Taking Charge of Your Health

100 thoughts on “Gerson Therapy vs. Chemotherapy

  1. You are naive. His research is very biased. Billions are made from chemotherapy and therefore, there is not an incentive to eradicate cancer. Why do you think it still exists? How long has the American Cancer Society been in existence, also making profit from it? If cancer was eradicated, look at all of the financial loss.

  2. my instincts says this study was fabricated by big pharma and big Cancer Society…….do not believe the big corporate…..

  3. f … off with your chemotherapy .just stop killing for the money !!! a life is much more important and if is not for a doctor for the gerson group is for sure .after only afew months they send u home to proceed but a doctor that makes u chemo will keep u in hospital until u give yr last breathe .that wat's happend to my father .so chemo ….think twice beff u choose it !!! is only dangerous for a live human being

  4. No mention of detox. This is essential to the Gerson Therapy. This whole study is B.S pharma propaganda. Nice try guys but we are on to you. Your days are numbered and when I get well again on the true Gerson Therapy you better believe I'm coming for you.

  5. Doctors supporting smoking is a shit example, and you know it. At the time, nobody knew what they were putting in cigarettes (which is the part that gives you cancer, not nicotine or tobacco itself), and nobody knew they were dangerous. Then we researched it and lo and behold it's harmful. What happened?
    We changed our tune!
    So, just present the evidence that "Big Pharma" is adding other stuff to drugs, or that medicine is going to kill you, or that this Gerson crap works, and we'll support it.

  6. Good answer, if you have absolutely no training in medicine. These are weasel questions asked by people that don't know anything about the process of drug development or diseases. "Why pay for it?" Well, because if I'm the first to get it out, I get a lot of money selling it! Purpose, cause, benefit? There's a demand, and if I fill the supply, both parties benefit. The patient isn't sick, and I can pay for my mortgage, pay off my debt, and afford to live.

  7. Right, cannabis didn't help at all with the cancer.It made him able to eat. While taking the cannabis oil, that kid was still getting high-dose chemotherapy. The chemo is what killed the cancer, and the cannabis oil was able to replace the other antiemetics that didn't help him.
    This oil isn't any better than, say, nabilone, which functions the same way as cannabis oils while having purity and dosing standards.

  8. Gods… I should have learned not to present evidenced based medicine to youtube wackos… the grammar is enough to make me cry blood.

    "They" don't add anything to drugs that they haven't told you is in there. This is a fact, and is mandated by law (The Pure Food and Drug Act).
    Nobody in medicine wants to keep people unhealthy, because that would be unethical and diminish trust in the system. Period.
    Your paranoid delusions, while amusing, won't convince any learnèd person… just more wackos.

  9. Not to do what you were born to do?
    Lemme tell you something, humanity was "born" to have an average life expectancy of less than 40 years. Humanity was born to die from childhood diseases and mothers were born to die in childbirth with their unborn.

    I'm not defending domesticating humans, I'm defending the medical system's work to make sure you live as long as you can, live as fully as you wish, and act as stupid as you want.
    You, though, are defending willful ignorance, and I pity you for it.

  10. chemotherapy and radiation therapy poison and mutate living cells…..makes sense they should treat cancer.

    and I ABSOLUTELY love the emperor's new clothes!! Gorgeous!!

  11. It isn't. Before medicine, the average life expectancy was less than 40 due to a high rate of childhood diseases and difficult births/pregnancies. Once you made to adulthood, you'd be lucky to make it to 65 (around 1% of adults would live past 65).

    Now in America, the average life expectancy is above 70.

    ignorance is ignoring the facts, or ignoring the experience of medical professionals, and intentionally living in a delusional fantasy land where raw fruit and coffee enemas can cure cancer.

  12. 70% raw diet is NOT Gerson therapy. Gerson therapy involves 100% raw amongst other factor. Typical biased rubbish!!

  13. Remember, A patient cured is a customer lost.

    Big Pharma will try to debunk anything that will hurt their profits.

    It's all about the money.

