1. Mike

    I believe you didn’t swear enough, but that’s just me! 😉


  2. Chris Beckett (chrisb1)
    Just to refute your nonsense and bigotry this is what you stated about Gonzalez…….

    “Gerson and Gonzalez (which are similar) not only don’t work, patients following these protocols fare significantly worse than those receiving standard of care alone”

    The truth just happens to be…………

    Gonzalez has treated a number of cancers with success at his clinic since 1990. He even took part in a preliminary Clinical Trial when his nutritional Therapy (which involves a tailor made package of supplements and pancreatic enzymes) was tested using pancreatic cancer patients. Gonzalez wrote, “We did complete a trial of our therapy with patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, supervised by the National Cancer Institute and funded by Nestle. The results of that study were published in the peer reviewed journal Nutrition and Cancer and reported the best results ever in the treatment of the disease.
    As a result of that data, our US National Cancer Institute funded a large-scale clinical trial, which turned out to be, unfortunately, a nightmare of mismanagement. A paper was published a year ago without our knowledge claiming our therapy didn´t work, but the paper was a complete misrepresentation of the large scale clinical trial. I have written a lengthy rebuttal of the recently published article on our website at: http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/jco_rebuttal.htm.”

    Now Gonzalez has gone further; he has written a book: ‘What went wrong – The Truth Behind the Clinical Trial of the Enzyme Treatment of Cancer’.

    Dr Paul J Rosch, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New York Medical School writes about the book of the trial as follows:

    ‘This book is about a $1.4 million grant awarded by the National Cancer Institute in 1998 to do a controlled clinical trial comparing the chemotherapeutic drug Gemzar to Dr Gonzalez enzyme approach in the treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer. Dr Gonzalez documents how the study was mismanaged, how he had no control over the selection of patients, and how the protocol was violated in numerous ways that were subsequently confirmed by regulatory authorities. Nevertheless, a misleading article was published without his knowledge and none of the responsible parties were (sic) ever admonished or held accountable. This tragic tale tends to support a growing suspicion that the cancer cartel of organizations, government agencies and vested interests is devoted more to preserving their enormous profits and reputations than to the prevention and cure of cancer’.


    • As always, Chris, you support your advocacy of quackery with citations to quack websites selling the quackery.

      As always, you rely on belief, not evidence.

      A properly conducted test of the Gonzalez protocol showed that patients fared worse than the controls. Shame, but that’s how it goes. Science is all about floating a hypothesis, testing it, and following the evidence.

      Or, in the case of quacks, continuing to assert it in spite of the evidence.

      To balance your quack advocacy, one polemical source (quackwatch) and one balanced one (Wikipedia).

      But do come back when there is a properly published study (as opposed to a quack website).

      Would you like to guess, by the way, why an investigator might not give the proponent of a therapy control over the trial, and might follow the documented protocol rather than allowing the proponent to fiddle with things?

      No, wait, you’d call it conspiracy. Because you’re a loon.

      Oh, and Chris? Learnt he difference between refute and repudiate some time will you? Thanks awfully.

  3. Chris Beckett (chrisb1)

    Your wrong on just about everything so no specific place.


  4. So you say, chrisb1, so you say. Funny how your “proof” always relies on faith and mine on evidence, eh?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *