Talk:Max Gerson

message: I left the following message for the edit warring IP:
Please follow the BRD process. Even if your edits are not identical each time, repeated attempts to insert such content, when they have repeatedly been rejected, is considered edit warring, or at least testing its limits. Please use the article's talk page to Discuss (the "D" in BRD) the matter. Trying to insert special pleading in favor of a widely discredited and dangerous practice is not helpful. Advocacy of fringe theories is not allowed and can get you blocked. Accurately describing them is allowed, and that's what has been done. Per NPOV, responses and criticisms must be included, and they are. Trying to water them down violates NPOV, so don't do it. NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the usual sense; it does not mean we present matters as a false equivalency. All reliable sources (RS), and major scientific organizations which speak on the matter, are unequivocally against Gerson Therapy and accurately describe its dangers. The article sides with RS, but also describes the therapy as described in unreliable (Gerson friendly) sources. That way all significant sides of the controversy are presented with the proper balance and due weight which they deserve. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message for edit warring IP 

message: What's melatoma? Is that a typo? I'd fix it, but I'm no medical expert. Perhaps there is something called melatoma.
LightSpeed (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The source cited says melanoma - I've corrected the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Melatoma"? 

message: "The therapy is both ineffective and dangerous"
First of all, I believe the writer of this page needs to look into people such as John Christopher, Richard Schulze and Bernard Jensen. Following your research, you need to look into Hippocrates Health Institute. These men and that institution implements many dynamics of Gerson Therapy, and all have had wildly impressive results with numerous testimonies.
The supporting sources make vague allusions to "inconclusive" results simply because no large-scale studies have been conducted. 
"There is very little scientific evidence to support the use of other components of the Gerson regimen"
"There have been no well-controlled studies published in the available medical literature that show the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer."
As per the very site you source. The fact of the matter is Gerson Therapy and its many dynamics have been in use by a multitude of other alternative health practitioners and institutions, all the while having more success than our modern cancer treatment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6D:B140:2DF8:E1A5:6C82:1D53 (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond uneducated and biased wiki page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Max Gerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080721124452/http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/cp97.pdf to http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/cp97.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In this page on Max Gerson, his contributions are presented through a particular point of view. The introductory paragraph, for example, ends in a strong condemnation: "The National Cancer Institute evaluated Gerson's claims and concluded that his data showed no benefit from his treatment.[1] The therapy is both ineffective and dangerous.[2][3]" All references are dated : 2009 and 2010. 
In 2016, Harvard is offering coursework on medical nutrition. i.e. Harvard Medical School (article, HMS) 
Opposing opinion is needed in order to give substantive explanation about who Max Gerson was, and why his work is controversial. 
An example of the type of information that would be helpful includes cross referencing, containing information on allopathic medicine's rejection of nutritionally-based therapy, or examples of other nutritionally based therapies and their founders. 
ALso, the references for the one strong opinion given, reportedly a conclusion of 'evaluation,' though no method is sited, is less impressive on examination of the sources and their investment in traditional cancer treatments. i.e. American Cancer Society and profit reports on such non-profit cancer treatment centers as Sloan-Kettering.
--JnetNorthwest (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: His work is not "controversial", it's the worst kind of quackery. All sane/quality sources agree. Wikipedia reflects that, to be neutral. We don't give space to opposing views if they're nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

text: There's a bit of a faulty syllogism there (Max Gerson made wild and unsubstantiated claims about nutrition; Harvard acknowledges that nutrition is part of medicine (not that that's actually a new-as-of-2016 story); therefore Harvard has endorsed Gerson) as a part of an itself-dubious argumentum ad Harvardum.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance of Information 

message: The link to Charlotte Gerson in this article not work nor can she be found on Wikipedia. Also this write up is not unbiased!
76.123.37.206 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Link removed since it is a redirect back to this article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not unbiased in what way? Please be specific. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016 

message: (This paragraph should be added)
Gerson wanted the diet to be pure and fresh. He decided that food was medicine. The food must be fresh, organically or biologically grown to be healthy enough to work. Gerson patients shouldn't add anything or change the therapy without advice or help from a certified Gerson Therapy practitioner. Some things may be added to fit the appropiate needs of the patients. Some patients failed to cure their cancer from this therapy due to too many modifications in the diet. This therapy has cured many different diseases when used as directed. Medical advice is adviced. The Gerson Therapy may reduce one's chances of recovery if not reviewed or checked up on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.9.185.41 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unlikely that such a statement would be added unless it could be supported by robust, reliable sources; see Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources for medical information for help on how to identify such sources. (Frankly, such sources almost certainly do not exist.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things To Know about the Gerson Therapy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Max Gerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420191809/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Gerson_Therapy.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Gerson_therapy.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Max Gerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930225912/http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/gerson-therapy to http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/gerson-therapy
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some continue to advocate for Gerson therapy, including filmmaker Steve Kroschel in the 2008 film The Beautiful Truth, which The New York Times criticized as "a feature-length infomercial" for a discredited regimen.Lee, Nathan,  The Evils of the Medical-Industrial Complex, New York Times, November 14, 2008 David H. Gorski, an oncologist, categorized the film among works that purvey false hope to those with cancer and their families.
Can you please quote the relevant content from the new (Gorski) ref, and identify exactly what is verified from it?
The NYTimes says  Does that verify the content? I'd say no, that it's OR/SYN. It verifies that there are followers of the therapy, and that Kroschel advocates for it. Who cares? --Hipal (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Who cares?" We follow what the reliable sources talk about; that's the whole point of DUE/UNDUE. Reliable sources (the U.S.' paper of record and a book published by Springer) talk about this film. They care, so we care.As to the NYT cite (which dates back to the content I salvaged from 2011), it should probably have in-text attribution to Nathan Lee, per WP:RSOPINION, but I still don't see how there's an OR/SYN issue. If we change that to "", then Nathan Lee saying  and  absolutely verifies that claim. SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. No claim is being made that is not made in the source.The relevant portion of Gorski can be previewed at  ("Look Inside", search "Gerson"). Under a heading of "False Hope", he gives it as an example of media touting "natural cancer cures", before noting there is no scientific basis for it and getting a bit into the history of the Gerson Center.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually a fair bit more review-mining to do here than was done pre-2011. See S.F. Chronicle ("One of 2008's most notable documentaries"), L.A. Times, LA Weekly, Variety, Slant. (Also a Time Out review that appears lost to time, plus a few less notable publications.) To the extent that these reviews contain medical commentary by professional film reviewers, they are of course worthless, but for showing that the film is not dreadfully obscure and received RS coverage (honestly probably enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, let alone get a paragraph in the article the film was merged to way way back), I hope they suffice.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my writing "who cares" was to reference UNDUE again. Apologies that I wasn't clear. --Hipal (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Obscure movie