 A number of recent documentaries have renewed interest in gersen therapy, a largely diet-based alternative treatment for cancer invented by the late Dr. Max Gerson about 80 years ago. According to a recent review out of Sloan Kettering in the journal Oncology, for about $16,000 you can fly to a clinic in Mexico and spend three weeks consuming fresh raw fruit and vegetable juices. Okay, eliminating salt from the diet so far so good and taking supplements such as potassium, B12-thorode hormone, pancreatic enzymes, and supposedly detoxifying the liver with coffee enemas to stimulate metabolism. I do not dispute that coffee enemas would not be stimulating, but would not recommend them due to the whole they-could-kill-you thing. To their credit, modern gersen practitioners have moved away from the original tenets of the plan, which included feeding people raw, calf liver smoothies after too many people died from systemic blood infections, after learning of the outbreak, staff at the Gersen Institute decided the policy of drinking blended liver was to be altered and instead started injecting people with raw liver instead. But hey, conventional cancer treatments are no walk in the park either, right? You do them in hopes that they'll work. So how does the gersen therapy compare? The first formal investigation in the treatment was back in 1947, and in the 65 years since, there's been about a dozen studies published in scientific literature, and most came to the same conclusion that gersen therapy is useless or worse. In tomorrow's video, I'll show you some of the data.