AO Labs' Quackwatch Rebuttal:
A Systematic Dismantling of
Orthodox's Quack Attack on Escharotics
Note from Alpha Omega Labs: Except for this introductory table and our responding text below, which appears in dark red (with yellow background to fairly provide visual differentiation between the texts, together with my pictures below), everything else on this page is an exact duplication of the Quackwatch page that appeared on the following URL on May 1, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. :
entitled "Don't Use Corrosive Cancer Salves (Escharotics)." This method of rebuttal has been used to prevent Dr. Barrett (Quackwatch) from changing his position in the aftermath of this rebuttal -- the essence of which has remained fairly intact on the internet from 2002 to 2009.
To read a more complete and balanced description of escharotics, their centuries-long history, the extent of their suppression by the orthodox community, and the fraud that has been committed to keep people ignorant of their very existence, read Chapters 1 and 2 of Meditopia®.
Don't Use Corrosive Cancer Salves (Escharotics)
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Many salves, pastes, poultices, and plasters have been applied directly to tumors with the hope of burning them away. Zinc oxide, bloodroot, and several other herbs are common ingredients. Some marketers claim that corrosive agents (sometimes called "black salves") can "draw out" the cancer. In recent years, scientists have found chemicals that can destroy certain superficial skin cancers. Except for these, however, corrosive agents are worthless against cancer and cannot be legally marketed for that purpose in the United States.
Dr. Barrett's opening comments on escharotic preparations demonstrate an embarrassing lack of knowledge about their most fundamental composition and mechanism of operation. There is no herb in the extant literature, used in making escharotic preparations, that you could add to "zinc oxide," to make an escharotic.
Zinc chloride (ZnCl2, yes.
Zinc oxide (ZnO), no.
The use of the term "draw out" is mystifying to anyone who has actually worked with escharotics. We've never used the term at Alpha Omega Labs and we can only offer a conjecture as to what it could possibly mean. Does Barrett mean that claims are made that escharotics will ATTRACT cancer cells to the site of application? Or is he just referring to the physical ejection that occurs just prior to decavitation? Either way, it is a poor use of English to try to describe what is actually happening --- and, this, of course, is the whole point.
Barrett doesn't know what he's talking about.
He's never actually worked with escharotics clinically or in any professional capacity, as we have for 20 years.
This position is further supported by the closing sentences of this paragraph: "scientists have found chemicals that can destroy certain superficial skin cancers" ( . . . well, actually, there is nothing to discover -- they've existed for hundreds and as I make clear in Chapter 2 of Meditopia and even Moh's surgery's primary active ingredient in its original embodiment (zinc chloride) was in use for over 100 years before this unnecessary elaboration was created.)
Nonetheless, nothing in this opening paragraph is as telling as the final sentence: "Except for these [ . . these meaning unnamed chemicals that 'scientists have found'] . . . corrosive agents are worthless against cancer and cannot be legally marketed for that purpose . . . "
What Barrett fails to mention --- and this is a crucial point I make clear in Chapter 1 of Meditopia -- is that the "approved" or "legal" skin cancer protocols, such as Moh's, ARE corrosive. They are imitations of the original. The primary difference is that they interject an unnecessary surgical appendage to the entire process -- a process that has been well known, used, and demonstrated its effectiveness, generation after generation after generation, without surgery, without professional medical intervention, without even diagnosis -- because a well-made escharotic contains within it both the diagnosis and the cure (i.e. if you get a reaction, there exists aberrant cells; if you get merely mild irritation, your diagnosis has come back negative).
Barrett can never admit this.
To ever approach this empirical fact is to admit that the ax that Orthodox grinds against escharotic preparations is based on financial and political concerns, not medical or technical ones.
Barrett is obtuse to the self-contradiction within his opening paragraph. It is something akin to my saying, "My cats can have kittens, but yours cannot . . . my cats are legal, but yours are not . . . if these cats make money for me and my friends, they're legal . . . if these cats don't benefit me and my friends, they're illegal."
Corrosive salves are often referred to as "escharotics" because they produce a thick, dry scab called an "eschar" on the skin. Their use to treat cancer dates back hundreds of years, perhaps even to ancient times. Their use was fairly common during the 18th and 19th centuries. If a tumor is confined to the superficial layers of the skin, it would be possible to burn it off with a corrosive salve or paste. Unfortunately, products capable of accomplishing this can also burn the surrounding normal tissue and result in unnecessary scarring. For superficial cancers—for which the cure rate with standard treatment is nearly 100%—it makes much more sense to use standard methods that can destroy the cancer with little or no damage to the nearby tissues. Some salves are also promoted for treating herpes, venereal, diseases, diabetes, and lupus.
The only accurate statements in this paragraph concern the antiquity of escharotics.
Every other statement is provably false -- again, probably due to the fact that Barrett has never worked with escharotics.
First, Barrett takes the position that escharotics are used to target "tumor(s) . . . confined to the superficial layers of the skin" -- (one presumes he means epidermis). The truth is, escharotics can be used to address deeper growths, particularly when a transdermal agent (such as DMSO) is used; and, in fact, even among our medical practitioner / customers, this is a common application.
Following this misstatement of fact, is an outright lie concerning escharotics that has been used for countless years to frighten people away from its use: namely, that escharotics burn healthy tissue.
If you learn nothing else from this rebuttal, learn this: any escharotic that would be capable of initiating an eschar, or scab, when applied to perfectly healthy tissue is not a properly-made product. It just doesn't happen. As I point out in the Cansema® FAQ section on our site (in the answer to Question No. 200A), for many years I have worked with zinc chloride, at strengths of 98% or higher. As soon as I learned that the "zinc chloride burns healthy skin" tirade of the medical profession was a complete lie, I began handling it without gloves. I have spent many hours during experiments where, for convenience sake, I handled zinc chloride with my raw hands. I even do it on escharotic video on the Meditopia site (2004) just to make a point.