  14. I assume the Gerson Institute provides treatment for free? Of course not, it's always for profit no matter who's providing you with care. Except, even when Gerson "cures" you, they still sell you all kinds of stuff. So who's benefiting now? Just look at their store on the website and ignore the fact that they offer no peer reviewed studies on their site.

    Have a look at this article and get the full picture: "The (Not-So-)Beautiful (Un)Truth about the Gerson protocol and cancer quackery

  15. "Detox" is a pseudo scientific term that most quacks use. Considering our body naturally removes toxins WITHOUT the aid of enemas, "master cleanses", or other money-wasting, ineffective and often dangerous practices, it makes you wonder who's pushing propaganda – the doctors with the science to back them up or the doctors with no evidence to support their treatment. Gerson may "work" anecdotally, but so can a lollipop with the help of placebo.

  16. Watched this video, and it's just another piece of 'anecdotal' info. It is VERY obvious that you must have a finger in the pie of making money from cancer patients. Lots of people like you busily posting all over the web with their lies and disinfo. You're a poor, sad person

  17. Finger in the pie? What the hell are you talking about? I want cancer patients to survive, not follow some unproven alternative therapy that delays actual treatment.

  18. Rather than appealing to emotion, why not use evidence? Do you think the people working for drug companies are conspiring to keep us sick? Do you think they are immune to disease? Their families? Their friends?

    People beat cancer with chemo, that's PROVEN fact for a large part of patients. Gerson Therapy? Hasn't proven anything in how many years? 50+? Come on, if you have something to share, please do so.

  19. What are you talking about with your rambling now? "… we license clinics that practice the full Gerson Therapy according to our high standards for treatment." They certainly do provide (aka. "license") treatment… prove that treatment works in a scientific setting, that's all that skeptics want.

    "Show me someone who can make a buck off a dying person" Funeral homes… your move…

  20. Because anyone making claims without backing them up is a quack – they spout nonsense. Religious folks, homeopaths, raw foodists, Mercola, NaturalNews… all quacks.

    "So in your mind any therapy that uses any juice (even OJ from concentrate) is not only essentially, but exactly the same as the entire Gerson therapy?" Red herring… prove the Gerson Therapy works – using their exact protocol. The liver extract, the caster oil, the enzymes… prove it all works.

  21. This Gonzalez character sounds like burzynski, who blamed his failed results on other people… I would never stake my life on individuals who can't prove their own methods and lay down a blame game on others.

  22. *sigh*… gerson can write whatever he wants to in a book. But what that book and it's contents has been analyzed, it gives no validity to his claim.

    Quack "A person who dishonestly claims to have special knowledge in some field, typically in medicine."

    Quackery "medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings."

    Thank you, this describes Gerson's and the therapy.

    Is it any wonder why the quackwatch is loaded with Gerson related stuff

  23. Anyone who knows anything about science (InvisiMan, for example) knows (not thinks,knows) that any unproven therapy (=quackery) does not work. How do they know? Because if it did work it would have been proven. Anyone who knows about science knows that. So if anyone tells you that any patient recovered on the Gerson therapy there are two possibilities: either they didn't have cancer (misdiagnosed) or they recovered for some other reason. These are facts. Only a fool would try to argue with them.

  24. You have mastered the tactics of bullying. You know good and well the Gerson people don't have the funds to test their therapy, otherwise they would have done so decades ago.
    But I will grant you that a lot of people/organizations/hospitals using the Gerson name are 100% quacks.
    Read Gerson's biography by his grandson (Straus) and you will learn the origin of the therapy, whether he was out to make a buck, and why the therapy must be followed exactly. Otherwise anything you say is uninformed.

  25. Okay. You like peer reviewed? G. L. Hildenbrand, L. C. Hildenbrand, K. Bradford, and S. W. Cavin; "Five-Year Survival Rates of Melanoma Patients Treated by Diet Therapy after the Manner of Gerson: A Retrospective Review;' Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 1,
    no. 4 (1995): 29-37.
    See if you can find that on the shelves of Whole Foods Market. T.Colin Campbell cites it in "Whole". But Hildenbrand is one of those who have modified the therapy according to their own whims. Not orthodox.

