1
First published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Jan 1998
At the time the Gerson Trust had not yet changed its name to Nutritional Cancer Therapy Trust.
GERSON TRUST PROJECT TO PRODUCE AND USE
CONCENTRATED PHYTONUTRIENTS IN CANCER THERAPY
By Dr Lawrence G. Plaskett
The Gerson Therapy and its Modern Implications
Of alchemy, the medicine of the State,
of turning chemicals into gold I sing;
of days when men think cancer is their fate and once they have it, cannot do a thing.
In wars we’ve burned men live upon a grate
in peace they do it in the x-ray wing.
Ye tinsel insects, whom the people pay,
the wing of Truth will brush your webs away!
* Taken from “The Genial Seed” by Giuliano Dego (see footnote)
The Gerson Trust was formed on the basis of a dedication to the use of holistic nutrition
principles and naturopathic principles in the treatment of cancer. In particular, as the name
of the Trust implies, the initial dedication was to the use of the Gerson Therapy which
embodies those principles. These principles are based upon providing conditions in which
the body can adequately reject the tumour from its own resources. This is in complete
contrast with the techniques of orthodox medicine, drugs, surgery and radiation, designed to
“attack” the tumour by wholly external influences without much regard to the resulting cost
to the natural resources of the body.
The actual application of the Gerson Therapy has given rise to certain difficulties, however.
These arise from the extremely demanding nature of the Therapy, which is only ever likely
to be followed fully by outstandingly motivated patients. Moreover, the motivation of the
patients is tested further through aggressive reactions to the treatment, which, although
correctly described as “healing crises”, cause a significant amount of further suffering when
they occur. Finally, the results under present-day UK conditions have never been as good as
those achieved by Dr Max Gerson, originator of the Therapy, during his years of practice
prior to the publication of his book on the Therapy in 1958 1. Where success has been
achieved in more recent times, it has often involved the application of even stronger
measures (within the scope of measures included in the Therapy) than even Gerson himself
advocated.
These undoubted drawbacks to the Therapy in a present-day setting in no way detract from
the far-sightedness of Max Gerson’s work. Dr Albert Schweitzer said “I see in Gerson one
of the most eminent geniuses in medical history” and there is every reason today to support
that view. The usual explanation accepted in naturopathic circles for the rather weaker
performance of the Therapy today is that today’s cancer patients are suffering from even
higher body loads of toxicity and even more extensive cellular damage than the cancer
patients of 1940-58. This is almost certainly true, due to increased environmental exposure,
2
though it is also likely that Gerson’s own clinical skills were at least partly responsible. It
was, of course, his therapy, and he would have tailored the application closely to the patient.
Any modern re-assessment of the medical philosophy and treatment strategy so ably set out
by Gerson has to take into account this progressive weakening of the effectiveness of the
Therapy with the passage of the years, which has led to even more stringent treatment
conditions and even more powerful adverse reactions to therapy. An almost religious selfsacrificing zeal is therefore now needed to obtain even the possibility of results with the
Gerson method. However, that re-assessment must also, to be realistic, take fully into
account that Gerson himself did cure 50 cancer patients without aid from orthodox means
and that the members of Gerson’s family who have sought to continue his work since his
death in 1959 have also had remarkable levels of success, albeit in the face of increasing
difficulty. This has resulted in significant numbers of Gerson Therapy patients alive today
who can tell their own story. Two of them have written books about their experience.
These are an American lady, Jackie Davidson in her book “Cancer Winner” 2 and a British
lady, Beata Bishop in her book “A Time to Heal” 3. An Italian gentleman, Giuliano Dego
survived his cancer via the Gerson Therapy and recorded his appreciation of Dr Gerson’s
approach by writing a poem “The Genial Seed” 4. Through the medium of poetry he was
able to be somehow even more effectively scathing than is possible in prose about what he
saw as the negativity of orthodox cancer treatment. The publisher’s introductory
background relating to this poem follows at the end of this article.
These events do not constitute a proof of the Gerson Therapy in strict scientific terms.
Nonetheless, to voluntarily ignore such results one has to be either very “dyed in the wool”
in one’s medical outlook or, perhaps, be among those who feel their vested interests are
being threatened by the treatment methods involved.
Any open-minded evaluation of this situation is almost bound to conclude that the principles
adopted by Max Gerson are calling out for thorough investigation in a modern setting.
