I am not an expert about Gerson therapy, I have got a few books but never found the time to really read them.
What I know is that it claims to be a cure for most cancers and pancreatic cancer is one that seems to respond relatively well to it (if taken in early enough stages, which unfortunately seldom is the case).
My reasoning is that since most cancers are asymptomatic in the early stages (pancreatic been one of those) a couple of runs a year on Gerson diet may fix things we are not aware of yet before it becomes too late, in other words if something nasty is about to develop maybe it will be stopped on its track, in that sense it may be used as a preventative.
It is just a suggestion, an idea that may be worth looking at for those particularly concerned, I will not suggest to use Gerson therapy as a nutritional everyday habit.
I don't suggest Gerson therapy as a sure cure or preventative for cancer but rather that it is worth some attention since it cost nothing, it will not be anything particularly difficult or uncomfortable and it seems backed up by a good amount of clinical evidence.
As someone who has been drinking an awful lot of fructose-rich juice in recent months, I can definitely attest that Gerson is on the right track so far as feeling healthy is concerned, fructose notwithstanding. I've seen low quality evidence to the effect that it is, overall, effective at preventing, or sometimes treating, cancer relative to its cost. That said, the best data I encountered was from a Japanese team who claimed it to be 50% effective at shrinking liver tumors. The problem is that Charlotte Gerson is blindly optimistic about the therapy, to an extent which, I think, only alienates others in the field who might otherwise take it more seriously. Her claimed cure rates are ridiculous, and she gives the impression that only strict adherence is effective, which can't possibly be true, because vegetables don't work that way.
My view is that, unless perhaps someone can look up the Japanese study (which I heard of only second hand), we have no useful data on this at all, apart from the compelling observation that longterm juicers seem to be in outstanding health. By the way, the coffee enemas used in Gerson therapy, which obviously are not a part of standard juice diets, are designed to dilate the portal vein to the liver in order to drain posttoxic metabolites into the digestive system for excretion. Personally, I don't buy it, absent evidence that it works.
Also, Gerson therapy -- even juicing -- costs anywhere from hundreds to thousands of dollars a month. Personally, I've made the decision that I'd rather go with inferior grocery store juice than homemade organic, simply because the cost savings can be put toward supplements that actually work, like Nigella, for example.
This 2014 YouTube interview with her goes into some of the issues we're discussing here. Notably, she mentions that her pancreatic cure rate is high, except when chemo has already been given. The implication obviously is that chemo somehow degrades healing ability, which is probably true, but I think the real reason is that chemo indicates later stage cancer, against which Gerson is quite useless.
I think you have an interesting thread about potassium ascorbate. It sounds like it would complement 3-bromopyruvate against various cancers, possibly including pancreatic, although it would be nice to see some data sets. It's also worth noting that lemonade, as used in the original anecdote, contains limonene, a promising anticarcinogen. (I've eaten many lemon peels, personally, after washing with soap, for exactly this reason.)
If you really want to shut down pancreatic cancer, IGF1 gene therapy might be a better idea...