Gerson Therapy to treat cancer; Wai diet response

[gracie]

I've just learned about the Gerson method (from the documentary "The Beautiful Truth"), which is a diet to heal cancer. I'm not exactly sure of its legitimacy, as the cure rates seem to differ according to source. But it's apparently one of the most popular alternative cancer treatments, and a lot of people seem to know about it.

The reason I bring it up is because the diet reminds me of the Wai diet:
--the main rule is to drink 13 glasses of freshly-made juice a day, every hour. The standard drink is apple and carrot.
...Note about juicing: a standard centrifugal juicer isn't allowed because it destroys enzymes, due to blades rotating at high speeds; and too much oxygen is mixed into the juices, hastening their decomposition. A 'grind and press' juicer is recommended instead. (Again, I'm not sure of the validity of this, although I hear a lot of talk about "low RPM" juicers these days...)
--No salt or hot spices allowed; nothing canned, frozen, processed, smoked, etc.; no milk, butter, meat, tea, cocoa, flour, soy, etc.

Differences from Wai diet:
--a single meal of fruits, vegetables, wholegrains is allowed (though this could be like "munch food" for Wai)
--Regular use of coffee or chamomile enemas to remove toxins from body (specifically, to widen the bile ducts of the liver so that toxins can be released)
--Supplements included (pancreatic enzymes, potassium, iodine, crude liver extract with Vitamin B12, Vit. A and C, niacin, flaxseed oil, and pepsin)
--NO animal proteins and NO oils allowed, except for flaxseed

The reason for no animal protein or vegetable fat is because digesting either is thought to overburden the liver. The liver is the focal point of this diet because Max Gerson, the founder of the diet, thought that cancers were allowed to develop because of poor liver function, and that it was the most important organ in defeating malignancy.
(From what I understand, the liver's vital functions are: metabolizing essential fats and synthesizing necessary blood proteins; breaking down and eliminating toxic substances; and secreting bile, which empties into the small intestine and carries liver waste)
According to Gerson, animal proteins impede the detoxication process, and interfere with the liver-boosting supplements. Keeping animal protein at a minimum frees the protein-dissolving enzymes to "digest" cancer tissue rather than food.

Hmm. Is there any validity in reducing animal protein and fat in the diet, especially in cancer patients, in order to lessen the burden on the liver?

Note on flaxseed: according to Gerson, this fat was an exception, because it helps the body tranport Vitamin A, has been shown to have antitumor action, is rich in essential fatty acid that reduces blood viscosity (and low blood viscosity correlates with a decreased spreading/metastases of cancer) source: http://chipsa.com/Gerson_history.pdf

btw: The source above also mentions a study by Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, who in 1972, discovered that extracts of mouse liver "strongly inhibited" the growth of inoculated cancer in mice. He isolated retine, a potent anticancer substance, from liver extract. He noted that, "retine stops the growth of cancer cells without poisoning other cells."
Unfortunately, it seems that retine was never able to be isolated. Anyone know anything about this?

Okay, one last thing: the balance of potassium and sodium is also highly stressed on the Gerson diet. Gerson noticed that edema (caused by an excess of sodium, from what he understood) disappeared with great frequency when patients ingest high amounts of potassium.

My question: What's that about? Does potassium really effect salt-related water retention?

From reading through the boards, I assume that the Wai diet would disagree with the following:
--the use of enemas, because it kills the beneficial and protective flora
--consuming flaxseed oil, because it contains too high levels of phyto-estrogens and linolenic acids (an omega 3, which can throw your omega 3 fat ratio out of balance);
--supplements, because too much of a certain metal has pro-oxidative effects; and an excess of a mineral decreases levels of other minerals. And it's much too easy to consume an excess with a pill.
Specifically, in "Harmful Vitamin Supplements" (http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/3/index.html) it states that too much iodide (a supplement used in the Gerson method) is pro-oxidative and can increase thyroid activity; too much vitamin A (part of the treatment) is even cancerous; and vitamin C (ditto) is pro-oxidative, kills healthy cells, and decreases B12 levels in the body. (It also increases activation of mutagenic HCA from food; but because no cooked meat is allowed on the Gerson diet, I'll ignore that).

