Talk:Max Gerson

Message for edit warring IP
I left the following message for the edit warring IP:

Please follow the BRD process. Even if your edits are not identical each time, repeated attempts to insert such content, when they have repeatedly been rejected, is considered edit warring, or at least testing its limits. Please use the article's talk page to Discuss (the "D" in BRD) the matter. Trying to insert special pleading in favor of a widely discredited and dangerous practice is not helpful. Advocacy of fringe theories is not allowed and can get you blocked. Accurately describing them is allowed, and that's what has been done. Per NPOV, responses and criticisms must be included, and they are. Trying to water them down violates NPOV, so don't do it. NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the usual sense; it does not mean we present matters as a false equivalency. All reliable sources (RS), and major scientific organizations which speak on the matter, are unequivocally against Gerson Therapy and accurately describe its dangers. The article sides with RS, but also describes the therapy as described in unreliable (Gerson friendly) sources. That way all significant sides of the controversy are presented with the proper balance and due weight which they deserve. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This article sounds incredibly biased against Gerson. There is a lot of other information left out that would give a more balanced view.172.222.102.134 (talk)

"Melatoma"?
What's melatoma? Is that a typo? I'd fix it, but I'm no medical expert. Perhaps there is something called melatoma. LightSpeed (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The source cited says melanoma - I've corrected the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Beyond uneducated and biased wiki page
"The therapy is both ineffective and dangerous"

First of all, I believe the writer of this page needs to look into people such as John Christopher, Richard Schulze and Bernard Jensen. Following your research, you need to look into Hippocrates Health Institute. These men and that institution implements many dynamics of Gerson Therapy, and all have had wildly impressive results with numerous testimonies.

The supporting sources make vague allusions to "inconclusive" results simply because no large-scale studies have been conducted.

"There is very little scientific evidence to support the use of other components of the Gerson regimen" "There have been no well-controlled studies published in the available medical literature that show the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer."

As per the very site you source. The fact of the matter is Gerson Therapy and its many dynamics have been in use by a multitude of other alternative health practitioners and institutions, all the while having more success than our modern cancer treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6D:B140:2DF8:E1A5:6C82:1D53 (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"As per the very site you source. The fact of the matter is Gerson Therapy and its many dynamics have been in use by a multitude of other alternative health practitioners and institutions, all the while having more success than our modern cancer treatment"

This is entirely untrue. Please provide citations and exact pieces of information for your rebuttal. Genesystems (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Max Gerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080721124452/http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/cp97.pdf to http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/cp97.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Balance of Information
In this page on Max Gerson, his contributions are presented through a particular point of view. The introductory paragraph, for example, ends in a strong condemnation: "The National Cancer Institute evaluated Gerson's claims and concluded that his data showed no benefit from his treatment.[1] The therapy is both ineffective and dangerous.[2][3]" All references are dated : 2009 and 2010.

In 2016, Harvard is offering coursework on medical nutrition. i.e. Harvard Medical School (article, HMS) Opposing opinion is needed in order to give substantive explanation about who Max Gerson was, and why his work is controversial. An example of the type of information that would be helpful includes cross referencing, containing information on allopathic medicine's rejection of nutritionally-based therapy, or examples of other nutritionally based therapies and their founders. ALso, the references for the one strong opinion given, reportedly a conclusion of 'evaluation,' though no method is sited, is less impressive on examination of the sources and their investment in traditional cancer treatments. i.e. American Cancer Society and profit reports on such non-profit cancer treatment centers as Sloan-Kettering. --JnetNorthwest (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)JnetNorthwest, 11:35 AM, March 8, 2016
 * His work is not "controversial", it's the worst kind of quackery. All sane/quality sources agree. Wikipedia reflects that, to be neutral. We don't give space to opposing views if they're nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a bit of a faulty syllogism there (Max Gerson made wild and unsubstantiated claims about nutrition; Harvard acknowledges that nutrition is part of medicine (not that that's actually a new-as-of-2016 story); therefore Harvard has endorsed Gerson) as a part of an itself-dubious argumentum ad Harvardum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016
The link to Charlotte Gerson in this article not work nor can she be found on Wikipedia. Also this write up is not unbiased!