Moreover, the research funds needed for such an evaluation are quite minuscule compared
to the giant resources nowadays being ploughed into orthodox cancer research. Government
is unlikely to support this work because Government seeks its advice only from the medical
orthodoxy. However, there are the strongest possible reasons for charities that collect
money for cancer research to consider redirecting at least a proportion of their funds,
perhaps appealing to the public specifically on the grounds of a wish to explore the
alternative approach.
The Biochemical Approach
Max Gerson was an intrepid explorer of the science of medicine. There can be no doubt
that, had he lived and actively worked for longer, he would have modified his Therapy to
take account of newly emerging nutritional and biochemical knowledge. Since his death,
although his Therapy has been applied by his family with great dedication, there has been no
scientist of imagination and creativity dedicated to the extension and development of
Gerson’s ideas. The fact is that in almost 40 years since Gerson published his book the
whole environment within which the Gerson Therapy exists has altered beyond recognition.
Modern nutrition and biochemistry have made discoveries that are entirely compatible with
Gerson’s basic ideas and which are capable of supporting them thoroughly. Few people, if
any, have been pointing this out, presumably because of the suppression of fresh ideas as
already discussed above. By the same changes, a few of Gerson’s individual treatment
measures composing his Therapy, have become questionable, and stand in need of revision.
3
Stimulation of liver function through coffee enemas and other means are basic to the Gerson
Therapy. Today we have so much more knowledge of the toxins that afflict the population
and of the detoxifying enzyme systems of the liver and other organs, that it would be
perfectly feasible to monitor scientifically the levels of these enzymes and the rates of
detoxification, showing to what extent effective stimulation and detoxification were being
achieved through any given pattern of treatment. The naturopathic view of coffee enemas is
that they increase the flow of toxin expulsion through the liver in bile, helping to detoxify
the body, at the same time helping to relieve the crises. There is every clinical reason to
accept that view, though it is not scientific. Now however, scientifically, coffee enemas are
known to induce raised levels of the detoxifying liver enzymes, the glutathione Stransferases. Some of those who have questioned their efficacy may be convinced by this
biochemical evidence 5.
Secondly, at the end of his life Gerson somehow perceived that high quality linseed oil was
an important therapeutic item. He did this at a time when the scientific reasons for doing so
were not clear apart from its ability to reduce the level of blood cholesterol. Linseed oil is a
concentrate of alpha linolenic acid, a member of the group known as “Omega 3”, a subgroup of the essential fatty acids now known often to be nutritionally scarce and yet
essential to a wide range of very far-reaching cellular functions. Most vegetable oils contain
overwhelming quantities of Omega 6 fatty acids, producing an imbalance. The long term
consequences of Omega 3 deficiency are severely disruptive at cellular and tissue level 6 - 8.
Gerson’s use of substantial amounts of supplementary potassium has also been fully
vindicated by the discovery of the essential role of intracellular levels potassium in
maintaining cellular health 9.
Gerson also recognised that the digestive system of the cancer patient was usually underfunctioning, with the result that nutrients are being only partially extracted from the food.
To counter this he gave digestive enzymes. Gerson’s observations of this and his reasoning
still appear sound 10,11.
Another major plank of Gerson’s strategy was a diet mainly of organic fruits and vegetables
and a regime of about a dozen fruit and vegetable juices each day. Gerson obviously had
the clearest possible understanding that fruits and vegetables were therapeutic. He did not
know precisely why and at that time the science required to find out was simply not
available. He explained the effects in terms of “live enzymes”, but this reasoning is
probably not correct, or, if it is, not significant. This general idea, although unpalatable to
orthodox physicians, was in accord with the naturopaths of Gerson’s day and since.
By contrast the need for Gerson’s use of castor oil, iodine and iodide, dried thyroid, liver
juices and liver injections has tended to become increasingly questionable. There is little or
no evidence of benefit from iodine at levels which exceed normal adequacy. High intakes
of both iodide and thyroid hormone have the ability to actually suppress thyroid function. It
seems likely that if Gerson was able to positively pinpoint benefits from intake of liver that
it was most likely to be through the liver’s storage function for nutrients, which makes liver
an especially nutrient-dense food. However, the high protein content of liver is more than
likely to be counter productive in naturopathic therapy, while the liver is known often to be
the most toxic part of an animal (a situation that has got worse since Gerson’s time). Today,
these concentrated nutrients can be best provided by supplements, thereby giving better
control of measured intakes and avoiding all the disadvantages connected with liver itself.
