Escharotics: 500 Years of Suppression

“The touchstone of true science is power of performance, for it is a truism that what can, also will, and thus attains to real existence.” Dr. Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902)

“The universities do not teach all things … so a doctor must seek out old wives, gypsies, sorcerers, wandering tribes, old robbers, and such outlaws and take lessons from them. A doctor must be a traveller . . . Knowledge is experience.” Paracelsus 1 (1493-1541)

“Any treatment of disease that claims to be in advance of what is known to the profession however clearly on scientific principles or uniformly commended by its power to heal, is sure to meet with opposition. In the treatment of cancer that is the more to be expected inasmuch as cancer has been the opprobrium of the profession. By physicians, the world over, it has for the most part been regarded as incurable. If this is not so, why the conviction universally pervading the public mind that all ordinary means to arrest it are impotent?” T.T. Blake, M.D.  Cancers Cured Without the Use of the Knife (1858)

“A physician once told me that nothing arouses so much bitter enmity and heated arguments among his colleagues, as the subject of cancer. This may be due to the guilty recollections of cancer victims expiring who might have been saved; or of the memories of patients pronounced hopelessly ill who recovered under the treatment of a ‘quack,’ or who miraculously lived without further treatment. Possibly these guilt reactions and the remorse over exhausting the money of patients and their relatives in futile cancer treatments, account for some of these psychological manifestations which are expressed in hostility and attack.” Nat Morris (written in 1958)

“I die by the help of too many physicians.” Alexander the Great On his deathbed, 323 B.C.

“Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home.” Stanley Diamond  In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization

It is my position that for the entirety of recorded history in Western culture, but most particularly on account of Greek and Roman influences from about the fifth century, B.C., to the present, the suppression of simple, effective medical remedies in favor of more complex systems, methods, products, and protocols, has been embedded into the very fabric of the prevailing medical establishment. We’ll examine the various political, economic, and religious constructs — my version of “cultural infrastructure” — necessary to sustain this system of suppression in an upcoming section. For now, it is only important to establish and define the “suppression pattern” and apply it to escharotics, as we discussed in the first chapter, so as to first finish my initial chronology.

An example of a famous medical pioneer who actually USED escharotics, is well documented in his success in treating cancer, was well-known to have been a victim of jealousy among his less competent colleagues (which included nearly everyone save himself), and was finally disposed of as a means of terminating their frightful embarrassment, should serve the present purpose.

He lived in the 16th century.

Paracelsus von Hohenheim Most physicians of antiquity acquired their reputation not because they were great theoreticians, but because they were able to cure patients who found little relief elsewhere. The proof was in the pudding. Good doctors cure their patients, and grateful acknowledgement through payment is the natural consequence. (Today it’s the reverse. Getting paid is primary. The cure is an after-thought. This is poignant reality that hits anyone who has ever visited the ER section of a modern American hospital.)

A master of empirical eclecticism in the medical arts, Paracelsus gave credence to neither academic credentials nor social standing. He understood the dangers inherent in ideological rigidity and was the very antithesis of monoculturalism in medical approach, in all its diverse theoretical and applied facets that are as much an infection in medicine today as it was back in the days of Galen.

Paracelsus is reviled for his association with mysticism, astrology, and alchemy by contemporary historians — indeed he found ways to harness them all in his practice — and yet his critics must begrudgingly note his unusual successes. Centuries before Mesmer, Paracelsus understood and employed the principles of suggestion; centuries before Freud, he understood mind/body connection; centuries before Antonio Meucci or R. Raymond Rife,  he utilized electromagnetic therapy; he discovered hydrogen, nitrogen; coined the term “alcohol” (from the Arabic), and identified zinc. He composed his own pharmacoepia and achieved clinical success that few physicians today can match — all at a time when medical specialization, as we know it, was non-existent.

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781), one of the most influential figures of the Enlightenment, said of him, “Those who imagine that the medicine of Paracelsus is a system of superstitions which we have fortunately outgrown, will, if they once learn to know its principles, be surprised to find that it is based on a superior kind of knowledge which we have not yet attained, but into which we may hope to grow.” . His knowledge of subtle energies that act upon the living organism mimic principles that only now are beginning to migrate from our recent discoveries in quantum physics into the stodgy crevices of our biological sciences. Paracelsus is widely credited with not only being the “father of modern medicine” — in part because of his expansive and radical departure from the apothecary practices of his time — but the father of lesser known or respected practices and disciplines, including iatrochemistry and balneology. . Viewing the breadth of his work and the endurance of so many of his ideas (not to mention a universe of thought that did not endure — perhaps because we have not the sufficient collective consciousness to comprehend them), it does not seem hyperbolic to say that he was “the precursor of chemical pharmacology and therapeutics, and the most original medical thinker of the 16th century.”

