Uny, don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for you, but to say that Dr Schulze made some mistakes (nobody denies it) and you didn't doesn't sound fair.
I don’t recall saying or indicating that I haven’t (and don’t) make mistakes. Pointing out oversights & inconsistencies in the various ‘works’ that are studied in a classroom is the responsibility of any teacher. Attaining personal perfection is not a prerequisite for me (or anyone else) for competent usage of discernment and critical thinking skills.
Any way you look at it, he had much more experience than you, and this question sounded to me like after you visit a doctor, you ask your neighbor for an advise if what doctor prescribed is good for you. Perhaps to you, the original question did sound that way…originally. And it was explained/posted the other ways it might have been (and was) intended.
Of course, Dr. Schulze has more experience than me…I’ve never claimed differently. But his having more experience than me/others, but doesn’t mean people don’t want ‘thinks & thoughts for consideration’ from me/others.
I find a lot of helpful information on this site, however, I found a lot of things studying these doctors myself (Schulze, Christopher, Jensen, Kelley, Gerson). I learned a lot… good for you! …most things don't get a lot of attention here. This is SO true. I’m only one person and can’t possibly ‘do it all’. I’d invite you to start sharing what you’ve learned (so you could be a part of the solution for the issue you’re identifying), but after reading your post & opinion regarding not doing CE’s while using IF#1, it seems it wouldn’t be advantageous for me or the forum).
All programs are unique, even though they have common ground, it's still advisable not to mix them.
In some cases, with some protocols & certain conditions, it is not advisable to mix them. In other cases, this is not the case. Of course, if we understand the “why” of each protocol, then we can mix n’ match in the most beneficial way.
The same applies to CE (coffee enemas). If you’re implying that CE’s are not safely & efficaciously ‘mixable’ with other protocols, then my current knowledge-base indicates the implication is incorrect. So if that’s what you’re implying, please post the information you have that supports it so we can all examine/consider it.
Some used them in their programs, some don't, but they all achieved results. By “them” I assume you mean CE’s (?) or something else (?). Either way, they did not all achieve the same results with their individual programs.
There is a lot of interesting points in each therapy. For example, I didn't know that on Gerson therapies you are not allowed to drink water. The only liquids you consume are juices, and if you're thristy, you can have peppermint tea. on Dr Christopher's therapy, on the contrary, you consume a lot of water and teas. The reason/s ‘why this is’ is what is important to know for utilizing or combining protocols successfully. I can list quite a few of the reasons for your example above right off the top of my head…and there are many more than can be ascertained by comparing the ways each healer was schooled and his thoughts on how the body worked (not always the reality of how the body works based on what we now know OR what we’re going to learn in the future) and knowing how various protocols, foods & therapies affected the working of the body to achieve results. And of course, one must also factor in the differences caused by the extreme increase in environmental, food & chemical toxins (and how they affect the original recommendations…or don’t).
Gerson's therapy allows you to have cooked fruits and vegetables, while Dr Schulze's and Dr Christopher's therapies suggest fasting, or fresh fruits and vegetables. Dr. Schulze & Christopher both had various food programs…and of course, EACH individualized for every patient/condition when necessary.
Also, on the Gerson's therapy, there is a list of what you can have, and what you can't have in your diet, and there is a list of supplements. This is pretty much common knowledge, eh?
Again, what is important to understand is WHY this is, what each food or supplement was intended to do, how it was beneficial to a specific condition, and how the diet/supplement/protocol was altered over the years (and what was going to be, or might have been altered if Gerson would have not died of arsenic poisoning)…which was all based on what they “knew” to be true about how the body worked at the time they devised, adjusted, and continued to perfect their protocol.
Don't take it the wrong way. I would really like the FAQ section on this site showing each program separately with comparison. This way it will be helpful, and it will be a little neutral in opinion.
I’m not taking anything the ‘wrong way’…the meaning of your assumptions and statements are quite clear.
“Neutral” is what happens when one examines ALL the facts without any assumptions.
After studying & researching many healers very intensely for around 10 years, it would take me (at the very minimum) at least 6 months of devoted writing (totally away from forum, apothecary & household responsibilities) to compile a ‘comparison FAQ’ factually …because one has to include ALL relevant data. I’ll take only one of the supplements from the Gerson protocol, and list some the facts that would need to be discovered, included & analyzed before one could EVER make a truly factual comparison and claim it to be ‘neutral’:
Lugols solution (elemental iodine & potassium iodide)
--Was Lugol’s solution originally in his protocol?
--If so, why was it there originally?
--If not, why did he add it?
--What is the correct dosage?
--Does the dosage change throughout the protocol?
--The Lugol’s is diluted – to what strength is it diluted? Why?
--The diluted solution is added to juices…but only specific types of juice. Which juices & why?
--Did Gerson ever change the doses in the protocol?
--If so, what were the other dosages? And what were the outcomes of utilizing different amounts?
--What relationship/s to Lugol’s & thyroid health were considered? If they were considered, what relationship does this data have for the rest of the protocol?
--Did Gerson believe that other organs of the body (other than the thyroid) needed iodine?
--Did Gerson believe one could “overdose” on Lugol’s?
--What (if any) improvements or degradation did Gerson see in diseases other than cancer that he attributed to Lugol’s solution?
