cancer and flowers

[Guest guest]

http://doctoryourself.com/cancer_flowers.html

 

What is important is the weight of evidence that impelled me to take

the steps I did.

My personal actions may not have justified the evidence,

but I think the evidence justified my actions. "

(Roger J. Williams, PhD, Nutrition Against Disease, p 91.)

Max Gerson, MD, started his professional life as a regular physician

and ended it a quack. So did Edward Bach, MD. The first gave coffee

enemas to cancer patients and the latter healed all manner of

diseases with flowers. Both were fully trained scientists who turned

their back on conventional medicine and never recanted.

 

So how did that happen?

 

The renegade doctor does not fit the public perception of quack very

well. We want our quacks flaming, as Homer Simpson wanted all his gay

acquaintances to be. Only a real nut of a quack, an utterly

uneducated, criminally flamboyant fraud, is repellent enough to

cement patients to the religion of the drug doctors.

 

Dr. Max Gerson is therefore a problem from the start, best left

ignored. You will look long and hard for any reference to him in any

medical history or textbook. And yet, this man developed the single

most successful treatment for cancer in existence over 60 years ago.

 

Gerson was a surgeon in the German army during the first world war.

He and other doctors worked MASH-like 20 hour days operating on what

was left of their countrymen evacuated from the front lines. The

British naval blockade of Germany had resulted in a dire shortage of

morphine, and there was not enough of the pain reliever for patients

in recovery. The doctors, who drank coffee to stay awake day and

night to operate, found that coffee also relieved pain in the

wounded. We know this to be true, as caffeine is one of the active

ingredients to this day in many an extra-strength pain-reliever.

Some soldiers had so much of their faces, throats and stomachs shot

away that they were fed by rectum, not an uncommon practice in the

old days. Desperate nurses were instructed to put coffee in the

enema water of these individuals. It worked; any port in a storm.

 

This is the first straightforward reason why Dr. Gerson gave coffee

enemas to cancer patients: pain relief. He later claimed another:

rectally administered caffeinated coffee seemed to stimulate the

liver to flush waste from the system. He would be neither the first

nor the last to believe that " accumulated toxins " were a cause of

cancer. It is a persistent and recurrent quacky notion... which is

also probably quite accurate.

 

The cancer-preventive aspects of high fiber diets support this. A

study showed that Hispanic women have far lower rates of breast

cancer than black or white women. When all factors were considered,

only one difference could be found: Hispanic women eat considerably

more beans than black or white women do. The fiber is almost

certainly the secret. Other research has pointed to the flip-side

conclusion: low-fiber diets are carcinogenic. In a low fiber diet,

any consumed carcinogens have a longer transit time through the

body's digestive tract. More time in contact with the lining of the

GI tract means more opportunity for carcinogenesis.

 

Lots of fiber may also help the body excrete excess endogenous

chemicals, such as estrogen, thereby lowering the rate of hormone-

dependent cancers. Additionally, soluble fiber removes excess bile

acids (by-products of fat digestion) that are also linked with

cancer. David Reuben's Save Your Life Diet (yes, he was a MD as

well) discusses fiber's anti-cancer roles in detail. That book came

out in the 1970's; this is not new information. Aside from

Metamucil, fiber is too cheap and cannot be patented. What

pharmaceutical company can make the big bucks off beans? There is

more money in chemo than Beano.

 

So Gerson the quack is trying to " detoxify " the body, focusing on

the liver. Is this a reasonable focus? Well, weighing in at about

four pounds, the liver is the largest gland in the body. It is well

and clearly identified as the body's site of detoxification of

alcohol and other drugs. It could very well detoxify a cancer

patient, and Gerson was aware of supporting research. So, yes, the

liver is at least as much a key as any other organ, and arguably much

more so.

 

To build up the body's ability to fight cancer, Dr. Gerson then

employed the most damned therapy in the twentieth century: vitamins.

On top of that, he was among the pioneers recommending extensive

vegetable juicing. There you go: this all would be right at home on

a shopping channel at 2 am. That, or on Jerry Springer or Rikki

Lake.

 

Oddly enough, it was because he had chronic, severe migraines that

Max Gerson got into vitamins and juicing He found no help in the

drugs of the day. Remember, he was a doctor, and he well knew what

was available. Plus, he had colleagues to help with the search.

Nothing worked. So Gerson tried the logic of that great non-person,

Sherlock Holmes: if all reasonable explanations fail, the answer

must be some unreasonable one. Immersed in the unreason that only

pain can generate, Gerson tried different foods, doing an early

version of what was probably much like allergy testing. He found

that juiced vegetables, not medicines, were the cure for his

headaches. He was a surprised as you would be, perhaps even more so

because he was a drug doctor who had been taught nothing of natural

healing, except perhaps contempt for it.

 

Nothing succeeds like success. Word got around and people started

to seek out this doctor who cured migraines when the other doctors

failed to. Gerson began to note that many of his migraine patients

were also getting cures of assorted conditions that they hadn't even

initially told him about. He reasoned that juicing was a " metabolic

therapy, " non-specific and broad spectrum in nature. If that concept

annoys you, think of the diverse sicknesses that are expected to

respond to a given antibiotic.

 

Adding vitamin supplements to the regimen, he now had a therapy so

effective that he was experiencing success on a large scale. One of

his patients was the great missionary physician Albert Schweitzer,

MD. Schweitzer himself said, of Gerson, that " he was a medical

genius who walked among us. " High praise indeed from a Nobel prize

winner.

 

Was Dr. Schweitzer simply duped, and taken in by master fraud

Gerson?

