Gerson diet conclusions
2c The data from the (most relevant, rigorous etc.) trials are of very low methodological quality [neutral because of lack of methodological rigour].
""The specific safety problems, advice to stop conventional cancer therapies and the lack of substantive evidence for efficacy outweigh any benefits associated with the Gerson therapy"
"
The Gerson therapy has been extensively publicised and written about since its inception, however, clear and substantive evidence for its efficacy is still lacking. The theories underlying the therapeutic approach are not supported by any scientific knowledge. The Gerson Institute itself is vague about the number of successful cases treated over the years. Safety fears and demands on patients’ resources reflect negatively upon the Gerson therapy. The American Cancer Society and the US National Cancer Institute, do not recommend the use of the Gerson therapy, warning that patients should not turn away from mainstream therapy to rely only on this alternative approach. The specific safety problems, advice to stop conventional cancer therapies and the lack of substantive evidence for efficacy outweigh any benefits associated with the Gerson therapy.