  26. So you would stake your life on those who have proven that their treatment will keep you alive an average of 6 weeks (Stage 4 NSCLC diagnosis)? Oh my, you are a clever one!
    Blame game? What are you talking about? The Gerson Institute tries to assist those who choose to not go the conventional route. They are a registered non-profit organization. If you believe they are out to make a buck…
    Yeah they can't prove their methods because they don't have trillions of dollars like big pharma.

  27. PERSONALLY, I'd focus on improving quality of life and not necessarily extending life. I'd be a supporter in GT if there was proof it actually did what it claims. If they claimed that it improves quality of life as an adjunctive therapy, then I'd support it. But the claims are that it cures cancer & disease and I don't buy that.

    I don't necessarily agree with Big Pharma's business model, but there's no doubting that some of their products have improved our lives tremendously.

  28. The Gerson people are not mentally retarded. They are clearly aware that if they claimed it improved quality of life as an adjunctive therapy there would be a lot more "customers".
    As for their claims, of the patients they now treat about 10% with terminal cancer recover (about 30% of all patients). They claim that it allows the body to heal itself. If a patient is too poisoned with chemo, etc. the body cannot recover.
    They may be wrong, but they believe what they claim from their experience.

  29. "… of the patients they now treat about 10% with terminal cancer recover (about 30% of all patients)." Where did they publish those figures?

    "They claim that it allows the body to heal itself. " Possibly, but have they demonstrated that it's specifically because of their protocol or the substances they use, or is it because the patients have eliminated something that was aggravating their condition? I gave examples of why it's important several posts back in my water fast analogy.

  30. If you are genuinely interested in the genesis of the therapy and why they believe that it does what they claim, I would recommend "Healing the Hopeless" by Gerson's grandson Howard Straus. The answer to your question is not simple. The book contains things I would not have expected, such as Dr. Gerson ate meat until he died and never had a coffee enema. After all, he wasn't sick.
    The figures were not published, they were an estimate by Kayla Smith, N.D. in answer to a question this July.

  31. I'm not really interested in a biography – I know much about Gerson, but I'm looking for evidence for his claims – real, trusted evidence.

    I'll try to follow up with Kayla Smith to see where I can get details into their success rates. From looking at reviews from other case studies from the GTI, they love to omit "drop outs", so the only people they have left are the ones who seemed successful. It would be a very dishonest way of presenting numbers, but I'll confirm that with Kayla.

  32. According to Gerson, the body heals itself because a lot of things aggravating the condition are eliminated, not just food (cosmetics, cleansers,etc.). The therapy as they understand it works because it removes all things (possible) harmful and adds as many beneficial things as possible. The alchemy is what to add and what to leave out, and Gerson was fine tuning the therapy up to his death. After his book he discovered flaxseed oil was beneficial.
    FYI water is strictly forbidden in the therapy.

  33. You can't really design a double blind study of the therapy, the juices/coffee enemas are kind of hard to fake. And nobody would fund it anyway. Since most people that believe in the therapy believe in it very strongly I am sure that they would warmly welcome scientific scrutiny.
    Returning to the leaving things out theme, I was surprised to learn that there are vegetarians (before they got cancer) that recovered on the therapy (the GI will give you their phone numbers).

  34. If I was in the business of treating cancer patients and was dishonest and interested in skewing data, I doubt that I would hoist a banner claiming a 10% recovery rate (it was 30% when Dr. Gerson was alive for terminal cases). Maybe they are just dumb, but there must be some reason that the therapy doesn't dry up and blow away like so many snake oils before it.
    Also, the therapy is not one size fits all, they tailor it to each patient/disease.

  35. Nobody can give you what you want: scientific evidence that either disproves or proves the effectiveness of the regimen. If they could, this video would not exist and we would not be having this conversation.
    It is a sad commentary on our so-called health care system that a protocol that has lasted and remained strong for nearly a hundred years with no credible detractors cannot find an organization or an individual to put it to the test one way or another. And my meaning is not "Gerson-like".