Throughout my 20 years in working with escharotics, in thousands of cases worldwide,I have never seen Cansema® react with healthy tissue.
This issue of potential scarring works in both cases of surgical skin cancer removal as well as escharotics. We don't downplay this issue. In fact, those who are predisposed to keloids, for example, will have issues with skin cancer removal, regardless of which path they take. We recommend a variety of methods of minimizing scarring on the Alpha Omega Labs, though in a large percentage of cases there is no scarring if NO anti-scarring agent is used. Each case is different, and on the very same person, every application is different. I myself have about a dozen sites over 20 years that to which I have applied Cansema, the result of which was that there was no scarring. On the other hand, I have two six-month old applications for which I am still waiting for the scar tissue to minimize. See my photos below.
I would like anyone who is reading this rebuttal to send me EVIDENCE .... ANY EVIDENCE, ANYWHERE .... of anyone making a claim that escharotic salves can be used to successfully treat "herpes, venereal diseases, diabetes, or lupus."
Even the FDA snitches who stole copies of the entire Alpha Omega Labs website after the FDA destroyed our lab in the U.S. and began using our tradenames -- as I document in Chapter 3 of Meditopia -- to sell fake product never made these ridiculous claims.
I am of the opinion that Barrett just made this up.
At least he's consistent.
This idea that eschartics [sic] can "draw out" cancers from underneath the skin is preposterous. Furthermore, even if a product could do this, it could not influence cancers that have spread (metastasized) to distant regions of the body.
What would you think if I made this statement: "The idea that if you threw an apple into the air, it would return towards the earth under the force of gravity is just preposterous."
Just because I call it preposterous, doesn't mean it doesn't happen every time you do it. My analogy is not a stretch. For in the testimonial section on Cansema® there are countless examples showing that Cansema® does, indeed -- forget this obsession with "drawing out" -- get rid of skin cancer.
It is most illuminating that Barrett would bring up metastasis, because even in the late 1800's, medical doctors of good conscience, as I document in Chapter 2 of Meditopia, were decrying the degree to which surgery was a source of carcinogenesis. But let's put that aside for a moment and assume that to discuss the issue at hand, some command of Anatomy & Physiology 101 would be helpful. What Barrett is saying here is that it is not possible that an escharotic could be picked up the capillary system in the localized area to which it is applied, and could not travel to other parts of the body, and that for reasons that I challenge anyone to explain, the circulatory system simply doesn't have the capability of carrying components of an escharotic preparation.
This is just unbelieveable rubbish. To be sure -- the topical application of an escharotic salve will have a systemic effect that will not be comparable, quantitatively, to the ingestion of that same compound. But what Barrett is doing here is saying, perhaps without knowing it, is that escharotics have no transdermal capability, with or without the use of a transdermal adjunctive agent.
Anyone who has substantial experience in working with escharotics knows immediately that this is just nonsense.
Some currently marketed escharotics contain bloodroot (Sanguinaria candensis), zinc chloride, or both. However, because cancer salves are not manufactured under government supervision, it may not even be possible to know what is in them. People who use such products without benefit of medical consultation run additional risks. Untrained individuals may incorrectly conclude that a growth is cancerous when it is not. Skin cancers that can spread should be medically investigated to see whether they have done so, and some of these require extensive treatment even though they might not look dangerous to the naked eye. In addition, although escharotics may appear to destroy cancrs on the surface of the skin, the user will not be able to tell whether cancer remains under the skin where it can continue to grow without immediate detection.
Here Barrett plays on the ignorance of the public. NO PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT is "manufactured under government supervision." Who does Barrett think he's kidding? Yes, you have inspections; yes, you have reporting requirements. I founded Lumen Foods (now soybean.com) and operated under FDA laws with my food company for 19 years . . . but the goverment is not in the business of having agents overlook manufacturing operations on a day-to-day basis. In only the rarest of circumstances would such a condition exist.
Barrett's inference that you can't trust "cancer salves" because they "are not manufactured under goverment supervision," but you can trust pharmaceutical companies -- whose motives are, oh, so pure -- is just laughable. We have an entire generation of autistic children in the U.S. -- many, such as my nephew, Daniel, brought to a near vegetable state because of mercury-based preservative and other additives in their juvenile vaccines, for which parents had no knowledge. Barrett is defending the indefensible, and he's not even accurate in doing so.
Speaking on a more personal note, the idea that the FDA cares whether or not a manufacturer is making adulterated, misbranded products or not, just doesn't fly. After my arrest in 2003, a former distributor and FDA snitch who assisted federal agents in their case against me, Toby McAdams, copied our website. He used our trademarks, produced a "Cansema" with our identical label that contained no zinc chloride, no chapparal . . . but DID contain rancid corn oil and flour. We provided all evidence to the FDA and they did nothing. Finally --- after continual nagging to try and get the FDA to enforce a level playing field, they finally issues a Warning Letter to Toby's operation in April, 2006.
Toby ignored it for over a year before taking action.
Equally laughable is the section that follows, "Skin cancers . . . should be medically investigated to see whether they have done so." It's laughable because it makes the unspoken presumption that doctors have the tools to detect cancer growths at a threshold level that is earlier than escharotics can, when, in fact, practitioners who are knowledgeable and skilled in the use of escharotics know that the exact opposite in the case.