Indeed, a major aspect of Gerson’s approach was to provide a situation of nutrient luxury
for all the body cells. This was to enable to liver and other organs of elimination to cleanse
4
themselves and to enable the immune system to revitalize itself to attack the tumour by
natural means. In other words, the body system which should have provided the protection
against cancer in the first place was being put back into order. Today, the availability of
high quality nutritional supplements is such that a substantial part of the therapy can clearly
be performed through their use. If that is so, then some, at least, of the measures used by
Gerson to provide nutrient luxury can be relaxed, making the therapy rather more userfriendly.
The writer has long been an advocate of forms of nutritional therapy which, while being
entirely naturopathic in concept, made the fullest use of modern supplements. In answer to
the question “can’t we get all this from foods”, the answer is a resounding “no” because
foods, particularly today’s foods in the quantities we can eat, simply do not deliver many of
the nutrients at the levels required for substantial therapeutic effect.
The scientific and medical literature is nowadays full of references to work in which the
responses of cancer to individual nutrients (vitamins and minerals) have been carefully
measured. This covers use of nutrients in prevention - giving the nutrients to whole groups
of people and seeing how their expected incidence of cancer changed as a result. It also
covers recurrence situations, in which people who have been successfully operated for
cancer have been given the nutrients to find out how the recurrence rates were affected.
Results obtained in both these situations have been very positive indeed. The role of
nutrients in cancer prevention also in minimizing cancer recurrence must be considered fully
established. These connections between cancer and individual nutrients have been well
documented popularly by Jean Carper in books like “Food Your Miracle Medicine” 12 and
“Stop Ageing Now” 13 and more scientifically by Simone in “Cancer and Nutrition” 14.
Although these are not the situations with which we are primarily concerned here, the
orthodoxy should nonetheless be put “on the spot” to answer why it is that they and the
Government have done nothing to promote these obvious preventative methods and why it is
that cancer patients who have been operated upon surgically with apparent success (but with
known risks of recurrence) are discharged without any nutritional advice.
Most of the above work has been done with just single nutrients to avoid complicating the
trials. However, the strategy of nutritional medicine has to be to bring together
combinations of effective nutrients. One might well expect, therefore, that combined
therapy with multiple relevant nutrients would be much more effective than the often
impressive single nutrient trials.
The same three books mentioned in the above paragraph also document most strongly the
effectiveness of fruits and vegetables in diets for the initial prevention and / or recurrence
prevention of cancer. Today there is really no controversy, even with orthodox science,
about the effectiveness of high intakes of fruits and vegetables for both of these purposes,
though still precious little has been done about it by the medical profession 15.
To that extent, Gerson’s policy of concentrating upon fruits and vegetables in therapy is
being underwritten by today’s medical science. However, most medical scientists would
object that the requirements for therapy are unlikely to be the same as the requirements for
prevention or recurrence. In other words, avoiding letting the cat out of the bag calls for
different precautions from the measures required to recapture the cat after it has escaped. In
principle, it at first seems hard to argue with that idea. The actual presence in the body of
thoroughly altered cells - cancer cells - might well call for quite different measures from
those needed to stop the cancer from coming about in the first place. We now consider to
what extent that is true.
5
Can Nutrients Fight Active Cancer?
Although the writer has been giving nutritional supplements to cancer patients for almost
two decades, clinical trials have taken place only quite recently. Following some work
which showed that administration of high doses of Co-Enzyme Q10 16 could favourably
influence the progression of established cancer of the breast, Lockwood and colleagues 17
set out to find out the effect of combining this co-enzyme with a wide range of other
vitamins and minerals. The trial involved 32 women with breast cancer. In a period running
from 1992 to 1995 none of the women died of the disease, none of the women showed signs
of the development of distant metastases, whilst six showed some degree of remission,
extending in two cases to actual disappearance of the tumour. Further results from
continuation of this study are awaited, but at this stage it appears from the above work that
nutritional supplements alone, whilst not a complete therapy in themselves, have a markedly
favourable influence even upon actively growing tumours.