  36. From your comments I suspect that you don't know as much about Gerson as you believe you do. Unfortunately, to get an unbiased view of any contested issue, you have to delve into biased accounts from both sides. In the case of the Gerson therapy, in my opinion, to understand how it was developed and what it is all about, there is no other source than Gerson's grandson's (typo-ridden) biography of him. Granted, the book contains a few things that are unrelated to the therapy, but not much.

  37. To the best of my knowledge the figures are unpublished and are a rough estimate from a ND who is in perhaps the best position to give such an estimate.
    Suppose that the effectiveness of the treatment was solely because of eliminating salt from the diet. Would that make the treatment any less effective?
    Getting back to Gerson's biography, roughly speaking, anything that flared up Gerson's own migraines was left out of the protocol and anything that didn't was tested for effectiveness.

  38. They claim that it assists the body in healing itself from "chronic degenerative diseases" such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, MS, etc. They have never claimed it was a "cancer cure" (the screwball documentaries by Steve Kroschel were not concocted by the Gerson Institute and they mix a lot of truth and outright deception).
    The question is whether one's best chance of healing from serious disease is for the body to heal itself and if so how to achieve that end.

  39. They didn't do the coffee enemas AND they only use 70% raw food, was it even organic? They don't mention supplements, and on and on, and how can they possibly say quality of life was better with CHEMO? Everyone knows what quality of life is like with chemo. Don't think you pulled this one over on us.

  40. Charlote Gerson admited that pancreatic cancer is hard to be cured with the Gerson Therapy… Specially if that person had chemo before… So its nothing knew

  41. Now I'm confused… Dr. Greger has been touting plant based diets killing cancer, but he says the Gerson treatment doesn't work, which I thought was a plant based diet! I thought this guy was on our side. As far as the quality of life thing goes, I think something is being left out.

  42. Pseudo science? Nutrition is pseudo science? I don't think we are living in the same reality. You are what you eat, it just makes sense. But you can have your chemicals if it makes you happy. To each their own. I'll have my lollipop.

  43. Nutrition? You said "detox"…

    "You are what you eat, it just makes sense." Yeah, so I wonder where coffee enemas and Ox bile fit in…

  44. You have to actually read about what's involved with the Gerson Therapy and then it might make more sense… coffee enemas, liver capsules, colostrum, pancreatic enzymes, ox bile… yeah…

    It also excludes the foods which Dr. Greger has reported as being highly beneficial: legumes, mushrooms, soy, nuts and seeds,berries.

  45. Yeah I have the Gerson books & as of yet I haven't found liver capsules, colostrum, pancreatic enzymes, & ox bile included in the treatment.

  46. It's all over their website… they even link to suppliers for those products too… of course, if you don't know what "Pancreatin" is, you may have just not realized it was pancreatic enzymes from an animal. The ox-bile and liver are clearly stated.

  47. And to be honest, those things are listed many times in the "Gerson Therapy Handbook"… not sure which book you're reading but it's there.

  48. You know what? You are right, but as crappy as those things seem to sound, from what I can tell it's having a better success rate then chemo poisoning. Unless you have proof to the contrary (& not just a rumors) I'm thinkin it's a good treatment.

  49. There's the problem. It's not up to the medical community to prove that Gerson DOESN'T WORK, it's up to the Gerson institute to prove it does. Right now, all they have are anecdotes, but even the "evidence" they've published isn't convincing at all. "Better success"? Yeah, according to website testimonials? It's like believing the people on "As Seen On TV" infomercials.

  50. And people still diss science. Not taking chemotherapy for cancer is exactly as stupid as it sounds.

    There is a large weakness in the study though: lack of true control group or if that's deemed unethical, a combined treatment group. They should've done that to see if the Gerson therapy does anything. As it is, there's a confounder – it might have some efficacy, but much lower than conventional treatment.

