Doctor's Note

For an introduction to Gerson Therapy, please check out the "prequel," yesterday’s NutritionFacts.org video-of-the-day Gerson Therapy for Cancer. How do you prevent pancreatic cancer in the first place? See Largest Study Ever. Dietary strategies associated with prolonged cancer survival can be found in Breast Cancer Survival and Soy, Breast Cancer Survival and Lignan Intake, Raw Broccoli and Bladder Cancer Survival, and Slowing the Growth of Cancer.

For some context, please check out my associated blog post: Gerson Therapy for Cancer?

If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

  • Eric

    One issue I have with these short videos is the lack of context. Gerson therapy is 70% raw/minimally processed and that sounds great – but the patients drop like flies. What is? could it be? in the diet that is so death promoting? What exactly is the Gerson diet / therapy in this study and how is it different from a whole-food vegetarian / vegan diet?

    • BPCveg

      The first few sentences of the abstract of the cited source by Cassileth may provide some relevant insights, namely:

      “The Gerson regimen, developed by Max Gerson in the 1930s, is promoted as an alternative cancer treatment. It involves consuming fresh, raw fruit and vegetable juices, eliminating salt from the diet, taking supplements such as potassium, vitamin B12, thyroid hormone, pancreatic enzymes, and detoxifying liver with coffee enemas to stimulate metabolism. Gerson therapy is based on the theory that cancer is caused by alteration of cell metabolism by toxic environmental substances and processed food, which changes its sodium and potassium content. It emphasizes increasing potassium intake and minimizing sodium consumption in an effort to correct the electrolyte imbalance, repair tissue, and detoxify the liver. The coffee enemas are believed to cause dilation of bile ducts and excretion of toxic breakdown products by the liver and through the colon wall. None of these theories has been substantiated by scientific research.”

      • Lew Payne

        It just comes to show you… science is no match for superstition!

        I have read testimonials of Ubangi women from Africa who claim the witch doctor cured their children of demons, cancers and all sorts of nasty diseases. Since both witch-doctors and Gerson have hundreds of testimonials, what rational basis (from a philosophical perspective) do we have for believing one over the other?

        Once we ponder this, we might just begin to understand why peer reviewed scientific studies should weigh more heavily than select case studies (e.g., I was cured, my friend was cured, etc), conjecture (e.g., it’s common sense that X), and misapplied science (e.g., if it worked for X, then it must also work for Y).

        • Wowed

          Just wow at this guy. Retarded and not even ashamed of himself. Just wow.

          • Jesse

            Just wow at this guy. “Retarded” is not a word to be used as an insult. Just wow.

        • Gary Loewenthal

          OTOH, there is still a lot we don’t know about how the body heals itself, and we don’t even know how much we don’t know. Just the fact that placebos cure some percent of any affliction in patients suggests that there’s more than “substance X affects body part Y” going on. It’s good to keep an open mind. Meditation was once derided by the medical establishment as quackery. It’s good to be skeptical, but if not evenly applied – including occasionally re-evaluting the basis for our skepticism – it can become mere confirmation bias.

        • Gary Loewenthal

          Also, while I do have the utmost respect for well-formed studies, politics, corruption, and money has crept into some scientific and medical institutions. What gets published, who funds it, how the study is conducted, who is financially tied to what, etc. can influence what comes out in scientific journals. Studies are valuable, and I rely on them too, but unfortunately today we cannot have the same faith in them.

        • Shane Pedersen

          I guess this is why there are like a dozen or more interferons huh? The reason being because X doesn’t work on Y. We are humans, no two created the same and just because one treatment works for one person doesn’t mean it will work for another. Peer reviewed studies mean nothing if you weren’t part of the study. It’s easy to review data, it’s harder to ensure the data you are reviewing is accurate and honest!

      • Shane Pedersen

        Oh I would love to believe the scientific studies, FDA findings and peer reviewed journals. The only problem I have with that is the same problem these people say they have with Alternative Treatments. Not FDA Approved! Not Scientifically proven!

        Lets start with the Federal Drug Administration LMAO!- This Oganization is laughable at best. To show their incompetence is easy. How many times have they changed the food pyramid since you were born lol? They Don’t actually do any of their own testing, in fact they rely on studies provided to them by the company wishing to have their product approved. Guess what folks? Those studies are done by the manufacturers or labs owned by them, no chance the results could be scued or altered by them right? So why doesn’t the FDA require independent lab results???

        Also they have a constant flow of politicians and ex-Corporate CEO’s heading their panels. No chance that could have something to do with all the drugs being recalled and lawsuits filed due to the FDA Approved drugs ill effects or deaths. Hmmm if the science and studies are so well performed, reviewed and accurate. Why are so many drugs and thereapies losing there approved status and more importantly why are they killing so many and saving so few???

  • John Sammut

    It seems like the Gerson Therapy in this study was ultimately worse than conventional medicine using Gemcitabine-based-chemotherapy.

    But, remember pancreatic cancer is the hardest cancer to cure and maybe its not a good example for cancer cure using any type of conventional nor alternative medication. We must remember, once the pancreas is damaged the essential enzymes that actually helps in the treatment of all types of cancer have been diminished (trypsin and chmytrypsin: Dr. John Beard ) An overall multiple cancer study on all types of cancers should be also tested: breast cancer, lung cancer,liver cancer, etc.to establish the effects of an vegetarian, vegan or using the Gerson therapy treatment vs conventional. In this way there can be no bias and the real treatment and survival rates maybe fully and better determined towards a mutiple of cancer types.

    We must remember that the survival rate of conventional medicine for cancer is only around 5-10%, because the radiation and chemotherapeutic drugs used. Chemo and radiation does kill cancer cells, but they also destroy the immune system and that may be the reason why most persons do not survival for more than a 5 year period.

    I still think more studies need to be carried out to fully determine the whole impact or picture towards cancer pateinets on a plant-based-diet using the Gerson therapy or another alternative treatment vs an animal based diet using chemo and radiation and non-chemo and radiation treatment.

    John from Malta

  • Fred Dirkse

    My biggest question here is the fact that the study referenced a Gerson “style” regime, not the Gerson Therapy. That tells me it was not the actual Gerson Therapy followed to the letter as Dr. Gerson would have done. The therapy outlines a very specific regimen including proper combinations of fruits and vegetables and even a specific juicer (Norwalk hydraulic press).

    I understand how difficult it is to do a study like this. It would seem especially more important to follow the Gerson Therapy to every last detail if the purpose of the study was to truly vet the therapy and not come to a predetermined outcome. I am going to look into this further, as “Gerson style regime” does not sound like they followed THE Gerson Therapy.

    • Andrew Thibeault

      Likely, they couldn’t say that they performed THE Gerson Therapy, because the Gerson Institute probably wasn’t involved with the study. So, they had to do the exact same thing and call it a Gerson style therapy.

      Had they referred to it as Gerson Therapy, considering the results of the study, the journal that published the study or the researchers themselves likely would have been on the receiving end of a retalitory lawsuit.

      • Fred Dirkse

        Argh. The politics of cancer is as aggravating and confusing as government politics.

        There are so many “alternative” therapies – many around the pancreatic enzymes, including Gerson, Gonzales, and Kelley. The Kelley protocol uses diet, pancreatic enzymes and coffee enemas, very simliar to Gerson. According to the Independent Cancer Research Foundations, Inc.:

        “…this protocol takes time to become effective.”

        “Remember that the Kelley diet relies heavily on the immune system being built up BEFORE the treatment becomes fully effective. This diet may not be suitable for advanced terminal patients.”

        Another interesting blurb re: the Kelley therapy:

        “When patients start the therapeutic program, their cancer markers rise temporarily because the markers held in tumors are released into the bloodstream as the tumors break down. The number of white blood cells also increases, and tumors may swell as the immune system attacks them. As the debris from the tumor(s) is released into the bloodstream, patients often have flu-like symptoms that include headaches, nausea, irritability, elevated temperature, and ‘achiness’.”

        This would certainly explain the “quality of life” difference in the enzyme treated patients in this study.

        I therefore question: if we have the ways and means to perform an extremely difficult and rare study comparing chemo to an alternative treatment to study both survival rate and quality of life – why choose an extremely aggressive cancer to treat with an alternative therapy that explicitly states it takes a long time to see results AND explicitly states that the initial results make the patient feel terrible as the treatment takes effect?

        Just smells like it was engineered to produce the intended outcome. Like comparing the health benefits of almonds to pork…duh. It happens on both “sides”, making it all the more aggravating and confusing – just like partisan government politics!