Based upon this writer’s own past experience, and backed up by the above work, the Gerson
Trust’s current treatment strategy involves giving a wide range of such supplements. It
should be noted that the range of minerals being employed includes two - potassium and
chromium - not included by the Lockwood investigators. Lockwood’s highly favourable
results, obtained without the use of potassium or potassium sources, and surely must have
been much disadvantaged by this omission.
Can Fruits and Vegetables Fight Cancer?
There seems little doubt that if one has active cancer, then just eating parsnips, carrots, or
any other vegetable, will make relatively little difference. To most people “eating a lot of
carrots” may mean eating two or three per day. All the indications are that if one wants
vegetables to make any difference, one’s ordinary ideas about what constitutes “a lot” have
to be revised severalfold. One then encounters the problem that one not only gets fed up
with eating them but one may be physically unable to eat them. The intensive programme of
juicing introduced by Gerson, using the juice as a fibre-free vegetable concentrate, must be
eminently sensible if it is true that vegetables can fight active cancer. We have no science
to show whether they can or not, even though the science that supports their use for
prevention is so very strong.
In order to begin to answer the question we have to look at the nutrient composition of
vegetables and fruit. They contain large amounts of minerals and vitamins. All these
contribute to the “nutrient luxury” which Gerson was trying to create. That was important
for the Gerson Therapy, but are they still important today for the same reason? Not
necessarily so if supplements of these same minerals and vitamins are being provided. Is
there any chance of the fruit and vegetable component of the therapy being made redundant?
The answer appears to be no chance at all, at least, not without much expanded knowledge
and even better supplement technology.
What nowadays do we consider to be the substances in fruits and vegetables most likely to
have a therapeutic effect? This is just what Gerson was in no position to find out. Today
we have quite good knowledge of this even though it is bound to be incomplete. Fruits and
vegetables may exert some therapeutic effect by providing the minerals and vitamins that are
well known. However, their uniqueness in the field of prevention would appear to be
largely mediated through less known substances, not just conventional vitamins, which are
referred to under the blanket name of “phytonutrients”. This name correctly communicates
that they are rather unique to plants. A lot of them fall into major groups called
“carotenoids”, “flavonoids”, “indoles” and thiocyanates. Others are ellagic acid, coumarins,
6
limonoids. This list is by no means exhaustive. Some of these have been reviewed by
Passwater 18. There are some 4,000 flavonoids known to science for starters, though not all
of them occur in foods. It is known that we tend to consume from 100mg to 1000mg of
these per day. It may be extremely important as to whether it is the lower or the higher of
these figures, but it is also very important which flavonoids we choose - a thought which can
make us all feel very ignorant about our choices of diet.
It is not known which ones out of this huge hoard of phytonutrients, contribute most to the
cancer preventative effects of fruits and vegetables. Even less is it clear which ones are
candidates for the role of non-toxic chemotherapeutic agents against cancer. The attempt to
find out by measuring the amounts of them in people’s diets is frustrated by their number
and complexity. People in the population who eat more of one type may eat less of another,
making it impossible to line up cause and effect through the study, either of cancer patients’
diets or of “prospective” studies which look at a population’s spread of dietary habits and
follow up their connections with cancer incidence as the years go by. There have been only
very limited studies so far on the actual treatment of cancer with phytonutrients.
However, studies in the laboratory show that many of these compounds possess the ability
to specifically inhibit the growth of tumour cells in tissue culture 19 - 20. This sort of
evidence is the most direct evidence we have from science that Gerson was most probably
right all the time in stressing the role of fruits and vegetables in his treatment. He must have
experienced no end of frustration from not knowing with what biochemicals he was dealing
and being unable to take steps to maximise their concentrations in his therapeutic diet. He
was forced to take a kind of “pot luck” with that aspect of the treatment. Today we know
that if, for example, we want to maximize a particular flavonoid called “quercitin” in the
diet, then we ought to eat a lot of onions. Quercitin does possess some deeply interesting
properties, though it is just one of many candidate compounds. A diet of onions would soon
become pretty disagreeable to most of us because of their great pungency. Onion juice, on
its own, would be even more disagreeable. However, a concentrate of onions might well
deliver to us the quercitin extracted from a kilo of onions in an ounce of fluid. If this had a
disagreeable taste, we could put up with that. However, the technologists might well be able
to remove most of the pungency of the onions anyway, so that no acceptability problem
would then occur.
