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!