Is it illegal to promote Gerson Therapy at the World Snooker Championship?

The World Snooker Championship is always a tense affair. What makes me especially nervous this year is the (almost certainly illegal) advertising of the unproven and dangerous Gerson Therapy on Peter Ebdon’s waistcoat.

Peter Ebdon: Vegan Champion!

Earlier this month, on the 30 Bananas a Day site, Ebdon wrote with enthusiasm of his win in Beijing, where he took the opportunity to promote The China Study, Forks over Knives and Healing the Gerson Way.

In later comments, he explained that his father died of lung cancer last year and speculated

how many tens of millions of people have died, through mis-information, conventional drug treatments and by just not knowing that nature itself, offers a cure to most degenerative diseases, through organic fruits and vegetables, since Dr Gerson first began to successfully treat cancer patients, back in the 1920’s?

Ebdon also recommended a selection of nutritionist documentaries and books and explained that he has recently become fascinated by learning of the ‘incredible healing power and success of The Gerson Therapy’.

I believe that Peter Ebdon has been misinformed and that belief in regimes such as Gerson Therapy can be harmful, even dangerous.

What is Gerson Therapy?

According to the Gerson Institute, it is

a natural treatment that activates the body’s extraordinary ability to heal itself through an organic, vegetarian diet, raw juices, coffee enemas and natural supplements.

It consists of ‘flooding the body with nutrients from about 15- 20 pounds of organically grown fruits and vegetables daily’. They also also recommend ‘detoxification’ by means of up to five coffee enemas a day.

They clearly have their own definition of what is ‘natural’.

As Cancer Research UK explain here, Gerson Therapy is usually used as an alternative to conventional cancer treatment. This means that people are (perhaps unwittingly) reducing their chances of controlling or curing their cancer by choosing to follow this regime.

There is no evidence that the Gerson Therapy works as a cure for cancer. There are also serious side effects.

Coffee enemas have been known to cause

  • Infections
  • Dehydration
  • Fits
  • Salt and other mineral imbalances
  • Heart and lung problems, even death

Regular, long term use of enemas can lead to constipation and inflammation of the bowel.

Other reported side effects include

  • Dizziness and weakness
  • Abdominal cramps
  • Loss of appetite
  • Diarrhoea and sickness
  • Aching, fever and sweating
  • Cold sores

Is the BBC breaching the Cancer Act?

Section 4 of the Cancer Act (1939) states that no person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement

containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof;

The opening session of Ebdon’s first round against Ronnie O’Sullivan was aired yesterday on BBC Two, part of which may still be viewed on the BBC Sport website.

The advertising logos on the players’ waistcoats are clearly visible.

How to complain

You can complain to the BBC here.

Breaches of the Cancer Act should be reported to Trading Standards. You can find contact details for your local office here. Contact details for the Sheffield office are given here. Their email address is

Contact details for World Snooker are given here.

Contact details for the Crucible, Sheffield are here.

Related posts

BBC Snooker Promoting Cancer Quackery Andy Lewis, The Quackometer, 24/04/12

Cancer quackery infests snooker Adam Jacobs, Dianthus Medical, 24/04/12


A shortened version of this post appears here on the 21st Floor.

81 responses to “Is it illegal to promote Gerson Therapy at the World Snooker Championship?

  1. Pingback: Is it illegal to promote Gerson Therapy at the World Snooker … | Alternative Cancer Treatment

  2. Not sure about directing the (justified) anger towards the BBC in this case. I highly doubt that the BBC has any influence whatsoever over the players’ choice of sponsors, and frankly, neither should it.

    World Snooker, on the other hand, holds far more influence. Barry Hearn, the chairman already has form for chastising players for bringing the game into disrepute (e.g. Mark Allen earlier this week). I put it to Barry Hearn and World Snooker that Ebdon’s choice of sponsor is doing exactly that.

    This is particularly sad given the tragic death of Paul Hunter at the height of his career about six years ago.

  3. Thanks for that. I’ve just edited the post to include a link to contact details for World Snooker and will write to them now.

    I’ve also complained to the BBC. Although as you say, they may not have an influence over the choice of sponsors, they should not be airing (possibly illegal) advertising. I think they need to be made aware of this issue and reminded of the Cancer Act.

  4. Pingback: Cancer quackery infests snooker

  5. I wonder how many of the complainers are aware of Max Gerson’s results curing 50 cases of terminal cancer which had been given up by the medical profession. Aspects of the therapy are taken & exaggerated in an attempt to dismiss it. The Gerson Institute is not a huge profit-making institution – it exists to try to help people who are offered no hope by the medical profession, of whom there are millions every year.
    Remember this – 1) Young doctors are groomed by the pharmaceutical companies from the early stages of their careers. 2) A course of chemotherapy costs tens of thousands of pounds. 3) Most chemotherapy chemicals are synthetic reproductions of plant extracts. 4) Plants are natural foods. 5) Man’s digestive system is vegetarian friendly. 6) Smoking is decreasing but lung cancer is increasing – why?

    • In order to answer whether the medical profession has the answer, you have to first tell me the question.

      I would be grateful if you could clarify a few points:

      1) Could you provide evidence that 50 cases of terminal cancer were cured by Max Gerson?

      2) Do you believe Cancer Research UK are misleading the public by exaggerating aspects of Gerson Therapy in an attempt to dismiss it?

      3) Are you suggesting that doctors are so brainwashed by pharmaceutical companies that they don’t give good advice on cancer treatments, whereas you and the Gerson Institute do? Or do you think it’s a deliberate conspiracy?

      4) Are you suggesting that people should use Gerson Therapy in place of chemotherapy for cost reasons? Since it is dangerous and ineffective, this would be irresponsible in the extreme. Furthermore, I don’t believe the NHS would fund Gerson Therapy whereas they do fund conventional treatment.

      5) How are the lung cancer rates relevant to your argument? Are you suggesting that you understand the statistics and lung cancer better than the ‘medical profession’ or do you believe there is some kind of conspiracy?

      6) Are you suggesting that because some chemotherapy drugs are ultimately derived from plants that this means that the Gerson Therapy works (since it is plant-based)?

      I agree that some plants are natural foods and that a vegetarian diet can be a healthy one. This doesn’t mean that Gerson Therapy cures cancer.

      To answer your final question – yes, I do believe the Cancer Act is relevant and only wish it were acted upon more frequently. I have very serious concerns about the promotion of cancer quackery to vulnerable members of the public. I therefore believe that the Cancer Act is an important piece of legislation.

