למר/גב' XXX הטוען/ת ל 80% ריפוי מסרטן בשיטות אלטר'

לידיעת מר/גב' XXX המבטיח/ה לנו 80% ריפוי של סרטן ע"י שימוש בשיטת גרסון (ראו תגובותיו לדוד ב 7.11). לא דובים ולא יער, הכל עורבא פרח. טיחואנה בלוף. הדיווחים של קליניקות טיחואנה אינם מהימנים, חלק גדול מהחולים ש"הבריאו" כלל לא חלו בסרטן, וכשבודקים לעומק את הנתונים מסתבר שאחוזי ההצלחה צונחים מטה מטה. לדוגמא, במאמר המופיע בעתון לרפואה משלימה בשנת 2001, בדקו את הנתונים משתי קליניקות שטיפלו במאות "חולי סרטן". בקליניקה אחת פחות מ50% (!) מהחולים אכן חלו בסרטן, על פי בדיקות פתולוגיות, ובקליניקה השניה כ 80% היו חולי סרטן. כשבדקו את נתוני ההישרדות (לא הריפוי) של החולים בתום 5 שנים הסתבר, שרק כ15-20% מהחולים שרדו. אז היכן 80% הצלחה? מתוך אתר AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY Gerson Therapy Overview There is no reliable scientific evidence that Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer, AND the principles behind it are not widely accepted by the medical community. It is not approved for use in the United States. Gerson therapy can be dangerous. Coffee enemas have been associated with serious infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte (salt AND mineral) imbalances, AND even death (see Colon Therapy). What does it involve? Gerson therapy requires following a strict diet that involves eating a low salt, low fat, vegetarian diet, AND drinking juice from about 20 pounds of freshly crushed fruits AND vegetables each day. One glass of juice is consumed each hour, 13 times a day. In addition, patients are given several daily coffee enemas. Various supplements, such as potassium, vitamin B12, pancreatic enzymes, thyroid hormone, AND liver extracts, are used to stimulate organ function, particularly in the liver AND thyroid. Sometimes other treatments such as laetrile may also be recommended (see Laetrile). Treatment is usually begun at an inpatient clinic over several weeks. The Gerson Institute does not own OR operate any medical facilities; however, it refers patients to clinics they license. Currently the only licensed clinic is in Tijuana, Mexico. Clinic fees often exceed $4,000 per week. Treatment may last from a few months to 10 years OR more. It is generally recommended for at least 2 years in cancer patients. The Gerson Institute also offers a home therapy package. What is the evidence? There have been no well-controlled studies to show that the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer. In a recent review of the medical literature, researchers from the MD Anderson Cancer Center identified 7 human studies that have been published OR presented at conferences. None of them were randomized controlled studies. One study was a retrospective review conducted by the Gerson Research Organization. They reported that survival rates were higher than would normally be expected for patients with melanoma, colorectal AND ovarian cancers who were treated with surgery plus the Gerson program, but they did not provide statistics to support the results. Other studies have been small, had inconclusive results, OR have been plagued by other problems (such as a large percentage of patients not completing the study), making it impossible to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment. Some ideas put forth as part of the Gerson regimen, such as eating large amounts of fruits AND vegetables AND limiting fat intake, can be part of a healthy diet if not taken to the extreme. Researchers are continuing to study the potential anti-cancer properties of different substances in fruits AND vegetables, but their actual effects are not well understood at this time. Because of this, the best advice may be to eat a balanced diet that includes 5 OR more servings a day of vegetables AND fruit, choosing whole grains over processed AND refined foods, AND limiting red meats AND animal fats. Choosing foods from a variety of fruits, vegetables AND other plant sources such as nuts, seeds, whole grain cereals, AND beans is likely to be healthier than consuming large amounts of one particular food. Based on currently available evidence, diet is likely to play a greater role in preventing cancer than in treating it. Other components of the Gerson regimen, such as consuming only fresh, raw juices prepared in a certain way, eliminating salt from the diet, AND “detoxifying” the liver through coffee enemas AND injected liver extracts, have very little scientific evidence to support their use against cancer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Int J Cancer Suppl. 1998;11:69-72. Alternative nutritional cancer therapies. Increasing attention is being paid to the role of nutrition in cancer. Dietary measures, such as decreased consumption of calories, fat, alcohol AND smoked OR pickled foods have been shown to reduce the incidence of specific "adult" cancers, while increased dietary fiber appears to have a protective role. However, no clear scientific evidence exists that dietary manipulation is a successful primary therapy for established cancer. A significant percentage of adult AND child cancer patients take unproven therapies during their illness. Alternative nutritional therapies, of which there is a wide variety, are the commonest of these reflecting current public interest in "natural" remedies. The efficacy AND potential toxicity of commonly utilized dietary therapies are here reviewed, in particular the macrobiotic philosophy, the Gerson diet, the Livingstone diet, AND the use of vitamin AND mineral therapy. While details may differ, most alternative approaches involve fresh whole foods, with strong emphasis on low-fat vegetarian diet. Most are nutritionally adequate, at least for adults. No anti-cancer diet has been shown to cure established cancers, even those whose incidence is decreased by dietary changes. Careful dietary manipulation may at least improve quality of life for adult cancer patients, and, together with conventional therapy, may prolong survival in selected cancer patients. Assessment by carefully controlled prospective clinical trials is essential; those in pediatric patients must be controlled very strictly, since tumors in children have not been shown to be influenced by diet, AND the diets described may be inadequate for children with malignant disease. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1: J Altern Complement Med. 2001 Feb;7(1):19-32 ### Assessment of outcomes at alternative medicine cancer clinics: a feasibility study. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study tested the feasibility of performing outcomes AND more advanced research regarding cancer patients at two complementary AND alternative (CAM) clinics. The primary objectives were to determine the feasibility of (1) obtaining AND collecting data from medical records, (2) determining 5-year survival, AND (3) comparing 5-year survival to that of conventional treatment. In addition, in this paper we present the barriers AND recommend strategies to facilitate high-quality research. SETTINGS/LOCATION: The Bio-Medical Center in Tijuana, Mexico, AND the Livingston Foundation Medical Center in San Diego, California. SUBJECTS: New patients who were treated for cancer during 1992 at the Livingston Foundation Medical Center AND during the first quarter of 1992 at the Bio-Medical Center. RESULTS: Charts were available for 89.6% of the 307 new patients treated at the Bio-Medical Center; 149 (54%) patients were treated for cancer AND 65 (43.6%) cases were confirmed by pathology reports. In contrast, all records were available for 193 new patients treated for cancer at the Livingston Clinic; 152 (78.8%) cases had pathology confirmation. At both clinics, patients were equally divided by gender AND were predominantly Caucasian, were married, AND were U.S. residents. On average, patients were 51-54 years old AND within 1 year of diagnosis for breast, colorectal, lung, OR male genital cancer. Most patients (61.1%-63.7%) arrived with distant OR regional disease after conventional surgery and/or chemotherapy/radiotherapy. Survival at 5 years was determined for 57.0% at the Bio-Medical Center (11.4% were alive AND 45.6% were deceased) AND 94.8% at Livingston (14.5% were alive AND 80.3% were deceased). The limited number of cases by cancer site prevented comparison to conventional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Historical, widespread use of clinics such as these with anecdotal reports of extraordinary survival merit prospective, systematic monitoring of patient outcomes. For data to be meaningful, however, disease status must be pathologically confirmed AND patient follow-up improved ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA Cancer J Clin. 1991 Sep-Oct;41(5):310-9. Questionable cancer practices in Tijuana AND other Mexican border clinics. Tijuana, Mexico, has become a refuge for cancer patients who have been convinced that they may be cured of their terminal illness by unconventional, unproved, AND disproved methods offered in the border clinics. About a dozen United States promoters have joined with Mexican colleagues to offer a variety of treatments. Some patients are diagnosed using standard methods prior to arrival at the clinics, but many healthy individuals are misdiagnosed as having cancer OR "precancer" AND are then treated there. Others are told they have been cured OR are improving even though they still have active disease. The modalities AND regimens used are often referred to as "metabolic therapy" and, for the most part, are either not based on sound scientific principles OR have been shown in controlled clinical trials to be useless OR even dangerous. A basic metabolic regimen consists of three phases: detoxification with fasting AND bowel cleansing, strengthening the immune system with numerous "supplements," AND attacking cancer with "natural AND non-toxic" chemicals. Popular treatments include injections of hydrogen peroxide, large quantities of pressed liver AND carrot juice, coffee enemas, infusions of Laetrile mixed with massive doses of vitamins AND dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), special diets, AND a host of other pseudoscientific regimens. Unfortunately, no evidence exists that any of these modalities is more effective than no treatment at all. Patients traveling to the Mexican border clinics for metabolic therapy are subjecting themselves to costly AND hazardous regimens, especially if they forgo responsible medical care in the process. The American Cancer Society, therefore, strongly urges individuals with cancer not to seek treatment with metabolic therapies in the Mexican border clinics.

אם כולם ישתמשו בדרכים שאתה מציע להם כולנו צריכים להתחיל להכין צוואה. במקום לשפוך פה את השקרים של האגודה האמריקאית לסרטן שכל מה שהיא עושה זה לקדם סרטן, קשורה קשרים הדוקים עם תעשיית הכימיקלים וסוחטת כספים שהולכים למשכורות האגודה תוך השקר הנורא שמספרים לאנשים שהריפוי לסרטן "נמצא מעבר לפינה" אם רק תיתנו להם עוד מיליונים, והתעלמות מכל מה שבאמת עוזר לסרטן כמו גרסון, עדיף לך שתשתוק. כל מה שאתה אומר זה עורבא פרח על כל נושא ובכל הקשר, כל מעשיך בפורום נועדו להכשיל אנשים. אתה אדם מושחת. בחיים לא תגיע לרמה וליכולת של ד"ר גרסון, אנשים קטנים כמוך מנסים רק להכשיל אחרים להבריא ואתה לא בוחל בשום דרך לעשות זאת. אתה שקוף בשבילי, אני רואה בדיוק את האינטרסים שאתה מייצג, אז אל תתאמץ כל כך לשכנע אותי.

מכובדי המלומד ומרפאה חולי הסרטן בישראל אדם זה הוא נציג יצרני התרופות למה אתה מצפה ממנו שיספר את האמת ? הוא מקבל משכרת יפה יותר מאשר ראש ממשלת ישראל כדי לאשיב בפורום כמדניות של המערכת המשומנת ביותר בעולם יש לציין שההכנסותהם של יצרני התרופות בשלבים הראשונים של פגיעה חזקה מאוד אוד אחד שעובד על חולי הסרטן מדוע הוא לא רושם את שמו ? ממה הוא מתפרנס ? מי שלח אותו ? באזה מפעל תרופות הוא עובד ? מי משלם לו את משכורתו ? תשאל אותו את השאלות האלה ותבין מי עומד לפנך הוא ביקר שם ? הוא קיבל טיפול וריפוי בשיטה זו ? הוא חולה סרטן ?