In a facet of personality that appears common among those who rise too far above the mean intelligence of their medical peers, Paracelsus appeared to have little by way of humility. While lecturing at the University of Basel, he is reported to have said that the soft down on the back of his neck knew more about the practice of medicine than all the professors of Basel put together . A celebratory book burning of works by Galen and Avicenna, pillars of 16th century medical thought, which Paracelsus orchestrated in the spirit of religious leader and fellow German reformer, Martin Luther (1483-1546), was the last straw for many. It wasn’t enough that he could cure illnesses that no one else could, he made a point to rub his colleagues collective face in it. On one occasion Paracelsus offered to cure any patient deemed incurable. Fully prepared to disgrace this wild braggart, his colleagues presented him with fifteen advanced cases of leprosy. (One can only imagine that since his enemies got to do the choosing, these were no mean challenges. No doubt with advanced cachexia and one foot already in the grave).

He cured nine out of the fifteen. .

The escharotic formula that Paracelsus used was as simple and direct as the rest of this practice. Instead of zinc chloride as a caustic halide, Paracelsus used “sal ammoniac” (ammonium chloride), along with fuligo (wood soot), and orpiment (arsenic sulfide).  According to records of the time, it worked. (Interestingly, Paracelsus employed his own “arsenic paste” nearly 400 years before Nobel Prize-winner, Paul Ehrlich, created his own celebrated version to treat syphilis in the early 1900′s.  Variations in the 1800′s had already been used by allopaths to treat skin cancer).

Paracelsus had a separate formula that was less “intense,” which he used to treat skin cancers, jaundice, and some wounds. We don’t know the exact method of preparation, but it used “litharge” (lead monoxide) as the caustic agent.

As one might expect, Paracelsus’ reviling of tradition would eventually cost him his life, as he was unceremoniously pushed off a cliff by hired assassins “in the employ of the medical fraternity,” according to supporters. Though even a most orthodox review of Paracelsus’ contribution to modern medicine cannot diminish his stature, the allopathic version of his end, as with most dissenters, has him in a most unflattering exit off stage — namely, a bar room brawl Or victim of a midlife stroke. The reputation of more recent dissenters who produced miraculous results has faired no better — even to the point of altering a death certificate.

Paracelsus was my illustrative choice here not only because he was a medical luminary nonpareil, but because the elements of suppression are most vivid in his life and work — such as I have most scantily summated here.

Central to Paracelsus’ work was the use of natural plants and mineral compounds, and what we might regard as the rudiments of modern chemistry. He didn’t abandon Galenian concepts of herbal medicine, but his understanding was deeper, richer, and more holistic — turning empirical, “evidence-based” medical herbalism into a kind of subset of a much larger universe of thought and practice.

There are hundreds of botanical extracts, the knowledge of which come to us from indigenous sources worldwide, which have shown to have anti-cancer properties. Dr. Jonathan Hartwell, one of the founders of the National Cancer Institute, spent most of his adult life categorizing them, leaving behind a reference that would become a classic in the field of phytopharmacology and ethnobotany. (Later I would write an article, in tributary devotion to Hartwell’s influence on my own work.)

But escharotics are not just botanicals. They employ, by definition, a lightly caustic compound, with one or more botanical ingredients. Caustics usually involve the use of a metal salt, often a halogen combined with a metal (halide), such as zinc chloride or potassium iodine.  (Though in the case of one famous physician, the contribution of the dissociated potassium was considered paramount.)

Another anhydrous chloride, “butter of antimony” (antimony trichloride) fits into this category. Many dermatologists are aware that along with zinc chloride, butter of antimony was one of the ingredients in a number of early escharotics of the 1900′s. But its use goes back even to Paracelsus in the 1500′s — though it appears he used it for other maladies.

I always stuck with zinc chloride in my escharotic work, and if you spend a couple hundred hours (as I have) going through patent records to uncover what caustic previous researchers have used, zinc chloride is, by far, the caustic of choice. Familiarity with its useful properties is not new. Anthropologists found traces of man-made zinc chloride in the Pyramid at Giza, produced at LEAST 2,500 years ago — (though one researcher attributes its use to the generation of power and not medicine.)