Worse still, is the presumption in the sentence that follows, namely that surgery or other orthodox method of removing skin cancer will do a better job at not leaving behind residual growth. Our experience is the exact opposite. For many years, Alpha Omega Labs has received customers who firmly stated their displeasure at having to seek out alternative methods, because a surgical removal of their skin cancer that was six months, or a year, or two years in the past, didn't do the job. Not wanting to go through the cost of having another procedure performanced for which they witnessed its ineffectiveness, they come to us. They get results. Or they get their money back.
To read Barrett's commentary, you'd never know this was the case.
Now . . . we are the first to tell our customers that the best way to handle cancers -- all cancers -- is to work with a knowledgeable medical practitioner. In fact, we prefer to work with practitioners in treating end users, than end users themselves, because in the former case, the patient has the ability to rely on the extensive knowledge and experience of his/her doctor. Unfortunately, there are so few physicians, particularly in the U.S., who are able to confer with their patients honestly, for fear of upsetting their licensing board, that more times than not, patients are left to fend for themselves.
And that's tragic.
In 2002, the Archives of Dermatology published a report of four patients who had used escharotic agents instead of standard treatment for a basal cell cancer . In the first patient, the visible tumor was removed and the skin healed. However, a biopsy several months later a biopsy showed that cancer remained under the skin. The second patient successfully eradicated his tumors but sustained severe scarring that required surgery to repair. The third patient had successful surgery for several tumors but was unhappy about tiny scars and the cost of the procedures. When last seen by the authors, he had 2 large swellings covered with a thick central eschar, one on each side of his neck as a result of treatment by an "herbalist." The fourth patient came to the authors with a large basal cell cancer of the nose, lip, and cheek that required extensive surgery to remove and later metastasized to his bones. Several years earlier, when the cancer was in its early stages, he had refused surgery and chosen instead to treat it with an escharotic. The cancer appeared to have been healed, but obviously was not. The authors warned that many of the skin disorders referred to in testimonials published on Web sites that market escharotics were not medically diagnosed so that it would not be possible to judge whether they were benign growths or, if cancerous, had actually been cured.
In the interests of disclosure, I have not read this Archives of Dermatology report. I am not ashamed to say that I have no intention of reading it -- and it should matter to you, why not . . .
For me to have faith in a medical report, I have to believe that the report has been created with a mind towards impartiality. The medical studies and reports underlying entire classes of pharmaceutical drugs have been doctored -- fraud compounded upon fraud, where profits have been the only underlying constant -- so much so that Chapter 4 of Meditopia is largely devoted to this subject.
I trust -- above all -- my many years of experience and the experiences of colleagues I trust. And who would be a colleague that I would trust? That person would be someone who I know puts the interests of the patient above all else.
I have written elsewhere -- both in this site and in Meditopia about the countless practitioners over the years who have come to us to order product, and who have admitted that they use the products on themselves and their family members -- but not their patients. The unspoken admission is, "I cannot risk my license by providing the same care for my patients that I am allowed to give myself and those I love."
Barrett, judging by the statements made in this escharotics article, wouldn't see the moral dilemma contained therein.
But we do.
|The extreme danger of using escharotics products is illustrated by the experience of Ruth Conrad, an Idaho woman who consulted one of the state's many unlicensed naturopaths in 1984. While seeking treatment for a sore shoulder, she also complained of a bump on her nose. The naturopath stated that it was cancer and gave her a black herbal salve to apply directly. Within a few days, her face became very painful and she developed red streaks that ran down her cheeks. Her anxious phone call to the naturopath brought the explanation that the presence of the lines was a good sign because they "resemble a crab, and cancer is a crab." He also advised her to apply more of the black salve. Within a week, a large part of her face, including her nose, sloughed off. It took 3 years and 17 plastic surgery operations to reconstruct her face. During a deposition, the naturopath stated that he had obtained the salve from a woman in Mexico and that he didn't know who had manufactured it. The picture shows the extent of the injured area.||
I don't know Ruth Conrad.
I have no idea who her practitioner was, and I don't know what formula was used on her face.
But the photo provided above is fraudulent -- and Barrett knows it. This woman has undergone surgery. There is perfect symmetry in the cut lines in her face, and she is under anesthesia and wearing a surgical cap. The intention here is to scare unthinking people into believing that an escharotic DID THIS to this poor woman.
If an escharotic did this to Ruth Conrad, where is the pre-surgerical photo? NOW THAT would tell us something. But the problem is, there isn't one. If escharotics are these horrific concoctions that its critics in the orthodox medical community claim that they are, then why are the attacks against it consistently draped in fraudulent, misleading, underhanded tactics? If escharotics were so bad, would one really need to stoop to this level to get the public to acknowledge their inherent evil?
Of course not.
We are now standing on solid ground for which I can speak as an expert. For I, too, had to confront a litigant who fraudulently made claims about our product (Cansema®) and had the audacity to undergo surgery and then claim to the FDA that her condition was brought on by the use of our product.
Her name, appropriately enough, is Sue Gilliatt.
Although her name comes up later in Barrett's article, I believe that now is as good a time as any to expose Sue Gilliatt -- which I already cover in depth in Chapter 3 of Meditopia but will briefly summarize here.
In 2002 Sue Gilliatt purchased Cansema® from our company, along with H3O. (After my coerced FDA guilty pleading, she finally confessed, in a sworn deposition made in July, 2004 that she purchased product with the intentions of filing a lawsuit before she ever received the product! She even had the audacity to sign a sworn affidavit on May 29, 2004 -- three days after I had plead -- changing her story and accusing another manufacturer of producing the escharotic that "took her nose off."
I was able to document that Gilliatt's entire case was fraudulent and money-motivated, and my proofs came primarily from Sue Gilliatt herself and the off-handed comments she made in her own sworn affidavit and deposition.