  6. Peter Ebdon played today without the Gerson logo. I don’t know the reason for this.

    He was beaten by Ronnie O’Sullivan.

    He told the BBC that it was his father’s death from cancer that had triggered the change in lifestyle.

    • I gather from your questions that you have no idea what the Gerson therapy is about. Most of your questions would be answered by obtaining a copy of ‘A Cancer Therapy – Results of 50 Cases’ written by the great man Dr Max Gerson. It contains full details of the 50 cases from original diagnoses & prognoses including lab reports & X-rays. I doubt anyone reading the book would label him a quack – that’s a word for the ignorant, but they won’t read it anyway!
      There are similarities with other historical diseases….the means of preventing & treating scurvy was known before the year 1600, but the ‘establishment’ of the day dismissed the findings for 200 years, preferring to believe it was something mysterious in ship’s timbers or carried by offshore winds that was killing sailors. In that 200 years one million sailors, from these shores alone, died of this easily preventable/treatable disease.
      Later the cause of Cholera was discovered by a diligent London doctor. He simply ‘graphed’ the outbreaks of the disease and linked the outbreaks to water standpipes which were used to supply drinking water from the Thames which was contaminated with human sewage.
      Both the above were honest genuine men who dared to challenge the established view & they were villified for their trouble.
      I wonder if there was a ‘Scurvy Act’ or a ‘Cholera Act’ to deal with them appropriately……

      • Peter – you haven’t answered my questions.

        However, I will try to address the points you made in your reply.

        I do not consider Gerson’s book to be reliable evidence that the therapy works and nor do the scientific and medical community as a whole. If he were anything other than a quack then his work would have been explored further, his results would have been repeated, and the treatment would be recommended by doctors. Are you suggesting that the scientific and medical community (including Cancer Research UK) are ignorant or that there is some kind of conspiracy?

        With respect to scurvy, I think your assertion that a cure or prevention had been known about for 200 years and was dismissed by the establishment is misleading. There wasn’t really a scientific community then, in the way that there is today. Lind’s 1747 trial (I assume you are referring to Lind) is possibly the first example of a clinical trial with controls and is a very good example of how good science can give you the answer. Although the benefits of lime juice were known by some, there wasn’t sufficient reliable data to be sure that those people were right. Undoubtedly there would have been other theories around that without reliable data to support them, would have seemed equally plausible.

        I’m not sure why you are mentioning John Snow’s cholera study (FYI – that is the name of the diligent doctor to whom you refer). Are you suggesting that if he hadn’t been ‘brave’ then we would all still believe cholera was caused by miasma?

        The scientific and medical community (or ‘establishment’, if you prefer) hold these men in regard. Their stories are both very important in the history of science and medicine. They represent possibly the first clinical trial with controls and the first epidemiological study. I personally learned about them both during an epidemiology course at University. You can’t get much more ‘establishment’ than that.

        But I digress.

        Let me ask again – how does all this support your argument? In fact, what is your argument?

        Once more, do you believe that scientists, doctors and Cancer Research UK are actively suppressing Gerson Therapy in order to protect profits by pharmaceutical companies? Is that what you really believe?

      • You say – ‘ I do not consider Gerson’s book to be reliable evidence ‘, so obviously you’ve read it then! Did you think he was a quack before you read it & did your mind change at all after reading it ?

  7. I see from Ebdon’s wiki page that he left school without even sitting his O’levels to play snooker so he is absolutely qualified to promote unsupported quack nonsense.

    • Just because someone left school without o’levels has nothing to do with it!! The Gerson therapy works you can find many people out there who had cancer now its gone. Peter Edon has educated himself, the problem people are brainwashed that the doctor knows best. People should have the right to know that its not all about taking pills or chemotherapy, that there is other things out there that can help.

      • Gerson therapy does not work. It has harmful side effects. Conventional treatments may also have harmful side effects but they are also effective treatments. That is not just my opinion. It is also the opinion of cancer experts and the medical profession as a whole. This is because it is a view which backed by reliable evidence and decades of research. You undermine and insult the medical profession by insinuating that you know better.

        The opinions of people such as Ebdon who have ‘educated’ themselves by reading promotional books and watching promotional documentaries are not valid. To push such views to the general public (which of course includes cancer patients) is dangerous. Using Gerson Therapy as an alternative to conventional treatment not only means putting yourself through a very strict (and harmful) diet and enema regime but also means throwing away whatever chance conventional medicine might have given you of controlling or curing your cancer.

  8. Pingback: The 21st Floor » Blog Archive » Skeptic News: BBC breaks 1939 Cancer act?

  9. The BBC have responded to my complaint:

    Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC Two’s ‘World Snooker’ coverage broadcast on 23 April.

    We’re sorry if you were unhappy with one of the sponsorship patches Peter Ebdon was wearing during our coverage of the Snooker.

    We have looked into your concerns and can confirm that Peter’s patch was removed for the second session of his first round match.

    We hope this allays your concerns. Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

  10. excellent questions, Gerson should in no way claim to cure cancer by any means , they are totally out oforder and dangerously so. These claims should be nipped in the bud. Right now !!!!
    Prof Wesley


      • There is nothing funny about cancer treatment. Chemotherapy and ‘pills’ may have harmful side effects but they are also effective medicines. Gerson Therapy is not a valid alternative. To promote it as such is dangerous.

  11. Are you aware that conventional cancer treatment makes millions for BigPharma, and that these companies lobby governments to pass ridiculous laws like the Cancer Act to keep the income flowing. Gerson does not claim to cure all cancers, but its success rate is incomparable, and the institute is welcoming to any medical professional who wishes to view their extensive library of clinical trials. How would a diet of raw organic fruits and vegetables, coffee enemas and supplements all with the supervision of a gerson technician be more dangerous than radio or chemotherapy…..and what business is it of yours how somebody chooses to medicate themselves. I suggest you do more research before verbally bashing a therapy you obviously know nothing about….Complaining to the BBC about a logo on someones waistcoat, really!!!!!

    • Are you suggesting that Cancer Research UK, the NHS and scientists and doctors in general are all suppressing Gerson Therapy in order to protect the profits of pharmaceutical companies? That is not a sensible or plausible argument.

      You say that Gerson’s success rate is incomparable. Could you provide evidence to substantiate this assertion?

      Although I don’t dispute that chemotherapy and radiotherapy bring harmful side effects, there is one obvious reason why Gerson Therapy is more dangerous: conventional treatment enables people to control or cure their cancer. Gerson Therapy doesn’t.

      It is no business of mine how anyone chooses to medicate themselves. But it breaks my heart to see people at their most vulnerable being taken in by opportunist quacks. I always direct my ire towards companies who are promoting quackery, rather than patients.

      Your final sentence seems somewhat flippant. I believe this is a serious issue. If you don’t think it is important, may I ask why you took the time to post a comment?

  12. Ok i’ll answer everything you have asked in order, im not to adept on a keyboard as you may well have noticed so ill make short and sweet
    It is not a case of suppressing information, it is a case of making alternative cancer therapies unlawful, if a doctor was to implement an unlawful therapy he would be struck off, and arrested, and thats the size of it. There are plenty of practitioners who are aware of these alternative therapies, the cure for cancer is available to anyone who wants to change their diet and educate themselves.
    As for the gerson success rate there is plenty of literature on the subject, and if you really want to know the answer to that question you will have to do the leg work, although i find it odd that you would blindly accept the conventional method just because some guy in a white coat said it would be your best choice.
    Again conventional methods what do know about those, they are unsafe
    and brutal and success rates vary, but to suggest out right the gerson therapy dosn’t work is ludicrous. Like I said the information is available to anyone who wants to find out, max gerson a cancer therapy is a good place to start. It discusses the 50 cases mentioned in detail.
    As for people being taken advantage off, the majority of people that seek out the gerson institute are those that have been told there is no hope, where conventional methods have failed them, and they have been sent home to die. I fail to see how the gerson institute falls into the quack category, they accept every patient no mater how far their cancer has spread, and give them hope, nurturing and care. Read the science it quite incredible and very involved.
    Finally we agree on something it is a very serious issue, i believe the current cancer rate is 1 in 4 at the moment and climbing…at $50.000 dollars for a full treatment…well you can see where his is going cant you, and if you think these people care more about patients than profits then you would be mistaken, everyone needs to start being pro-active about their health care and not relying on the, indoctrinated practitioners they are churning out of medical school.
    Namaste 🙂

    • Nikia,

      I think you’ll find that the people who are against quackery like Gerson have read far more literature on the subject than you and, far from taking the word of someone “just because some guy in a white coat said it would be your best choice”, these people are the ones who have taken the time to ‘educate themselves’ and many have a robust understanding of the different treatments available and the relative survival rates for each.

      Gerson therapy has not been proved to work at all. If it did, the same multinational pharmaceutical corporations that you’re so against would be researching it, reducing the active components to a monetizable form and profiting from it.

      The Cancer Act exists to protect the vulnerable and sick from the ignorant and ill-educated crystal-rubbers and snake-oil dealers. Thank goodness it does, lest imbeciles like you cost them their lives with your vacuous nonsense.

  13. Thanks Cal. I would have written something similar but you’ve saved me the trouble.

  14. Peter –

    I haven’t read Max Gerson’s book. Books and documentaries written by those promoting their own interests, relying on patient anecdotes rather than large-scale well designed trials are not reliable evidence.

    The National Cancer Institute examined Gerson’s claims and found that his records lacked the basic information necessary to systematically evaluate them. They concluded that his data showed no benefit from his treatment.

    There is further information available on their website here:

    • I suggest you read it – what have you got to lose besides a little ignorance. By the way the first published article recommending carrying lemons on sea voyages to avoid scurvy was published by Dr John Woodall in ‘The Surgeon’s Notes’ in 1617. James Lind does usually get the credit, because of his studies on the crew of the Salisbury in 1753, but it was 40 years after his (Lind’s) death before action was taken to prevent all those needless deaths. Hindsight, of course, gives him the posthumous credit he deserved in life. Hindsight will do the same for Gerson.

      • I’m not sure why you continue to discuss scurvy rather than address the questions I asked you earlier. You are continuing to imply that the medical establishment or either suppressing or dismissing Gerson’s work (either through ignorance or as part of a conspiracy) without confirming whether you do indeed believe this ridiculous notion.

        As I’ve just explained in a reply to Nikia, the ‘establishment’ have in fact subjected his work (including the fifty cases in the book) to various reviews and investigations. All of these concluded that there was no evidence that the therapy is of benefit.

  15. Cal you leave your insults at the door thank you, the fact that you would dismiss something without even looking into it speaks volumes.

    • I’m sorry if you feel offended. I personally wouldn’t have used the term ‘imbecile’. However, I think it’s fair to say that anyone who displays such ignorance, coupled with a patronising, sarcastic attitude should not be surprised if someone insults them.

      I’m sorry if you thought I’d dismissed something without looking into it first. Did you think I was perhaps hasty in just taking the word of cancer experts such as the National Cancer Institute and Cancer Research UK? Since you failed to answer my earlier question, I’ll ask it again: do you believe that Cancer Research UK and scientists and doctors in general are suppressing Gerson Therapy in order to protect the profits of pharmaceutical companies? Or all they all ignorant and brainwashed? To believe that is ignorant. To argue that point is an insult to the medical profession and to medical research – which involves far more than reading dubious promotional material from over 50 years ago.

      Before you once more shout me down for calling Gerson’s book ‘dubious’ without having read it, I’ll go into a little more detail. Rather than being dismissed by the medical ‘establishment’ as Peter has suggested, Gerson’s work has in fact been subjected to many reviews and investigations over the years. In 1947, two separate reports (by the National Cancer Institute and the New York County Medical Society) concluded that there was no evidence that the therapy worked. In 1959, the fifty cases described in the Max Gerson’s book were examined and it was concluded that no benefit was found – largely because of the lack of detail on the total number of patients. It could be that Gerson had only written about the patients who had recovered and not mentioned the rest. It has also been pointed out that there is no detailed description of the grade and stage of each of the patients’ cancers or of their medical histories. Therefore the book is dubious.

      Here is the report on the fifty cases:

  16. Fine I’m ignorant, I can live with that and yes I do believe that a cancer treatment has been available for years and it is intentionally withheld. I also believe that a raw organic diet is inextricably linked to long healthy disease free life. To be honest i’m sorry I posted here. Best wishes to you all, good day.

  17. not sure about this guys, i have some friends who have strong opinions re Gerson therapy etc, I’m researching this to try to help a sick neighbour, sadly with terminal cancer and if it is true regards the pharma profits and cover up of real cures then its time for Gods judgement, seriously folks, if mankind can literally profit in the billions while we watch and allow others to die needlessly, that is surely evil, no ?

    • Best wishes to you and your neighbour. If he or she has asked for advice then I would say that s/he needs to be careful that any advice given is reliable. I would imagine that his or her own doctors will have given him/her the information s/he needs. They are the experts and will have his/her best interests at heart.

      Having to listen to this conspiracy theory will be wearing and if s/he is drawn into it, can even be harmful. For more on this, I suggest you read this article:

      If you or your neighbour are looking for advice online, you need to be very careful that the information you’re reading is reputable. I would suggest the Cancer Research UK website as a starting point (I note you are from the UK). They give lots of information about different types of cancers, their treatment and about coping mentally and physically.

      You may also find the Macmillan website useful. They also give plenty of specialist advice and support. For example, they have a page here which may be relevant to you:

      Once more, I wish you and your neighbour all the best.

    • This comment has been removed by the administrator.

      • The above comment recommended some misleading books promoting alternative cancer treatments. The comment continued:

        Most of the people saying how they beat cancer used therapies similar to Gerson’s & many of them should have been terminal. It is most important to not lose hope – that leads to depression which inhibits respiration. Respiration is vital for fighting cancer. Very best wishes to you both!

        I suggest that if Peter wishes to make any further comment on this, he answers the following questions fully and honestly.

        1) Who are you?
        2) Who do you represent?
        3) How are you qualified to give out advice on cancer treatment?
        4) Why did you ignore my previous questions about whether or not you really believe that all conventional doctors, the National Cancer Institute and Cancer Research UK are suppressing or dismissing Gerson Therapy in order to protect the profits of pharmaceutical companies?

      • 1) My name is Peter Burns. 2) I do not represent anyone. 3) I have applied modified Gerson therapy to a terminally diagnosed cancer patient. 4) I ignored your previous questions because your mind is closed! However I do not believe that all conventional doctors (really depends if you mean conventional = agrees with you) are suppressing or dismissing Gerson therapy….many doctors & oncologists are now questioning the ‘conventional’ treatment of cancer patients & many oncologists would not allow themselves to be subjected to chemotherapy. I accept that good nutrition may seem extremely dangerous compared to flooding the body with poison, exposing it to radiation or cutting bits of it out or off, but maybe I’m (not) a masochist !!!

      • Ah – ‘the administrator’ wants to suppress things she doesn’t agree with !!

    • hi alan im sure you have been to the gerson website i wont bother you with the link, google gcmaf and see what you make of it. Best of luck.

    • The words ‘cancer therapy’ on Amazon’s search bar is a good starting point – but I doubt anyone will see this comment as the dictator (moderator) won’t like it.

  18. frozenwarnings

    Then think carefully whether you want to make the last weeks/months of someone’s life miserable for no good reason.

  19. Aribert Deckers

    Did you know that 2 dozen world-famous actors like Geena Davis support a death which already caused hundres of EXTREMELY cruel deaths? See here:

    “meta-medicine” is murder

  20. Thanks for your comment. I didn’t know anything about it.

  21. Peter,

    You say I want to suppress things I don’t agree with. Cancer quackery does real harm so yes – I do want to suppress it. Despite this, I have published almost all your comments unedited. As is clear from this thread, I don’t cherry-pick comments, only publishing those which agree with me. I could do that if I so wished. This is my blog.

    I’m sorry to have had to ask who you represent. It was hard to see your motivation or the reason for your blind faith in this therapy, though if you have seen a loved one survive cancer after using this method then that must have been very convincing. It still doesn’t mean that the Gerson therapy cured the cancer, of course. I assume it is a loved one you refer to as you do not seem to be a medical professional and you say you aren’t representing anyone.

    It’s ironic that you accuse me of having a closed mind. In earlier comments, I referred you to the various reviews and investigations of Gerson therapy that had been done over the decades, including a detailed breakdown of the fifty cases you keep mentioning. These demonstrate that:

    a) Gerson Therapy was not dismissed outright by scientists.
    b) There is no evidence that Gerson Therapy is effective.

    You made no comment on these points.

    You say many doctors and oncologists are now questioning conventional treatment. Yes – many advances are being made in cancer research all the time thanks to the hard work of dedicated scientists.

    You say many oncologists would not allow themselves to be subjected to chemotherapy. This doesn’t mean that they would subject themselves to Gerson Therapy instead. To imply this is misleading and potentially dangerous.

    Yes, chemotherapy has nasty side effects which patients need to be aware of if they are to make an informed decision. It may not always be able to cure patients of their cancer. It may sometimes allow people to slow down their cancer. It may sometimes do little. In some cases, people might feel that the side effects outweight the benefit. It’s complicated. Patients – including oncologists themselves – should be free to make informed decisions about their treatment.

    Gerson Therapy is dangerous because in having faith in Gerson Therapy, patients are denying themselves the benefit of real medicine. They are throwing away any chance they may have had of real medicine controlling or curing their cancer. In cases where conventional medicine has nothing more to offer, Gerson Therapy may only offer hope: and it is false hope. It also brings unpleasant side effects to people who are already very poorly, and dominates their lives with its unnecessarily strict diet and gruesome enema regime. If people want to do that, then it’s none of my business – but they need to be fully aware of the side effects and of the lack of efficacy. They should be as fully informed about this alternative treatment as they would have been about any conventional one they may have rejected.

    • Yes ‘They should be as fully informed about this alternative treatment as they would have been about any conventional one they may have rejected.’ – just read the book ! A Cancer Therapy – results of 50 cases by Dr Max Gerson. No-one is making a fortune out of it. Unlike the fortunes being made by the Agri-food industry feeding us dangerous rubbish, or the fortunes being made by the Petro-chemical industry producing pesticides and food additives poisoning our bodies, or the fortunes being made by the pharmaceutical industry & their band of dispensing distributors.
      There is no such thing as false hope – if you are alive there is hope, if you are dead there isn’t. Seek and you shall find.
      The words ‘cancer therapy’ on Amazon’s search bar is a good starting point – but I doubt anyone will see this comment as the dictator (moderator) won’t like it.

    • What harm do you think it can do to read the self-written accounts of 50 people who have beaten these cancers :
      breast cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, melanoma, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, multiple myeloma, colon cancer, prostate cancer and lymphoma
      Are they all liars do you think ?

      • I’m not calling anyone a liar. I’m sorry if I’ve not already made these points clearly enough:

        1) Anecdotal accounts are not reliable evidence of efficacy.
        2) The NCI investigated the 50 cases in 1959 and found no evidence of benefit.

        In case you didn’t notice the link I’ve already posted above (containing more information about the 50 cases), here it is again:

        Here is a summarised breakdown of the 50 cases, taken from that report:

        Of the fifty cases (many had multiple problems so the numbers don’t add up):

        Two (8,23) did not have cancer at all, or even benign tumors: one was a haemangioma (a birthmark-like vascular mass- treated also by radiotherapy which can be an effective treatment), and one was a case of osteomyelitis following removal of a bone tumour many years previously.