  51. Look, Gerson was a quack and his therapy doesn't work. How do I know? Big pharma told me and why would they lie? Anyone looking at anything besides chemo/radiation to treat cancer is just wasting their time and money. If shoving coffee up your arse would cure cancer the medical community couldn't keep it a secret. And lord knows there have been many scientific experiments to prove this. Hell, carrot juice probably CAUSES cancer. Enjoy life while you have it. When the doc says you have cancer and are going to die, that's it. Take your chemo/radiation like a good boy and get your affairs in order.

  52. Actually it is not "up to the Gerson people to prove it works." Of course, the medical establishment does not have to prove it is ineffective, but whether it is proven or not does not have any relationship to its effectiveness. It is obvious that nobody is going to put up the money to test it, Gerson doesn't have it, and Big Pharma has nothing to gain. So the basic choice is between the paradigm of assisting the body in healing itself vs. slash & burn. Each cancer patient must make their own choice. That is my opinion. If you don't like it, curse me.

  53. Big pharma doesn't support it because they won't get a fat paycheck from it. Simple as that. And doctors who support all- natural over big pharma are called quaks. Ever wondered what a soda pop looks like without water? Not something you can find in a textbook.

  54. Sorry, I don't believe this study.  Sounds to me like some of the information was either left out or the study was biased in some way. Also, the cost for buying a few months is usually left for the remaining family to pay for as a whole foods vegan diet is much cheaper.

  55. Doctor, I like your videos generally, but what you have not taken into account is that any report by the medical establishment is going to try to destroy the credibility of the Gerson method because Gerson, if allowed to operate legally, would wipe out the livelihood of oncologists and the profits of big pharma. The mistake in this case lies in actually depending only on supposedly "scientific" research. Follow the money…

  56. Gerson "Like" therapy?? What does that even mean?   Why are Doctors in Japan adopting Gerson? This study is yet another attack on something that would prove a holistic approach might be the best. Next time they should make a study where The Gerson Personel actually performs the Gerson Therapy and not – God knows who doing "Gerson Like therapy" – how valid is that really?? Scientific?? You disappoint me Greger. Maybe you should take a vacation trip to one of their places and see their patient files.
    As good as you are and as much as we do love your work. Once in a while its okey to stop being the narrator of others "work" and actually think outside the box. When it comes to Gerson you could go there and see their patient files. In the end they want the same thing as you do – to heal patients.

    I mean come on think for a second – there's not any fiber of your body that thinks this study could have been setup from the beginning to get results like these?

  57. Did I read this correctly??? 69-81 "enzyme" capsules per DAY???? And this is supposedly equivalent to the the Gerson therapy. WOW, "doctor", you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such a misleading and downright deceitful information. This is NOTHING like Gerson therapy. Because there's coffee enema and raw food involved, it must be the same right? Who's paying you??

  58. I'm sure I read that Gerson has a 70% cure rate which means it doesn't work for some cancers and some people. What I found odd is that the chemo patients had a better quality of life in their last months…chemotherapy devastates the body, my mum had the worst constipation where she could hardly sit comfertable, she had no taste- everytime she put something in her mouth it tasted like rotten fish and the most awful vomiting and night sweats. So I can only conclude that the alternative patients must have gone through hell, possibly with pain and in the Gerson therapy patients are given between 1and 10 coffee enemas a day to deal with pain, so maybe thats why they suffered if they didn't take enemas.

  59. This video is politics plain and simple. The study in which you are calling the Gerson's diet was nothing of the the sort. It states a 70% raw foods diet with enzymes. First off the Gerson's diet cooks the hell out of the 3 meals a day you get to make them easy to break down, the juice is raw and there are way more than just enzymes supplemented. Your video is like comparing a handshake to being punched in the face because being punched in the face has a hand in it also.

    It is a shame that doctors choose profit over peoples well being, if you think Gerson is wrong be a real doctor and pickup where he left off and apply what we know today because any fool can see his research had many effective findings in defeating cancer.