But let's forget for a moment all the documentary evidence I provide in Meditopia.
Let's take a closer look at this photo.
At right, you will see the set of photographs that Gilliatt used, both to file civil litigation against Alpha Omega Labs and myself -- and with the FDA to instigate criminal charges.
Look carefully at this photo.
Better yet, click on so that the picture fills your screen and you can study it better.
Can you tell what it has in common with Ruth Conrad's photo?
Of course, you can. Anybody can.
This set of photographs was taken AFTER reconstruction surgery. There were NO PHOTOS taken after Cansema, or Dan Raber's product (Can-X) . . . or God knows what other products Sue Gilliatt used, which could tell us what actually happened. Whatever happened to Sue Gilliatt (like Ruth Conrad) was supposedly severely enough to warrant a civil action that netted $800,000 in damages from my insurance company -- (i.e. they only agreed to settle after the FDA took up criminal charges . . . an increasingly common tactic on the part of plaintiff lawyers) -- but it wasn't severe enough for anyone to take a photograph.
The claims departments of car insurance companies will insist on photos to document a fender-bender . . . but something involving the disfigurement of a human being doesn't warrant so much as a single photo . . . only the fraudulent presentation of SURGERICAL PHOTOS that parade as documented evidence of those oh-so-evil herbal concoctions.
Again, I ask you . . . if escharotic preparations truly exhibited the characteristics that orthodox proponents claim they did, would it really be necessary to use such fraudulent, misleading, misrepresentative material to make their point.
This is something you have to answer for yourself.
Salves intended for the treatment of cancers cannot be legally marketed. The FDA has banned the importation of all "black salve" products, including Cansema Black, Topical Salve, Cansema Deep Tissue, Cansema w/Lugol's Iodine (topical), Cansema for Cats, Dogs, and Horses, Cansema Tonic I, Cansema Tonic II, Cansema Tonic III, Cansema Capsules, Cansema Suppositories, Bloodroot Paste, C-Herb Paste, CAN-X, Cancerx, H3O, and Healing Formula .
Irrespective of what the FDA circular says, this information is categorically and provably false. Barrett knows it . . . and so do the counterfeiters of Alpha Omega Labs products that are detailed in Chapter 3 of Meditopia, which make misbranded versions of our products. To this very day, both bloodrootproducts.com and risingsunhealth.com carry these products, under the name "Cancema" instead of "Cansema," as if the one letter change makes any difference. These companies are't in Mozambique. They're in Montana.
I make a number of the products mentioned above here in Ecuador and ship them to countries worldwide, including the United States. I use the DSHEA disclaimer, which has been provided to alternative manufacturers by the U.S. Congress, so that U.S. consumers know that our products have not been examined by the FDA and should not be used by them to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. I am not legally required to make use this disclaimer in connection with our sale of product to any other country on earth.
Here in Ecuador -- where the herbal traditions of the indigenous are respected -- you could never get away with something so ridiculous as stating that properly prepared herbal preparations do not treat, cure or prevent disease.
In 2004, Gregory James Caton, of Lake Charles, Louisiana, was sentenced to 33 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release for marketing several products with claims that they could cure cancer and other diseases. Court documents indicate that from 1999 to 2003, doing business as Alpha Omega Labs, Caton and his employees sold Cancema Tonic III (a purported cancer cure) and H3O (claimed to be effective against athlete's foot, cuts and burns, eczema, fingernail fungus, chronic gas, gastroenteritis, gingivitis and periodontal disease, halitosis, herpes sores, ophthalmia, psoriasis, sore throat, strep throat, and wounds) .
Barrett now begins a litany of those against whom regulatory action has been taken in connection with the manufacture and/or sale of escharotic products. The list is, more or less, chronological, and, of course, Barrett begins his run by naming yours truly.
Interestingly, the "claims" made concerning H3O were all provided by the manufacturer of that product (then in Grass Valley, California, but now out of business). I was able to verify myself that most of the claims made by that manufacturer were true, and to this very day, I believe that "H3O" is one of the most remarkable products, with enormous potential in the field of medicine, that I have ever seen.
Since it costs about $ .50 per gallon to manufacture, I seriously doubt that it will ever be approved for ANYTHING within the orthodox medical establishment.
In April 2005, the FDA ordered Two Feathers, Inc., of Reno, Nevada, to stop marketing an escharotic salve called Two Feathers 
Later in 2005, Lois March, M.D., an ear, nose, and throat specialist who practiced in Cotrell, Georgia, surrendered her medical license to settle charges that she improperly helped Dan Raber, an unlicensed person who treated patients for cancer. Georgia’s Composite Board of Medical Examiners had accused March of providing pain management to several patients whom Raber treated with a bloodroot paste, including one man whose flesh was eaten so badly from his shoulder that the bone was exposed . Press reports indicate that the FDA raided Raber's farm.
In April 2006, the FDA ordered Risingsun Health Alternatives and Herbs, a division of MacAdam Health Enterprises of Livingston, Montana, to stop its illegal marketing of Cansema products .
This April, 2006 order was ignored for a year -- and Toby McAdams then changed the name of "Cansema" to "Cancema" (still a violation of our U.S. registered trademark) and took off some of the claims on his site. You don't get that kind of treatment unless you have an inside deal going with the FDA. With the health of health advocate, Mike Adams, we were able to detail what these inside deals look like in the November, 2008 edition of our Ashwin. Again, we detail all the gory details of the McAdams case in Chapter 3 of Meditopia.