 

Up until now, Gerson was not even thinking of treating cancer. When

ultimately asked to try to, he refused, indicating that he had no

intention of becoming known as another cancer quack. Pressure from

suffering patients eventually changed his mind. He hesitatingly

began using the metabolic therapy, cleansing and restoring the cancer

patient's body, and was delivering a cure rate of over 50% of

terminal cancer patients. This extraordinary success rate was in

part the basis for a 1946 Congressional hearing on cancer therapies.

Gerson had relocated to the United States and now took 50 of his

carefully documented case histories before an investigative

committee. Radiation, surgery, and chemotherapy were all approved

for the " war on cancer. " Vitamins, juices and Gerson were excluded,

by four votes.

 

Well, what do you expect? His mistake, and it was a big mistake,

was to recommend coffee enemas for cancer patients. The fact that

dying patients were recovering was secondary. It all sounded too

quacky. The juices and the vitamins just added insult to injury. In

the greatest traditions of the US Congress, they got it wrong and

threw the baby out with the bathwater. Gerson was out in the cold,

and would remain a quack for the rest of his life. The war on cancer

would be fought with one hand tied behind its back.

 

Dr. Gerson's case histories and therapy are fully documented in his

book, A Cancer Therapy: Results of 50 Cases. It is an extraordinary,

detailed, practical work. Any good bookstore can order one for you.

If you are interested in quackery, you can start here.

 

And then there is Edward Bach, MD., who by comparison makes Gerson

look like the president of the AMA. Dr. Bach was a vaccinologist

with a practice on Harley Street in London, equivalent to having a

Fifth Avenue professional address in New York City. He left medicine

irretrievably far behind when he ran off to the country to study, and

heal with, flower blossoms of all things. He floated them in spring

water (but never in " dead " tap or distilled water) in glass

containers, placed in the sun. The energy from the flowers was thus

collected, then diluted hundreds of times to make it stronger, and

dropped onto patients' tongues and wrists. Somewhere, anywhere, in

here you can find enough nuttiness to begin snickering.

 

The eccentric Dr. Bach believed that disease was, at its root, a

matter of diseased temperament. He researched a dozen common flowers

known as The Twelve Healers (also the title of his first book). Over

two dozen more were to follow, bringing the total to 38. Impatiens

seemed to cure impatience, Mustard ended black depression " like a

dark cloud has overshadowed life, blotting out all enjoyment. " A

combination of remedies, known as Rescue Remedy, was a first aid

preparation for shock and trauma to the mind. Clematis relieved

suicidal tendencies and Holly dissipated hatred. Honeysuckle

dissipated excess nostalgia, and there were several remedies for

fear, classified as to whether fear was from known or unknown causes,

worldly or unfounded, or otherwise.

 

Dr. Bach is especially easy to dismiss. First, he was British, so

to Americans he was not a real scientist, like, say, Charles Darwin,

Issac Newton or Allen Turing. (Whoops: they were all British as

well, but no matter.) Secondly, flowers, especially common blossoms

like impatiens and holly that served as their very names would

suggest, offer no satisfaction to the scientific-spectacle-seeking

patient.

 

Thirdly, the idea that dilution increases potency is a homeopathic

one, utterly in opposition to orthodox medical thought. The works of

historian Harris Coulter, especially the three volume masterwork

Divided Legacy, will provide readers with very ample, very rational

support for homeopathy and there is no need to try to justify it

here. Homeopathy, itself regarded as quackery by many, is practiced

by a large minority of licensed medical doctors worldwide. It is at

least close enough to reason that over-the-counter homeopathic

remedies are sold in Wal-Marts and the federal government both

codifies and approves the manufacture of such remedies in the

Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States. Double-blind,

tightly controlled studies of homeopathic remedies have indeed

verified their statistical significance to a very high degree, and

their record of safety is unassailable even by the Food and Drug

Administration.

 

Back to Bach: his flower remedies seemed to work. Medical doctors

would follow him, leaving a broad trail of case notes, published

articles, and textbooks in their wake. It is a bold move to dismiss

all these physicians as quacks without at least trying the remedies

first. I have seen first hand how they help the people who come to

see me. Placebo effect? You think? How about injections of sterile

water? They have a high cure rate. What of placebo surgery, where

you have the scar, but nothing was changed internally, and the

patient doesn't know it? Again, they are among the most successful

of all operations. In a back issue of the Consultant (a physician's

journal), I happened to read an article called " Placebo Revisited: A

Most Useful Therapy. " Placebos work the best, said the author (an

MD), on the most educated people. Figure that one out.

 

OK, let's. The vast majority of medical procedures have never been

adequately placebo tested. Here's a blatant example: radiation

therapy for cancer. Picture this: a sick, scared patient is told

with confidence that, of course, radiation treatments are the way to

go to kill a tumor or stop it from spreading. The patient is

subjected to long waits in waiting rooms with other believers; high

bills for the procedure; awesomely large equipment with dials,

lights, technicians and mysteries; and finally being placed basically

naked under or into this machine.

 

Now let's be scientific. I want another room, just as white and

just as bright; with a fake machine that is just as impressive; with

confederates disguised as fellow cancer sufferers chatting about the

wonders of the impending treatment with the patient; lots of lights

and dials that make the bridge of the starship Enterprise look like a

rusty waterheater; and lots of dignified technicians, tech-speaking

doctors, and sky-high bills to match. All identical to the radiation

room, and all completely fake. Now that is a placebo.

 

So what do you think will be the success rate of the

bogus " treatments " as opposed to scads of rads? How much is

radiation and how much is expectation? I think the results will be

so similar that this control will never be done.

 

So who are the quacks?

 

read more at: http://www.doctoryourself.com