        I would really like to believe that natural therapies work, but what I really want is just the TRUTH without bias, if that is even possible. To be fair, perhaps we DO have truth with this study – if they followed a proven protocol as they should have, perhaps pancreatic enzyme treatment for pancreatic cancer may not be the best choice for an alternative therapy. However this study will now be sited to support the generic statement that “Gerson-style” therapies don’t work to treat cancer, period, which I suspect at this point was the intended long term intent.

      • Aaron Patterson

        They didn’t do the exact same thing, the article even said it. 1st off only 70% raw, that’s not gerson’s……

        • http://www.facebook.com/smugsly Evan Brand

          right. it was 70% raw, not 100%. Style can be like “kosher” style and is meaningless (or worse, destructive). plus, who financially backed the study?

      • fineartmarcella

        details tell you everything…they did not say they followed the Gerson Therapy PROTOCOL of coffee enemas and carrot juice. this is not an evaluation of Gerson Therapy, but an attempt to compare a more plant based lifestyle vs chemo to cure a deadly cancer.

    • John from Malta

      I totally agree Fred. There was bias in the study, as it was not actually focused on the original Gerson regime. Charlotte Gerson (the daughter of Max gerson) would be a marvelous researcher toward Gerson vs conventional. The study would be carried out without any alterations applied to the gerson therapy. I am not sure how exactly they carried out the study(I will try to get a hold of the article) but I am sure they didn’t used 13 juices per day and the other medications they used towards the Gerson therapy?

      Remember what we have learned from Michael greger. Plants are the powerhouse of health, especially an synergy organic green leafy vegetables, nut, seeds and legumes If these foods cannot cure any disease, then nothing will.Remember most gene relative diseases are only expressed if they triggered by outside factors and that only accounts for around 5% of gene relative diseases.

      Its a big shame that nearly all the food-chain has been sadly contaminated by either bacteria, toxins or industrial waste pollutants. Yes, maybe people are living longer, but they are not surly living a longer, healthy life and its all because of the industrial evolution and the way the food industry have not cleared up their health and safety measures towards food safety and control. Money is more important than health. Until we start standing up for our rights about better safe and healthier food control then the problem of disease risk will keep on increasing.

      John from Malta

    • http://www.facebook.com/smugsly Evan Brand

      Fred,

      You have me curious. If you investigate, please message me your findings via FB: http://www.facebook.com/smugsly

    • thissal

      The NCI already did an investigation into the Gerson Therapy vs. Chemo. Even though they had access to the Gerson Clinic, they said there wasn’t enough controls in place for either the Gerson or Chemo to form any conclusion. However, the NCI did say that Gerson patients seemed happier with a more positive outlook. Maybe this could be due in part to the coffee enemas, which weren’t discovered by Gerson. They were used in WWI to alleviate extreme pain when the supply of morphine was gone. I’ll bet coffee enemas have fewer side-effects too.

    • Harold Velez

      U right Fred they didn’t follow up. They hardly offer any proof.

  • John Sammut

    I deeply respect Michael Greger on his hard work But, wouldn’t it be fantastic if we could combine all the essential food nutrients together; which those who have been following Michael Greger’s video know that have actually been proven to help actually inhibit, stop or reduce cancer growth: Mushrooms, garlic, leeks, broccoli, kale, berries, red cabbage, flax seeds, green-leafy vegetables, etc and a experimental trail conducted by researchers towards cancer patients for a new treatment. Maybe a synergy of only these essential plant-based-foods choices , could actually become a better alternative treatment for all cancer patients. I would love to see this study carried out.
    I wish i had the resources and the money to do it myself. Now that surly would be a study that everyone would be interested in: well most people except the Meat and dairy industry and the pharmaceutical industries.

    John from Malta

    • Am from Oregon

      I agree, those foods do help if they are indeed organic and not poisoned with agricultural chemicals (sprays, pesticides, herbicides, etc.). Last week I bought some expensive frozen berries from a respected grocery chain. Soon after having my berry smoothies, I got headaches. Finally figured out that the berries were linked to my headaches. Most likely due to a reaction to the toxins the berries were sprayed with. I do hope the study used truly organic food.

    • Sally Miller

      This is why I survived, along with supplements and stress management, just a diet of good food. Oh, and surgery. My doctor thought I was pregnant with a fullterm baby (I had ovarian cancer). 16 years later, still cancer free. More details below.

  • J. Tucker, EarthSave Miami

    What about the longer-term survival rates for Gerson Patients. Maybe chemo had an initial advantage but that was a ‘weeding’ out of patients who were too sick. Maybe the more natural therapy kicks in after the 12-14 months?

    • SJSMD

      The median survival for pancreas cancer that can’t be resected is 12-14 months. If it can be resected, median survival is around 20 months. That is with conventional chemo and radiation

    • Andrew Thibeault

      It couldn’t kick in after 12-14 months, because all the patients would have been dead by then.

  • http://www.facebook.com/iflexon Ivet Flexon

    I find it suspect that poison is better for you than a plant based treatment at all levels, but then again I think cancer is something all together different…After learning of these studies I know Andreas Moritz was on the right track.

    • Andrew Thibeault

      If by “on the right track” you mean “completely wrong about the history, causes, treatments, and cures of cancer and various other diseases,” then yeah.

      However, I doubt this is what you mean.

      It is indeed better for you to inject poison into a cancerous mass than to simply eat raw plants and pour coffee into your ass. Why? Because the poison is rapidly absorbed by the cancerous cells, and kills *them* before it or they kill *you.*

      • http://www.facebook.com/iflexon Ivet Flexon

        if your goal is to KILL, then you win!

        • Lew Payne

          Likewise, coffee enemas and oral ingestion of raw calf liver has been shown to kill people – and both were parts of the original Gerson Therapy. The difference – chemo kills cancerous cells, Gerson kills human beings. If the goal is to KILL, I’d rather have something that kills cancer cells, not humans. Lesson: It’s all about perspective.

          • Boris

            Well Gee Mr Payne what a selective arguer you are. Gerson kills person ? Hardly Chemo kills people. I’ve seen that happen over and over. I must be lucky I’m not dead I’ve hundreds of coffee enemas over the past 3 decades and done many juice fasts and vegan diets. Wow I’m still not dead!

          • Joe

            Its pretty naive to think that Chemo JUST kills cancer cells.

  • Ron

    I deeply suspect all is not being told here. I personally know of two examples that demonstrate the effectiveness of Gerson type diet therapy (flooding the body with raw vegetable juices to provide great nutritive substances from which the body may draw to rebuild the immune system, and shrink or eliminate the tumor(s). In both instances, despite warning from allopathic physicians that these therapies would not work, positive results were evident within one or two weeks and in one case the patient, with pancreatic cancer deemed incurable and fatal within 6 months, is still alive after months (to the disbelief of his oncologist) and his tumor has almost disappeared. The second patient, unfortunately, succumbed to his oncologist’s advice to resume
    chemo “just to be sure” and he died within two days after taking chemo. He had been paralyzed with a tumor on his spinal cord and within two weeks of beginning Gerson therapy, he could feel his legs and move them for the first time in weeks.

    Although I have great respect for Dr. Gregor, I suspect that he knows all is not being revealed in this video report of comparative therapies. Let’s face it: nutrition and the healing and preventative benefits of proper diet would threaten the claimed “superiority” esoteric disciplines presently enjoying a protected and patented approach to health maintenance in this country, as well as turn many practitioners into paupers instantly.

  • Roger T

    The questionnaire used to evaluate quality of life only asked questions pertaining to anemia and fatigue. What about the indignity of loosing one’s hair? Of one’s immune system being ravished and getting pneumonia or other infectious diseases? Of being unable to retain one’s food, of violent retching and weakness? These are all specifically caused by chemotherapy but not a therapy based on diet. Perhaps because the designers of the study knew this, they didn’t bother asking about these quality of life issues. My friend who died either of pancreatic cancer or the chemo- I’m not sure which, had a normally sunny disposition before and during most of her illness, but in the last few months of her life, she became cranky and irritable, snapping at he loved ones. She died a miserable death, I think thanks to chemo, I’ve already decided that I would never submit to such abuse. I’d rather die naturally. I find it incredible that anyone could say with a straight face that the quality of life of cancer patients was better with chemotherapy.

    • Greg Kaler

      Dr. Greger, thanks for all your work! I watch most daily videos you send!

      Re Gerson, I watched your video re pancreatic cancer. What about other cancers?
      I would be very interested in knowing the results comparing success rates re chemo and Gerson for the many other forms of cancer.

      Thanks much, Greg Kaler, St. Cloud, MN

  • Howard Straus

    Indeed, it was Dr. Gonzalez’ therapy, and the entire “study” was more a kangaroo court than anything else. It was heavily sabotaged at every step along the way, including the principal investigator, Dr. Chabot of Columbia, who was the developer of the chemo protocol against which it was tested. This alone should have disqualified him, but nobody seemed to care. Dr. Gonzalez wrote a book about the corruption called “What Went Wrong”, and it should be used to indict Columbia and Dr. Chabot for mass murder. It proved nothing other than the complete corruption of the medical system, our government agencies, and Columbia University. It had NOTHING to do with the Gerson Therapy, so this is just an attempt to smear Gerson by association with something similar that was heavily sabotaged. Disgusting, but expectable, and happens all the time.

    • Aaron Patterson

      I love you Gerson bred people……love it!

    • Louis

      Amen Howard!

    • Lew Payne

      Of course, using your same logic, studies performed by anyone affiliated with Gerson Therapy should also be ruled out… since the are obviously biased in Gerson’s favor. After all, Gerson was the developer of the protocol against which chemotherapy was tested.

      • Mirna

        I am quietly reading the comments and thought I’d add that the Gerson Therapy was the only thing that saved me and my doctor not only didn’t understand how it happened, she didn’t want to know. Food for thought.

        • Lew Payne

          I’m sure you realize the dangers of drawing conclusions based on single cases, or select cases. I have a full copy of the study cited in the video… and it pretty well shows how, when you take a hundred (more than that, actually) cases and evaluate the results – for the particular type of cancer cited in the study – chemotherapy clearly extended not only the lifespan, but the quality of life, of cancer patients.

          The best thing to do (which people seem to miss)… eat a healthy plant-based diet *prior to* the onset of cancer. The clinical data seems to indicate that a plant-based diet is the best preventative medicine. Switching to a health diet after the onset of cancer is no guarantee of results. In some of the studies, it took a year or more for the beneficial effects to be fully assimilated by the body.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=670735069 Tan Truong

            Lew, I’m reading everyone’s comments and I’m really torn. However, I can at least be confident in agreeing with your last paragraph.

          • Boris

            Extended the quality of life ? What are you smoking Mr Payne FFS . If you think that being exhausted all the time while losing your appetite and feeling nauseous for the rest of your massively shortened life is an improvement then you’re welcome to it !

          • John Furr

            I’m sure you realize that from the individuals perspective the single case is all that matters. Cancer science is only as good as the people that are cured. If this person is an n of 1 and she is alive then I’m guessing that was statistically significant for her and quite frankly with enough n of 1′s, even though they not be published in major chemotherapy journals, it begins to point towards a treatment profile that should be investigated FOR REAL and not in a kangaroo court style fashion.

            These test will never be done in the USA. We need data on 10,000 cancer patients for each protocol. Then we need an additional 10,000 to see if there is a benefit to mixing the two methods. Studies on 50 people.. basically I’d rather trust the subjective experiences of 50 cancer survivors than a published study with a n of 53.

          • Gary Loewenthal

            OTOH, case studies are often valuable, and provide a gateway to new therapies. Lots of people’s UTIs were cured by cranberry juice before doctors accepted that it works, and researchers found out the mechanism. Case studies may be more valuable if there is an accumulation of them and the conventional therapies are not working too well, as with many cancers. That doesn’t mean they’re uniformly valuable, but neither should we reflexively throw them out.

            I agree emphatically that we should look at plant-based diets primarily as preventive therapy. But is it really way out there to consider them as curative therapies? If a diet rich in whole foods strengthens our cancer-fighting immune system when we’re healthy, why wouldn’t it do that when we’re sick? Just throwing that out there. Perhaps if we can resist the alternative vs conventional polarization, we may develop some therapies that blend both and work better than anything we’ve seen yet.

  • Kelly

    How can we trust your video when you have got the therapy wrong that you are referring to?!

    • Lew Payne

      Perhaps if you read the case studies cited in the video, you can answer that for yourself. Unless, of course, you don’t allow facts to interfere with your opinion.

      • :)

        I wonder if you have cancer and went for Gerson therapy and failed to get better or are you just an angry man! If you have no experience on the subject nor a scientist who actually have done studies on the subject then you’re just one blah that likes to hear himself talk. I pity you.

      • Natalie

        One study didn’t use the Gerson Therapy at all and the second study wasn’t done independently. This is not unbiased work.

  • Selma

    Dr, Greger has not done his homework. I am disappointed in this review. I expect more Dr. Greger! Are you tied to the ACI? This study was using the Gonazalez NOT the Gerson Therapy. Dr. Gonazalez has written a book outlining how the study was totally flawed. Here is a link with a summary rebuttal. http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/jco_rebuttal.htm

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/ Michael Greger M.D.

      That is why I referred to is as a “Gerson-style regime.” Thank you for passing along that link. I’ll check out his book and if I think it has merit do a follow-up video!

      • HemoDynamic, M.D.

        All in the persuit of truth! The upmost respect for you!
        I wish more Doc’s had the courage to be the “Nail that sticks up the highest.” They may try to hammer you down first, but the point is you are the first. For that I commend you!

      • selma

        Thank you Dr. Greger for checking into this with your open and discerning eye. If I’m not mistaken , the study was initiated and supported by Dr. Gonzalez-so I don’t think he would have agreed to go forward with this if it something he did not truly believe it and had seen good results with in comparison to chemo. This study makes the results look so strongly swayed to one answer – chemo. It is hard to believe. I personally no someone who totally reversed uterine/colon cancer that as diagnosed by the Mayo clinic. She did it with the gerson therapy with no sugery/chemo/or radiation. I can put you in touch with her if you like. She is still well 20 years later on modified gerson diet helping other cancer patients.

      • :)

        The question is why call it Gerson-style in the first place, why didn’t you call it 75% raw Vegan regimen. Or why not use the actual doctors and scientist name that headed the study. See what I’m getting at. By using the name Gerson and not even use the right protocol of the Gerson Institute, to me its both irresponsible and a poor choice on your part. You didn’t entitle it VEGAN regimen or VEGAN style because you are promoting veganism and it would just be so wrong to do that isn’t it? Come on Dr. Greger you are better than this, well I was hoping at least.

  • Louis

    So please tell me Dr. Greger what is this crusade against Gerson about? First this studies date back as far as 1998, so what is really new? Second the Gerson Institute nor the Gerson method does not seem to have been involved in this at all. Dr. Gonzalez (Oasis of Hope) has; http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gonzalez/healthprofessional/page5
    So what about the 16.000 USD figure (your video on this part 1/2)? I do not see the connection to Gerson here, except that is has been a therapy in the same league as Gerson’s. But NOT the same. Have you really studied the ins and outs of alternative and complementary treatments for cancer, or are you just shooting in the dark? Gerson therapy is a hard regimen that can only be performed with motivated patients, and not with randomized ones almost on their deathbed, with no guarantee to follow this exact treatment a 100%. So no snacks in between so to say. And a guaranteed properly performed detox. I wonder about how ‘controlled’ this control group has been, 14 years ago now. I heartedly suggest you pick up the challenge and travel to the Gerson institute personally and have a look at their records and see their patients yourself. And actually see the difference in their quality of life and that of the ones using standard chemo in what will be the last stages of their lives for sure.
    The studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19687327
    The Gerson Institute: http://gerson.org/gerpress/
    Besides this I also want to compliment you on your cutting edge work on promoting a healthy lifestyle. But please keep playing a fair game.

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/ Michael Greger M.D.

      No crusade–this is just one of the many things I’ve been asked about as I travel
      around the country
      and so I promised to look into it. I had never even heard of Gerson, but I did my best to represent what’s currently in the scientific literature about Gerson and Gerson-type regimens. I think if you read through the available peer-reviewed science on the matter you’ll agree I gave an an accurate portrayal. Now just because the scholarly literature concludes Gerson therapy does not appear particularly safe or effective does not mean that it’s not safe or effective. The scientific literature is by no means perfect, but I’m afraid it’s the best we have.

      • HemoDynamic, M.D.

        You have changed the world. . . for the better!
        Namaste.

      • BPCveg

        Dr. Greger: I very much appreciate that you have rejoined the discussion forum. I think that this effort is extremely valuable to all those who want to gain a deeper understanding of nutrition.

      • Louis

        Thank you for your reply. I really hope for a follow-up by you, more deeply informed. Not heard about Dr. Gerson.., wow; an adventurous terrain can be entered here ;-) I really recommend you the recent cancer world summit 2012; https://s3.amazonaws.com/cancerworldsummit.com/upgrade-f14985.html Digital access to all the 10 interviews for only usd 50, now that it is still on offer. These are a great and informative portal into this field. I have enjoyed listening to these myself tremendously. Very varied and authentic.