In May 2008, the FDA ordered Best on Earth Products of Las Vegas, Nevada, to stop marketing corrosive salves with claims that they are effective against cancer. The company's Web site had stated:
While historically, black salve and bloodroot salves have been used for melanoma, basal and squamous cell carcinomas. . . we at Best on Earth Products are not legally allowed to make such claims. Such claims made by companies would put these products into the category of "new drugs" based on the FDA definition. Again, we do not make such claims regarding our products."
The company responded by removing the illegal claims but continued to sell black salve products.
The FDA warned that this type of "disclaimer" would not protect against prosecution because other parts of the site (including metatags), had made it clear that the products were intended to treat cancer .
In September 2008, the Federal Trade Commission secured a consent agreement with Holly A. Bacon (d/b/a Cleansing Time Pro), who had marketed " black salve" ointment and tablets with claims that both products were effective against all forms of cancer, as well as against hepatitus, HIV, SARS, and Avian Flu and other viruses. The agreement bans her from making unsubstantiated claims about any product .
Two Feathers made an effective product and we were sad to see them get closed down by the FDA. The other names mentioned are known to me only in passing, if at all.
Advocacy by Andrew Weil
Andrew Weil, M.D., who promotes himself as "your trusted health advisor," has been a strong proponent of bloodroot paste. His 1995 book Spontaneous Healing states that after reading a letter from a user he "was able to find a number of references about its peculiar ability to dissolve abnormal growths on the skin without harming normal tissue." Six months later, when his dog got a black growth on his skin, he applied a bloodroot paste, noted that "the whole tumor" fell off after a few days, and concluded that the end result was "a perfectly circular, slightly depressed area of skin, with no trace of tumor." After trying it out on a friend, he began teaching medical students how to use it with outcomes that were "consistent and satisfactory."  Reading this account shortly after the book was published, I was struck by four things:
- The idea that bloodroot kills only cancer cells and spares normal ones is preposterous.
This is precisely what a properly-made escharotic does. It differentiates between healthy and unhealthy cells. There is nothing Barrett can do to change this. There is not enough money in the world to bribe enough FDA agents to alter the laws of Nature so that Barrett's wish -- which is to say the money-motivated desires of the Western medicine -- will or can be fulfilled . . . it's just that simple.
- There was no mention of a biopsy, without which it might not be possible to be certain that his friend had a cancer.
When it comes to skin cancer, there is no biopsy in the world that will do a better job of diagnosing the presence of cancer than Cansema®. This isn't just my assessment. This is the assessment of M.D.'s., N.D.'s, D.O's, D.D.'s, and other health care professionals we work with who are able to operate using those products, protocols, and modalities that they feel are best for the patient, without fear of reprisal.
Having worked with thousands of cases, I can report that what makes Cansema® superior (and I believe this same characteristic is true of other well-prepared escharotic salves) is that it detects and reacts to cancer cells at a threshold level that is earlier than other diagnostic tools. We have had a number of cases where patients have gone to their physician for a biopsy, received a "negative" test result on one site -- which later tested positive, near an adjacent site for which Cansema® tested positive (i.e. reacted).
It is as if Cansema® has broader definition of what constitutes a "cancerous cell" than does conventional medicine.
And this makes perfectly good sense and is consistent with how modern medicine operates. After all, it is much more profitable to have systems of testing cancer in place that only catch cancer in the latter stages. As always, it comes down to what's most profitable.
- Weil does not mention how he determined that medical students who followed his advice had "consistent and satisfactory outcomes." Some skin cancers that are left behind will not become apparent until months or even years after they are treated. Without a formal follow-up study, it is impossible to determine the long-term outcome.
Barrett is on extremely weak ground when he runs the "cancer left behind" flag up the flagpole. Despite the surgical process of "clear margins" that takes out untold healthy tissue with each and every act of surgery to remove skin cancer, rarely do patients not complain later about recurrence. Because Cansema® does not react to healthy tissue, there IS no removal of healthy tissue or need for "clear margins." Using a surgerical knife to remove skin cancer is the most crude method I can think of to address this condition. It's like using an elephant gun to kill a mouse. The problem exists on the cellular level. Escharotics address the problem at the cellular level.
- The naked eye cannot tell where the margin of a skin cancer is located because there can be microscopic spread beyond the obvious tumor. When simple surgery is performed, the surgeon removes the obvious area plus a small amount of surrounding tissue. If the pathology report shows no tumor at the specimen margins, it is assumed that the entire tumor has been removed. If cancer shows at the margins, further surgery is performed. Today, Weil's Web site acknowledges this point by stating "I do not recommend using bloodroot paste, or anything else for that matter, for the self-treatment of skin cancers. It might not get all malignant tissue. Only examination by biopsy can confirm a diagnosis or a cure."  However, even this statement is irresponsible because bloodroot paste is not a sensible treatment no matter who applies it. Nevertheless, for more than four years, Weil's Web site carried an article that plugged bloodroot and linked to four companies that would supply information and products .
We are acutely aware of the position that Dr. Weil is in -- and, frankly, it puts us in a difficult light because we were one of the company's he used to recommend. My take is that no one . . . and I mean NO ONE, in the medical community who defects from modern medical mythology's 'common narrative' (and if you don't know what that means, I recommend you read Chapter 4 of Meditopia) is allowed to do so without severe repercussions. I have seen this repeatedly. I have heard it from medical doctors repeatedly. I cannot begin to recount the horror stories . . . well . . . okay, I take that back. With Meditopia, already at several hundred pages, I did BEGIN . . . .