Zinc chloride, though now reviled by allopaths in an attempt to smear alternative practitioners, was one of just three ingredients in the initial Mohs surgical paste that is now central to a standard dermatological procedure approved through the West. The three ingredients that Mohs used in his formula and taught were: zinc chloride, bloodroot, and stibnite (antimony sulfide, another Paracelsus favorite)  , and can be found in Mohs own original work. Ironically, the AMA, FDA and other pillars of orthodox medicine exerted enormous effort to put Harry S. Hoxsey out of business (and they succeeded), and yet Hoxsey’s formula was almost identical to Mohs. The difference? Mohs called the topical a “fixative,” and he artificially and unnecessarily inserted the act of surgery as a necessary part of the process.

Hypocrisy and suppression have appeared together as cousins throughout the history of organized medicine, as we’ll see time and again.

(By the way, American physicians are now taught that zinc chloride was eliminated from the Mohs paste as an ingredient because it is caustic to healthy skin tissue. There is no nice way to say this: it’s a patent lie. I myself have worked with “butter of zinc” bases that were over 60% pure zinc chloride and had the thick, syrupy mess dripping from my fingers down to my elbow for the better part of an hour. Upon removal with running tap water there was only slight irritation to the skin on my forearm. I have done this not less than fifty times in a twelve year period — 1991 to 2003.)

The suppression of effective, inexpensive, natural methods of healing has a history in the U.S. that is more extensive and egregious than any place on earth, in any time period on earth. I didn’t realize just how true this was until I compared various escharotic patent filings in the U.S., with court filings on Hoxsey, Rife, and others, and then compared this with published work on the subject.

In late 1857 and 1858, three separate medical doctors surfaced in the U.S. and England with reports of a cancer cure that worked with amazing success.

The first was Dr. J. Weldon Fell.

A man of no plebeian upbringing, Fell was born to an old and distinguished American family with a long lineage of famous physicians and professional men, Fell was one of the original founders of the New York Academy of Medicine and a faculty member of the University of New York — and as cancer writer Nat Morris noted, his was “one of the most interesting (stories) in the history of cancer.”

According to Morris, “… a sinister cloud enveloped his career because of his cancer practice and in the prime of his life, he emigrated to London to start anew. There he engaged again in the practice of cancer under very auspicious circumstances for he was singularly prosperous and lived very lavishly.”

His departure from New York was shrouded in mystery, but it fits a recurring pattern for physicians whose cancer practices rise too far in success above their peers. Prior to leaving, Fell attempted to resign from the New York Academy of Medicine, but his resignation was refused. It appears his association with a “cancer quack,” a certain Gilbert of New York City, had caused colleagues great animosity. His resignation was postponed in the hope of “pinning a charge of quackery upon him so he could be ignominiously ejected from the academy.”

Fell’s subsequent success in London provides evidence as to the cause of his mistreatment in New York, as does the sizeable fortune, earned while servicing a grateful, sizeable base of patients in the U.S., which he took with him to England. He wrote a friend of renting a castle for $100 per week, a kingly sum at that time.

In the fine tradition of Paracelsus, Fell was also a man lacking in humility. A mere guest in his new host country, he derided English surgeons for “operating and amputating without any justification whatsoever and said that limbs were cut off merely to satisfy the vanity or sadism of surgeons. He charged that practices were tolerated in England that would never be permitted in the United States and of all the physicians he had met in London, there were only two whom he would trust to treat himself or his family.”

Remarkably, excepting these sharp comments on the surgical practices of his contemporaries, Fell remained on good terms with his fellow English practitioners, and although little is known of the final years of his life, the record shows that he never again fell into disrepute — alleged or otherwise, professional or public — again.

Dr. Fell published a text on cancer, the content of which is the basis for his inclusion in the present work.

To the best knowledge of this author (and I would be delighted to hear from anyone who would refute my assertion) Fell was the first one to publish an escharotic as it has come to be most popularly used in the West — namely, the use of zinc chloride as the caustic of choice, along with a cancerolytic (cancer-fighting) medical herb. The use of zinc chloride as a superior, though mildly, caustic (it has a pH of 5.0), is reflective of the experimentation that took place over the preceding centuries. Caustics known to have been used, then and prior, in orthodox practice included “nitrate of silver, quicklime, sulphate of copper (sometimes used with borax), sulphuric acid (oil of vitriol) mixed with saffron, and permanganate of pottasa. Alkaline caustics such as sulphate of zinc were also in vogue.”  Dr. Fell dismissed them all, so he must have known of their shortcomings, as did his contemporary and fellow user of escharotic preparations, Dr. John Pattison (see below).

Fell’s publication itself places him 20 years prior to the filing of U.S. Patent No. 209,311, and just four years after A. Hunton’s 1855 treatise, “On some of the medical virtues of indigenous vegetables grown in the United States.” We are also told by Hunton that the manner in which the medical secrets concerning bloodroot were obtained from an Indian doctor were less than honorable.  (None of which compares, of course, with the rapacious pilferage of indigenous Americans’ land and most of their very lives.)