        • Greg Kaler

          Reena K writes: …Dr. Greger. He’s just presenting the information… don’t shoot the messenger!”

          Well, Dr. Greger, as much as I admire your work, it is my heartfelt opinion that you made a mistake listing this video. It is my guess that you should’ve presented a video with the complete opposite conclusion- that for some types of cancers and other serious diseases, Gerson Therapy does indeed have a good success rate of actually CURING the disease. I have a good friend who has been thru the program, initially diagnosed with kidney cancer 10 years ago. He wrote a book called “3,000 Coffee Breaks”.
          He gave me several examples of the people he met that have been cured of breast cancer, and other types. The conventional doctors of these cured patients are shocked at the results. I read another poster here who said a cured patient’s conventional doctor did not want to know how that happened. How awful is that attitude? Hippoctates would turn over in his grave.

          Reena K also writes: “Maybe it might help to do another study with 3 groups… one group with gerson-like therapy, one group with standard chemo, and a 3rd group who is doing BOTH chemo and gerson treatment together.”

          If I had cancer, I WANT TO BE IN GERSON GROUP!!!!!

          I think all of us/the great majority posting here are huge advocates for an all plant based diet. True health is in plants. Gerson is plants. (I question the calf liver treatment used in the therapy. I need to study it more.)

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Marcel-Vincent/100003146209508 Marcel Vincent

            So Wha’t is the use of sharing this video on Facebook on 09-02-2013, while months ago it was already clear it was somehow “false”, and according to Dr. Greger himself “at least needs an update”? Totally not logic to me!

          • JLwatts

            I my self personally have been ill for years and have been endlessly testing on my self different forms of diets etc supplements and so fourth. To cut it short i have managed too Suppress illness (bowel disease) via eating very close to cooked vegan, Raw is a little to much for my self digestive wise i can not handle it. But symptoms are being suppressed this way, I now need too go ahead and take the full plunge into a programme of my choosing and give it a go, But its true that animal proteins are a big no no for those experiencing cancer the digestive problems are too much. What i can say is, From all the testing ive done on my self and all the results that i have seen coming from programmes such as the gerson, I have also read of many self healing testaments from people who have cured them selves of cancer through raw vegan/juicing, And from all this evidence i would base the fact that Programmes such as the gerson, From the results they have achieved, Are definetly worth a try. Is it a cure for cancer? Certainly not, Theres to much variety and different types of cancer to deem it a cure, But is it a better option that using chemotherapy or radiation that destroys the good cells you have in place battling the illness anyways, I would definetly say so. It makes no sense for me to put more toxicity into my body, That is the reason im in this mess in the first place. For those with cancer, Heavy detox/liver/gallbladder detox is absolutely crucial, While looking at other routes then that will allow you to regain function to the cells too attack the cancer. Being ill my self this is what i feel right now, I am suppressing the symptoms through diet but it still feels like i need something extra to take the battle to the next level, Like my cells need something additional to be able too take it out, thats the only way i can describe it. Be it so Be wary all of heavy metal tocxicity, it is the cause of many majour illnesses.
            Theres one last thing, No way in HELL should there be anyone out there saying, The gerson therapy is not effective, to say this you are in my eyes the devil because it has worked for many people who had probably lost all hope.

  • http://nutrientuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/ JamesKB

    Yes it’s not gerson therapy as people have pointed out, but it is pretty close

    • LaurieM

      It is not at all close! And close isn’t good enough. If Dr. Greger is comparing the Gerson Therapy with conventional cancer treatment, as was stated in the titles to his videos, he had better stick to the Gerson Therapy and not some “similar” therapy. I am very disappointed with these videos, as I know for many the Gerson Therapy was a last resort after conventional medical treatment nearly killed them and they were sent home to die. They are alive and well today BECAUSE of the Gerson Therapy. Shame on you, Dr. Greger! Because your research on this was so poor, how can I trust that your research on other topics isn’t flawed as well?

  • Louis

    So please tell me Dr. Greger what is this crusade against Gerson about?
    First this studies date back as far as 1998, so what is really new?
    Second the Gerson Institute nor the Gerson method does not seem to have
    been involved in this at all. Dr. Gonzalez has; http://www.cancer.gov/cancerto
    So
    what about the 16.000 USD figure (your video on this part 1/2)? I do
    not see the connection to Gerson here, except that is has been a therapy
    in the same league as Gerson’s. But NOT the same. Have you really
    studied the ins and outs of alternative and complementary treatments for
    cancer, or are you just shooting in the dark? Gerson therapy is a hard
    regimen that can only be performed with motivated patients, and not with
    randomized ones almost on their deathbed, with no guarantee to follow
    this exact treatment a 100%. So no snacks in between so to say. And a
    guaranteed properly performed detox. I wonder about how ‘controlled’
    this control group has been, 14 years ago now. I heartedly suggest you
    pick up the challenge and travel to the Gerson institute personally and
    have a look at their records and see their patients yourself. And
    actually see the difference in their quality of life and that of the
    ones using standard chemo in what will be the last stages of their lives
    for sure.
    The studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu
    The Gerson Institute: http://gerson.org/gerpress/
    Besides
    this I also want to compliment you on your cutting edge work on
    promoting a healthy lifestyle. But please keep playing a fair game.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=687926548 Mike Speer

    I appreciate that Dr. Greger gives us the facts based on the latest science. If the science changes, the information he puts out changes. There is not an agenda on nutritionfacts.org.

    • http://www.facebook.com/clairejones.email Claire Jones

      It just shouldn’t have been titled “Gerson-style” therapy. It’s a 70% raw fruit and vegetables therapy.

  • Aaron Patterson

    Your Gerson Therapy vs Chemotherapy post should be removed or re-worded. The treatment that was used in that study was not even close to what happens in the Gerson Therapy. With Gerson’s its an all or nothing approach and even Dr. Max Gerson found this out 80 years ago. The study here said a 70% raw diet, Gerson’s is close to 100% raw. There were no mentions of this study using the detoxification of the liver with 5 a day coffee enemas. Gerson also uses a few supplements based on the condition they are treating. Lastly, Gerson calls for the removal of all toxin causing agents in ones life, ie., poisonous cleaners detergent, hand soaps, fluoride toothpaste, lotions, tooth fillings, air impurities, and the list goes on forever. I know Dr. Gerson tried to add fats into the diet of some cancer patients early on and he lost almost all over them, with every fat he tried, until he found Flax Oil. It was the only fat that helped heal versus killing the patient.
    My point here is only one thing, what was used in this study was not even close to Gerson’s and the post should be edited to appropriately designate what was actually used.

    • Lew Payne

      I guess we should also add oral consumption of raw calf liver back into the study, since you’re claiming that the original Gerson Therapy was not followed. Of course, that will again result in deaths due to Campylobacter, and then you’ll be complaining that the Campylobacter is interfering with the test results and should be ignored.

      Your comments are a perfect example of why standardized clinical controls and methodologies are important, and why anything other than peer-reviewed studies should be discarded. Of course, you don’t like the fact that this would prove Gerson Therapy to be ineffectual.

      • http://www.facebook.com/sandy.monroe.526 Sandy Monroe

        You miss a serious point about Gerson Therapy that if you ever read the material you would know. Without detoxification it will cause a quick death and a therapist true to Gerson would never give 13 juices pressed to a patient and the amount of organic raw food that is required without also doing the coffee enemas. It says in every piece of literature from the Gerson Institute and from Dr. Max Gerson himself that do boost the immune system without also boosting the detoxification will cause death.

        And to make the argument that since one of the items in the diet is no longer available in a clean format, therefore it can’t be studied.. that is just ridiculous. Liver was not required by all patients and is not required today. Doctor’s at the Gerson clinic adjust to the particular patient, just as Dr. Max Gerson did when it comes to the supplements. The food and the juices and the coffee enemas are the same – all else is adjusted based on the patient.

        I would suggest you study the Therapy before you attempt to discredit it. It is quite obvious you are unfamiliar with the true Gerson Therapy.

  • Reena K

    I find it to be really ridiculous that people are getting personally angry at Dr. Greger. He’s just presenting the information… don’t shoot the messenger! Yes, it’s possible that there may be something flawed with this study… very much possible. Just because many of us (including myself) are passionate about natural health, doesn’t mean that modern medicine has nothing to offer. We don’t have the complete information here. I have little doubt that a high raw organic diet may be MUCH better at PREVENTING cancer…. as clearly the Standard American Diet has not done our society any good with the epidemics of obesity, heart disease and cancer. However, once it’s already present, perhaps chemo is better at killing cancer cells, despite the overall toxic effects to the person? Maybe it might help to do another study with 3 groups… one group with gerson-like therapy, one group with standard chemo, and a 3rd group who is doing BOTH chemo and gerson treatment together. That might give us a lot more info. I simply think folks should keep an open mind instead of being locked into a particular set of beliefs here.