        Eight (15,28,30,31,32,35,37,43) almost certainly did not have cancer at the time of Gerson’s treatment, on the evidence given.

        Four (1,2,5,6) had tumors or suspected tumors that are nearly always benign, namely pituitary tumors or acoustic neuromata, and three of these had medical treatment that would explain the outcomes.

        Thirty-one (3,5,7,12,13, 14,15,16,17,18,20,21,24,25,26,27, 30, 31, 32, 33,35,37,38, 39,40, 41,43,44,46,47,48) did not have a biopsy or other incontrovertible evidence of cancer in the target lesions . This by no means excludes cancer, but it leaves varying degrees of room for doubt.

        In fifteen of these (3,12,11,13,14,16,19,20,21,22,27,37,38,43,48) the diagnosis of a cancerous lesion depends wholly upon Max Gerson’s personal clinical judgment. In many (e.g.11,12,37,43,48) Gerson’s diagnosis is unlikely enough to call into question his knowledge and experience of cancer and his awareness of the effects of recent surgery and radiotherapy. In a number of cases he describes (unbiopsied) lymph gland metastases in extremely unlikely places without comment.

        In eight (10,11,16,29,34,42,45,49) there was fairly definite cancer in the dominant lesion but the outcome can be readily attributed to other treatments received.

        In four (3,5,22,42) there was insufficiently long enough follow-up for the cases to be meaningful.

        Two (45,49) had clear indications of persistent or worsening cancer despite being treated by Gerson, although Gerson tries to obscure that fact in his account.

        Four (4,6,19,50) are uninterpretable but probably consistent with the natural progress of the condition or other treatment received.

        This leaves only four (9,33,36,40) that are strongly or moderately suggestive of a treatment effect, always assuming no other treatment was given that might have produced the effect described, that the biopsies or other evidence given for cancer are being interpreted correctly, and also that none were examples of so-called spontaneous remission. 36 is possibly the most convincing. Gerson does not always state whether other treatments were being used or not, e.g. in 40.

      • Anyone who reads the book will know that the above are poor attempts to discount Gerson’s therapy…..but you are also getting confused – the 50 self-written accounts are from ‘I Beat Cancer: 50 People Tell You How They Did It’. There is always hope. Good luck to all & don’t believe all that you’re told – there’s often a vested interest !! Goodbye & good health from Peter Burns.

    • My last messages have been here for several hours now – hopefully helping to point the way. Must move on to pastures (blogs) new – much to do & many ignorant zealots in the way…seek & ye shall find !!

  22. Peter,

    You are talking about 50 self written accounts. These are anecdotes. They are not reliable evidence. No good doctor or scientist would be convinced by reading such a book.

    Again, you are implying that the National Cancer Institute are corrupt and part of a conspiracy theory. Do you really believe this?

    We seem to be going around in circles here.

    • Personally I’d rather be an anecdotal success story than a dead statistic – I’m not going round in circles Josephine, my path is nature & truth. Yours is bias & dogma & vested interest. Who pays your salary ?????

      • Your arguments are becoming increasingly ridiculous. Are you now accusing *me* of being a paid shill?

        As if it wasn’t already blatantly obvious, I hereby state on record that I do not get paid by anyone for blogging or any related activities. I do not receive a salary for this.

        Why are you so interested?

      • You obviously missed the inverted commas round the word ‘good’ & the context associated therewith. I’m not stupid or ignorant, but I fully understand your use of insult with someone who disagrees with you. I may however be corrupt – if that means spreading the knowledge that I have, so people can make up their own minds. You would obviously like to restrict that knowledge. Your readers here can decide for themselves who is the more corrupt. Now I really have to move on – my time is more valuable than this !

  23. By the way I don’t care what ‘good’ doctors or scientists think, do, want, say, feel, or believe. I only care about real frightened people – there is hope, just look for the answers. You CAN beat cancer !

    • If you truly did care about real frightened people and if you understood anything about cancer, then of course you would care what good doctors think. Unless you are stupid, ignorant or corrupt.

      I’m beginning to think you’re just deliberately wasting my time.

  24. This is not a subject that we should be arguing over. If you want to choose alternative medication, that is up to you and if you want to choose conventional medicine that is also up to you. Josephine, why are you so offended by the Gerson Therapy?

    My Aunty refused any treatment 6 years ago when she found out she had aggressive breast cancer. She changed her diet. Removed, salt , sugar and meat. Exercised daily and is here to tell the tale. She is not stupid, ignorant or corrupt, she is ALIVE unlike My father who put all of his faith into conventional medicine when he was diagnosed with cancer and unfortunately died within 11 months.

    However I am still not against the doctors, modern medicine or the research that they put in to fighting this disease. Afterall they have helped me to get to this age (27) fight off infections, cure my common colds and get rid of headaches.

    I just think that I would be stupid and ignorant to have a closed mind or the worst case scenario, build a hate campaign against something that I refuse to even read about.

    I think that it is painfully obvious that these diseases have something to do with the processed preservative ridden food that we eat.

    So…in a way its undeniable that if you change your diet, that is a cure within itself.

    They say that you have a 1 in 4 chance of having a brush with Cancer. Many believe the figures to be more like 1 in 2. If this is correct then maybe……just maybe, we need to start looking at other preventable measures before treatments and cures.

    You and I know that the best way to prevent any illness is through diet.
    Charlotte Gerson agrees with us also.

    • I’m offended by Gerson therapy because it doesn’t cure cancer and causes unnecessary suffering to those who are already very ill, while driving a wedge between the patient and their doctors, possibly also their families.

      I’m also offended by the dishonest tactics of those promoting it. See the comment below by BAS. I couldn’t put it better myself.

  25. Oh Josephine won’t like that at all Natalie – your auntie is just an anecdotal success story, so she cannot be believed or trusted or her original diagnosis was wrong. Until 1000 women with stage 3 breast cancer undertake a clinical trial of Gerson (or similar) therapy then any success is anecdotal (what a convenient word for the ‘establishment’ to use). I have nothing but praise for your aunt’s courage, and have no doubt she faced a real ‘barrage’ from the ‘experts’. Please encourage her to write her story down & continue to spread the word. Best wishes.