It is possible to buy quercitin as a nutritional supplement. The reason why this writer does
not necessarily advocate doing so, at least as a major plank of treatment, is because of the
real doubt which still exists as to whether or not quercitin, which is only one from amongst
a very wide range of candidate substances, is exactly what is needed to help the body rid
itself of any particular form of cancer. This subject must be considered very much in its
infancy. We know of a good many phytonutrients which have been shown to have anticancer powers. This power may be properly called “anti-neoplastic activity”, meaning antitumour activity, as distinct from “anti-carcinogenic activity”, which refers to the prevention
of the initial cancerous transformation.
The Strategy of the Gerson Trust Project and Therapy
This strategy consists of putting together those components of nutritional therapy for cancer
which look most positive, based upon the evidence that is available at the present time.
This includes;


Coffee enemas (but less than Gerson used)
Fruit and vegetable juices (but less than Gerson used)
7









Potassium (much the same as Gerson) but with magnesium in addition, due to its direct
requirement for the sodium pump at the cell membrane 21.
Linseed oil (as Gerson) or fish oil
Digestive Enzymes (much the same as Gerson), but now supplemented with free-form
amino acids, not used by Gerson
Bowel flora bacteria (strains known for their anti-tumour influence, not used by Gerson)
Aloe vera (for its known immune system stimulation, not used by Gerson)
A diet high in fruits and vegetables (as Gerson) but concentrating on those particular
fruits and vegetables known to maximise those phytonutrients shown in laboratory work
to have anti-neoplastic activity.
Where appropriate, adjustment of the therapy to suit differences between the known
biochemistry of cancers of particular types or sites.
The use of high concentrates of fruits and vegetables carefully selected for their content
of the best indicated anti-neoplastic phytonutrients - the object being to administer more
of the effective substances than Gerson could ever do whilst at the same time making
the therapy more user-friendly. This requires the development of techniques to produce
such concentrates in a form most likely to embody the desired potency.
A wide spread of trace elements and vitamins, mostly at intakes above the usual
estimated daily requirements
The Project to Deliver the High-Concentrate Component of the Therapy
This part of the programme is now going through its desk-research stage. The literature is
being carefully screened to provide information on the phytonutrients with the most antineoplastic activity and their best sources. This will lead to the definition of laboratory
techniques to concentrate these phytonutrients. The object will be not be to isolate
individual pure phytonutrients, but rather to provide concentrates known to have a definite
content of particular phytonutrients along with a spread of other closely related
phytonutrients. This strategy of deliberately including a range of related substances (which
can nonetheless be largely defined by analysis of the material) will result in spreading the
net as widely as possible to capture many of those flavonoids, carotenoids etc. not
specifically targeted, which nonetheless may be capable of contributing to the therapeutic
result.
It is this work which is really new and different from all the previous work. Special funding
is needed for the laboratory and pilot plant stage of this work and to enable the Trust to
establish a production centre for these concentrates so that they can be used in regular
treatments. The Trust is encouraged in this endeavour by some early experiences in which
fruit and vegetable extracts of this type have been found to produce actual tumour regression
in human subjects.
* “This unique verse tribute is in recognition of the centenary of Dr. Max Gerson, born on
October 18th. 1881 in Wongrowitz, province of Posen, Germany. In Europe, Dr. Gerson
was a specialist in internal medicine and nervous diseases. After World War I he came to
international attention for his work in treating tubercular disease by means of diet therapy.
The Internationally renowned physician and surgeon Dr. Ferdinand Sauerbruch wrote in
his book, MASTER SURGEON, about the results of his experiment in Munich with 450
patients with the until then considered incurable lupus or tuberculosis of the skin. By means
of the Gerson Diet therapy 446 of the patients completely recovered. In the United States,
Dr. Gerson interested himself In the study and treatment of cancer. His therapy attracted
such attention that he and five of his patients were invited before a Sub-Committee of the
United States Senate holding hearings on means of curing and preventing cancer. However,
8
his approach to the treatment of cancer, eschewing drugs, surgery and radiation,
threatened the very core of the American medical establishment. Thus, opposition from the
medical authorities prevented his findings from reaching the public and funds were never
made available for his research. Despite this, he continued to practice with striking success
in New York City. He died there on March 8th, 1959. The dissemination of his writings and
ideas is being continued by the Gerson Institute and at the Gerson clinic by a group of
doctors disenchanted with conventional medical practice.”
