This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

And why is John McDougall able to have his program inside the U.S then? You seem to fell the cherry producer question was put to rest. So am I to understand that you feel the situation is a correct one where a food producer must first prove his product to be a drug before quoting the science behind its benefits? Would Hippocrates be in trouble with the AMA with his quote of 'Let food be thy drug." Also I am curious whether you believe the Gerson therapy to be effective. They do of course post statistics in terms of their results, and many of their clients are available to be contacted. They do not claim to be a hundred percent effective, but they have had recoveries in cases that the AMA claims are incurable. Also I am curious where the AMA supported claims that diet is ineffective in MS, RA, most cancers, etc come from? Are they supported by some research you can show me?

matt did you read the link re the cherry reference? let's try to avoid hyperbole and false dichotomy please.. not constructive.

re hippocrates, not quite accurate. as i understand it, "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food."

i think there are some here who may believe that there is no scientific evidence free of confounding factors, to show that diets *are* effective. but i think they would be the minority. without having real stats i'm guessing that at a minimum, most here wouldn't go against the idea that a healthy diet is a good foundation for health. regardless of whether or not it would do anything for ms (whatever that is!).

Well, MattN, I really cannot imagine what you think that your reference to John McDougall brings to the debate. Dr John McDougall is a qualified physician who advocates a particular diet. You could say exactly the same for Terry Wahls - they each believe that their particular diet has cured themselves, and are telling anyone who is interested about that diet. They do not sell anything that a rational person could construe as a drug. The mistake that the cherry growers made is probably that of failing to take legal advice before promoting their product in a particular way - by attempting to quote the science behind their product (and hence it's benefits), they did in fact position their product into the category of drug or medication. You, it would seem, are tending to confuse a product with a service.

You ask if I believe the Gerson therapy to be effective. Yes, it is certainly effective at putting people into hospital. Just remember for a moment that one of the only two licensed clinics that offer the Gerson therapy is in Tijuana, Mexico, and then ask yourself why they have had to send people over the border to hospital in San Diego.
To quote from Cancer Research UK:
"Available scientific evidence does not support any claims that Gerson therapy can treat cancer. In fact, Gerson therapy can be very harmful to your health."
Or, to quote from the American Cancer Society, who go into more detail:
"Gerson therapy can be dangerous. Coffee enemas have been associated with serious infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte imbalances, and even death."

And, no, I did not feel that the "cherry producer question" had been put to rest. What I said was that jimmylegs had addressed it. Maybe you should read the thread behind the link that jimmylegs gave.

Geoff

jimmylegs- You seem quite reasonable so I will try to do my best to be cordial which is my tendency towards those who treat me in the same manner. Perhaps I did make an assumption that I was missing something in the debate about cherry producers, but I read Dr G's reference to it as dismissive My bad apparently. Thanks for the full quote from Hippocrates, but it makes my point even stronger IMHO I know absolute clarity is difficult, but is it too broad a generalization to say the FDA regulations require food producers have their products considered drugs and go through the drug approval process before releasing any information regarding their health benefits? Dr Geoff's point seems to be that some of them were releasing the wrong kind of information. I can find it somewhat reasonable to reject anonymous testimonials, but quoting peer reviewed clinical trials would seem to be another matter.

Dr Geoff, my point about McDougal is what separates his therapies from Gerson? Is it the use of Pottasium, flax seed oil, and enemas which puts their therapy into the illegal and dangerous, and DR Mc's as OK? Sorry but quotes from American Cancer Society fellows ring kind of hollow for me. Further you do not seem to address whether you feel that the statistics of the Gerson therapy are valid or not. It would be nice if you could elaborate on what cases caused Gerson patients to be hospitalized and what proof is offered to show it was a direct result of their therapy? And since iatrogenic death from conventional medicine is the number one killer, at least by some sources, in the U.S, it is hard to take your allusions to a possible hospitalization from Gerson therapy as a sound scientific rebuttal in terms of a risk benefit analysis

DrGeoff wrote:Dr John McDougall is a qualified physician who advocates a particular diet. You could say exactly the same for Terry Wahls - they each believe that their particular diet has cured themselves, and are telling anyone who is interested about that diet.

Dr. Terry Wahls is an internist:

Terry L. Wahls, MD, MBA
VA Iowa City VAMC
U of I Carver College of Medicine
601 Highway 6 West
Iowa City, IA 52246

For details of her regimen, consult the website http://www.TerryWahls.com

dr wahls is also an ex vegetarian (if my memory of something unsubstantiated that i read in passing serves!)

i am pretty reasonable, thanks matt lol

re hippocrates, if he wasn't *selling* the food, i'm sure he'd be fine. and while i do think the idea of having to put cherries through a clinical trial is nonsensical, i don't think there can be much wrong with promoting cherries as a great source of potassium to start. they've started marketing mushroom soup as a good source of vitamin D here in canada. and i saw a sign in the grocery store recently - 'carrots - an excellent source of vitamin A'! i nearly fainted but it seems to be the leading edge of a positive trend that could start to balance out all the fat sodium sugar focus. perhaps in the short term we'll have to make do with granting a non-profit organization funds to provide the voice of science at the grocery store

Jimmylegs I hope we have passed any bump in the road and I look forward to future conversations.

As to the idea implied by others that one needs to be an MD to create an effective or legitimate diet, I tend to disagree since doctors are taught very little in regard to nutrition. But for the sake of argument Max Gerson was an MD and he developed the fundamental diet guidelines for the Gerson Diet.Also to be clear I am not necessarily a believer that the Gerson program is better than McDougll, Stahl or any other diet. I think they are all likely very effective and simply trying to understand what makes the Gerson program illegal in this country and others are not.

Dr Geoff- Here is a pretty good link on the Wakefield story

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06 ... es-autism/

doctors are taught very little in regard to nutrition

ha you are preaching to the choir on that one :S
i'm not personally a fan of diets. i like targets and the diet can be whatever an individual needs in order to meet them.

Yes I like the way you put that. Sometimes it may be difficult to decide how long to stick to a particular diet when trying to treat a target symptom however. It also provides some hope that you can eventually find what works for you.

oh symptoms for sure, but i mostly mean target nutrient intakes and levels based on whatever symptoms people report. whenever people say such and such approach isn't working, i would tend to suspect something being measurably off with how said regimen is being implemented that would show up in insufficient intake levels, or suboptimal serum levels, and so on.

jimmylegs wrote:i'm not personally a fan of diets. i like targets and the diet can be whatever an individual needs in order to meet them.

I guess it depends on your definition of a "diet." My targets or goals are to eat less than 15g of saturated fat per day and avoid inflammatory foods, also known as the Swank Diet. That is as much structure as I am willing to follow at the moment. But it does seem to be working for now.

same for definition of a target, it seems i like targeting serum levels of essential nutrients, for one, because it gets you past questions re whether an individual's personal dietary combinations are beneficial or detrimental overall.