How Juicing, Nutritional Therapy Has Saved People’s Health
In defense of the Gerson Therapy
Nutritional therapy as an alternative option for cancer treatment has recently gotten some bad press in Australia. With the death of blogger Jess Ainscough, whose life was extended by several years because of the Gerson therapy, and allegations that another natural health personality, Belle Gibson, had been faking a diagnosis of terminal brain cancer, the mainstream media has had a great time spreading the idea that nutritional therapy is ineffective and conventional medicine is the only option.
This has gone to the point where journalists are calling for greater government censorship, as if we didn’t have enough already.
But are nutritional therapies as an alternative to the old “cut, burn and poison” system really “quackery”? As I wrote in a previous article, the effectiveness of chemo in terms of its life-saving abilities has been found to be very low, which makes allegations of “quackery” quite hypocritical.
In addition to this, despite not being a profitable treatment for the medical industry, the Gerson therapy does have some positive research to justify its use. A small study on 5-year melanoma survival rates found that all 14 patients with stage I or II melanoma survived, compared with 79% of those treated conventionally. About 70% of the 33 stage III patients lived over 5 years, as opposed to 41% of conventionally treated patients.
As for the 18 stage IVA patients, 39% were still alive at the 5 year mark compared to 6% of patients undergoing conventional therapies. Although this was a small study, it shows that it is possible that the Gerson therapy is not only effective, but can be superior to conventional cancer treatment.
This may be partially explained by the Ling Association-Induction Hypothesis – the Gerson therapy is high is potassium and low in sodium, which forces sites on damaged cell proteins to accept potassium instead of only sodium, thus helping to restore their normal configurations.
It was also found among those melanoma patients that surgery, although invasive but also non-toxic, improved survival rates in advanced melanoma patients. Additionally, patients who took raw liver juice had a 95% 18 month survival rate as opposed to 56% for those who did not. But unfortunately this was permanently discontinued from the “official” protocol due to Campylobacter outbreaks in the 1980s, despite outbreaks being temporary and liver juice being life-saving.
As for those who enjoy making jokes about the coffee enemas used in the Gerson therapy, it has been shown that they can improve detoxification, reduce cancer pain and the consequent dependence on pharmaceutical drugs, and that certain constituents of coffee can have a profound anti-cancer effect. Some studies have shown that drinking coffee has a protective effect against some cancers, but with coffee enemas, the dosage is much higher and the detoxification effects greatly enhanced.
Even when watered down and used alongside conventional treatment, the Gerson therapy was shown in a study by a Dr Lechner to increase lifespan, reduce recurrences and metastases, reduce negative effects of conventional treatments and improve quality of life, depending on the type of cancer.
Besides these, there are many individual cases, fifty of which have been documented in one of the books written by Dr Max Gerson, and many more floating around on the Internet, because why would corporate media cover something that poses such a threat to some of their sponsors?
While more research and the re-introduction of raw liver juice is needed, the much neglected and made fun of Gerson Therapy has indeed been effective in curing many cases of cancer, even for patients whom conventional medicine had given up on. For this reason, health freedom must be increased instead of further restricted, because it will open more doors for research and thus improvement of nutritional therapies that, unlike chemo and radiation, are non-toxic and already more effective.
However, if more restrictions do appear to further repress the Australian population, it may become necessary for patients and practitioners to temporarily or permanently leave in order to take their health and life back into their own hands.