References
1. Gerson, M. "A Cancer Therapy - Results of 50 Cases", , Totality Books, Del Mar, CA,
U.S.A. (1977).
2. Davidson, Jackie, “Cancer Winner”, Pacific Press, Pierce City, Missouri, USA (1977).
3. Bishop, Beata, “A Time to Heal”, , Hodder & Stoughton, (1985), reprint, Penguin Arcana
Range (1996).
4. Dego, G., "The Genial Seed”, Totality Books, Bonita, CA, USA (1981).
5. Hildenbrand G., “How the Gerson Therapy Heals” Transcript of a Lecture. Healing
Newsletter, The Gerson Institute, (December 1990).
6. Erasmus, U. “Fats that Heal Fats that Kill”, , Alive Books, Burnaby, BC Canada (1986,
1993), especially p44.
7. Lands, W, “Fish and Human Health”, Academic Press Inc. (1986).
8. Bourre, J-M, “Brainfood”, (1990, translation 1993), Little, Brown & Co., pp50-69,
especially p56-57.
9. Moore, R.D., “High Blood Pressure Solution - Natural Prevention and Cure with the K
Factor”, Healing Arts Press, Rochester, Vermont, U.S.A. (1993), especially pp 56-118.
10. Bland, J., “Effect of Orally Consumed Aloe Vera Juice on Gastro-Intestinal Function in
Normal Humans”, Preventive Medicine, March/April (1985).
11. Erdmann, R., “The Amino Revolution”, Simon & Schuster Inc. NY, USA (1989),
especially Chapter 15, pp 130-133.
12. Carper, Jean, “Food Your Miracle Medicine”, (1993), Simon & Schuster, London.
13. Carper, Jean, “Stop Ageing Now - The Ultimate Plan for Staying Young and Reversing
the Ageing Process”, Thorsons (1996).
14. Simone, C. B., “Cancer & Nutrition”, Avery Publ. Group Inc. (1992)
15. Griffiths, K., Adlercreutz, H., Boyle, P., Denis, L., Nicholson, R.I. & Morton, M.S.,
“Nutrition and Cancer”, Isis Medical Media Ltd., Oxford (1996), Chapter 3, pp 15-23.
16. Lockwood, K., Moesgaard, S., & Folkers, K., “Partial and Complete Remission of
Breast Cancer in Patients in Relation to Doses of Co-enzyme Q10”, Biochem. Biophys.
Res. Comm. 199 1504-8, (1994).
9
17. Lockwood, K., Moesgaard, S., Hanioka, T. & Folkers, K., “Apparent Partial Remission
of Breast Cancer Patients Supplemented with Nutritional Anti-Oxidants, Essential Fatty
Acids and Co-Enzyme Q10”, Mol. Aspects Medicine, 15 Supp, s231 - s240, (1994).
18. Passwater, R.A. “Cancer Prevention and Nutritional Therapies” Keats Publishing Inc.
New Canaan, Connecticut, USA (1978), especially Chapter 15, pp 89 - 93.
19. Passwater, R.A. “Cancer Prevention and Nutritional Therapies” Keats Publishing Inc.
New Canaan, Connecticut, USA (1978), especially Chapter 15, p 91.
20. Kandaswami C., Perkins E., Soloniuk D.S., Drzewiecki G., Middleton E Jr., “Ascorbic
Acid-Enhanced Antiproliferative Effect Of Flavonoids On Squamous Cell Carcinoma
In-Vitro” Anti-Cancer Drugs 4 (1) 91-96 (1993).
21. Hughes, M.N., “Storage, Transport and Function of Non-Transition Elements”
Inorganic Biochemistry, pp 88 - 119, The Chemical Society, London 1979.
About the Author
L.G. Plaskett qualified at Clare College, Cambridge and has a doctorate from UCH Medical
School of London University. He is Principal of the Plaskett Nutritional Medicine College
which trains practitioners in a University Accredited Course; is a visiting lecturer in
Complementary Health Studies at the University of Exeter and consultant to several
companies in the nutrition field, as well as to the Gerson Trust.