  • Louis

    Bias is a big problem in science these days. I commend Dr Greger for all his work and presenting what is currently available in the literature about The Gonzales Therapy. However, because of potential bias, just presenting the facts can be misleading (the title of the video definitely is though, you should change that!). This study is not the only evidence, and when evaluating a treatment, a researcher should try to read up on all available data before coming to a conclusion. May I point to this pilot study with extraordinary results:

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327914NC330201

    Abstract:

    Historically, large doses of proteolytic enzymes, along with diet, nutritional supplements, and “detoxification” procedures, have been used in alternative therapies to treat all forms of cancer, without formal clinical studies to support their use.

    A 2-year, unblinded, 1-treatment arm, 10-patient, pilot prospective case study was used to assess survival in patients suffering inoperable stage II–IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with large doses of orally ingested pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, “detoxification” procedures, and an organic diet.

    From January 1993 to April 1996 in the authors’ private practice, 10 patients with inoperable, biopsy-proven pancreatic adenocarcinoma were entered into the trial. After one patient dropped out, an 11th patient was added to the study (however, all 11 are considered in the data tabulation). Patients followed the treatment at home, under the supervision of the authors.

    As of 12 January 1999, of 11 patients entered into the study, 9 (81%) survived one year, 5 (45%) survived two years, and at this time, 4 have survived three years. Two patients are alive and doing well: one at three years and the other at four years. These results are far above the 25% survival at one year and 10% survival at two years for all stages of pancreatic adenocarcinoma reported in the National Cancer Data Base from 1995. This pilot study suggests that an aggressive nutritional therapy with large doses of pancreatic enzymes led to significantly increased survival over what would normally be expected for patients with inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

    Because of many conflicting results between the pilot study, patient records and the Gonzals/Gemcitabine study, this tells me there is indeed some truth in Dr. Gonzales’ allegations of bias and fraud. It is a real problem in academia and medicine:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html?awesm=on.ted.com_o9qh&source=twitter#.UGWZkzm1uOA.twitter

  • HereHere

    I would refer those of you who know the Gerson therapy to study the methodology under the “Methods” section in the published study (see above where Dr. Greger has listed ‘Sources cited’). I am surprised by the study conclusion, but given the anti-Gerson history of one of the lead researchers someone mentioned, I am a bit more skeptical. I do think we need to know more, including what about combining a plant-based diet and chemo, chemo vs. a plant based diet without the enemas etc, and these diets tested against other types of cancer. I have watched videos promoting the Gerson therapy, and the results here are entirely opposite than what the shows portray. I am surprised that the published scientific literature contradicts the science (case studies, cited success rate) in the pro-Gerson programs.

  • naturopathicpt

    I would like to share this documentary about the Gerson Therapy by Steve Kroschel.

    Here is the link:
    Dying to Have Known
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoUl7F7dWdE

  • http://www.facebook.com/nick.gillard.77 Nick Gillard

    I am somewhat confused by this video as everything I have read or watched states that the Gerson therapy is vegan and always has been. While the results of the study seem to contradict a lot of what Dr Greger promotes in his videos. I also find it hard to believe that you would have a better quality of life pumped full of chemo drugs than on a healthy diet after all that is why a lot of people choose alternative therapies to avoid the nasty side effects of the cancer drugs.

  • http://www.facebook.com/iotefa.ariitea Jeremie Blum

    A little problem with the study is the diet. According to their method they used a previous diet described in

    1.Gonzalez, N. J. & Isaacs, L. L. Evaluation of Pancreatic Proteolytic Enzyme Treatment of Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas, With Nutrition and Detoxification Support. Nutrition and Cancer 33, 117–124 (1999).

    which allow eggs and milk-yogurt daily as well as fish three times a week. Moreover they talk of a daily vegetable juice without further details.

    I don’t remember perfectly the details of the Gerson diet, but to the best of my knowledge yogurts are forbidden in the early treatment and I don’t recollect seeing fish or eggs anywhere in the diet. Correct me if I’m wrong. Also the vegetables juices seems to be one the central pillars of the Gerson treatment and they seem to be undermined in both papers. Correct me again if I’m wrong.

  • http://www.facebook.com/clairejones.email Claire Jones

    Only 70% raw fruit and veges is not a very good comparison study with something as aggresive as pancreatic cancer!

  • Robin Parker

    Wow…people… I think its great that Dr. Greger posted this.I want to know that this site is giving me, as best as is possible, scientific, not political reports. I think it is pretty clear in the video that it was not a Gerson clinic supported trial, and of course if you want more info they can always read the study itself. The results are so stark I somehow doubt that 5 daily coffee enemas will make a difference (as one poster said) but who knows. I want all the news, good or bad. My health choices are informed by both science and politics (I’m vegan) but I want to know which is which, thank you very much.

  • vegan2u

    Dr Greger,

    Thank you for this revelation, after watching movies and how convincing they were on this topic, it is good to know the truth, I now wish to ask a big favor! Please do an analysis on Clint Ober’s “Earthing” theory as to how grounding oneself with the earth or more interestingly “Grounding Pads” in your home can help reduce inflammation and can dramatically thin the blood after just 20 min’s of attaching grounding patches on the bottoms of your feet. Also ties into weather or not EMF’s can have a detrimental effect on us… I buy the theory and just wish to know if it is true, he has spent millions funding study’s that are published on PubMed and we all know how individuals or company’s standing to make a profit can get a study to say what it wants…It would be so awesome if you could find the time to do this! Thank you …

  • thissal

    The NCI already did a study on Gerson therapy vs. Chemo and they had access to the Gerson Clinic. They concluded that there wasn’t enough controls on either side to form any conclusion. However, they did say that the Gerson patients did seem more upbeat and happy. Perhaps this could be due in part to the coffee enemas. Gerson did not discover coffee enemas. They were used during WWI for extreme pain when the morphine ran out.

  • Greg Harper, PhD

    Please see research about Gerson Therapy and melanoma. Very good results with Gerson Therapy compared to conventional therapy
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9359807

    I am a fan of Dr Gregor’s videos, but I’m very disappointed with this one. My wife had stage II breast cancer, and we went on Gerson Therapy for the month before surgery. The size of the removed tumor was about 25% less than the size measured on an MRI only 5 weeks before.
    I am also suspicious of the paper reviewed in this video — did the authors have affiliations with, or funded by, drug companies?

  • Bonnie Bryde Malmberg

    I would love a copy of that study. I’m wondering if they did the detoxification part of the Gerson Therapy… If not, of course the subjects fared worse! The coffee enemas are crucial to the therapy. With all the nutrition via raw juices, their systems would be overwhelmed with released toxins. More information please!

  • Chunlin Qian

    As someone who has read a lot about the Gerson Therapy before finding your site, I was very impressed with your work until this posting. The video’s title says ‘Gerson Therapy’ but the protocol is clearly not. This is only the beginning of the problem. Dr. M.G, so many of your videos show the benefits of a vegan diet in fighting cancer, why do you even do this video? There are too many problems with the cited study. The medical establishment was determined to undermine Dr. Max Gerson ever since his Senate Pepper-Neely Hearing testimony in 1946. Pepper-Neely proposed a $100 million dollar funding to study cancer treatments and Dr. Gerson’s method was the main reason. Are you familiar with this part of the history? Dr. M.G, the earlier Dr. M.G. was a lot like you. He was a well-trained Germany physician who relied on the latest research and his keen observation of his own patients. We owe him a great deal, just like we owe you a great deal. May I suggest that you remove this video and do some more research on the real Gerson and his great achievements in curing many ‘incurable’ diseases in his time?

  • Dale Richardson

    It may be good to remember that pancreatic cancers are the most deadly — perhaps the Gerson-style vs Chemotherapy results would differ in other cancers, like colorectal or breast. There’s more than likely a variable success rate for either chemo or Gerson that’s very dynamic and depends on the type of cancer being treated.

  • Nancy H

    Hi All, you need to check out this study on lunasin and cancer: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20110920/Combination-of-lunasin-and-oxaliplatin-prevents-colon-cancer-from-metastasis.aspx. I have a patented product that contains the most pure, concentrated form of lunasin ever produced. Message me at nancyhelmold@gmail.com to get more info.

