But effective is effective even if its success rate isn't perfect, and experimentally and clinically proven to work is better than "Hmm, I feel like this person has a good chance of recovery based on how they appeared coming into my program and leaving it", which is what "Dr." Gerson did.
Not entirely acurate. Many people have attributed his program to the recession of their cancer, personally, so although minute on a grand scale of succes, can't the same principle of effectiveness apply?
No. Any number of variables could have influenced the recession of their cancer (which, by the way, hasn't been proven. Did you read the excerpts I gave to you? The median lifespan of this Dr's patients after his treatment was abysmal, and all but one of them died from their cancers.). That's why independent laboratory and clinical trials are important. Personal anecdotes are not proof. These people are not doctors. They do not have a say in whether or not X treatment cured Y illness that will hold any weight to anyone who isn't also deluded.