I am concerned that you may still be focused on the potential effectiveness of the treatment, rather than the use of grand unjustified claims to sell a product or treatment.

I consider it to be a fact that aspirin is generally, but not universally, helpful in reducing or eliminating certain kinds of pain. I hope we can agree on this.

If you lived in a world in which hardly anyone had heard of aspirin, then after you experienced it, you went out into the world, and said: "Hey, if you have a headache or minor physical pain, you should try this aspirin. It worked for me and for my friends, it may work for you. I don't know why it works, and I can't promise that it works, but you should at least give it a try. It seems to work on most pains, but sometimes it only helps a little. While I don't know of any side effects, I also don't know whether its been studied for side effects, so you are taking it at your own risk - but it seems harmless to me."

To me, that's not quackery.

But if someone says: "Try this miracle drug! Its guaranteed to eliminate all of your aches and pains! It works instantly, and the effect last for days! It literally soaks up your pain the way a sponge soaks up water! It's derived from willow trees, so know its naturally completely harmless!"

Well, I'd say they were a quack, trying to rip people off. It doesn't matter that aspirin actually works for some purposes - making such grandiose claims that exceed the abilities of the drug, in order to to promote it makes them a quack in my book.

'Quack' is a pejorative term, but I've never met anyone who assumed it to be a precise term. So yes, I feel comfortable making up the rules for what I would personally consider a quack - and those rules are proportional to the claims being made.

For the person speaking in the style of the first quote above - they don't need to do studies. They are making conservative claims based on a limited data set, and they are transparent about their data set. I'm cool with that.

But if you want to claim that a treatment works on 100% of people with a particular condition - you need to do studies first to show this, or you are going to be a quack in my book. It doesn't matter that it seemed to you to have worked for a large number of individual cases - you need to document your work carefully and do controlled trials.




As I implied before, it completely depends on the person, the circumstances, and the claims. I might call them "reactive" or "prejudiced", or I might call them "reasonable".

This is why we really like to see multiple studies being done, by several different organizations. Gerson was evidently not qualified to properly interpret his own data.

Which is not to say that the treatment is useless. Just that we should not take it seriously as a powerful cancer cure.

Long story short The better question how is Magic Johnson still alive?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617062/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917429/?tool=pmcentrez

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=cannabinoids

I would expect no more from you than lame ad-homs...

The data is there, you just refuse to evaluate it. You're only happy if the data comes from your "approved" sources, which of course would be a direct opponent of the poisons you and others like you bombard cancer patients with.

Would you recommend radiation or X-rays for a heathy person? Didn't think so...

You're dismissed...

Raw foods are full of anti-nutrients. Cats are stealthy and have claws to protect themselves from predators. Rabbits have long ears, sensitive noses and can run quickly to avoid predators. But plants can only sit there, so they have developed poisons to discourage their consumption. Oxalic acid, lectins, glycoalkaloids, phytates, various enzyme blockers, etc. These are all reduced or eliminated by cooking and fermenting. Eating raw foods fills your digestive tract with poisons that will prevent you from absorbing the nutrition you consume.

Fruits are basically poison free, they are made to be eaten. It's a symbiotic relationship. An animal eats the fruit and deposits the seeds and fertilizer someplace else. But vegetables, seeds, nuts and tubers are all filled with anti-nutrients to protect them from consumption. The spinach plant is not benefited by you eating it, neither is the potato or broccoli. Why would it be good for the walnut tree to have the walnuts eaten? That is how it reproduces! Where in nature is that species that encourages it's offspring to be eaten by predators? It doesn't exist.

What's laughable is that you think this supports your claims of quackery...

Pay attention to the bolded sentences above mr. scientist...

You made the claim of quackery and you have failed miserably to provide any data when asked..


Dismissed...

Gerson Therapy

Other common name(s): Gerson diet, Gerson method, Gerson treatment, Gerson program

Scientific/medical name(s): none
Description

Gerson therapy is a form of alternative cancer treatment involving coffee enemas, supplements, and a special diet that is claimed to cleanse the body, boost the immune system, and stimulate metabolism.
Overview

Available scientific evidence does not support claims 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 imbalances, and even death.
How is it promoted for use?

Gerson therapy is considered a metabolic therapy (see Metabolic Therapy), and it is based on the theory that disease is caused by the body's accumulation of toxic substances. Practitioners believe that fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals contaminate food by lowering its potassium content and raising its sodium content. Food processing and cooking adds more sodium, which changes the metabolism of cells in the body, eventually causing cancer.

According to practitioners of Gerson therapy, people who have cancer have too much sodium and not enough potassium in their cells. The fruit and vegetable diet that is part of Gerson therapy is used to correct this imbalance and revitalize the liver so it can rid the body of malignant cells. Coffee enemas, also part of Gerson therapy, are claimed to relieve pain and eliminate liver toxins in a process called detoxification.

