This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Benjamin T. Brown, MD
Schuyler, Va

JAMA. 1993;269(13):1635-1636.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—It is crucial that we, as physician-scientists, remain objective especially when dealing with matters that are as emotive as the diet and cancer issue. The Special Communication entitled "A Critique of the Rationale for Cancer Treatment With Coffee Enemas and Diet"¹ carries a proselytizing tone against this therapy, as much as those who proselytize for the therapy. Can't we in the medical profession rise above this type of subjectivity?

The author identified only those aspects of the Gerson therapy that cannot be supported by current scientific knowledge. He conspicuously omits references to the Gerson therapy's emphasis on fresh fruits and vegetables as a high-quality vitamin source, which has been strongly suggested to be of potential benefit in recent medical literature. He does not comment on the proposed long-term effects of our contemporary sodium-rich, potassium-poor diet on cellular function, the reversal of which formed a large part of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?