Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!aecom!werner
From: werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Re: Unconventional Cancer Therapy
Message-ID: <1128@aecom.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Feb-85 00:18:32 EST
Article-I.D.: aecom.1128
Posted: Wed Feb  6 00:18:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 02:12:30 EST
References: <532@tesla.UUCP> <690@wucs.UUCP>
Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY
Lines: 30

> > Is there anyone out there following the Gerson Cancer Therapy method?
> > The Gerson doctors claim a cure rate of over 60% - for people who are
> > in advanced stages of cancer,

> > Most of today's M.D.'s, especially oncologists, have not had any in-depth
> > training even in standard nutritional principles, so I find it hard to
> > understand why they are so against a treatment with such a possibility
> > for success.  

	Whoa... 2 things: First of all, anything that advertises a 60% cure
rate for advanced cancer is suspect. It just doesn't happen that way. Some
cancers (and very few, I could list them) have that high a cure rate, but
only in the early stages. The rest are, shall we say, relentless.

	Secondly, since my desktop at this very moment is cluttered with
two reprints entitled:
	Surgical Nutrition
and	Cancer: Dietary and Nutritional Aspects
I resent the insinuation that oncologists specifically and MDs in
general don't care about nutrition.
	To tell you the truth, one of the unfortunate things we learn (and
is all too true) is that tumors tend to get better fed than the rest of the
body anyway, so most nutritional therapy just doesn't work when tried
clinically, can make matters worse, but does occasionally have some placebo
value. That's all.

-- 
				Craig Werner
				!philabs!aecom!werner
		What do you expect?  Watermelons are out of season!