The goal of metabolic therapies is to eliminate toxins from the body and enhance immune function so that the body can "fight off" cancer. Liver extract injections, pancreatic enzymes, and various supplements are said to stimulate metabolism. Proponents of metabolic therapy claim that it addresses the underlying cause of disease rather than treating the symptoms.
What does it involve?

Gerson therapy requires following a strict low-salt, low-fat, vegetarian diet and drinking juice from about twenty pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables each day. One glass of juice is consumed each hour, thirteen times a day. In addition, patients are given several coffee enemas each day. Various supplements, such as potassium, vitamin B12, pancreatic enzymes, thyroid hormone, and liver extracts, are used to stimulate organ function, particularly of 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 and instead it refers patients to clinics it licenses. 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 history behind it?

One of the oldest nutritional approaches to cancer treatment, the Gerson therapy was developed by Max Gerson, MD, a German doctor who immigrated to the United States in the late 1930s. He designed the dietary program to treat his own migraine headaches. He later expanded his method to treat other conditions such as arthritis, tuberculosis, and cancer. In 1945, Gerson published a preliminary report of his results in treating cancer in the Review of Gastroenterology. The National Cancer Institute and New York County Medical Society examined records of his patients and found no evidence that the method was effective against cancer. After his death in 1959, his work was carried on by his daughter, Charlotte Gerson, who established the Gerson Institute in the late 1970s.
What is the evidence?

There have been no well-controlled studies published in the available medical literature that show the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer.

In a recent review of the medical literature, researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center identified 7 human studies of Gerson therapy that have been published or presented at medical 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 cancer and ovarian cancer who were treated with surgery and Gerson therapy, 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.

There is very little scientific evidence to support the use of 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.
Are there any possible problems or complications?
These substances may have not been thoroughly tested to find out how they interact with medicines, foods, herbs, or supplements. Even though some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published, full studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions below should be considered incomplete.

Use of the Gerson therapy can lead to a number of significant problems. Serious illness and death have occurred from some of the components of the treatment, such as the coffee enemas, which remove potassium from the body and can lead to electrolyte imbalances. Continued home use of enemas may cause the colon's normal function to weaken, worsening constipation problems and colitis. Some metabolic diets used in combination with enemas cause dehydration.

Serious infections may result from poorly administered liver extracts. Thyroid supplements may cause severe bleeding in patients who have cancer that has spread to the liver.

Gerson therapy may be especially hazardous to women who are pregnant or breast-feeding. Relying on this treatment alone and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer, may have serious health consequences.

So you are able to confidently call someone a quack who makes claims without real supporting evidence? Does that mean zero evidence or do you make up the rules as to what evidence is acceptable and disregard those of which you do not agree?

What do you call someone who labels another person a quack without any real supporting evidence of their own??? A scientist???

1) It is an artificial process to insert a new string of genes into a plant's genome, we are looking for natural processes.

I agree, because criticisms of evolution are being paired with a suggestion that creationisms is a good alternative explanation.

If those criticisms were not being paired in this way, but rather simply posed only as criticisms of evolution - or, better, posed as questions, then they would not be 'arguments from ignorance' and 'god of the gaps'.

HOW about term limits on constitutions?

However, to think that this places creationism on equal footing strikes me a a pure 'god of the gaps' style thinking.

Hi

I don't know if this was meant for me, but I don't want to be told later in the thread that I don't face the evidence put forward. If you can understand I am dealing with 5 seperate people posting links for me to look at, could you kindly post the relevant portion or refer me to a relevant paragraph in this link, if it was meant for me.

On first glance a large portion of the article was referring to the merits of duplications. I personally believe non-coding regions do have benefit and cause selective pressure, the writer of the article seems to think the only selective pressure is the limit to which the organism can cope with the duplications. I believe duplications protect an organism from mutation through in a sense being a "back-up". This is why the E coli fared better with a cloned resistance gene when confronted with a hostile environment. And so I believe duplications via mutatons can be beneficial and naturally selected to become dominant in an organism.

I understand your reservations about the terminology. For brevity, I skipped a great deal of information on the state of current research and the known issues stemming from a phenomenon call brain plasticity.

For example, a DARPA research project several years ago outfitted SEALS with a set of sensors and computing system which, when connected to the optic nerves through pathways located on the underside of the tongue, projected a 360-degree view from digital sensors attached to the operator's helmet.

Overlaying the imaging the user could view a compass display, speed indicator, and other navigation aids.

This system was not permanently attached to test personnel; nor were surgical modifications made. Yet personnel who had the opportunity to interact with the system described the relative ease with which they were able to adapt to the system - as well as the sense of deprivation, of lack of sensory ability, when they were no longer able to use the systems.

And in the end, the most power efficient computing and sensing devices will be composed of what are now traditionally thought of as purely biological materials; so differences in the materials of which augmentative technologies are currently composed will be reduced in the course of figuring out how to supply such systems with uninterrupted power sources.

To stop collision's... just because they are alien's it does not make them any less foolish than us in the ability to reverse into bollards!!

HAAAAAAAAAAAAA


nice avoidance