs and not general medical advances like improved surgical techniques, antibiotics etc.

While we're on the subject though, you're not suggesting that medical advances are the main reason for increased life expectancy are you?
Surely you know it's also a lot to do with better sanitation, clean water, access to better food and things like that.

It seems to be the case again that the Pharma industry is being wrongly given too much credit for making us live longer on the back of genuinely beneficial general medical advances. That is how i read your response anyway.

Of course it's a combination of things and medical advances have helped, pixel is suggesting that all they are doing is making people sick

Dave! · 16-08-2011 1:21pm

Holy shít Pixel8, you're not really basing credibility on number of Facebook likes and comments are you??? :eek:

The mind boggles...

Pixel8 · 16-08-2011 10:01pm

Dave! wrote: »

Holy shít Pixel8, you're not really basing credibility on number of Facebook likes and comments are you??? :eek:

The mind boggles...

Nope, its just one of many reasons why i would believe Mercola over, say, Quackwatch. I mean seriously, you do know there's disinformation people out there too? Quackwatch is one such website.

The main reason i like Mercola is because he is a medical doctor with decades of experience and i've read his history, its very commendable actually and he comes across to me as an honest and truthful man who helps people first and foremost. He's a positive guy.

He is also reaching the same conclusions as myself in terms of research into nutrition, vitamins and minerals. I know because i have been taking lots of vitamins the last 5 or 6 months now and i feel great, like a huge weight is slowly but surely being lifted off my body, like a release of pressure all around my bowels and left leg, where most of my problems have been these last 8 years now.

This aint no placebo, its very real. And its about time you tried it too, whatever you believe, you will be pleasantly surprised at the results!

King Mob · 16-08-2011 10:24pm

Pixel8 wrote: »

Nope, its just one of many reasons why i would believe Mercola over, say, Quackwatch. I mean seriously, you do know there's disinformation people out there too? Quackwatch is one such website.

And how exactly do you know that Quackwatch is a disinformation site?

Pixel8 wrote: »

The main reason i like Mercola is because he is a medical doctor with decades of experience and i've read his history, its very commendable actually and he comes across to me as an honest and truthful man who helps people first and foremost. He's a positive guy.

But there's tons of other doctors with equal experience who I feel are honest and truthful.
So what does Mercola have that they don't? What makes him immune to the corruption that mainstream doctors are subject to?

Is it just that he agrees with your worldview?

Pixel8 wrote: »

This aint no placebo, its very real. And its about time you tried it too, whatever you believe, you will be pleasantly surprised at the results!

How do you know it's not a placebo?
How do we exclude that possibility when we are doing our own testing?

Dying To Have Known (A Gerson Therapy Documentary)

Comments