Gerson: Cancer and Disease - What corporations do not want you to know

[Tenet Nosce]

The word "cure" cannot be applied in the medical profession which is why "treatments" are "practiced".

Exactly. And anyway, since the "cure" comes from within, I don't really see why everybody is so eager to fight over who owns this term.

A cure manifests from homeostasis. Homeostasis is simply the body returning to a natural state from natural input.

Yes- except I would go with the homeodynamic theory which posits that homeostasis takes the form of highly-ordered plateaus in an otherwise chaotic process. With homeodynamics, we can explain how complex systems evolve from one homeostasis to another homeostasis, with intervening periods of chaotic activity between them. Homeodynamics also provides more explanatory power on the superorganism and ecosystem levels of life.

Also does a better job explaining a "healing crisis" or "detox reaction" where things need to temporarily become worse before they get better. Also explains why "palliative care" i.e treating the symptoms, may result in chronic conditions over the long term.

See Lloyd D, Aon MA, Cortassa S. Why homeodynamics, not homeostasis? ScientificWorldJournal. 2001. Apr 4;1:133-45 for more info, and a link the free full text

To better understand what the medical profession is doing to cancer we only need look at the use of antibiotics and pesticides. By attempts at direct annihilation of nature we are confused as to how nature will fight back. In these attempts we are forcing the evolution of larger problems that tend to do a better job at getting the message across.

Yes. In 1846, a Hungarian medical resident by the name of Ignaz Semmelweis was put in charge of two maternity clinics. He made the observation that one of the clinics had a much higher rate of puerperal fever than the other.

Since the only obvious difference between the two was that one was a teaching clinic for medical students and the other for midwives. Noting another difference, that the medical students had regular contact with cadavers before administering pelvic exams to the pregnant women.

He therefore theorized that there was some invisible disease agent being transmitted on the medical students' hands that wasn't present on the midwives' hands. As you can imagine, there was quite an "outrage" at this notion, which was of course interpreted as an assault on the entire medical profession- essentially accusing them of spreading disease.

Life did not go well for Semmelweis after that. He was, of course, scoffed at, derided, discredited, and eventually ignored. He ended up frantically passing out flyers on the streets warning pregnant women about the doctors. He was eventually put in an asylum, where he died at age 47. Ironically, from septicemia.

It wasn't until 1870 that the "germ theory of disease" took hold in the medical profession. The conclusive proof was obtained by several scientists, but the most crucial evidence came from the work of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch in the 1860s and 1870s.

To this day, we use Koch's postulates to establish a causal relationship between a microbe and a disease.

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.

2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.

3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.

4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

It would be another almost 50 years before Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928. And the rest, as they say, is history.

You are right, it is our attitude that, since bacteria cause disease our aim should be to eradicate them, which has led us into our predicament today. Which not only means "superbugs" infecting us, but our near total ignorance of the gut microbiome means we have been systematically wiping out our internal ecology through the overuse of antibiotics, and possibly even mutating what is left through the pesticides and additives in our food.

But even given all of this- notice how so many people in BOTH the "mainstream medical" AND "natural health" professions are still running around half-cocked promoting their pet theories while pretty much ignoring what science has now clearly demonstrated which is the fact that bacteria- and possibly other microbes- play an absolutely critical role in the maintenance of health.

So yes, it does come down to asking the wrong questions, and making the wrong assumptions.

But now tell me this: If I go down to the Gerson Institute and pay god knows what for their "cure"... is anybody talking to me about gut bacteria? Probably not, because they are too heavily invested in their egos and in defending all the hullabaloo they have caused by claiming that scientific theories are facts.

Similarly, if I walk into see a gastroenterologist and pay god knows what for their "treatment," is anybody talking to me about gut bacteria? Probably not, because they are too heavily invested in their egos and in defending all the hullabaloo they have caused by insisting that scientific theories are facts.

So what, really, is the difference between these two groups? Not much. They're two different acts in the same circus.

So you don't have a problem with a cure, you have a problem with the use of legal jargon? Is this a useful thought?

The naturopathic philsopohy, which I have adopted, would say that the cure comes from within. Medicines- natural or synthetic- are merely treatments. Treatments do not cure, they merely help to create an environment for the cure to manifest itself.

The primary difference between the two is that drug treatments almost invariably work by inhibiting an enzyme system. While natural treatments tend to promote them. But there are exceptions to the rule on both sides.

Knowing the "legal jargon" is important. If you don't use the law, it will use you. Is it a useful to flap our wings about and squawk loudly at the "establishment" and spread viral videos? Why would we do this when we can simply elevate our language and step outside of the establishment's system?

Law is the codification of language. That's all it really is. We may not like it, or think it fair, but it is what it is. Catalyst, which we can accept, control, or ignore.

Words meaning X "to me" and Y "to you" is all fine and dandy when we are chatting philosophy in the coffee shop. But when people step into the public world- particularly when offering health services- they are agreeing to be bound by the parameters of the legal definitions of terms. However absurd they may be.

But the joke is on us, because all anybody ever needed to do is to actually read the law and learn the terms. Then, think of a way to express oneself without using those terms. It might not be a foolproof way to avoid unwanted run-ins with the legal system, but it's better than lighting torches and taking to the streets.

Bottom line, calling the Gerson Therapy a "cancer cure" amounts to shooting oneself in the foot. There's just no good reason to do it, and every reason not to. Let the system have their term back.