The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato
Faculty of Science and Engineering - Te Mātauranga Pūtaiao me te Pūkaha
Waikato Home Waikato Home > Science & Engineering > BioBlog
Staff + Student Login

the budwig protocol - help, help, it's being repressed

A friend recently pointed me (via donotlink - well done, Nicky!) at a post on healthnutnews (which reads a bit like an offshoot of mercola.com - this, it turns out, is hardly surprising). It's a while since I've read anything so full of total nonsense - well, a few days, anyway! 

The post, by one Erin Elizabeth, is a paean to someone called Johanna Budwig & her 'life-saving cancer protocol'. I hadn't heard of this particular person before, & according to Erin, this is because all knowledge of her work has been censored by teh ebil Western medical establishment, along with Big Pharma & the nuclear industry, all of whom would be, like, totally out of a job if everyone followed Budwig's advice. Being curious, I thought I'd check - surely there'd be time for a search before the men in black arrived...

To my complete surprise (I was shocked! Shocked, I say!!!), typing 'budwig protocol' into google brought up 142,000 results. Some, like Cancer Research UK, are obviously trying to repress knowledge of the dietary protocol (or at least, advising that It Doesn't Work), but an awful lot of the others provide recipes, advice, and testimonials about miracle cures.

Not a lot of repression going on there, then.

In fact, the entire post is a concatenation of quackery, woo, & mythinformation. Plus an appeal to authority: 

This German doctor was nominated six times for the Nobel Prize for medicine, which means that it would be wise to take her health work seriously. 

Really? Nominations are secret & by invitation, and nominees need to have a fairly solid body of research under their belt. However, a quick pubmed search didn't come up with anything by Budwig, but did give a number of papers whose authors had looked into this & similarly restrictive dietary protocols and concluded that It Doesn't Work (see here, and here, for example). 

Erin also trots out this standard alt.med cliche: 

Any researcher who found a cure would quickly find himself looking for another job, and at some level, all of them know it.

Here is a simple answer to that particularly offensive statement:

Image via The Credible Hulk and sheeple.

What else do we have?

Cancer is ... a modern man-made epidemic? Apparently so, evidence from antiquity notwithstanding: in the world according to Erin, the reason ancient Eyptians suffered from cancer, for example, was mass heavy-metal poisoning.

Medicine is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States? Well, that one's easy to check, and it's not correct - you'll find the list here. Erin, could it be that you are being just a leetle creative in your narrative?

Surveys show that most oncologists would refuse their own treatments if they had a cancer themselves? Nope. This is cherry-picking, pure and simple. A 1985 survey about the then-new drug cisplatin, which has significant side-effects,did find about 67% of the oncologists surveyed would be reluctant to use it. A follow-up survey in 1997 found a significant reversal: 64% would now use the drug if they needed it. And why? Because science-based medicine moves on & those side-effects can now be minimised or better controlled, or different drugs may be available.

There's also a misrepresentation of Otto Warburg's work around tumour formation and physiology (work for which he really did receive a Nobel Prize), and the rather startling statement that

The secret to beating cancer is that life-giving breath of God: oxygen.

Apparently all that is needed to cure cancer - any cancer - is to provide cells with sufficient oxygen again. My immediate response was, so why is lung cancer so common, then?

And how do you get your tissues back into that oxygen-rich state? With a rather complicated and restrictive diet, of course!

At least Budwig's patients were spared coffee enemas, but they did get flaxseed oil via the back passage if too far gone to take it by mouth. And champagne was on the list of OK things to ingest!

Frankly, the only reason to repress this nonsense would be to reduce the harm done to people gullible enough, and desperate enough, to invest time and money into following it.

Was that a knock at the door ... ? 

| | Comments (2)
Share via Email Share this on Twitter Share this on Google+ Share this on Facebook

2 Comments

And how do you get your tissues back into that oxygen-rich state? With a rather complicated and restrictive diet, of course!

Well, there's always the hyperbaric-chamber scam.

Yes, although I don't think Budwig went that far.

Leave a comment

February 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29          

Recent Comments

  • Alison Campbell: Yes, although I don't think Budwig went that far. read more
  • herr doktor bimler: And how do you get your tissues back into that read more