NutritionFacts.org
Browsing: Home / Videos / Gerson-style Therapy vs. Chemotherapy

Health Topics

Browse through 1,580 different health topics
from A-Z!
  1. #
  2. A
  3. B
  4. C
  5. D
  6. E
  7. F
  8. G
  9. H
  10. I
  11. J
  12. K
  13. L
  14. M
  15. N
  16. O
  17. P
  18. Q
  19. R
  20. S
  21. T
  22. U
  23. V
  24. W
  25. X
  26. Y
  27. Z
Browse All Topics

Gerson-style Therapy vs. Chemotherapy

For decades, studies on Gerson therapy for cancer have questioned its safety and efficacy, but what does the latest head-to-head trial of a Gerson-style regime versus chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer show in terms of survival and quality of life?

November 16, 2012 |
GD Star Rating
loading...
FavoriteLoadingAdd to My Playlist

Topics

Supplementary Info

Gerson-style Therapy vs. Chemotherapy, 4.3 out of 5 based on 7 ratings

Sources Cited

Chabot JA, Tsai WY, Fine RL, Chen C, Kumah CK, Antman KA, Grann VR. Pancreatic proteolytic enzyme therapy compared with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 20;28(12):2058-63.

Cassileth B. Gerson regimen. Oncology (Williston Park). 2010 Feb;24(2):201.

Acknowledgements

Images thanks to: Ben Stanfield, jasoneppink, and National Institutes of Health via Wikimedia Commons.

Transcript

The recent review dismissing Gerson therapy as useless or worse for the treatment of cancer was published before this landmark study came out, a head-to-head test of a Gerson-style regime versus the standard chemotherapy agent jemsitabean for pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest of all malignancies. Being diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer is basically, on average, being given a 6 month death sentence. The best modern medicine can offer is chemotherapy designed not to cure, but to just slow down the death process and give people a few extra months. Since death is essentially considered inevitable it offers an opportunity to try out untested therapies, because what’s the worst that can happen?

You’d think with all the interest in complementary and alternative medicine there’d be lots of these trials, but they’re actually exceedingly rare, and difficult to do. The National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society should be commended for their efforts here.

So 55 patients, 23 chose chemo; 32 chose treatment with enzymes, supplements, detox and an organic diet, composed of mostly raw foods.

This may be among the “first controlled, clinical studies to compare allopathic—meaning standard medical—treatment to an alternative medicine program for a survival end point.” What did they find?

Well first of all, before they even started they agreed on what's called a "stopping rule." If one therapy started working way better than the other, then they’d just stop it because it would be unethical to continue. That point was reached and they had to stop the study prematurely because there were so many more deaths in the… Gerson therapy alternative group.

Here’s the survival curve. Here's the chemo group. As you can see, despite conventional medicine's best efforts, about half were dead in a year, but here's the enzyme and raw food group. As you can see they started dying off almost immediately, whereas those in chemo group tended to be able to hold out longer. Yeah but what about the quality of their lives in their last few months on earth? Quality of life was significantly better in the chemo group as well.

“Conclusion: Among patients who have pancreatic cancer, those who chose jemsitabean-based chemotherapy survived more than three times as long (14 months on average versus 4 months) and had better quality of life than those who chose proteolytic enzyme treatment.”

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Kerry Skinner.

To help out on the site please email volunteer@nutritionfacts.org

Dr. Michael Greger

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.

  • 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?

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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

©2012 NutritionFacts.org - All Rights Reserved | In partnership with the Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us