I am writing his long message in reply to 'J''s messages under
the "Gerson Therapy" thread.

Old Bill wrote:

               [snip]

('J' writes):

Since you're just quoted from Cancer Research UK on another topic, here's
what they
say about Gerson

       I quoted Cancer Research UK because the original message
       gave a link to a fradulent website calling itself
       Uk Cancer Research and in a banner below
       Cancer Research UK.I knew it was fradulent
       because I am a subscribing member of UKCR
       and I visit the website from time to time.
       So I posted my message to show the difference.
       I have heard of ESSIAC but know very little
       about it,and I neither advocated it nor reject it
       in my message,which was simply to show that
       the quoted website was fraudelent.

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=21853
"There is no medical research to support any claims that this therapy can
prevent,
treat or cure cancer.  In fact Gerson therapy can have some serious side
effects
and is potentially very harmful. '

       You fail to see the irony in this passage,don't you.
       "There is no medical research to support any claims .."
       This from the biggest research organisation outside
       the USA.
                               and
       "In fact Gerson therapy can have some serious side
       effects and is potentially very harmful."
       They are quoting anectdotal evidence,not a trial,
        a thing which elsewhere is inadmissable.

       Carmen Wheatley makes the point on p.270 of "the book":
       "There is a paradox which should be noted here:  on the
       one hand,less than meticulous diagnostic procedures are
       used to justify possibly life-threatening treatment. On the
       other,when it comes to the question of proof,as in the
       demand for proof of unorthodox therapies such as
       the patient eventually adopted,the medical establishment
       feels equally no hesitation in demanding Olympian standards
       of proof.From a scientific viewpoint, there is a certain
       inconsistency here.

You've been duplicitous about Tosh.

"His diagnosis in 1994 was right at the cutoff between MGUS and myeloma.
They called
it Stage 1A
His bloodwork and bone marrow tests were  consistent with a low level
non-aggressive type of myeloma, which can have a variable, but sometimes
very long,
natural history including survival of at least 8 years.
He pursued Gerson therapy, along with Vitamin C at very high doses. This is
not
normally recommended in myeloma patients in part because of kidney toxicity.

He was also taking conventional medicines.
Firstly, he took Clodronate initially, followed more recently by
Ibandronate (both
bisphosphonates which can help bones and myeloma overall).

       We are not talking about conventional medicines,
       we are talking about chemotherapy.Besides, he
       did not start taking these conventional medicines
       until 10 months after his diagnoses, when he
       should have been dead.

Secondly, he has taken a
variety of anti-inflammatory medications which can suppress myeloma
activity. In
animal model systems, anti-inflammatory medications can be sufficient to
suppress
myeloma growth."

       When I read this passage I felt it had a familiar ring to it.
       Had I heard it before ? I asked myself. Yet you did not
       quote any source, so it must be yours.
       But 'J' writing about Michael Gearing-Tosh? I  never
       remembered anything similar on this NG before.

       Then I remembered : it is from a review of Living Proof
       written by the distinguished Dr Brian Durie,and published
       by Myeloma.org in February 2002,Volume 4,Issue 9.
       You have copied the exact words.
       Why you should not credit Dr Durie I really do not know.
       The eminent Dr Durie is a physician of world renown
        who,with Professor Sid Salmon developed the
       Salmon Durie classification of Myeloma, a classification
       which is used in Pathology Laboratories throughout
       the world.His "message" would have carried much more weight than
        a message from an anonymous "non-Doc" on a small NG.
       I would not argue with such a distinguished doctor,
       but I know a man who could: Professor Sid Salmon,the
       other half of the classification.Before undergoing any
       therapy Michael has a telephone
       consultation with him using the extant readings.
       Professor Salmon says  "You have delayed six weeks
       since diagnosis.Six weeks is the maximum I allow a patient".
       Also "You must not delay starting chemotherapy,even in six
       weeks myeloma can progress."
       Also "You have a weakened immune system and could
       pick up an infection."(pages 86/87)

       There seems to be a schism in the Salmon Durie alliance.

       Apart from this you could also have quoted Professor
       Robert Kyle,of the Mayo clinic. He writes in the actual book:
       "   ...   ...   ...
       I believe that he had had smouldering multiple myeloma
       that continues to remain stable.   ...   ...
           ...   ...   ..."

       The  Mayo Clinic is a World Centre of Excellence on cancer
       and Professor Kyle is its chief.

       Now Michael Gearing-Tosh Had three bone marrow aspirates,
       and no less that seven medical opinions.Furthermore three
       haematologists from the JohnRadcliffe,Oxford, and the
       Royal Marsden,Sutton,independently diagnosed the patient
       as having Stage 1 Multiple Myeloma fulfilling one major
       and several minor criteria of the Salmon and Durie criteria
       for active or overt Multiple Myeloma Stage 1.(pp270,271)
       So how can these opposing views be reconciled?
       At this point I realized that Dr Durie and Professor Kyle
       had the gift of hindsight.They could not possibly confirm
       what had gone before. Michael Gearing-Tosh was still
       alive.On the flyleaf of the book he wrote:

           "I was told that I had cancer and that
           I must expect to die soon.Almost eight
           years later I still do my job and enjoy life."

       Also on p.186 written almost eight years after diagnosis
       he writes:

           "Year by year I have more energy."

       Clearly all the prognoses he had been given were wrong
       and neither Dr Durie nor Professor Kyle could support them.

       I was minded of Professor Candace Pert,who wrote in her
       book "Molecules of Emotion" (p. 162):

          "When something does not fit the reigning paradigm
           the initial response in the mainstream is to deny the facts."

       Well,this case did not fit "the reigning paradigm"
       and in my humble,unqualified way I asked myself
       "is this the case here? Have the facts been denied?"

He was diagnosed Stage IV in 2002
He died on 29th July 2005 of sepsis, due to a tooth infection that became
systemic.
Michael made the mistake of not taking antibiotics, as his doctor had urged
He's not remarkable at all. He's the author of his own misfortune.

       This is one of the ugliest, most callous statements
       I have read for a long time.

       I have just quoted Professor Salmon,"You have a
       weakened immune system and could pick up an infection ."
       Also,on p78, Dr Littlewood says "You have a
       seriously compromised immune system.
       Catch a really bad infection and it could kill you.",
        and "I can only repeat that with your weakened
       immune system you may not have the capacity
       to fight an invasive disease."
       Michael must have been in a terrible dilemma.
       If he took antibiotics his immune system which he
       had so carefully built up could be wiped out
       and what would happen to the Myeloma then?
       So he refused it.
       You cannot say he was the author of his own misfortune.
       You do not know, nobody knows what would have
       happened if he had taken antibiotics.

 I've found others who have lived as long as, or longer than he did, on
conventional medicines.

       He did it without chemotherapy.
       He did not die of myeloma.

Book not recommended. Gerson not recommended.
You've no credbility here.

       Your opinion is not shared by Dr Durie,who,in the
       same review as you have quoted writes:

           "An inspiring new book written by a myeloma
           patient has just been written in Britain ...   ..."

           "powerful and thought-provoking."

           "As physicians we need to support such individual
           decisions provided they are not medically crazy.
           Was Michael crazy to take in his own hands
           Perhaps some physicians thought so,but the
           proof is always in the end result.Thank you Michael
           for writing your story and for so eloquently discussing
           your life and the impact of decisions and recommendations
           that physicians make.You are the Living Proof that we
           don't have all the answers."

           Rpt.    "...   the proof is always in the end result   ..."

       IMHO that is a truly handsome statement from
       a truly great man.

To make matters worse, his type of cancer is nothing
like Chris's FIL. Bisphosphonates and anti-inflammatories don't play such an
important role in advanced solid tumor cancers (Chris' FIL's cancer), as
they would
in myeloma.

       Chris asked "  I was looking for some feedback or
       testimony from people who have, or know of people ,
       who have been treated through their programs."
       (Referring to Gerson).

       I knew of someone who had ("knew of", not "knew") -
       Michael Gearing Tosh.I told him about the book
       to give him an idea of what Gerson involved.
       I never made any claims about its efficacy.
       But I am humbled by FIL's spirit.
       His doctors wrote him off; you,a "non-doc",
       wrote him off,even to the extent of recommending
       a nursing service for dying cancer patients.
       But this indomitable old timer soldiers on.
       If he is going to die, it will be with his boots on.

       I know perfectly well that he did not have
       MM and never suggested that he did.

Shame on you for concealing the truth.
J
       I am logging-off for Christmas.I am not expecting many more.
       A Happy Christmas to you 'J', and to any
       other subscriber who has had the endurance
       to read this far.
       I have answered your points.
       You have come back more than once,each time
       with increasing vehemence,and on one occasion
       unethically,and I have answered you.
       You are out of your depth.

       Old Bill.

           "As a dog returneth to his vomit
           so a fool returneth to his folly."
               (Proverbs 26:11)