Three More Victims
A recent book, Natural Causes, describes what happened after Weil's Web site persuaded Sue Gilliatt of Indianapolis, Indiana to use bloodroot products. According to the book, her primary care physician removed a bump on her nose that was diagnosed as a benign tumor called a fibroadenoma. But Gilliatt feared that it was cancerous and, even though she was given a referral to a dermatologist, wound up buying Cansema from the Alpha Omega Alpha Web site and a bloodroot paste from Dan Raber. The Cancema stung so badly that she was unable to keep in on for the recommended 24 hours and applied Raber's paste instead. Within a few hours after she applied it to her nose, her face became puffy and her eyes were nearly swollen shut. Instead of consulting her doctor, she phoned Raber who persuaded her to apply more paste. Six days later, when she had her appointment with the dermatologist, a large part of her nose had been destroyed.
I already covered above what an unforgiveable con job the Sue Gilliatt case was.
You only need to read it and come to your own conclusions.
Two other black salve victims have shared their stories with me:
|Gail Bumpus, of Singer Island, Florida, was the victim of 84-year-old Jerome Craft, M.D., a board-certified plastic surgeon who advertised in the Yellow Pages as a specialist in cancer and burns. In 2005, she consulted him about possible surgery for excess skin under her nose. During the first two visits, without taking a biopsy, Craft said that she had extensive cancer in the nose and that a black salve that he had invented would remove the cancer without leaving any scars. After the salve was applied, her nose became extremely painful and her face swelled "like a pumpkin." Although an emergency room physician advised hospitalization, Craft talked her into remaining under his care for ten more days, during which time she experienced excruciating pain but was reassured that she would be fine. When she finally returned to the hospital, she was admitted for five days and treated with massive doses of antibiotics. When the dead tissue was removed from her nasal area, it was apparent that her nose had been burned off. So far she has had six operations to reconstruct a nose. In 2007, the Florida Board of Medicine secured a consent agreement under which Craft was reprimanded, fined $9,000, ordered to pay administrative costs, and banned from using "black salve" again .||
A few days after the salve was applied, most of her nose was destroyed.
Gail's nose wasn't burned off. But Dr. Jerome Craft didn't have a chance. The end result of this case became apparent to me as soon as I read the words, "an emergency room physician advised," I knew the end result of this case.
As I look at Gail's nose, I see something totally different, I see severe escharization caused by severe cancer of the nose that is bit as advanced as Dr. Craft advised.
How much better would Gail look if she had followed through with Craft's advice . . . that is, if the natural process was allowed to proceed, the eschar come off, the decavitation heal over on its own --- as in the thousands of cases we have observed at Alpha Omega Labs? How much better would she be if there weren't many thousands of dollars to be made in those six reconstructive surgeries?
We'll never know.
A handful of opportunistic Florida doctors made sure of that.
Gail's lack of knowledge about what escharotics are, how they work, and their long history of effectiveness made her far more a victim of iatrogenesis than it did of cancer.
|In 2006, Paulette Teel, of Liberty Hill, Texas, developed a small but deep-rooted cancer on the skin of her nose that was biopsied and diagnosed by a dermatologist. Surgery was recommended, but her sister, who has practiced as a "master herbalist" for many years, persuaded her that a bloodroot paste would do a better job. The first picture shows how her nose and the surrounding skin became inflamed. The second picture shows the hole in her nose that resulted. The paste destroyed some areas of bone and cartilage, which means that when the wound heals, she will require extensive plastic surgery. She also reported that the inflamed area was extremely painful for more than a week.|
This is the best that Barrett can do? I have examined this photo carefully, and even at 75 dpi, one can clearly see that this is an ordinary "decavitation" that is a natural part of the escharization process. (The decavitation itself is magnified at right -- 400%.) There is no loss of bone or cartilage. As always, this is misrepresentation by omission. Where are the photos showing what this area would look like AFTER it was allowed to heal up on its own, without doctors examining the site and attempting to figure out how to make a dollar off of it?
We're never going to see those photos, either!
How About Using A Case Study That Isn't Fudged?
What If I Use Myself As An Example?
Tell ya what, boys and girls -- I'm going to interrupt Barrett's kindergarten session of "Show and Tell" for a few minutes and provide a few escharotic pictures of my own, since Barrett can't do the job without interjecting his own misrepresentative spin.
For a subject, I'll use my own body. This seems most appropriate, since professionally-paid MIC spin-meisters like Barrett make the inference, if not the outright claim, that those of us who work in the alternative field are simply heartless fiends who run around burning and disfiguring innocent people with fraudulent, quack products -- when the Truth is that those of us who are committed to this field are our own biggest customers!
But first . . . a little background.
In October, 2007, I discovered that a former employee (Crystal Leslie of Lake Charles, Louisiana) had embezzled over $20,000 from one of my companies (Lumen Foods) while I was in prison. In a sworn deposition in October, 2007, she openingly admitted her complicity in working with U.S. FDA to have me re-imprisoned with information I knew well to be perjured. (Fortunately for me, she didn't know that I was in Ecuador at the time she made these sworn statements.) On account of this fact, together with a small kidney problem that I have since cured on my own, I made the decision not to return to the U.S. ---- ever . . . All of these facts are discussed in considerable length in the latter part of Chapter 3, Section 2, of Meditopia, with links to nauseatingly detailed support documentation.
The stress of the situation provided to be overwhelming and cancer conditions in remission that I have had now for over 20 years began to flair up. Several moles I had on my upper body began to act up -- changing color, increasing in size, and in a couple instances, exhibiting a slight itch -- all symptoms of growing skin cancers.
It didn't matter to me which type they were.
I just knew I needed to get rid of them.
To further "test" the sites, I used a technique that we don't publicize on this site, namely the use of oregano oil -- (which is, in some respects, more controversial than escharotics). Five sites were particularly reactive, so I decided to remove them with Cansema® Salve.
Because of my extensive experience in working with escharotics over two decades, I went ahead and did something we don't recommend on this site, because of pain management issues: I applied the Salve to all the cancers at the same time.