  • Chunlin Qian

    The study was deeply flawed and does not deserve to be reviewed here. Here is another link summarizing the problems with the study: http://truthbreakdown.wordpress.com/tag/john-chabot/

  • http://www.facebook.com/sandy.monroe.526 Sandy Monroe

    This is not accurate and should be either removed from your site or renamed. They did not follow the Gerson Therapy – there are only 2 facilities that have been certified to actually follow it and neither was involved in this study. Call it a study of a Completely Modified Gerson Therapy or a study of a therapy that got it start in Gerson… but it is NOT a study on Gerson and should not be billed as such.

  • paulfromaustralia

    It is extremely important to realise that the alternative therapy used on the patients was not the Gerson therapy at all.

  • Cancercureisreal

    You can still change the title – why are you leaving it this way? This is unprofessional and very mis-leading. You seem like a real doctor?

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/ Michael Greger M.D.

      Done!

  • John Kerher

    This video does no justice to the actual Gerson therapy in practice today and is not even close to it. Using the Gerson name should not be allowed since it is not the treatment that was used and is apparently only being used to defame the treatment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004591544486 Chris Smith

    I had stage 3 clear cell ovariancancer dx early in 2004. There were 14 women I knew at the time who had
    different stages of OC. The two that had the same grade and stage as I did died
    after 16 months and 22 months. All have passed now. I started chemo and stopped
    because of neuropathy after 5 treatments. Did no radiation. I started Gerson,
    without animal products because I was a vegetarian (but had eaten a lot of
    organic dairy), but I became a vegan–both for health and because of my
    fondness for animals. I continue to use coffee enemas even though I have
    stopped the full Gerson whenever I a cold, food poisoning, etc and they
    immediately help. Gerson’s advice is never to do a CE w/out juicing. I did two
    daily when on the program because chemo treated patients do a “modified Gerson”.

    Needless to say, I hike 8 to 10 miles regularly in the Sierra Nevada mountains,
    garden, write an e-pub, just turned 60 and am almost ten years older since I
    was dx. My quality of life has never been better and I only get down when I
    think I should visit the doctor!

    Studies are easily manipulated and every individual body seems to be different
    and probably what you believe has a big impact on stress level hormones and the
    repercussions on the body.

    The one thing I knew is that I didn’t want my life to be constantly visiting
    doctors or hospitals. Each subsequent chemo found my body reeling with problems
    and unfortunately I have know many who have died not from the cancer but from
    the chemo. Even so, it is not an easy choice because there are so few studies
    and even the ones done I think could not be validated unless the patients were
    actually in a hospital setting.

    I hope this helps anyone who is faced with this decision. I could very well be
    alive because I used partial chemo and a modified Gerson protocol (which chemo
    treated patients must do) after I stopped the chemo.

    Having said that, chemo does cause secondary cancers and with me, resulted in a
    depressed immune system that has not recovered even though it is almost ten
    years later. Basically, I stay away from any one with a cold or areas containing
    large, enclosed crowds.

    As for the Gerson cost, I did it on my own, with occasional telephone
    consultations and using the book. My regular oncologists (chemo and the
    surgeon) simple followed my progress but were not interested in what I was
    doing.

    Perhaps an in-depth study of cancer patients who survive and have a good-quality
    of life should be done. What did they do, etc.

    One interesting point my surgeon told me, and I have no idea if it is true, is
    that there were no double blind studies done on chemo vs no chemo with respect
    to how long an OC would survive or remain cancer free (two very different
    measurements).

    Also, Gerson is reported to be more successful with
    certain cancers-ovarian cancer seems to be one of those cancers.

  • Ichigo

    This Gerson therapy just sounds to me like a lot of fancy words thrown out there to make something sound effective, when infact it does nothing.
    Thats not to say a vegan diet is not an excellent thing for PREVENTION, but there remains no plausable scientific route that ‘detoxifcation’, ‘proteolytic enzymes’ or other buzzwords can cure cancer. Yet these clinics will continue to take money off the desperate, as people always look for the easy option. Chemotherapy is one of the worst experiences a person may have to go through, however when you understand carcinogenesis and the mechanisms of malignancy – you understand why it has to be that way..

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004591544486 Chris Smith

      I have to disagree. While each situation is different many cancer deaths are due to the chemo. Moreover, quality of life is a big issue and until you face that decision personally and until all the facts are presented to the patient with respect to the side effects of treatment–which in my experience they are not–the statement “you understand why it has to be that way” lacks foresight. You can see my post below. I survived stage C clear cell ovarian cancer and am almost ten years out. In that time I have seen many women die of this cancer. In fact, all the women I knew at the time I was dx are no longer alive and all used chemo and conventional treatment.

      • Ichigo

        Firstly let me congratulate you on overcoming cancer. In the end this is the most important thing, not the means. However, you are clearly one of the lucky ones, and spontaneous regression is not that uncommon. I am not familiar with rates for ovarian cancer, but in breast cancer it can be up to 22%. Neither yourself or the gerson clinic have put forward any plausable mechanism for the remission to be attributed to gerson therapy. I would be interested to see how many people have died whilst on gerson therapy, however at 15 grand a person for what is essentially a personally chef service, i don’t see them releasing any figures soon.

  • http://www.facebook.com/charmaine.vierra Charmaine Vierra

    I went to review the article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, here is what it said about the regimen of the individuals on the Gerson-style therapy: http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/28/12/2058.full?sid=6ddd4fd5-5322-4a09-89cc-efb946af8d62

    Proteolytic Enzyme Treatment

    “The enzyme treatment included orally ingested proteolytic enzymes, nutritional supplements, detoxification, and an organic diet (unaltered from the pilot study).3Patients received three pancreatic enzyme and two magnesium citrate capsules with each meal. The patients also took specified numbers of capsules with magnesium citrate and Papaya Plus every 4 hours on an empty stomach. The dose for patients with stage II disease was 69 enzyme capsules, and the dose for patients with stages III or IV was 81 capsules per day. After day 16, patients had a 5-day rest period and then resumed treatment on day 22. Treatment could be adjusted by the physician and could be increased for cancer progression. A diet that required at least 70% of the food to be raw or minimally cooked was required. All food was organic. Prescribed detoxification procedures included coffee enemas twice each day; skin brushing and cleansing; salt and soda baths; and a liver flush, clean sweep, and purging.”

    The Gerson Therapy includes 13 juices- that is all important venue by which the body receives an enzymatic boost, as you can see they were give much supplementation in the form of capsules. It doesn’t say anythings as to 13 freshly made juices a day. It emphasizes mostly raw or minimally cooked, it should be noted that the Gerson program includes 3 to 4 pounds of cooked food daily, “cooked foods provide additional variety and enable patients to eat more than they would on an exclusively raw diet. They also supply soft bulk, which promotes the digestion of the raw foods and juices.” Defeating Obesity, Diabetes and High Blood Pressure: The Metabolic Syndrome, by Charlotte Gerson, pg. 92. Coffee enemas are recommended every 4 hours in such severe cases. Gerson also advocates supplementation with Potassium, Niacin, Flaxseed Oil, Pancreatin, and B-12 injections.

    I conclude the “Gerson-style Therapy” was not in fact the genuine Gerson Protocol, and contributed to the failure of the patients to improve and thrive. Charlotte Gerson states, “pancreatic cancer is curable, but only if not pretreated with chemotherapy.” Healing the Gerson Way, pg. 112.

    • Ichigo

      Or the simpler explanation – Gerson therapy is an expensive sham.

  • SunVegan

    I find myself baffled by the outcome. Mostly raw veggies/fruits, Vegan diet. How on earth did they NOT live longer. I’m so dumb founded at this juncture.

  • Andrea

    I don’t believe it… it’s impossible. Raw food and fasts are the best therapy for cancer treatment.

  • Andrea

    This is not the Gerson Therapy… next time call the thing in the right way

  • Truth348

    Gerson “style” therapy? This could mean anything.
    It does not mean they followed the full and proper Gerson treatment. I bet they
    gave the patients a diet packed with nutrients, yet forgot the all important
    coffee enemas, this would explain the death of these patients and why it happened so rapidly. I wouldn’t be suprised if National Cancer Institute funded this because they knew the enemas would not be included, making the outcome obvious. Everyone who understands The Gerson Therapy knows that if the liver is
    not detoxed with the coffee enemas then it simply dies after a short time. More information
    please, we would need to know the exact regime the patients under the Gerson
    “style” therapy received before this study holds any substance at all.