76.123.37.206 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Link removed since it is a redirect back to this article. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not unbiased in what way? Please be specific. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Things To Know about the Gerson Therapy
(This paragraph should be added) Gerson wanted the diet to be pure and fresh. He decided that food was medicine. The food must be fresh, organically or biologically grown to be healthy enough to work. Gerson patients shouldn't add anything or change the therapy without advice or help from a certified Gerson Therapy practitioner. Some things may be added to fit the appropiate needs of the patients. Some patients failed to cure their cancer from this therapy due to too many modifications in the diet. This therapy has cured many different diseases when used as directed. Medical advice is adviced. The Gerson Therapy may reduce one's chances of recovery if not reviewed or checked up on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.9.185.41 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is unlikely that such a statement would be added unless it could be supported by robust, reliable sources; see Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources for medical information for help on how to identify such sources. (Frankly, such sources almost certainly do not exist.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Gerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420191809/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Gerson_Therapy.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Gerson_therapy.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Melanoma studies
Making History with New Melanoma Research. Posted by The Gerson Institute on Monday, May 8, 2017.

"This year, GRO and GI are teaming up again (and involving outside experts) to conduct and publish melanoma survival data covering 40 years of melanoma management. More than 500 melanoma-patient records exist, meaning that the survival data will be large enough to repel skepticism."

It mentions this 1995 report:

The Wikipedia article currently only mentions the negative result of melanoma treatment of one patient, but fails to mention these positive results. This is a violation of WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the Institute would be considered reliable for such claims, let alone a MEDRS source. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So you are saying the authors of the 1995 report are lying? Shouldn't the reader decide that? From the 1995 report:
 * "GL Gar Hildenbrand, L Christeene Hildenbrand, and Karen Bradford are from the Gerson Research Organization in San Diego, Calif, and Shirley W Cavin is from the University of California, San Diego, Cancer Prevention and Control Program."
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * They don't have to be lying to produce a misleading analysis. (And some stuff that's actually disclosed seems ethically dubious, even for the 1990s&mdash;but we'll leave that aside.)  For instance, page 31 (page 3 of the paper) has this howler regarding the recruitment of some patients:
 * "In 1993 the Gerson Research Organization began publishing a free newsletter for current and past patients, who were invited to join a support network. ... Through this route, several independently treated patients were discovered, contacts were established with their physicians, and data were collected and used in this study."
 * Now, the paper purports to be looking at 5-year survival for patients treated between 1975 and 1990. If you look at patients who signed up for a newsletter and support group (and were therefore, presumably, alive) in 1993 or later, then the five-year survival among those patients is 100% for any one of them treated from 1975 to 1988.  If the study authors make that kind of error – inadvertently or deliberately – and they publish in a journal that doesn't notice or doesn't care, then we absolutely should not trust the source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Gerson therapy has been around for decades before and after that newsletter began. Many books too. So I highly doubt that info on patients came solely from that newsletter. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope I was not misunderstood. They obviously included patients who died too in their results. And assuming good faith I assume they heard of, and reported on, patients that died through that newsletter, support group, and many other channels. Gerson therapy, is common knowledge among many people into natural foods, organic foods, etc.. So if the word got out that they were looking for what happened to previous patients, then they would have heard of some of those patients, both successfully treated, and not. I make no judgement as to how good the therapy is. I am honestly curious, and I want the results after the much larger number of patients that have been treated since then. And I want thorough peer review.
 * So this first study should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Verbiage such as: "a very small tentative study got such and such results." --Timeshifter (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't have to assume good faith; you have to read what was in the paper. You definitely shouldn't assume that the study was done properly when a plain reading of the authors' own words indicates that it was not.  (The passage I quoted was far from the only glaring problem in the manuscript, by the way.)
 * Incidentally, the recruitment press release (which you linked above) indicates that they're intent on repeating the same flawed recruitment strategy this time around, and that they have already decided on a result for their study. This isn't how you do honest science.  So no, we're not going to include a crappy 22-year-old study from a crappy journal.  That's so far outside WP:MEDRS it isn't funny. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your only proof of a flawed recruitment strategy is a statement that I pointed out does not necessarily mean what you think it says. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If I thought you were genuinely interested in discussing the merits of the paper, I might be willing to do so&mdash;in another forum, because this talk page isn't the appropriate place. (WP:MEDRS is clearly not satisfied by this publication, so we don't need to go any further here.  Article talk pages aren't intended for general chat.)  As it is, it's abundantly clear that you haven't read the paper, don't have the background to understand it, or don't care about the problems with it because you want to embrace its conclusions.  Further engagement with you isn't likely to be fruitful, so I'm going to bow out.  A lack of response to any additional comments from you should not be mistaken for agreement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If I assume good faith that they are including all the patient results that they find then they may have justification for their prediction that a larger study may also show good results in comparison to other treatments. So far, I see no justification to not assume good faith. One starts with good faith until proven otherwise. You seem to be starting with a bias. An admin with an agenda is one of the worst possible things in Wikipedia in my opinion. I have written about this many times. And I understand WP:MEDRS, and have participated in discussions at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). --Timeshifter (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The study doesn't begin to meet MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What an odd remark. I haven't mentioned – let alone used – admin tools in relation to either this article or to you, Timeshifter.  I can't imagine how me being an admin has anything to do with you wanting to use a crappy source.   For my part, I've written fairly extensively about how editors with an agenda who don't understand the sources they're citing is one of the worst possible things in Wikipedia; I suppose we're all entitled to our opinions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Gerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930225912/http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/gerson-therapy to http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/gerson-therapy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Obscure movie
"Some continue to advocate for Gerson therapy, including filmmaker Steve Kroschel in the 2008 film The Beautiful Truth, which The New York Times criticized as 'a feature-length infomercial' for a discredited regimen. David H. Gorski, an oncologist, categorized the film among works that purvey false hope to those with cancer and their families."