  60. This doctor does not claim to present the ultimate truth, but to present the most current nutritional research. "He reads the studies, so we won't have to." However, the doctor many times does a more in depth analysis and gives his opinion, which sadly he did not do in this video.

    I think that neither the doctor or the study are incorrect. I think that the study was strategically designed to show these results to feed the idea that chemo is the best alternative. The national cancer institute funded it and it strategically chose a cancer that does not have good success rate with Gerson therapy and they altered the treatment just enough so that it would not have positive results, yet close enough that they could claim they studied a Gerson-like therapy.

    The fact that the study even compared this treatment to Gerson's goes to show that they might actively be trying to give it a bad name. Maybe they feel threatened by the Gerson therapy?

  61. Dr Greger, perhaps you should research the Gerson files in sitio before relying on biased peer review journals that hate alternative therapies that do not follow the rules and trends of modern allopathic medicine.

  62. The study seems incorrect, they didnt do the Gerson, to my knowledge they dont take magnesium citrate, and I didnt hear any mention of Lugols solution, potassium salts, slow cooked meals, and 12 glasses of raw carrot/apple and other green juices, flax oil etc etc etc, not saying they dont have failures but it wasnt the Gerson and too many enzyme tabs were taken anyway, if this study was done in order to make Gerson and other similar therapies look bad, fair enough this will happen, but if people died, man thats bad form.

  63. This isn't right at all. Our bodies is a self healing machine. I ran into one of my buddies from highschool not too long ago. He knows I am interested in health because we follow eachother on Facebook and he always sees my post. Je brought up that his dad had stage 3 cancer and went on the gerson therapy and he was completely cancer free in 5 months. Nobody dies from cancer right away. It's the chemo that makes you die faster. While there is life, there is hope. Stay strong and healthy everyone 🙂

  64. As I see it, this was back in 2012 .
    I love Dr. Greger so much, I can just hope that he has changed his opinion about the Gerson Therapy .

  65. Gerson "Style" Regime? Not THE Gerson Therapy protocol? That is a red flag. The Gerson therapy is VERY strict and specific. You don't sort-of do the Gerson therapy. That would not be the Gerson therapy. Did they also sort-of do the chemotherapy? I see a lot of links but not a link to the actual study. And the quality of life was better with vomiting and hair falling out? Something is fishy here.

  66. Lot of enzymes tablets seems mostly the Dr. Gonzales therapy not the Gerson one. Probably Gerson was too demanding to do so they chose the next one in line lol. Gerson therapy is more then a full time therapy and it is nearly impossible for people to do alone. It recommends use of distilled water for the 13 daily juices, showers with purified water without Fluoride or Chlorine, Several Coffee enemas every day. I really would like to see the actual study done. Where is it? Gerson Therapy has been around for over 100 years and has cured countless sick people. If was all made up people would have known it long ago.

  67. Gerson Cured himself from cancer by Consuming Apples Only for 4 months. In accordance with a Methionine Restrictive diet as advocated by the Nutritional Oncology Research Institute.; As Apples have the lowest Methionine levels of any common food.

    I believe he had it right in the first place…Then spent 40 years – "Screwing it up" ,adding all the other components he imagined to be beneficial….. Apples only , was the answer.


  68. Water Fasting before during and after chemotherapy treatment the rats lived, those on no fast chemo & standard diet died ? Dr A Goldhamer mention,s this, and also has water fasting study reversing lymphoma cancer published in British Medical Journa recentlyl. Is the gerson therapy injecting calf liver? and is it only for pancreatic.

  69. I suspect this study was covered to prove he doesn't cherry-pick his studies. Dr. Greger walks a fine line talking truth to power. He is changing the world almost single-handedly. But the establishment must still be reckoned with.

    Perhaps this is meant to incite more studies be run by those that know it's not representative of reality.

