Gerson Regimen

Our assessments of evidence for each medical benefit fall into one of these categories:

• Strong evidence: consistent, significant effects in several large (or at least one very large) well designed clinical studies or at least two meta-analysesa statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more research studies; the results of smaller research studies addressing the same or similar questions can be analyzed as though they are one bigger, more powerful study of clinical studies of moderate or better quality (or one large meta-analysis) finding similar results
• Good evidence: significant effects in one large or several mid-sized and well-designed clinical studies ( randomized controlled trialsa study design in which people are randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group to compare the outcomes from different treatments; an RCT is considered a strong design for determining a therapy’s effects with an appropriate placebo or other strong comparison control or observational studies that control for confounds)
• Modest evidence: significant effects in at least three small but well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or one or more well-designed, mid-sized clinical studies of reasonably good quality (RCTs or observationala type of study in which individuals are observed or certain outcomes are measured, but no attempt is made to affect the outcome (for example, no treatment is given); an example is a study that records people’s diets, but doesn’t try to alter their diets, and looks for patterns of disease or other outcomes related to different foods studies), or several small studies aggregated into a meta-analysis
• Preliminary evidence: significant effects in small or poorly designed clinical studies OR conflicting results in adequate studies but a preponderance of evidence of an effect
• Weak evidence: one or more case studies, supported by animal evidence OR small treatment effects of limited clinical significance OR studies with no controls OR weak trends of effects
• Insufficient evidence: preclinical evidence only OR clinical studies with such poor or unclear methodology that no conclusion can be drawn OR conflicting findings across clinical studies with no preponderance of evidence in one direction; conflicting evidence occurs when studies find conflicting effects (positive effect vs no effect or negative effect) with the same treatment and the same general study population (same cancer type, for example)

• Vague and unanalyzed report of “prevention or at least delay in the onset of cancer cachexia, fewer postoperative complications, less marked side effects from the chemoradiotherapy…use of lower doses of analgesics, slower progression of existing liver metastasis, and a lower occurrence of malignant effusions” among people with metastatic cancer with poor prognosis treated with Gerson therapy, in several instances along with conventional treatment, compared to matched controls in a series of case reports⁵Molassiotis A, Peat P. Surviving against all odds: analysis of 6 case studies of patients with cancer who followed the Gerson therapy. Integrative Cancer Therapies. 2007 Mar;6(1):80-8.
• Apparently lower rates of side effects including blood counts, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite and weight, and loss of hair among people with breast cancer treated with standard treatment and a modified Gerson diet excluding liver juice, routine thyroid supplementation (except in hypothyroidism), and niacin, and limiting coffee enemas to 2 a day in an outpatient setting for 4 years compared to matched controls in a small partially controlled trial⁶Lechner P. The role of a modified Gerson therapy in the treatment of cancer. Typescript, Second Department of Surgery, Landeskrankenhaus, Graz, Austria. 1987, as described in Chapter 14 of Lerner M. Choices in Healing: Integrating The Best of Conventional and Complementary Approaches to Cancer. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 1996.