All of which (phew!) brings me to my LAST two questions:
1. The research shows that these supplements could be harmful, but when fighting off cancer, could the good outweigh the bad? These vitamins may only be a "little" pro-oxidative when compared to their benefit. That would still make them unhealthy for a healthy person to consume. But when unhealthy, could they be a necessary evil?
2. What about the pancreatic enzymes, potassium, crude liver extract, niacin, and pepsin? I'm not asking for any specific research, but I'm curious whether the same rule applies; that to fortify your body with excess "good stuff" is never a good idea...unless you're sick?

LAST question (sorry!): for someone with cancer, would a potential Wai "cure" consist of the 100% strict diet, or would some changes be made? More yolk, for example? (though this would totally contradict Gerson's liver theory)

I sincerely apologize for this ridiculously long post. And for any silly questions, I am not a "math and science" person. Thanks!

[gracie]

omg, I had no idea it was this long. I'm a dork. Sooorry : )

[Oscar]

Hahaha!

I think it's important to realize that cancer is not an external disease (like a virus or bacterial infection), but internal mechanisms gone wrong. Carcinogenic and mutagenic substances are, as far as we know, the main culprits. This means that reducing the intake of these substances is one of the main priorities. Another priority is to give the body everything it needs to repair the damage (next to functioning normally). I think your conclusions are correct.

[RRM]

Its great reading something that you have given some thought.
Then it doesnt matter at all whether its long, or not.
Why are you interested in cancer treatments?

Hmm. Is there any validity in reducing animal protein and fat in the diet, especially in cancer patients, in order to lessen the burden on the liver?

No.
Cancer patients do not have a decreased capacity to process protein or fat. (no residues in urine / feces)
And the liver is not a 'single mind operating organ'.
Maybe men cannot watch football and have a meaningful conversation at the same time,
but the liver is different. It can do lots of things at the same time,
done by lots of different specialized sections.

Unfortunately, it seems that retine was never able to be isolated. Anyone know anything about this?

Retine seems to be present in human urine,
and seems to be one of the many compounds involved in cellular multiplication. (and therefore also involved in cancer)
There are many, many potent anticancer substances.
There are also many advanced and succesful cancer treatments.
What is of much more importance, is how we can prevent cancer.

Does potassium really effect salt-related water retention?

Yes. Potassium and sodium levels are very much intertwined,
and taking in excessive potassium may bring down sodium levels.
However, its not just sodium, but many other substances that may cause edema.

The research shows that these supplements could be harmful, but when fighting off cancer, could the good outweigh the bad? These vitamins may only be a "little" pro-oxidative when compared to their benefit. That would still make them unhealthy for a healthy person to consume. But when unhealthy, could they be a necessary evil?

sure, its possible.
But. When you fight a cancer, you need to know your enemy.
What type of cancer is it?
What is its profile?
Then you can make a plan to fight it most effectively.
Every type of cancer is different, and requires a different battle plan.

What about the pancreatic enzymes, potassium, crude liver extract, niacin, and pepsin? I'm not asking for any specific research, but I'm curious whether the same rule applies; that to fortify your body with excess "good stuff" is never a good idea...unless you're sick?

When you are sick, drastic, harmful methods may be very helpful, and even necessary.
But when you do so, you need to know the exact nature of what you are dealing with,
so that you can target it very accurately and specifically.

for someone with cancer, would a potential Wai "cure" consist of the 100% strict diet, or would some changes be made?

The Wai diet is not a cancer cure.
Once a cancer has been caused, it lives a life of its own, not affected by diet.
Yes, the whole body is affected by diet, but not the cancer specifically.
For curing cancer specifically, there are very effective cures.
The Wai diet is for preventing cancer.

[Oscar]

For curing cancer specifically, there are very effective cures.

What kind of cures?

[RRM]

Chemotherapy, for example.
Very high survival rates.

[Oscar]

Hmm, as far as I know survival rates are more linked to the specific type of cancer (i.e. how easy it is to treat), and for instance if it's benign or malign, if it's metastasized, etc. also, the earlier cancer is diagnosed the higher the chance of survival. So a benign cancer in an early stage is far easier to treat (by operating in combination with chemotherapy/radio therapy) than a metastasized malign one.