  70. A "Gerson STYLE???? Protocol," REALLY? RAW and minimally cooked?! You have got to be kidding!!! You TOOL, DR. GREGOR!! You didn't even read her book. Ok, didn't think we'd have to go there but I guess we do. "Can we all say JUICING boys and girls?!" CAN WE GO TO THE GERSON CLINIC FOR SOME INFORMATION MAYBE?! AND NOT THE SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX FOR THEIR OPINION OF A GERSON STYLE PROTOCOL?!? YOU SLAY ME YOU BUM. (What a sell-out.)

  71. I love Dr Greger, I have met him and bought his book. BUT I am afraid when you compare Gerson STYLE REGIME, its not Gerson! Like saying we compared with a Chemo style; meaning not following the clinical methodology. Well of course it will be worse because its not comparing it with the real methodology.

    I think you should change the title to remove Gerson or remove the video. Not one of your best pieces of work….:(

  72. You have lost all credibility. But that is insignificant when compared to the number of people who stop considering Gerson therapy because of this video.
    When most oncologists wouldn't even take their own treatments, what does that say about chemo and radiation?
    That's what the studies say but these studies are never biased, never motivated by big pharma right? Read up on the what went wrong with the Nicholas Gonzalez trial.
    Loss a lot credibility here because you're just repeating the big pharma commandments without any critical analysis.

  73. Charlote Gerson admitted that pancreatic cancer is hard to be cured with the Gerson Therapy… Specially if that person had chemo before… So its nothing knew

  74. I almost believed, but to believe it I have to know who funded this research. We know how "they" operate.

  75. Gerson like therapy? If a doctor says you need to do X,Y, and Z and then you only do X and fail to recover, we would not conclude that the treatment is ineffective. Yet this is what is happening here. Not to mention The Gerson Institute is very upfront about which cancers it works for and which it does not.

  76. Either Dr. Greger is telling the truth or he I can't trust a word he says for now on. My assumption is that the Gerson Therapy is primarily raw food diet through juces and coffee enmas. So Dr. Greger is saying all the positive feedback on the internet of people healing themselves and preventing cancer growth is all lies or paid testimonials. I always give the people the benefit of the doubt over institutions because these large institutions have a track record of foul play.

    One thing to mention all these patients are on the worst stage of cancer and I believe all alternative health organizations claim they cannot guarantee a recovery once you are to far gone which would explain why chemo had a better survival or quality of life rate. So I don't think that says anything negative about the Gerson Therapy though this video seems more like a smear campaign from the websites I have read.

  77. Gerson Therapy is logical , bring the body back into the state were it can heal itself els detox .
    Chemo is poison and look at the patients , they are almost dead and sick , very sick.
    2 out of a hundred people survive , logical if you put more poison into a stick body .
    Hospitals buy in their Chemo and doctors get money for treating patients .
    Gerson saves people , look at many people who got better .
    Chemo kills , simple as that .

  78. Better quality of life in chemo? there's no worst quality of life than chemo, it's like you were a couple of miles from hiroshima's bomb, if you've seen someone in the late stage of cancer that is doing chemo you know there's no worst than that period, also you have not done your research about what excatly patients in the baja clinic do everyday.

  79. This video is very strange and contradicting. Other sources say low methionine can stop cancer cells growing, and Gerson therapy is exatly low on methionine, so what?

  80. WARNING: BIAS. Greger gives kudos to Big Pharma controlled AMA and ACA. Bullsh*t science here. He is comparing apples to oranges. Gerson-like methods in this study not even close to being equal to real Gerson therapy. MAJOR DIFFERENCES!!!

  81. I will never support chemo or radiotherapy based on the evidence that 99% of people in my family who’ve had cancer, followed conventional medicine are all dead and spent more time in hospital than at home. Lost mobility and independence and chemo did not prolong their life. No quality of life at all.

    I had a friend that lived ten years after her diagnosis by simply following a raw vegan diet and we’re talking about BRACS breast cancer here.

    The thing that’s missing from all of this is the body’s own ability to heal which it does all the time. We are so conditioned to accept the path of least resistance, accept chemo a byproduct of the nuclear industry, rather than explore balancing Ph levels and allow our body to heal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *