CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Natural is Better
Zoebess Views: 5,463
Published: 16 years ago
This is a reply to # 852,046

Re: Natural is Better

Your inference that Gerson is the ONLY *procedure*
(whatever that means) that works to cure cancer is
insulting to those of us who have gone the wholistic
route and have been successful. There are MANY programs
which have helped improve the quality and length of
life for those who have developed cancer. There is plenty
of evidence to suggest that spontaneous healings due
to prayer etc. have also been successful. To hold one way
up to the exclusion of others is a bias I am not ready
to accept, especially here at Curezone, where we gather
to share what works. What works for some does not always
work for everyone, so defending choice will always
be one of my concerns.

My own naturopath sees people all the time who have
been turned away by the likes of the Cleveland Clinic
or Mayo and sent home to die. Her philosophy addresses
many aspects of healing, but the main one, clean the
blood, clean the body of freeloaders, and support the
immune system has been extremely successful and can
provide years of testimonials, including my own.

There is also evidence that Gerson does not work in all
cases and so I would also offer that this does not mean
that those it works for, that their commitment is in any
way diminished because it does not work for all. Likewise,
the efforts and success of those whose methods & treatments
do effect cures in themselves or others, should not be
disparaged just because you cannot find testimonials
online for them.


On the negative side, an article in the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine followed patients who went to the Gerson clinic and to two other alternative cancer clinics for four or five years. Of the 18 Gerson patients, all died, except one who had stage III lymphoma. This certainly suggests that efficacy of this treatment against advanced cancer is low, but the study did have some major flaws. All of the information was reported by the patients themselves, rather than by checking medical records. 20 Gerson patients were not reported on because they were lost to follow-up. And no attempt was made to assess compliance with treatment. This could be very significant here, since the Gerson therapy is so demanding. It is quite possible that the lack of success is due to a high rate of non-compliance with treatment. If so, then the negative result recorded here would not apply to patients who follow the treatment plan. Certainly you should consider whether you could actually do it before choosing this as a treatment. And compliance problems are only a possible explanation for the failure reported by this study. It is also quite possible that the rate of success is low or zero.



Again, there is PLENTY of controversy to be found if you
look closley at the Gerson therapy, and yet, for those who
succeed in sticking with the treatment, this therapy is
their hope and they deserve any recognition for their success
just as those who find success in managing and curing cancer
in their own way deserve recognition....

I wish you well on your healing path...

be happy, be well,


Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2023

1.957 sec, (2)