  26. Peter,
    I shan’t go to the lengths of repeating what Josephine has already stated, but to me you seem to exemplify everything that is wrong with the CAM movement, You are evasive, refuse to address the points raised to you, engage in straw-man arguments, ad-hom attacks and seem to me ompletely “closed minded” to use your expression to the possibility that you may be wrong. The cult-like conspiratorial thinking that underpins the CAM movement, that we are all unwittingly at the mercy of “big pharma” who are withholding cures in order to milk us for their own profits is infantile to say the least. Both you, and Nikia need to come up with some evidence for these positions, other than your own prejudice. A relative of mine was diagnosed a few years back with colorectal cancer, which had metastatised to the liver, and she was encouraged by some no-doubt well meaning yet ignorant people to engage in Gerson Therapy (the same people that tried to convince her that her tumour was caused by a liver fluke). Guess what happened. She spent several months doing daily enemas and ingesting the ridiculous diet., To cut a long story short, she was dead 8 months later, then the arseholes, yes, arseholes that had driven a wedge between her and her oncologists basically tried to blame HER when she died for not doing it properly, thereby absolving themselves of any responsibility for the regime they encouraged her to engage in.
    I think it not unreasonable to say people like you, with your arrogant willful ignorance are a danger to the public and should be silence. I’m surpised more of your comments haven’t been moderated. Words cannot convey quite how much contempt I hold you and you ilk in

    • Thanks for your comment. It illustrates perfectly how damaging this ridiculous big pharma conspiracy argument can be – especially to those who only seem to be able to be convinced by personal stories. Because the nonsense Peter is spouting is so harmful and offensive, I had considered moderating him further, but then thought I may as well leave him to dig his own hole.

      Of course, although he had the nerve to ask me if I’m being paid for this sort of thing, he failed to properly explain his own interests in this. Even when pushing books on alternative cancer treatments, he neglected to mention his own.

      • Peter Burns

        And if I had mentioned it I would have been accused of having ulterior motives….obviously. Another excellent book is ‘Alive & Well’ by Philip Binzel (Dr) – you should read it !

    • I’ve done the research – I’m perfectly happy with my position. I’ve attacked no-one & only suggested that people should be able to read & investigate all options. I’m sorry you lost a relative, but of course, to quote the ‘establishment’ one isolated case does not represent evidence either way ! Your relative might have died sooner – who knows ? I couldn’t care less about your contempt – sorry ! I assume you’ve read the literature available then…..just as I’ve researched all the available information on all sides.

      • Peter – I suggest you read through what you have written. Even if you write as a naive and deluded believer in Gerson therapy, your comments are still outrageously offensive. Take a step back and think about what you’re doing.

        As well as your flippant and combative remarks to the bereaved, it is untrue to state that you have attacked no-one. You have attacked me pesonally in addition to Cancer Research UK, the National Cancer Institute and the medical profession in general.

        To anyone else reading Peter’s most recent comments, to save you from Googling it yourself, the latest book he recommends promotes laetrile therapy. There is no scientific evidence that this can effectively treat cancer or anything else. It can also have serious side effects.

      • Peter Burns

        My belief is in alternative diet, knowledge of which is suppressed by the industries previously mentioned, and our puppet government(s) I also believe that the answer to cancer lies in correcting nutritional deficiencies & boosting the immune system. If anyone chooses to be offended because I disagree with them that’s tough! I have never mentioned Cancer Research UK or the National Cancer Institute & if you take it as a personal attack that I suggest you have an axe to grind then you are deluded.
        As for laetrile it isn’t readily available and I can’t make personal comment about it, but anyone interested in ‘establishment’ suppression of alternative medicine would find Binzel’s book interesting. It deals with the American ‘establishment’, and is a real eye-opener. Binzel did use laetrile, which is extracted from apricots, but the fundamentals of his treatment could be summed up by :
        Binzel – “If it is animal or if it comes from animal, you can not have it. (As one patient said, “If it moves, I can’t eat it.”) If it is not animal or does not come from animal, you can have it, but you can not cook it.” I take away from my patients all meat, all poultry, all fish, all eggs, cheese, cottage cheese and milk.”
        Binzel also includes many case histories which make for thoughtful reading.
        His book is available to read free here… the Cause, Not the Symptom!

        And thanks for the publicity re the book Josephine – I don’t want the money (that will go to a chosen charity) – I’m just happy to spread the word a little, thanks again! Goodbye.

  27. I too was of the belief that all was well in the world of medical science, until I came across a 1 hour presentation on YouTube, called the Science and Politics of Cancer, by author G Edward Griffin.

    I challenge the naysayers here and the very obvious schills and perhaps also those who may work in this industry, and are in fear of facing the truth, to watch this one hour presentation, because it explains quite clearly WHY things are the way they are, and its the same for any ‘alternative’ treatment.
    Alternatives to a patented chemical or procedure are just NOT allowed, and will be attacked from all the vested interests, and that also includes Gerson Therapy.

    In this easy to follow presentation, Griffin outlines the blatant cover up of the successful trials of Laetrile by non other than Memorial Sloane Kettering Hospital, back in the 70s..

    He wrote about this, in his book World without Cancer, which is by now at almost 40 print editions, and I might stress, his statements in that book was NEVER challenged by the aforementioned MSKH

    The cancer industry is so full of ‘tobacco’ science that it would be laughable, were it not for the fact that so many people suffer more because of the bogus ‘science’ used to keep driving an industry that has made no great leaps in a ‘cure’ for anything, in almost 50 years.
    Plenty of new ‘treatments’ though…

    I will know for sure that this blog is run by a schill, if this post is altered or just not published.

    Watch the video above.

    After that all your arguments about how ‘dangerous’ vegetable juices are for you will be put in perspective.

    Oh and by the way….to the schills….keep drinking the Flouride, and the Aspertame.

    Your science has ‘proven’ them safe also.

    • This post was about Gerson Therapy, not Laetrile. Did you even read it?

      I suppose the same points apply. There is no evidence that either Gerson Therapy or Laetrile is an effective treatment for any sort of cancer, or indeed any health condition. Both cause harm. Both are promoted by those who seem to believe in the most outrageously implausible conspiracy theories.

      I’ve already made it quite clear I’m not paid for this or for any related activity. What about you? What is your motivation for coming here, spouting such drivel?

      This kind of nonsense can do real harm. To suggest that everyone who disagrees with you (including all conventional cancer specialists) is a paid shill is not only wilfully naive, but also downright offensive. In peddling such rubbish to the desperately ill, you are potentially denying them effective treatment, exposing them to risk without benefit, selling false hope for financial gain, driving a wedge between patients and their doctors, possibly also between patients and their loved ones – at the most difficult time.

      Do you have no conscience or are you just insufferably stupid?

  28. Well, I have to say I was not expecting such an insulting response.

    I naively thought that someone would come back with a coherent argument as to what is expressed in the above video, and at least try to expand the discussion that way.

    It definitely appears you did not even bother to view it, because if you did, then perhaps you may have addressed the points raised within it, rather than attacking the messenger.

    But to be fair, I did mention ‘schills’ in my previous post, and I now offer apologies to all the non-schills who may have been irked by this, yourself included Josephine.

    Now, just to answer some of the points you expoused in your reply, I have to say they sound very familiar to anyone who has done any serious research into cancer treatments, which usually only happens when it is themselves or a loved one, that needs help, so they usually have a needed to fully examine all options.

    Yes….I read that the original post was about Gerson Therapy. My point was, perhaps I will just say it again, was, that any and all approaches to treating cancer that are NOT Chemo, Radiation or Surgery are just NOT allowed. Be it Laetrile, Gerson or whatever.

    Yes from time to time you will have big ‘announcements’ that something shows promise, but it just needs more funding for research etc.
    Usually these are drug related.

    Please, please, please watch the video, it is not too long, it has 9 short little parts, and then come back and tell me what you think.

    JJ@”I suppose the same points apply. There is no evidence that either Gerson Therapy or Laetrile is an effective treatment for any sort of cancer, or indeed any health condition. Both cause harm. Both are promoted by those who seem to believe in the most outrageously implausible conspiracy theories.”

    Actually there is quite a bit of evidence out there that shows what we ingest has a direct bearing on our health (doh) and our well being, would you not agree?

    This is the core of Gerson Therapy.

    no wait, thats just an outrageous conspiracy theory.
    Eating bad food will keep me very healthy.
    Pass me the Chips and the Oreos.

    I’ll move on.

    JJ @”I’ve already made it quite clear I’m not paid for this or for any related activity. What about you? What is your motivation for coming here, spouting such drivel?”

    I have nothing to gain, except offering (through this video) a counter view to some of what is being said, which I found to be misleading and in all honesty, offensive to those suffering, that might be reading this.

    JJ – @” This kind of nonsense can do real harm. To suggest that everyone who disagrees with you (including all conventional cancer specialists) is a paid shill is not only wilfully naive, but also downright offensive.”

    Point taken. But perhaps its not nonsense. Maybe, just maybe, in years to come our wonderful doctors will also learn about nutrition and environmental poisons as well as all the drugs during their training. Maybe they will learn that eating what we do now in western societies is not very good for us and is actually damaging our health, and that maybe, just maybe, the healing process should also include (with the drugs etc) some good science based nutritional advice. But that is not on the table as yet.
    Can’t write a script for a healthy diet, or get money for it.

    Modern Medicine is business. Big Business. Plain and simple. Research funding goes to where the biggest returns are. Drugs.

    I find it sad that many people still think that these corporate pharma giants are earnestly working to put themselves out of business, by actually ‘curing’ us.

    no wait…. is that just a conspiracy theory?….

    Or maybe not in some cases… about Dr Barry Marshall, the wonderful Australian doctor who, back in the eighties, along with another colleague, discovered the cause of stomach ulcers……and his long fight to have his findings brought into mainstream practice. He was eliminating so many drugs and surgeries, and so he had a terrible time getting recognition. They eventually gave him the Nobel prize in 2006.
    Wonderful the way real science works, isn’t it?

    JJ @In peddling such rubbish to the desperately ill, you are potentially denying them effective treatment, exposing them to risk without benefit, selling false hope for financial gain, driving a wedge between patients and their doctors, possibly also between patients and their loved ones – at the most difficult time.

    To answer this,
    @the effective treatment@
    Sadly the mainstream / conventional method is not very effective.
    Even the ‘official’ statistics for most types or cancer are dismal, even allowing for their padding.

    Side note: Chemo success numbers are Marketing tools, and as such, dubious at best. See any of the initial literature claims of the several drugs that have been pulled eventually out of the market because of severe health and side effect issues.

    ( I will not clog up this page with a list of all the very serious side effects of Chemotherapy)

    When all the conventional treatments have failed, they sometimes tell a patient to try a drug trial, but to actually get on these trials the patient has to fall within a very narrow window, spread of disease, age etc.
    All of which ensure the best possible results for the large investments made in whatever drug is trialing. And they do NOT publish the poor trial results. These drugs are then ‘launched’ (marketed) as the next big thing, something we have been hearing for 50 years now.

    The conventional industry sells false hope all the time, and the cost of treating a cancer patient with chemo etc is staggering.
    And so they also protect this market by attacking any other choice a patient might make.

    However we now live in a world where people are waking up to this, but for some it is too late.

    The real answer to these horrible diseases lies in between the two approaches, conventional and complimentary.

    But until doctors are genuinely encouraged by the system to research and explore other means also, and not just take for granted what Pharma funded research is telling them; then the industry is safe and business will go on as usual…..sadly.

    Finally I would like to address your last question…….

    “Do you have no conscience or are you just insufferably stupid?”

    Perhaps YOU should answer that first….
    but first maybe try these, as you are defending conventional therapy over Gerson…

    Mercury, one of the most toxic substances on the planet.
    Its safe and healthy to have it in your teeth, slowly eroding over time and being ingested, is this true or false?

    Radiation doesen’t give you cancer, it actually cures it!
    True or False?

    I could go on, but if you have answered true to these two questions……
    I give up………..


    • Griffin seems to be making two main points in the video: implying that laetrile is an effective treatment for cancer, and implying that sinister forces have been suppressing this knowledge. I have already addressed both of these points. There is no reliable evidence to support either of those ridiculous claims. If any credence is given to that kind of drivel, it can cause real harm.

      You point out the very real side effects associated with conventional cancer treatments. Nobody is denying this. Good doctors will make patients fully aware of their options so that they are able to make properly informed decisions about treatment. This includes honest discussion of what treatments are available and what outcomes are realistic or likely, what side effects to expect and how best to manage them – this may include using complementary therapies.To continually denigrate conventional medicine while promoting laetrile or Gerson therapy is irresponsible and dangerous. In deciding to eschew real medicine in favour of laetrile or Gerson therapy, people could be throwing away their chance to control or cure their cancer.

      Despite your assertion to the contrary, doctors and other health professionals are continually giving out lifestyle advice. This includes advising people not to smoke, not to drink excessively, to take regular exercise and to eat a healthy, balanced diet including plenty of fruit and vegetables. Fruit and vegetables are undeniably an essential part of a healthy diet – this doesn’t mean that Gerson therapy cures cancer.