The basic idea about chemotherapy is to kill as many cells as possible, including healthy cells, and hope that the cancer cells are destroyed before the patient dies.

Are you sure your info about the survivability is correct? It might be colored by factors like remission not being included, or combination with other treatments, etc.

[RRM]

Hmm, as far as I know survival rates are more linked to the specific type of cancer

Yes, they are very much related to the type of cancer (how aggressive, eg SCLC)
and the stage the cancer is in.
And yes, you are right, chemotherapy is often more effective in combination with for example radiofrequency ablation (gastric cancer),
and chemoradiotherapy is superior to radiotherapy alone.

The basic idea about chemotherapy is to kill as many cells as possible, including healthy cells, and hope that the cancer cells are destroyed before the patient dies.

Exactly.
When the cancer has not spread too much, 'collateral damage' can be limited somewhat.
Particularly more advanced chemotherapy methods (hyperthermic Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for example) are better targeted than intravenous chemotherapy.

And yes, its essential to prevent the forming of new tumors
and when the cancer is gone, to prevent it from coming back,
and of course diet plays a big role in that.
But to me, thats prevention, and not a cure.
I think thats why Gerson's therapy is successful regarding superficial spreading and nodular skin cancer.
(not a cluster of cancer cells / tumor, but separate cancers)

Hmm. Is there any validity in reducing animal protein and fat in the diet, especially in cancer patients, in order to lessen the burden on the liver?

No.
Cancer patients do not have a decreased capacity to process protein or fat. (no residues in urine / feces)

Hmmm, but if you leave the liver out of the equation,
there are protein-decomposing enzymes everywhere in your body (except in the true skin).
And those enzymes are 'single minded'; they only break down proteins.
And if you keep the blood protein level low,
then more of those enzymes are free to clean up old cells and malfunctioning cells.
Cancer cells belong to the latter.

[Oscar]

The question is though, whether the Wai diet alone, by putting the body in an optimal state - minimizing the intake of harmful substances and consuming all needed nutrients, thereby giving the body the opportunity to tackle those malfunctioning cells (i.c. cancer cells) - would be enough to get rid of the cancer. This will most probably also depend on the state of disease. If this would be the case (of course this is purely hypothetical until proven), then it could be counted as a indirect cure.

[summerwave]

I like to read these exchanges so much (still enjoying the one on longevity and other organisms that are 'negligibly senescent', too).

Sometimes, Oscar, I think you are more hardcore than RRM! One imagines you are always extremely healthy, and that the diet really works for you absolutely well.

It is really wonderful to read both of your posts, now that both of you are a kind of longitudinal study. (For awhile, it seemed just RRM stressed that he was absolutely strict, and had been so for years).

I hope to join this circle....

[Oscar]

Hahaha!

Well, the one thing that influences my well-being is (lack of) sleep. It's so easy for me to stay up (too) late. In that sense RRM is more hardcore than I am.

[RRM]

Actually, Oscar is more hardcore, as he does not have acne to keep him on this diet.
Acne has always been a fantastic help for me to stay 100%.
Oscar doesnt need that.

[Oscar]

Thanks RRM. I don't feel that hardcore, to be honest. And I know that anyone can do whatever I do or have done...it's not special. The 'only' thing it takes is to really want something. So, summerwave, if you really want to, I know you can.

[gracie]

Thanks for that informative reply! You know everything, RRM he he

So do you, Oscar! Everyone on here is so damn smart.

Fortunately, I don't know anyone with cancer. I just researched this out of curiosity. Gerson therapy seemed promising and I figured, hey, I've got a great opportunity to use this forum to get some feedback.

The question is though, whether the Wai diet alone, by putting the body in an optimal state - minimizing the intake of harmful substances and consuming all needed nutrients, thereby giving the body the opportunity to tackle those malfunctioning cells (i.c. cancer cells) - would be enough to get rid of the cancer. This will most probably also depend on the state of disease. If this would be the case (of course this is purely hypothetical until proven), then it could be counted as a indirect cure.

Oscar, yes, I'm starting to see how diet is only a cure in the sense that it helps the body cure itself. I like your term "indirect cure." I agree that the ideal diet, in any scenario, is about not burdening the body while simultaneously providing for it.
Which is why I was intrigued reading about Gerson's suggestion that protein/fats could do more harm than good. I know when I was sick, egg yolk absolutely provided my body with what it needed to recover. But cancer is a whole different story, I guess, in which the body is more in "fighting" mode than "recovery" mode (right?). So do the rules, as far as optimal diet, change?
It had me wondering about the fine line between providing for the body vs. burdening it...or even the fine line between the body in recovery vs. the body that fights. I guess we're always doing both and it's about balance. Still, my head is spinning!

RRM wrote:
gracie wrote:

Hmm. Is there any validity in reducing animal protein and fat in the diet, especially in cancer patients, in order to lessen the burden on the liver?

RRM wrote:
No.
Cancer patients do not have a decreased capacity to process protein or fat. (no residues in urine / feces)

RRM wrote:
Hmmm, but if you leave the liver out of the equation,
there are protein-decomposing enzymes everywhere in your body (except in the true skin).
And those enzymes are 'single minded'; they only break down proteins.
And if you keep the blood protein level low,
then more of those enzymes are free to clean up old cells and malfunctioning cells.
Cancer cells belong to the latter.

Wait, so Gerson could be on to something, but you're saying it's not about the liver?

The Wai diet is not a cancer cure.
Once a cancer has been caused, it lives a life of its own, not affected by diet.
Yes, the whole body is affected by diet, but not the cancer specifically.
For curing cancer specifically, there are very effective cures.
The Wai diet is for preventing cancer.

This clarified things for me, thank you.

Also, as far as Gerson's take on juicing (destruction of enzymes due to high speed blades=bad, and too much oxygen mixed into juices=bad), I found this is an old thread:

RRM wrote:
Old juice is not dead at all, but filled with loads of valuable nutrients.
There is nothing wrong with the oxidation, except for the color (if you dont like brown).
You dont need enzymes from food; all the enzymes you need, are composed inside the body. Enzymes from food cannot enter the blood stream; they are too big and are decomposed inside our digestive tract.

This forum is like a goldmine!

[RRM]

Thanks for that informative reply! You know everything, RRM he he

Actually, i know nothing; i constantly need to feed myself with information
to be able to try to analyze.

cancer is a whole different story, I guess, in which the body is more in "fighting" mode than "recovery" mode (right?). So do the rules, as far as optimal diet, change?

Yes, and no.
No as your general needs and weaknesses are the same,
but yes as you need specific conditions to be able to fight the cancer.

Wait, so Gerson could be on to something, but you're saying it's not about the liver?

No, its not about the liver, as its the protein-decomposing enzymes in the blood and lymph that need to decompose the cancer cells.
Yes, the 'protein starvation' mode is an excellent idea.
Its the same as when you have a fever, due a viral infection.
Your body will not like to eat something, as it does not want to waste any energy on digestion.
(digestion requires a lot of energy)
It wants to direct all energy to fight the enemy (creating radicals to kill the virus),
and it 'doesnt care' that the body will weaken regarding muscle volume
(muscle protein will be used for energy).

With cancer, the enemy is 'rebel-cells' that need to be eliminated.
When you consume little protein, the blood-amino acid levels will be low.
This will stimulate the protein-decomposing enzymes in the blood to break down cells for decomposition into amino acids,
so that sufficient amino acids will become available for reconstruction of vital organs,
and as building blocks for neurotransmitters in the brain.
The lower the blood amino acid levels, the more active thsoe enzymes will become.

But, if you only eat plant protein (fruit, veggies etc), the protein quality will be low,
so that relatively much of the ingested protein will be worthless,
and not utilized for (re)construction purposes,
so that relatively much amino acids remain in the blood (not good regarding activity of protein-decomposing enzymes)
Though that amount is still relatively low.
In my opinion it would be more effective to replace the grains by Brazil nuts (with the same amount of protein),
so that the overall protein quality is much higher and less redundant amino acids remain.

Also, as far as Gerson's take on juicing (destruction of enzymes due to high speed blades=bad

Though it is true that the high speed blades cause friction (heat) on a molecular level,
and this causes damage to protein and other nutrients present in the juice.
So, he is right that blending is not good (though its not about the enzymes getting damaged).
A low-speed masticating juice extractor is better.