I had an associate who also happens to be a medical doctor take the first set of pictures on May 27, 2008, just three days after the initial application.
Please note that taken together, THESE CANCERS ARE OF A COMPARABLE, IF NOT MORE SEVERE, NATURE, in mass and state of advancement, THAN ALL THE OTHER CANCERS THAT APPEAR HERE IN BARRETT'S ESCHAROTIC ATTACK PAGE COMBINED.
Also keep in mind that I use no anti-scarring preparations or wound-healing adjuncts of any kind. I never have. Perhaps I'm not vain enough . . . and STILL the end result, as you will see, is more favorable than if I had gone through surgery.
Let's begin with the first set of photos. (Note : though none of these pictures were taken professionally --- in fact, I think they're awful --- I have scanned and posted them at 150 dpi so that users can CLICK on the important thumbnails below and examine the results at higher magnification -- something my critics have, to date, failed to do.)
Here is the first set -- taken on May 27, 2008:
The left photo is an upper body shot showing all areas of application, except for the one on my upper back (click photo to enlarge). The middle and right photos are extracted from the enlargement of the left photo to show the degree of escharization . . . next :
FROM LEFT TO RIGHT ABOVE: ( 1 ) -- The left photo shows the reaction from the oregano oil. There was nothing here to indicate that cancer cells were present. I did not apply Cansema to any of the areas shown here, and they went away on their own. I DID, however, notice "pinpricks," indicative of a higher than normal presence of yeast. I ended up eliminating this problem with a Rife machine. ( 2 ) -- The next photo (click to enlarge) is another photo of the same chest area seen in the middle photo above it. ( 3 ) -- The following photo (click to enlarge) is the same "side of mouth" area shown in the photo above it, but from a different angle . . . and ( 4 ) -- The right photo, though horribly shot with overexposing light, shows the area below the right trapezoid, on the back, where a large eschar formation is developing.
THREE DAYS LATER . . . on May 30, 2008, I asked my wife (Cathryn) to take another set of photos, and here they are:
FROM LEFT TO RIGHT ABOVE: ( 1 ) In classic fashion, as we have discussed on this website since 1995, the resulting eschars in this upper body shot can be seen drying up and contracting. There is more differentiation from the surrounding, unaffected healthy tissue -- (click to enlarge). ( 2 ) Same eschars on the chest (click to enlarge). ( 3 ) A closeup of the eschars at the base of the neck . . . . . Boy, oh, boy --- they really look nasty, don't they ??? . . . . . Maybe I can get a U.S. attorney to help me file a multimillion dollar lawsuit against myself. I wonder if we can get my product liability insurance carrier to be gullible enough to pay up! (LOL!) ( 4 ) The eschar on the back, showing further development.
FOUR DAYS LATER . . . on June 3, 2008, I asked my wife (Cathryn) to take yet another set of photos, and here they are:
FROM LEFT TO RIGHT ABOVE: ( 1 ) The eschar at the side of the right lip is disintegrating, with more scar tissue visible at this stage than eschar. ( 2 ) The lower chest eschar is beginning to disintegrate before it has a chance to fall out, as you can see from its lower edge. ( 3 ) The eschars at the base of the neck are also disintegrating, and a chuck of necrotic tissue can be seen barely hanging on at left. ( 4 ) The eschar on the back did not integrate, but came out in the most common manner of ejection : it fell out on its own in one piece. What you see above is a classic photo of the "decavitation stage" we discuss, both in the Cansema User Instruction and in Chapter 1 of Meditopia.
FOUR DAYS LATER . . . on June 7, 2008, I asked my wife (Cathryn) to take yet another set of photos. Keep in mind that this would now be TWO WEEKS since May 24, 2008, when the salve was first applied. Here are the photos:
FROM TOP TO BOTTOM AND FROM LEFT TO RIGHT ABOVE: ( 1 ) (Top Left) The eschar at the base of the neck is healing over, but there is still a decavitation in the eschar beneath it. Notice that the eschar to the right on the neckline is gone. It has completely healed over so that all that is left is healthy pink epithelial tissue, along with scar tissue that will take a period of months to get rid of. ( 2 ) (Top Right) A closer photo of the same eschar at the base of the neck. ( 3 ) (Bottom Left) This photo was unfortunately shot out of focus, but you can still see the nearly disintegrated eschar. The surrounding scar tissue is beginning to go away, but it is already apparent that this will take some time to reach the stage where it is unnoticeable to the visible eye. ( 4 ) (Bottom Center) A frontal shot of all applied areas. ( 5 ) (Bottom Right) The decavitation in the back remains, though by comparing to the picture taken 4 days earlier, you can see that it is drying up and healing over.
FIVE DAYS LATER . . . on June 12, 2008, I asked my wife (Cathryn) to take yet another set of photos . . . and here they are:
FROM TOP TO BOTTOM AND FROM LEFT TO RIGHT ABOVE: ( 1 ) (Top Left) The decavitations are gone and all that is left near the neck and on the chest is the healing over process. ( 2 ) (Top Right) Same eschars, different view. ( 3 ) (Bottom Left) The decavitation on the back is healed over. What remains is scar tissue that will take a period of months to heal. ( 4 ) (Bottom Center) The site near the lip is healed over. A small amount of scar tissue remains. It will take a period of months for this to heal over, as well. ( 5 ) (Bottom Right) A frontal shot, showing the site of the original applications.
