The early post-war hearings brought to light the work of Max Gerson, MD. Beginning with himself and continuing with his patients, Dr. Gerson treated primarily the untreatable, and very often brought about healing where none was thought (by the medical establishment) possible.
“This is one of the reasons why developments in culture made very slow progress all through the centuries; they were restrained forcefully.
“I was in a more favorable position. Ninety to ninety-five per cent of my patients were far advanced (terminal) cases without any risk to take; either all recognized treatments had failed or the patients were inoperable from the beginning. It takes some time to acquire enough experience to see progress, results or failures.”1
“We will again need real housewives, not eager to save kitchen time, but homemakers who will devote their lives to the benefit of all, especially the task of developing and maintaining a healthy family. Babies would no longer be fed by a formula but would have the natural mother’s milk; they would grow up without being afflicted with a fatal disease such as leukemia, and without being mentally retarded, both conditions which are increasing rapidly at present.
“For the future of coming generations, I think it is high time that we change our agriculture and food preservation methods. Otherwise, we will have to increase our institutions for mental patients yearly, and we will see the hospitals overcrowded with degenerative diseases even more rapidly and in greater number than the hospitals themselves can be enlarged. Seventy years ago, leukemia was unknown in the
How has history treated the contributions of Dr. Gerson to our wellness? Sixty-one years after presenting his results to the US Senate (and the world), and forty-seven years after his death, he is ignored by the medical establishment. Although his successors at The Gerson Institute continue to deal effectively with terminal cancer (unless the liver has ceased to function), their greatest enemies are the US society of physicians and the apathetic response of patients – the treatment is rigorous enough that too many give up and die rather than endure and live. We continue to throw billions of dollars at cancer with negligible change in mortality rate – for example the recently voter-approved three billion dollar boondoggle in ---------------------------------------------
to set up yet another government bureaucracy to soak up resources that have far better uses enriching our lives. The cure for cancer is staring us in the mouth; all we have to do is live the way our bodies were designed for us to live and most of the “diseases of affluence” will go away. But a typical response to this wonderfully liberating news is that of a widow I had met: when she overheard me to suggest that a change of diet could help prevent disease such as cancer, I was perceived as accusing her of murdering her late husband, who had died of cancer. Texas
2. Ibid., p4