you don't know enough about the topic to have an intelligent discussion

Well it not about labeling in and of itself JB, but understanding causal interactions. Once we know why a thing occurs, we can then understand how to manage it.

Misdiagnosis is a major issue for that very reason. I was just as misguided in my understanding about this particular topic until I looked it up a few minutes before posting here today. In fact with my new knowledge I am going to pay closer attention to when I get my terrible headaches that I thought were just the weather, or sinus related.



When I was on several different medications for my back injury years ago, it raised my blood pressure, and I already had a bit on the high side, well then add to it I was working as a contractor at a company with a truly terrible boss (much worse than the movie) and would get constant headaches, sometimes right after a particular annoying conflict with the boss in question. Sometimes I would even see spots after getting yelled at as the headache was starting.

There is no doubt in my mind that these headaches were associated with the stress and high blood pressure. However I would be jumping to conclusions to attribute it to a specific diagnosis, and it may be true that I only remember the particularly bad headaches after a bad boss interaction and could be selecting those moments and discarding the others . . . ie confirmation bias at work. I dont get those headaches any more, and my BP is under control now. Proof . . . naw, but it sounds good and it fits from a physiological perspective, so it might be valid speculation.

Water under the bridge, but..

I know that the sun can cause skin cancer in some cases, but not in all cases.

I have no problem with that statement.

My point is that the sun does not cause skin cancer in all cases, so there are other things going on.

"Dr. Saper stated in his endorsement letter to M.A.G.N.U.M. that "[Migraine] is not a psychological or psychiatric disease but one which results from biological and physiological alterations."

Similarly, Dr. Fred D. Sheftell, M.D., Director and Founder for the New England Center for Headache specifically stated in his letter of endorsement that "Migraine is absolutely a biologically-based disorder with the same validity as other medical disorders including hypertension, angina, asthma, epilepsy, etc. Unfortunately, there have been many myths perpetrated in regard to this disorder. The most destructive of which are 'It is all in your head,' 'You have to learn to live with it,' and 'Stress is the major cause.'"

So is he dismissing psychology and psychiatry altogether?

It baffles me that after having explained how jumping to conclusions from inadequate understanding is the problem we are still having a discussion which is entirely the child of misunderstandings based on assumptions, just different assumptions, on a different topic, but the same type of misunderstandings.

Why not?

It is like dismissing an electrical problem when you have a leak in your toilet.

Water under the bridge, but..

I know that the sun can cause skin cancer in some cases, but not in all cases.

I have no problem with that statement.

My point is that the sun does not cause skin cancer in all cases, so there are other things going on.



Yep, some things never change....

I was simply using his premise to make a logical statement. What I know or do not know about skin cancer is irrelevant.

The whole point is that the cure for skin cancer was admittedly Hoxsey's topical application.

Don't worry Jeannie, intelligent people observe all the facts instead of listening to an AMA leader who was ousted...

This is what the doctor said and Bush quoted:




So he (the doctor) seemed to be implying that "psychological or psychiatric" diseases are "not valid."

So is he dismissing psychology and psychiatry altogether?

Is he saying that what we think and feel and do has no baring on our health?

Are we, as humans not just a little responsible for our health? Or are we just helpless victims of genetics and germs?

At the same time, I don't think any doctor should just tell someone it is all in their head.

That is basically what my doctor did to me, when he told me that the headaches would probably go away if I quit my job.

Your doctor is entitled to his opinion of course, but I don't think he should dismiss the aspect of the mind when it comes to a person's health any more than a psychiatrist should ignore a brain tumor in a person who is acting crazy.

I am happy to look at the research, can you link citations?

Do you want doctors to be supermen?

A loved one once nearly died due to a medical issue. She had a team specialists working on her - all MDs. Depending on their background, they had four different perspectives on the problem, seeing the basic cause (iirc) to be: genetic, infectious agents, lifestyle, psychological/emotional. In a way, they were all right.

All of them were doing their job well. It's natural to see things through the lens of your background and training. This does not make you less of a doctor.

The people who are the absolute worst at seeing things in a limited way, through the lens of their training, and thus leading to wrong assessments and harmful advice, are found within CAM. Its disgusting, because they do this while throwing around words like "holistic" and "comprehensive". Doctors, at least, are honest about the lens through which they see the world.

Overview
This complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) information summary provides an overview of the Gerson therapy as a treatment for people with cancer. The summary includes a brief history of the development of the Gerson therapy; a review of laboratory, animal, and human studies; and possible side effects associated with the use of this treatment.

This summary contains the following key information:

•The Gerson therapy is advocated by its supporters as a method of treating cancer patients based on changes in diet and nutrient intake.
•An organic vegetarian diet plus nutritional and biological supplements, pancreatic enzymes, and coffee or other types of enemas are the main features of the Gerson therapy.
•The regimen is intended to “detoxify” the body while building up the immune system and raising the level of potassium in cells.
•The regimen is empirically based on observations made by Max Gerson, M.D., in his clinical practice and on his knowledge of research in cell biology at the time (1930s–1950s).
•No results of laboratory or animal studies are reported in the scientific literature contained in the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online database.
•Few clinical studies of the Gerson therapy are found in the medical literature.
Many of the medical and scientific terms used in this summary are hypertext linked (at first use in each section) to the NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms, which is oriented toward nonexperts. When a linked term is clicked, a definition will appear in a separate window. All linked terms and their corresponding definitions will appear in a glossary in the printable version of this summary.