--If there were improvements/degradation noted, what role did Gerson assign to the Lugol’s?
--How does Lugol’s interact with the other protocol supplements (particularly the potassium & thyroid supplements)?
--What aspects (if any) in using Lugol’s were related to potassium issues?
--Current research shows Lugol’s enhances/causes apoptosis of cancer cells. Did Gerson know this?
--Whether yes/no (to the above) – what effect on cancer tumors/cells did Gerson believe Lugol’s was responsible for (if any)? Why? Does current research validate or invalidate his beliefs?
--What (if any) effect did Gerson believe Lugol’s has on deposits of fluoride, bromide, mercury & arsenic (and other metals) in the body?
--If he knew the effects of Lugol’s on the vast storehouses of poisons in the body, how did he deal with this?
--If he didn’t know this, what negative affects/outcomes might have been seen by patients with large quantities of halogens and/or metals that he didn’t recognize?
--When plasma levels of toxins are raised by using Lugol’s, ingesting salt to assist the kidneys in releasing these poisons is currently recommended. Did Gerson know of this or not? And if so, did he/would he have agreed or disagreed? Why?
--Does modern research reveal any positive or negative effects of Lugol’s on the recirculation of toxin-laden bile? Creation of fresh bile by the liver? Did Gerson know or assume anything on this topic? If so, what did he know or assume and what considerations did he make? If he didn’t know or make any assumptions, should he have? Why or why not?
--Has Charlotte changed the usage of Lugol’s since her father’s death? If so, how & why?
--Of course, there are other questions for consideration; I simply do not have the time list them all.
I would hope it would be “needless to say”, but this type of information IS what is required to be able to determine actual facts…and without these facts no one can possibly be neutral.
LONG before I accepted this forum, I spent ‘months worth of hours’ for many years analyzing every individual piece of every protocol I could find – and I did exactly this type of comparison for every individual piece before creating a ‘combined protocol’. And I am not exaggerating the time I spent. And I didn’t just do it with Schulze, Gerson & Christopher’s protocols, I examined Kelley’s, Clark’s and many others, and their teachers & mentors. For at least three of those years, our income dropped to well below the poverty level, because when a two-artist shop loses one artist ‘to do research’, the income drops far more than 50%. We let car & home-maintenance go by the wayside for many of those years (and dug a very deep hole into the poverty zone), but both Rocky & I realized even back then that what I was learning (and what we were doing with it) was integral for me/us to know & learn and that we could use it to help countless other people. And it turns out, we we ended up totally giving up our artistry and life-long dreams to do what we k-n-o-w know a higher power has deemed to be our calling. So you can be assured we both take that calling (and your public insinuations & veiled & not-so-veiled accusations) VERY seriously.
Maybe you realized all the deep research and ‘creation of questions needing answers’ that is required for EACH individual part of every protocol before being able to even come close to being able to safely & effectively combine them…maybe you didn’t. That’s of no consequence to me. However, the content on this forum is of major consequence to me…so if you’d like to see a side-by-side comparison of Gerson, Schulze, Christopher AND the others you mentioned, and you’d like it to be “neutral”, now you know the kind of work that’s entailed to meet the kind of standards upon which this forum is based…and why I haven’t compiled it in a format that can be posted.
Hopefully I’ve given you enough of a glimpse of the knowledge & critical thinking skills I have that allow me to feel confident enough to assist others in a ‘teaching role’ on this forum. If I have, great. If what I have to offer isn’t ‘enough’ for you, or you don’t find it acceptable, then please realize that it’s time for you to move on…and stop wasting your own valuable time and mine on this forum. If you choose to continue posting here, please offer me the respect of asking valid questions before posting (what I deem to be) erroneous assumptions, accusations and an extreme underestimate of my knowledge.
Thank you – and I really do hope the healing pathways you choose are always the right ones!
This interview is not in the SYL manual :( You can also find it here http://home.roadrunner.com/~thadson/savelife/schulze/index.html (along with quite a few more interviews that aren't in the SYL manual)
Uny - I was wondering if it is ok to put the garlic oil on the genitals as Dr Schulze recommends in this article (since I know garlic can actually burn the skin)?
I would use garlic oil on the genitals if there was a herpes lesion/blister, genital wart, abnormal growth/tumor or some type of 'bump or lump' that needed to be burned off (or an area that needed to be treated with a potent antibiotic/antiviral/antifungal). As Dr. Schulze explained in the interview - it's painful to rub garlic into open herpea lesions, but very effective. I would avoid putting garlic oil in the urethral opening of the penis, and/or the clitoris & urethral opening of a female (unless there were some serious growth that couldn't possibly be removed in any other way).
One thing I always suggest when using garlic in this manner (on any part of the body) is to protect the surrounding skin. You can do this by dabbing a bit of vaseline around whatever you are treating, so the garlic oil goes only to the intended area.
Bottom line, when raw garlic is put on the skin for a long enough time (or in a concentrated form), it not only gives the sensation of burning, it actually burns (and it delivers the anti-bacteria/viral/fungal that prevents the 'whatever' from returning...yay!). Whatever damage is done to the skin can easily be soothed and repaired with aloe gel and slippery elm bark.
Great question/concern :)