NINE DAYS LATER . . . on June 21, 2008 --- NOT EVEN ONE MONTH SINCE CANSEMA SALVE WAS APPLIED TO ALL THESE AREAS, I asked my wife (Cathryn) to take yet another set of photos . . . and here they are:
FROM LEFT TO RIGHT ABOVE: ( 1 ) (Left) Healthy, new pink tissue abounds. All that is left is to wait for the scar tissue to heal over. ( 2 ) (Center) The scar tissue at the edge of the lip continues to diminish. ( 3 ) (Right) Likewise, the scar tissue on the back is diminishing, as well.
At this point, I completely forgot about the skin cancers. They were all gone and I knew that the scar tissue would continue to diminish over time, as you can see in the photos above.
I didn't even think about these growths again until I sat down to compose the April, 2009 issue of the Ashwin, where I decided to finally address Barrett's many misrepresentations about escharotics.
In the interests of fairness, I thought I would present some additional photos, so you could see how things were progressing. These pictures were taken on on the morning of Saturday, May 3, 2009 -- less than one year after Cansema® was applied, and a little less than one month after my 53rd birthday:
FROM LEFT TO RIGHT ABOVE: ( 1 ) (Left) Most of the scar tissue is gone and what remains will diminish almost entirely in the next 12 months, and ( 2 ) (Right) The scar tissue at the corner of my mouth is gone to the point where you have to closely examine it to even see it.
Any missing or deformed body parts?
Any missing bone or cartilage?
Any need to see an oncologist? (cha-ching)
. . . or have diagnostic tests run for all the cancer that orthodox apologists would tell you I must have missed? (cha-ching)
How about a trip to the plastic surgeon -- followed by a visit to the best plaintiff attorney in town? (cha-ching . . . cha-ching . . . cha-ching)
A resounding "NO" on all three counts.
Wait . . . I take it back. Maybe I DO need a good attorney in the U.S. so I can sue myself for using Cansema® ! --- ; ) --- How much money do you think I can get the court to make me pay myself?
Mohs micrographic surgery is a state-of-the-art treatment for skin cancer in which the physician (usually a dermatologist) serves as surgeon, pathologist, and reconstructive surgeon. It begins with surgical removal of the visible tumor and microscopic examination of the specimen. If cancer is seen at the margins, the suspected area plus a thin margin is removed and the process is repeated until it appears that all of the cancer has been located and removed. The end result is a very high cure rate (over 99% for new cancers and 95% for recurrent cancers) with minimal removal of healthy tissue .
Minimal removal of healthy tissue? . . . Certainly compared to conventional surgery (1 to 1.5 mm "free margin" versus 4 to 6 mm), but to those experienced in the use of escharotics, ANY free margin of healthy tissue is unnecessary. Moh's surgery, to those who understand it, is yet another variation of Parkinson's Law applied to skin cancer: "medical procedures (and the charges incurred therein) tends to expand to fill the gullibility allotted for its completion." Originally, the use of an escharotic salve was central to the process. Later this was changed, no doubt because an extremely embarrassing situation would result if patients were to discover that the process would work if there were no additional surgical or pathology testing procedures added to the process . . . and that would be very bad for business.
It still adheres to its "chemosurgery" roots, but what patients are never told is that if the eschar were left alone, the body's "innate intelligence" (as chiropractors tell us) trusted, and the process allowed to complete itself, all the other elements of the process would be found to be unnecessary.
But, again, that's bad for business.
The Bottom Line
Skin cancers should be medically diagnosed and treated. Those located in readily visible areas (eyes, nose, lips, or scalp) should be treated with Mohs surgery. The types of products described in this article are extremely dangerous. Their sellers deserve to be imprisoned.
Skin cancers should be medically diagnosed and treated by practitioners who will do what is best for the patient, without regard for the profitability of any given procedure. Only in the most recent of times have escharotics been considered "dangerous," and they acquired this label by those in orthodoxy only because of the threat that escharotics pose to the extremely profitable, conventional cancer business. Those who have partaken of the 150 year old "Modern Medical Holocaust" in the name of profit, by suppressing far superior methods of treating and curing cancer deserve something much, much worse than prison.
Those who think that Barrett's actions in assisting modern medicine's most deplorable elements of financial exploitation are meritable, are invited to assist him financially by linking to any of the variety of programs below (after "References"), most of which are excellent representations of his unrelated shilling activities.
[ End of Rebuttal ]
- McDaniel S. Goldman GD. Consequences of using escharotic agents as primary treatment for nonmelanoma skin cancer. Archives of Dermatology 138:1593-1596, 2002.
- Import Alert #66-41: "Unapproved new drugs promoted in the U.S." Revised April 6, 2006.
- Lake Charles man sentenced for selling and shipping unapproved new drugs. USDOJ news release, Aug 24, 2004.
- Cassens BJ. Warning letter to Two Feathers, Inc., and Robert Roy. April 13, 2005.
- In the matter of Lois March, M.D. Before the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings. Filed July 26, 2005.
- Breen CM. Warning Letter to Greta Armstrong. April 6, 2006.
- Cassens B. Warning letter to Best on Earth Products, May 20, 2008.
- Agreement containing consent order. In the matter of Holly A. Bacon, doing business as Cleansing Time Pro. FTC file # 082-3119, announced Sept 18, 2008.
- Weil A. Spontaneous Healing. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995, pp 48-51.
- Weil A. Bloodroot for skin cancer? Dr. Weil.com, Jan 9, 2006.
- Hurley D. Natural Causes: Death, Lies, and Politics in America's Vitamin and Herbal Supplement Industry. New York: Broadway Books, 2006.
- Complaint. Florida Department of Health vs. Jerome W. Craft, M.D. DOH case number 2005-03020, filed May 2, 2006.
- About Mohs micrographic surgery. American College of Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Cutaneous Oncology Web site, accessed December 12, 2006.
This article was revised on December 22, 2008.