Reference citations in some PDQ CAM information summaries may include links to external Web sites that are operated by individuals or organizations for the purpose of marketing or advocating the use of specific treatments or products. These reference citations are included for informational purposes only. Their inclusion should not be viewed as an endorsement of the content of Web sites, or of any treatment or product, by the PDQ Cancer CAM Editorial Board or the National Cancer Institute.

Do you want doctors to be supermen?

A loved one once nearly died due to a medical issue. She had a team specialists working on her - all MDs. Depending on their background, they had four different perspectives on the problem, seeing the basic cause (iirc) to be: genetic, infectious agents, lifestyle, psychological/emotional. In a way, they were all right.

All of them were doing their job well. It's natural to see things through the lens of your background and training. This does not make you less of a doctor.

The people who are the absolute worst at seeing things in a limited way, through the lens of their training, and thus leading to wrong assessments and harmful advice, are found within CAM. Its disgusting, because they do this while throwing around words like "holistic" and "comprehensive". Doctors, at least, are honest about the lens through which they see the world.

That last statement is false...

Sooooo, I want to know why you would think a doctor is honest who calls Gerson a quack when it's painfully obvious that they base the conclusion of "quackery" on ZERO supporting evidence...

I don't expect doctors to be supermen or "gods" but what I want is for people to stop thinking they are and believing everything they say.

Same with scientists.

I keep forgetting how different it is outside of california.

Here, there is a HUGE community of people for whom is COOL to believe in "everything that doctors don't believe".

Reiki, kombucha, chakra opening/alignment, homeopathy, mis-applied chiropractics, people who channel long dead shamans to read your aura and tell you how to heal yourself, people who do the same with aliens from the Pleiades, applied kinesiology, "oh, don't go to a doctor for your sudden debilitating abdominal pain and anal bleeding - you should talk to my yoga teacher, first", mineral testing, a family of bizarre detoxification approaches... that's just off the top of my head, the list just keeps going.

So its odd to me to hear someone say that people have 'too much' faith in doctors.

95% of the people I know have too much faith in non-medical 'practitioners', and not enough faith in medical doctors.




But if I lived somewhere else, where everyone just went to the doctor when they had a problem, and assumed that doctor was always 100% correct....

Well then I would probably feel just the way that you feel.

My last statement, as written, was most definitely false in that its phrased as a sweeping absolutism. I didn't even qualify it with "generally" or "in my experience".

Of course I don't believe that all doctors are honest about the lens through which they see the world. Even the second half of that sentence is subject to multiple interpretations - and I believe that no human being is completely honest with themselves about every aspect of the lenses through which they see the world.

All I really meant was: In my experience, doctors are very honest about the fact that they are seeing things through the lens of their training and areas of specialization. They will defer to psychiatrists/psychologists if they see reason to think the causes are mental/emotion; they will defer to the opinions of another specialist on topics that are outside of their area of specialization.

That group of doctors with different views acknowledged that the reason for their different views was due to their differences in training, and they readily acknowledged the limits to their knowledge.




I'd have to ask her. Is there some particular doctor you had in mind?

Just because there is no formal research on the effectiveness of Gerson's method does not automatically make it dishonest to call someone a quack

If (IF!) Gerson went around charging people money for his treatment and telling people his method was a guaranteed cancer cure-all, without properly done trials to justify his claims, well in my book that right there is enough to call him a quack. That doesn't mean his method is useless, it means he's scamming people with false promises.

I'm not saying that Gerson did this, I'm saying that's one scenario in which I think its justified to call someone a quack without definite evidence that their method is useless. It's enough that they make grandiose claims to drum up business without real supporting evidence of their own.



So maybe you are right, and whatever doctor you have in mind was being close-minded and dishonest. Or maybe they are using the word quack differently.

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???

Ok, ill explain what makes good science.

IMHO the first three are more important than the last 2 when it comes to preliminary research, as the theory develops you need to explain the later 2.

Data
Repeatability.
Falsifiability.


Clear mechanisms of action.
plausible explanations that have predictive power.

If your hypothesis has all of these elements, and independent researchers have repeated the process and the same results, then a given claim has merit, this does not mean its right, but that it has merit.

In medicine it would still need a large RCT, Randomized clinical trial, with proper blinding, and controls. Why? Because people are complex, and not all the same, and often disease can have many pathways, or you could even find two completely separate causes that create the same symptoms.

Science is like an echo camber, or a feedback system. As the initial data is handled few researchers are involved, over time as the idea is shown to have merit it gains attention. More and more researchers will provide a greater and greater quantity of data, as more data is available more in depth analysis is pursued which provides more data. This cascading effect is what the scientific community is all about, and real scientists know that challenges to an idea are a part of the process and they not only accept such challenges, but seek them out, for they are the fuel in the crucible of science.

If such an idea is not falsified, but falsifiable it can usually make predictions. If we find these predictions to be true it accelerates the research.

When an idea has none of these attributes...it can be dismissed. An idea which cannot be falsified is a rabbit hole, waiting to suck in the time of a researcher and provide no feedback. If no data, or data which cannot be reproduced exists then again you can spend lots of time without feedback, its a non starter to the processes of science.

This is a zero sum game. The burden is on the claimant to gather compelling data, and then show the processes that will allow reproduction of the data. That way the methodology can be exposed, and tested as well as the data. The null hypothesis must be enforced. Where you find no such thing, you have nothing to discuss scientifically.

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.