  • truth483

    I read the original report on your site for this
    study. This was NOT the Gerson therapy. These patients were given the enzymes
    through capsules, as it states “The dose for patients with stage II disease was
    69 enzyme capsules,and the dose for patients with stages III or IV was 81
    capsules per day. After day 16, patients had a 5-day rest period and then
    resumed treatment on day 22.The dose for patients with stage II disease was 69
    enzyme capsules,and the dose for patients with stages III or IV was 81 capsules
    per day. After day 16, patients had a 5-day rest period and then resumed
    treatment on day 22.” No mention of juicing, just that these patients ate
    organic food and took a hell of a lot of enzyme capsules. It also states they
    did 2 coffee enemas a day (not enough, but they weren’t juicing anyway) and as
    another detox method they were made to take SALT baths. Since when has even a
    grain of salt been permitted on THE Gerson Therapy?. It is not permitted in any
    form and salt baths would be highly detrimental to these patients health. You
    emitted the important sections of this study in an obvious attempt to mislead
    and misguide people into believing this was a trial of The Gerson Therapy, this
    is certainly not the case.

  • truth483

    Do you realise by posting this false video you may prevent someone from starting a therapy that could well save their life? This is not the Gerson Therapy, no juicing and taking salt baths, tut tut. You Dr Greger should be ashamed of yourself. You were obviously paid to do this. Admitting in reply to some comments you had never even heard of the Gerson Therapy and stating you agree you may have got it wrong, yet then uploading this to Facebook months later. You’re obviously out to mislead and get your fat cheques off big pharma while people lose hope in something that actually has saved countless lives, no amount of money is worth that, you bad bad man.

  • Patty Lager

    This is NOT the Gerson Therapy. The study you describe here is based on a therapy developed by Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez. After this study, Dr. Gonzalez wrote a book explaining how poor trial design and implementation undermined his project. It is another example of allopathic medicine trying to discredit any successful cancer treatment. Chemotherapy = big bucks for Big Pharma and AMA.

    Please explain why anyone in their right mind would accept that a poison should be used to treat a disease. Yes, Americans are gullible and incredibly lacking in their ability to understand science or math. This is why chemo continues to be practiced in the USA. Allopathy has made “cancer” the most feared word in the English dictionary. Create fear and offer a solution that is incredibly profitable….and then strengthen this by discrediting any therapy that actually HEALS the body.

    I am very saddened that I saw this video clip. I have lost respect for you.

  • BB

    Dr Greger,
    How about other cancers? any info…i know there is a woman who has maintained her health -with pancreatic cancer- for years by juicing…maybe pancreatic enzymes are what is killing people with pancreatic cancer and not the vegan juicing? just a thought…

  • Habado

    I just read the JCO article. The name Gerson is not even mentioned. The Gerson protocol is a very specific regimen designed to heal the body, not just cancer but all “chronic degenerative diseases,” that was fine-tuned over decades by Dr. Max Gerson. Claiming that the control group in this study was on a Gerson-style therapy would be tantamount to putting the other group on a random chemical warfare agent, randomly dosed. There are a number of people out there trying to make a buck using the Gerson name. I don’t think the Gerson Institute has the resources to sue anyone. For the therapy to be effective, it has to be followed exactly. Can you imagine some oncologist randomly dosing Gemzar or substituting some other chemotherapeutic agent based on their mood that day? That control group should be compared with the raw food eaters! It is patently absurd to claim that this study has any relationship to the Gerson therapy whatsoever. There are no “degrees of compliance.” It is either total compliance or the therapy will not be effective. This is gone into in great detail in Dr. Gerson’s book (as well as those co-authored by Charlotte Gerson).

    Just a note on the calf liver injections brought up in the comments. The supply chain has changed since Dr. Gerson’s time. It is no longer possible to obtain reliably untainted calf liver so it had to be dropped from the therapy.

    The so-called documentaries on the Gerson therapy are very much of a “religious-style.” Even though they are endorsed by the Gerson Institute they do a disservice to the regimen, at least when viewed by someone with decades of experience doing hard science (at Harvard). Which is not to say that do not contain any valuable information, and if they inspire a lay person to opt for the therapy over conventional treatment…

    There has never been and there will never be a study designed to test the effectiveness of the therapy. Such a study would cost money and nobody would fund it. Furthermore, ethical questions would likely prohibit anyone from considering it. And I don’t want to put forward any conspiracy theories… (in the manner of T. Colin Campbell, and Caldwell Esselstyn, a couple of well-known “quacks”) but altering the wikipedia entries related to the Gerson therapy as an example, even citing the most prominent medical journals, (in my experience) will result in the information being taken down in a matter of minutes.

    The basic idea behind the slash and burn approach of modern oncology is to use surgery, radiation and chemo to kill as many cancer cells as possible and as few good cells as possible and hope that the body will somehow recover or at least eliminate enough tumor mass that the patient will leave a few extra weeks.

    The basic idea behind the Gerson therapy is that the only way a serious disease can be cured is by the body itself and that the only way such a disease can usually develop is if the body is not functioning properly. In order to return it to a properly functioning state the Gerson therapy does two things: add as much nutrition as possible and eliminate as much poison as possible. The former primarily through hourly juices prepared in a very specific manner, the latter primarily through coffee enemas. Dr. Gerson was well aware that without the coffee enemas his patients would often die quickly.

    My point in writing this comment is that there is no such thing as a “Gerson-style” therapy. It is either 100% according to Dr. Gerson’s book (substituting CoQ10 for the now tainted calf liver injections) or it has no relation to the Gerson therapy. Anyone who claims or believes differently is sadly mistaken. Which is not to assert that adopting a healthy diet will not have a positive effect on health, but here we are talking about healing serious diseases. However the Gerson therapy is the Gerson therapy (sans calf liver juice) and there is no substitute. There have been a number of strict vegetarians who were diagnosed with cancer, followed the Gerson therapy and their cancer disappeared. Unfortunately, healing serious disease is not like horseshoes and hand grenades. At least, that was Dr. Gerson’s experience.

    Hopefully someday in the distant future science (medicine) will be forced to admit that there is a relationship between diet and health. Until that time our society will continue poisoning us so we can become good customers to the medical profession.

    Just a note: Howard Straus is Dr. Gerson’s grandson, and Lew Payne, god bless you, you should spend less time on software engineering and more time reading quackwatch where you would find a lot of sympathizers. And for heaven’s sake, don’t dare read Dr. Gerson’s book! It would be banned if anyone took it seriously.

  • Francisco Carreño-Galvez

    Sometimes it is worth it to listen both parts of the story, specially when it comes to survival from cancer.
    I strongly recommend the book “What went wrong” by Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez.

    My point is: If it is true that more people die from the Gerson Therapy where are the bodies? Some times we, scientific-minded people should listen all source of practical cases, scientific studies too (for sure), but let the science be unbiased.

    I do not believe in conspiration theories whatsoever. I just understand the different games where different institutions must and are allowed to play. We cannot expect every highly-controled, highly-funded and supported institutions to be 100% free of speech. It will simply not happen.

  • Mike

    The Gerson therapy was not implemented in this study. If you read the paper there is nearly nothing similar to the “Gerson treatment” in this paper nor is the Gerson therapy mentioned. I normally love these videos but this was a disappointment and misleading.
    I don’t intend to imply that the true Gerson therapy is effective but if we are going to examine the scientific legitimacy of a treatment then let us do exactly that and not the legitimacy of something similar. Very dissapointing.

  • Wegan

    This is just the kind of junk study that Colin Campbell talks about in “Whole”. The developer of a drug gets to design a study to make his drug look good. Why do you promote this?

  • ugwad

    Clearly both sides of this argument don’t even understand the clinical trial that took place, the history behind it, or the claims of corruption which have been supported to some extent.

    This was actually a study comparing the Kelly/Gonzalez approach, not Gerson Therapy. The study was initiated after Gonzalez presented to the NIH several documented cases of pancreatic cancer treated with his approach showing results far greater than conventional approaches.

    According to Gonzales, the trial was corrupt and he details that on his web site. http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/jco_rebuttal.htm

    A main argument is that the majority of patients recruited for nutritional arm were very advanced and did not meet the eligibility criteria. This appears to be confirmed by the NIH.

    Here’s a quote from his rebuttal: “Furthermore, the article failed to mention that the Office of Human
    Research Protections (OHRP), an oversight group at the NIH, at our
    request conducted a two-year investigation of the study’s supervision
    by Dr. Chabot. The OHRP findings, as posted on their website (click here for their letter),
    revealed that Dr. Chabot had admitted 42 out of 62 total patients
    improperly..”

  • Harold Velez

    U folks get way to complicated on this subject. It’s pretty obvious to me the Gerson therapy does work. I heard the testimonials, a whole lot of them, and documentaries. I believe everyone of them. U should take a really hard look at the Gerson therapy and stop offering speculation on what u think it is.