Can you please quote the relevant content from the new (Gorski) ref, and identify exactly what is verified from it?

The NYTimes says Discredited by the medical establishment but passionately defended by its followers Does that verify the content? I'd say no, that it's OR/SYN. It verifies that there are followers of the therapy, and that Kroschel advocates for it. Who cares? --Hipal (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Who cares?" We follow what the reliable sources talk about; that's the whole point of DUE/UNDUE. Reliable sources (the U.S.' paper of record and a book published by Springer) talk about this film. They care, so we care.As to the NYT cite (which dates back to the content I salvaged from 2011), it should probably have in-text attribution to Nathan Lee, per WP:RSOPINION, but I still don't see how there's an OR/SYN issue. If we change that to "which Nathan Lee in The New York Times criticized as "a feature-length infomercial" for a discredited regimen", then Nathan Lee saying and  absolutely verifies that claim. SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. No claim is being made that is not made in the source.The relevant portion of Gorski can be previewed at  ("Look Inside", search "Gerson"). Under a heading of "False Hope", he gives it as an example of media touting "natural cancer cures", before noting there is no scientific basis for it and getting a bit into the history of the Gerson Center.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's actually a fair bit more review-mining to do here than was done pre-2011. See S.F. Chronicle ("One of 2008's most notable documentaries"), L.A. Times, LA Weekly, Variety, Slant. (Also a Time Out review that appears lost to time, plus a few less notable publications.) To the extent that these reviews contain medical commentary by professional film reviewers, they are of course worthless, but for showing that the film is not dreadfully obscure and received RS coverage (honestly probably enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, let alone get a paragraph in the article the film was merged to way way back), I hope they suffice. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, my writing "who cares" was to reference UNDUE again. Apologies that I wasn't clear. --Hipal (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)