Talk:Gerson therapy/Archive 1

message: Major POV/factual cleanup needed on completely pro-Gerson article (see also Max Gerson. The page history shows that the main contributor of this material - 
*  /  /  - 
is Howard Straus, Gerson's grandson, biographer and promoter. Tearlach 17:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to second this, although I don't know enough about it to rewrite the article. For one important alternative view, The American Cancer Society describes 'serious illness and death', 'serious illness' and 'severe bleeding' in relation to this therapy . They also state 'There have been no well-controlled studies to show that the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer.' This should definitely be included in the article. -- Mithent 00:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough about it to rewrite the article. That's the problem for me also: the bias is abundantly clear, but I simply can't be arsed to separate out what's truth, what's spin, and what's outright untrue. It needs someone who knows the territory well enough to make clear bold edits. Whatever, Cancer Research UK concurs; it gets a well-referenced mention at Quackwatch's Questionable Cancer Therapies page; and there's Peter Moran's case study. Tearlach 02:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How biased can you get than to only have two links to orthodox sites, Memorial Sloane Kettering being the main chemotherapy hospital, and Quackwatch being an obvious shill outfit for the pharma industry. john 12:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Cancer Research and Quackwatch are industry shills, so biased. Peter Moran is on Barretts HealthFraud list. Martin Walker pointed out the industry connections of all the HealthFraud outfits like Barrett's. This is an 'incurable' bone cancer of an Oxford Professor, cured by Gerson.  He lived 11 years and one month, after his diagnosis, (and initial prognosis of 18 months).  john 10:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Gerson is pretty similar to Kelley therapy, more intense.  You can see plenty of Kelley therapy testimonials. john 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality/accuracy

message: ;Two comments moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
* Gerson therapy - extremely NPOV in favour of this dubious and possibly dangerous therapy. -- Mithent 00:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Max Gerson contains much redundant information with the above article. Edwardian 00:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pages needing attention

message: "Gerson therapy, illegal in the US..."  What, possession/use of carefully prepared fresh vegetable juices, additional vitamins, other supplements, with old fashioned enemas, etc is illegal? Do-it-yourself is illegal in the US?  Don't think so. In fact, $10-15 at Amazon or a public library card for much of the US population is going to get someone started if they really want to.   Ah, perhaps it is meant that if a licensed MD prescribes it, in the absence of an approved medical therapy, that doctor is going to have problems with a medical society/board/state functionary.  Or perhaps that a physician would be well advised to avoid the name, "Gerson therapy" for any dietary advice in many locales. Let us at least identify and describe the item for a sentence or two before the ritual vilification begins. Disclaimer:  95+% of my lifetime exposure to vegetable juice drinks is the stuff that they serve in little cans while on airplanes; I admit to some canned tomato juice on the ground.  --66.58.130.26 08:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempting to obtain a neutral point of view is inappropriate here, if you consider neutrality to require considering the views of conspiracy theorising muddleheaded apologists and commercially interested promotors of quack medicine to be of equal value with those of scientific researchers. Why do you have an article largely penned by a clearly self-interested promotor here, allowing perhaps desperate people to get the impression that this is a debate with two valid points of view? 80.168.87.20 07:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "For many years states had laws stating that is was illegal for any doctor to treat cancer using any method other than chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. Recently, a few states have begun to recognize alternative healthcare and begun to allow it with some oversight. In general, acceptance of alternative treatments is hard to come by. The small handful of states to allow alternative treatment clinics are: Washington state, Arizona, New York and Nevada." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.254.50 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be interesting to know whether by alternative you mean that these treatments are taken without any conventional treatment at all, or whether you are actually talking about complementary medicine, taken in addition ot to conventional treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.87.20 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: toward NPOV in introduction 

message: Shame this isn't piloted on hospital wards, as individuals trying to pursue it on their own waste an enormous amount of energy, when it would be more expedient to prepare for a number of people.--Darrelljon 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementation 

message: Cleaned up grammar and added links to Guardian article referenced in the section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.215.87 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits on Criticism section 

message: I removed this from the "Efficacy" since whoever wrote did not do enough research on the topic and decided to write his opinion about it.  As I found easily a 5 year study done by the University of California, San Diego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicktime (talk • contribs) 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficacy

message: What is a coffee enema?  How is it performed?  Can you used ground coffee or do you have to use whole beans?  Regular or Decafe (Copyright W.W.)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.192.10.219 (talk • contribs) 16:44-17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the facts: that they involve injecting cold coffee into your anus, that they occasionally result in death, and have no proven benefit, I don't think you want to know anything more. 80.168.87.20 18:18-18:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coffee Enema

message: I have cleared the references section, as these references were for the previous gerson propaganda version of the article, and are no longer applicable.80.168.87.18 14:26-14:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I have moved the following comments from the article to the discussion page, though as they are unattributed, unsupported personal opinion, and simple personal abuse it would perhaps be more valid to delete them entirely.
"The following section is corrupt and the negativity flowing from the writer proves that he/she has a slanted view. Do not believe the negative comments the writer has included, this person is obviously an unhappy individual who most probably doesn't have very many friends due to his/her agressive and insane behavior which was most probably created by the writers unhappiness with the size or shape of their genitals. We feel for you!"   (Added to article 04:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from article