  • Steve

    With an additional 10 months of life and that shown to be of significantly better quality I fail to see how there is any actual argument in the positive for the Gerson Diet. It is pretty clear at least in this study that Gerson had little or no effect.

  • Dr. Robert F.

    Micheal, I am very disappointed in you. In general I am very impressed with your research and focus on the science. However, in this case you seem to dismiss Dr. Gersons work as vodo. His work is not unlike your own, except you have the benefit of chemical analysis and biochemistry. Gerson did his work on pure observation over 80 years ago. These Pharma backed studies designed to dismiss Gerson are not to be praised or promoted as debunking Gerson. His approach has merit and it points to natural mechanisms which could be exploited if we try to understand them. Of course any discovery would not be patentable therefore big Pharma wants them dismissed and discredited. You are not doing any of us any favors by repeating their propaganda and junk science Micheal.

    I have seen the FDA play these games before. They would claim to start a trial with an “ethical requirement” For example, they refused to use a new compound proven to cure brain tumors, unless all patients had Chemo first. Of course, chemo would weaken the subjects and result in death. The few patients that survived would then be called Chemo patient survivors. This left the trial in question and accomplished nothing. At this point the FDA and the new drug trial process is a complete sham. Again, I am surprised to see you of all people repeating these lies for big pharma. Makes we question your findings and motivations in general.

  • Lobo Azul Tostadores

    For anyone in doubt of The Gerson Therapy, just look at their data, read their books and talk with the survivors that the pharma companies and their doctors send to death. I recomend Dr. Michael Greger to speak personally with Dr. Patrick Vickers or Charlotte Gerson, Jay Kordich or Christopher Wark before making nonsense claims either out of genuine ignorance or some other ulterior motives:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdWatSJEcbM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quuvi6Gvvmc

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KfsXTSb6mw

  • Lobo Azul Tostadores

    And if you want to support a small yet genuine dedicated people who does not have the resources of big pharmaceuticals, here is how you can make a donation:

    http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Team-Gerson–Taking-Strides-in-Support-of-Nutritional-Healing-.html?soid=1101330299260&aid=txwQO_oWsnI#fblike

  • christ2

    PROBLEM: A PATIENT CURED IS A CUSTOMER LOST!! Modern pharmaceutical companies know this, it isn’t in their economic interest to cure you!
    SOLUTION: A health care system in which Doctors are paid only when you are healthy!! Additional, the last thing a convalescing patient needs when faced with a debilitating disease is the financial burden of the health care costs!!
    A HEALTHY PATIENT A CUSTOMER FOR LIFE!!… Every body wins

  • Sebastian Tristan

    Truth be told.

  • rickkarine

    Amazing, but exactly what you’d expect from the American Cancer Society, which turns a blind eye to the thousands of advanced cancer patients who have gone into remission using the Gerson Therapy (and the massive amount of medical data and physical proof in existance) only to comment that there has not been a single case supporting that the therapy may be effective on treating cancer. Think of how many lives could have been saved from cancer and many other degenerative diseases if the importance of natural health was not covered up. Greed has gone too far in this country.

  • Jason

    Please do not be fooled by this video. The clinical trial mentioned does NOT study the Gerson Therapy, and the publication does not use the word Gerson a single time! The original article is available for free: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2860407/

    This is simply another of a multitude of attempts by the medical and cancer establishments to defame the Gerson Therapy by calling what they do “Gerson-style.” Dr. Gerson himself was murdered by arsenic poisoning after publishing the results of his work with cancer. This study is not Gerson-style in any way– it provides for only “daily” fresh-pressed juice (vs. thirteen 8oz glasses per day on Gerson) and patients were even prescribed “salt and soda baths,” which would be forbidden.

    This is not a test of the Gerson Therapy. This is a comparison of chemo poison to doing almost nothing. Sadly, all the patients in both groups were dead after 40 months. If you have 174 minutes and nine seconds to spare, you can learn all about the Gerson Therapy from a wonderful, outspoken, and inspiring woman, Charlotte Gerson, here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quuvi6Gvvmc

  • Jason Rogers

    Please do not be fooled by this video. The clinical trial mentioned does
    NOT study the Gerson Therapy, and the publication does not use the word
    Gerson a single time! The original article is available for free:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2860407/

    This is
    simply another of a multitude of attempts by the medical and cancer
    establishments to defame the Gerson Therapy by calling what they do
    “Gerson-style.” Dr. Gerson himself was murdered by arsenic poisoning
    after publishing the results of his work with cancer. This study is not
    Gerson-style in any way– it provides for only “daily” fresh-pressed
    juice (vs. thirteen 8oz glasses per day on Gerson) and patients were
    even prescribed “salt and soda baths,” which would be forbidden.

    This
    is not a test of the Gerson Therapy. This is a comparison of chemo
    poison to doing almost nothing. Sadly, all the patients in both groups
    were dead after 40 months. If you have 174 minutes and nine seconds to
    spare, you can learn all about the Gerson Therapy from a wonderful,
    outspoken, and inspiring woman, Charlotte Gerson, here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quuvi6Gvvmc

  • Beth P

    Conventional medicine offers NO cure for many cancers (Pancreatic, Mantle Cell Lymphoma, and many others). Since there are long-term survivors who have used the Gerson therapy with both of these particular cancers, I side with the folks who have cured SOME vs the folks who have cured NONE.

    An excellent documentary that compares conventional oncology to The Gerson Therapy (and is on Netflix): Dying To Have Known.

  • Diegel

    I think this study can be very deceiving. First of all my Uncle got rid of his cancer after 1 year on the Gerson therapy. Second of all Pancreatic cancer is known to be among the deadliest of cancers. And from what I understand the Gerson institute does not have high hopes for Pancreatic cancer patients in the first place. Also I think the Gerson therapy is actually a terrible approach for Pancreatic Cancer Patients as all the fruit and carrots in the juices places to much stress on the Pancreas. I’d be much more interested to see a study on other more common types of cancer – breast, lung, skin, colon etc….

  • jc

    Unfortunately the mis imformation about the gerson method is so well placed and funded by industrial interests that it has become virtually impossible to convince anyone that it works better then conventional methods at half the cost on society. If u gave your dog a bone and the bone made him sick and almost died and your vet said just blast fido with chemicals to kill everything good inside of him along with anything bad like tumors and fido will be fine and able to eat bones again you’d do it right? If you love fido like I love my lab youd pay anyprice to keep him alive correct? Now if that same doctor said im sorry but your dog has terminal cancer and has less then 6 months to live but you can try alternative therapys that have been known to work for centuries but dont have the money or legal abbilities to be used in the usa because they are illigal…. but I cant say that or I will lose my job you would say ok thanks for the heads up doc and you would take fido to mexico for some fresh fruit smoothies and a few coffee enimas….. right… what the hell ive never heard of anyone dying from side effects of to much fruit and veggies and a few coffee enimas…
    My point is this… most if not all of modern western medicine was discovered by mistake. Treating mental ilness with anti siezure drugs for example… if you do not believe it works or ppl are dropping like flies then do the research on the statistics of the actual real life results of individuals who have been cured of terminal and cronic illness at gerson and then open your mind and try it yourself even if you are not sick or dying… with the gerson method you never will be….. I know this because im alive today!!!!

  • Doubter

    Sorry Dr Gregor but your credibility in what to present and how to present is right up there with Dr Mercola. Only difference is that you are plant based. A lot of your information is good but even most of it leaves more ?’s than answers.

    • Toxins

      The difference between Dr. Greger and Dr. Mercola is that Dr. Greger uses evidence based research for non profit, while Dr. Mercola misuses “evidence” to further his business and is well known for quackery claims. Dr. Greger is merely sharing the evidence, he is not inventing the studies.

  • Natalie

    1. This video is entirely misleading because it misrepresents the facts in the study. It claims that the study involved a comparison of chemotherapy and the Gerson Therapy, yet the study itself doesn’t mention Gerson at all.

    2. If you actually read the study, it doesn’t say anything about the alternative treatment group having a plant-based diet. All we know is that 70% of it had to be raw or minimally cooked, and that it was all organic. That could have easily included animal products which aren’t allowed in the Gerson Therapy. For all we know, these people were being fed organic steaks every evening.

    3. There is no mention of alternative study participants being given fresh juice from a good juicer 13 times per day. The juicing part of the Gerson Therapy is essential!

    It would be nice to see an actual study comparing the two therapies as they are normally done. I’m sure that there is a Gerson practitioner out there who would be more than happy to help. Until then, we have to endure smear campaigns like the ones going on here.