      Your suggestion that health care professionals are all motivated by money is sickening. I’m not sure where you’re from, but it is probably clear to you that, like the BBC, Peter Ebdon and the World Snooker Championship, I’m based in Britain, where patients don’t generally pay for health care. From the point of view of the NHS, rather than being profitable, cancer treatment costs a lot of money. Your arguments don’t really make sense here. Surely you don’t believe that all conventional doctors and cancer experts (such as Cancer Research UK) are all motivated by the profits of pharmaceutical companies?

      I have been through most of this already several times with Peter Burns. Before you ask me to waste any more of my time, I suggest you read my previous comments.

  29. Josephine – your calmness and patience amaze me. You’ve had just about every variety of nutter post on your blog, YouTube videos, links to whaleto, and dodgy books galore. Sadly these people don’t respond to rational argument. Thankfully the BBC recognised the potential for misinformation and responded appropriately. Keep up the good work.

  30. @Jack

    “Mercury, one of the most toxic substances on the planet.
    Its safe and healthy to have it in your teeth, slowly eroding over time and being ingested, is this true or false?

    Radiation doesen’t give you cancer, it actually cures it!
    True or False?”

    The very fact that you have phrased these questions in the way you have suggest that you are scientifically illiterate.

  31. Michael….I would not normally bother to even answer a comment such as yours, however as you have again attacked the messenger, and have not addressed my core argument the the established/conventional medical machine will attack anything which is a threat to BUSINESS as usual, including Gerson Therapy, as in the original posting.

    The blogger here has gone to quite an effort, even in providing advice on where to complain to the BBC, regarding snooker player Peter Ebdon wearing the logo ‘Gerson Therapy’ on TV. Her original posting is quite vitriolic toward someone who has sadly lost his father recently, and maybe learned a few new things in the process.

    Her list of ‘potential’ side effects is laughable when compared to most, if not all of the popular chemotherapy drug side effects, that she suggests people should trust……hmmm….

    So you say I am scientifically illiterate to mention that Amalgam dental fillings (mercury based) may actually pose a health hazard, but my point is that our current ‘top’ scientific dental advice does not alert us to this potential danger. It was perhaps a poor attempt at irony.
    Secondly, my unscientific brain seems to think that radiation is bad for a human. Tut, tut, now where ever could I have gotten that idea?
    Perhaps in scientific studies of events like Chernobyl?

    As modern ‘medicine’ insists that radiation is good for eradicating cancer,
    perhaps you as a scientific minded ‘expert’ will be moving to Fukishima quite soon, for the good of your health.

    I use these simple examples to show that the so called best advice we think we are getting has quite a serious amount of opposing evidence to the contrary.

    Its the same with Gerson Therapy.

    However I will ask again, please watch the G Edward Griffin video above.
    I will welcome arguments based on its content as it is a similar story to what happened Gerson.

    The fact there is a photo (perhaps of you) beside your post with
    “I love NHS”….speaks volumes……….

    For other ‘non scientific’ people reading this,
    ‘NHS’ is Britains National Health Service….

    any one else worked it out yet??

  32. Mercury amalgam fillings haven’t been shown to present any risk to health. Even if they had, that wouldn’t validate Gerson Therapy. Instead of introducing straw men, show me the evidence that Gerson Therapy works. Hint: YouTube videos don’t count as evidence.

    That is indeed a photo of me. I should have known it was a mistake. My cover has been blown. Never mind, the cheques will still come rolling in.

  33. Pingback: Burnley Express promote Gerson quackery | Josephine Jones

  34. cannabis cures cancer

  35. It’s all one big lie there is cures for cancer but they all come from nature and could not be patented by a group of pharmacuetical companies so the pharmacuetical companies and governments in USA, UK and Canada did everything they could to discriminate them
    check this video THE FORBIDDEN CURES

    To silence people from learning about the cures The UK Government in 1939 made “THE 1939 CANCER ACT” which forbids anyone to offer any help or cure for cancer and if that don’t make you sick it’s still being enforced today to stop public debate, google “1939 Cancer Act”
    The 1939 cancer act it there to stop public knowledge of the cancer cures that WORK! not the ones that don’t.

  36. Valerie Swinton

    I am in utter AWE at the context of this post and the subsequent comments! I seriously cannot believe what I have just read.. Well, to those of you who go to your drug pushers, I mean doctors, for symptom masking chemical poisons to toxify your body when you are sick, I wish you the best of luck, you’re gunna need it!!

  37. complete propaganda bullshit coming from the administrator of this blog the cause of cancer is the chemicals in our food, air, and water. Eliminate those factors and you have the cure, It really is that simple….logic tells me that you can not help someone who has a toxic body (i.e cancer and many other diseases) by adding more toxins (i.e chemo radiation).

  38. Pingback: Ask for Evidence on “miracle” cancer cures | Josephine Jones

  39. josephine smith

    yep, the usual propoganda crap again coming from this blog – someone whose livelihood depends on selling artificial drugs to people, no doubt? And someone who gets more satisfaction from hearing the loud noise of his or her no-doubt very expensive car, than seeing other people be well. Its called pure selfishness.

    Im puzzled why, if this “blog” were just a genuine rant, why the author would go to soooo much trouble to get people to complain, even going to the rediculous lengths of leaving handy links to make the complaints! Only a child would believe a word that this author has said!

    “Josephine Jones” eh? must have taken all of 5 seconds ot think up that fake blog name! And how on earth the human race has survived for thousands of years without chemo and toxic drug formulations i will never know! maybe its because people used so-called “quackery” to treat and heal illnesses? surely it cant be that simple? (scratches his head in disbelief). Surely all these images of scientists doing their complicated research hasnt all been part of some on-going worldwide publicity attempt to brainwash us all into thinking that cancer is some amazingly complicated and little understood illness which requires millions upon millions upon million of dollars (we need your money!) to fight? its strange how the same “we’ve almost got a cure” b.s adverts have been used over and over to successive generations, ever since the 70’s (yawn). Maybe by the year 2500 ‘they’ will eventually find a chemical cure – by which time we will all be dead, and ‘they’ will have spent all our hard earnt money on cruise ships and sports cars for themselves, whilst us dopes just keep feeding their b.s coffers.

    Personally i have never heard of anyone who has lived more than 5 years or so after having chemo, or successive rounds of chemo. On the other hand, ive heard of plenty of people who chose an organic fruit and veg lifestyle instead, and who went on to live long prosperous lives. Just my personal observation.

    I recently looked around my local church and noted the headstones. Seems that people were living to ripe old ages before western medicine came along and started making everybody sick…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s