PS. I knew a man who spent some time researching gerson therapy, wrote a
book about it with a medical doctor who used it in his clinic, this book was
suppressed by the UK gov, incidently. He told me gerson was curing 50% of
terminal cancers, and 100% stage 1 and 2 cancers.
"It is well established that a properly conducted Gerson therapy will
rescue 50% of terminal patients. Gerson was curing 50% terminal cancers,
and 100% stage 1 and 2 cancers."-- Frank Hourigan.
That was 50 or so years ago. Also it is similar to Kelley therapy--with one
group of 9 patients who followed his regime he had 100% cure rate with
pancreatic cancer, incurable with chemo. You can see this gerson cure of
terminal bone cancer recently http://www.whale.to/c/myeloma.html
Good luck with chemo you will need it. Moss wrote a book on it, I suggest
you read it.
"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy..The bottom line is for a few
kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease,
Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and
Choriocarcinoma."----Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning
Chemotherapy.
and hope you get one of these cancers only. With ALL it is "successful"
with only children, and who knows what cancers they get down the line.
Choriocarcinoma--I think 40 or so patients are saved with that every year.
Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times
more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35
per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40----which
is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased
markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a
plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumours remained
high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)
In an evaluation of five-year survival rates of 153 melanoma patients. Here,
100% of Gerson therapy patients with Stage 1 & 2 cancers survived, but only
79% survive had conventional therapy. With Stage 3 cancers (regional
metastases), the figures respectively were 70% and 41%; with Stage 4a
(distant metastases), 39% with Gerson and 6% with conventional therapy
survived.---- How Scientific are Orthodox Cancer Treatments? by Walter Last
If you want to die from your beliefs, fine, but you will need more than
luck. You need the luck to not get cancer in the first place.
and if you think vitamin C wont prevent cot-death then Dr Kalokerinos will
laugh at you, he has all the evidence to back up his claim, quite apart from
30-40 years work with third world children and NO cot deaths
"We know the cause of SIDS. We can and have prevented them. It's all done
with a compound called ascorbate. Not to use it means deaths will continue.
There is no other answer. There never will be. For our findings are based
on scientific facts. Not medical opinion."---Dr Kalokerinos
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/kalokerinos.html
arguably the greatest medical doctor alive today. I suggest you do some
research before you flaunt your ignorance and, incidently, it would take you
at least 6 months solid reading to get through whale.to not the minutes you
have spent.
Post by Alan TurleyPost by johnI wouldn't go into analysis if I was you.
Regardless of your advise, John, my assessment remains unchanged by
your idle commentary. The guffaws you've heard come from those who
find your position more ludicrous than profound. If you'd hoped to
credibly persuade the industry to change, you should present better
analysis yourself.
It's all fine and good to point out that pharmaceutical companies and
conventional medical practice cannot represent the be-all and end-all
in individual and aggregate healthcare. It's a huge leap to conclude
therefore that the anecdotal rambling of any unknown practitioners of
questionable medical practice two and three or more decades ago holds
the secret to unknown health and happiness today.
Much of the rubbish on your website is outdated, discredited, or just
so badly written that it cannot be properly evaluated. Your comments
are incredible not by their stupendous implications to healthcare but
because they lack the credibility to be believed, and you seem unable
to distinguish between visionary and deluded. So, you can't tell the
suppressed truths from the discarded quackery of bygone eras.
It's a shame, really, because you might be using your site to provide
real useful guidance to those seeking better health. Instead, you've
just linked to a wide range of contrary and discredited practitioners
as though any advise contrary to your physician's advise is good, and
that just ain't so.
Post by johndo you think it funny that cot death could be prevented 100% with vitamin C,
known for 30 years, but it isn't used?
The 'funny' thing is your reliance on badly written, aging anecdotal
commentary about field testing 30 years ago, admittedly disdained then
and regarded as no less conclusory now.
If you can show that Vitamin C will prevent some percentage of SIDS,
then post the evidence. The links you've referenced just don't do it.
Post by johndo you think it's funny that chemo is effective in 5% of patients but given
to 50%, when gerson therapy would cure most of them with no side effects?
Again, if you can show evidence that a dietary regimen introduced in
the 1930s as a treatment for tuberculosis and migraine headaches can
cure any percentage of cancers today, prove it.
Gerson himself reportedly claimed a 'favorable' response in only about
30% of his cancer patients, which says little of cure and nothing of
curing the majority. http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/9_7.htm
I'm sure that many practitioners would be interested in evaluating
such options, assuming you can present them to be viable options
rather than aimless ramblings of one grasping at healthcare straws.
Good luck.
@~