Even apart from Fell’s open admission that the central role of bloodroot in his medical product came from native savages,  there is the issue of its use in American folk medicine long before that, specifically, its widespread use in Pennsylvania, documented as early as 1811.  Moreover, since bloodroot is native to the North American continent, its appearance in Russia infers that it may have been exported there. Internal studies by the National Cancer Institute, which have themselves been suppressed, show even wider use in recent times.

But again, it is Fell that publicly announces the advancement of an escharotic by adding bloodroot to zinc chloride. Of greater importance is the final report which the board of directors of Middlesex Hospital allow him to publish concerning the results on 25 cancer patients, substantiating his claims that his treatment was far more successful than anything then available “and justified abandoning surgery for relief of cancer.”

In their official communication, the board made the following cautious endorsements of the Fell cancer treatment:

It was safe and conformed to surgical principles

It could be employed on both operable and inoperable cancers.

It obviated removals of the entire breast and could be confined to enucleation of tumors only.

It spared patients the hazards of surgery, including hemorrhage and constitutional affections.

Enucleation was followed by healthy granulation and cicatrizing surface (scarring over).

Despite its apparent growing acceptance by the orthodox medical community in London, a sea change that should have brought about the elimination of radically invasive cancer procedures, the remedy somehow fell into disuse. Only sporadic, historical references can be found to its use, which demonstrate that conscientious physicians would discover and bring the practice back, only to see it furloughed by medical authorities. One such instance is the use of a zinc chloride compound at St. Bartholomew Hospital in London — to treat breast cancers, no less. (Our knowledge of it survives because two such cases can be found in the hospital’s “Pathological Museum.”)

For now it’s important to know that Fell was not alone in his discovery — even in his own time.

At about the same time that Fell was making headway at Middlesex Hospital, Dr. John Pattison, also an expat from New York City living in London, was also preaching the same message with what appears to be the same formula. Pattison, like Fell, abhorred the surgical treatment of cancer as a fraud upon the public. In 1858, Pattison, too, published his own work, a pamphlet, which provided not only the exact formula, but a precise description of its use. His ingredients? Zinc chloride, goldenseal (hydrastis canadenisa), flour and water. (This author, having experimented with variations of both formulas over many years, can attest that the end result of either Fell or Pattison’s formula would be almost indistinguishable topically.) To further punctuate his point, Pattison expanded his pamphlet to a book in 1866, entitled “Cancer: Its nature and successful and comparatively painless treatment without the usual operation with the knife.”

Neither Fell nor Pattison were obsessed with the elimination of more invasive methods of cancer treatment without sound reasoning. As early as 1844, a survey was compiled by Dr. Leroy-d Etoilles and published by the French Academy of Science. To this day this report on cancer survival is probably the most extensive ever released. It was based on results supplied by 174 physicians on 2,781 cases, followed “in some instances for over thirty years.”  The short version: patients are better off, in most cases, doing nothing at all than going with surgery. Today, despite modern improvements in techniques and equipment, “the dominance of surgery in the treatment of cancer despite these ominous observations has been maintained by studiously ignoring and suppressing adverse information by the powers that be.”  The continued practice of unnecessary surgery for financial gain is a contributing factor in “death by doctoring” as the third leading cause of death in the U.S. — so says a study that miraculously managed to find its way into the pages of the Journal of the American Medical Association as recently as 2000 — though it was largely ignored by the mass media.

Pattison was not singular in his approach. (No physician worth his salt is.) He indicated the role of diet, reflecting the etiological role of nutrition that was a century ahead of its time. Despite the later dating of his publication, Pattison’s involvement with the very same Middlesex Hospital that brought fame to Dr. Fell is quite insightful. As it turns out, Pattison’s work in London came BEFORE that of Fell. In 1852 Pattison offered to demonstrate his method to the directors of Middlesex Hospital and even to work without pay. An initial agreement was worked out where Pattison would work with twenty cases and would disclose his methods, permitting disclosure of his methods and criticism of results.

The directors reneged.

A subsequent request in 1854 was also sent begging. Pattison continued to work in London, where he built a successful practice that was wide and extensive. Nonetheless, Pattison was labelled a “cancer curer” and “quack” by his medical colleagues. His name was deliberately omitted year after year in the semiofficial directory of physicians, an act of mean-spiritedness that was only changed by an act of Parliament.

In comparing the life work of Fell and Pattison, one point becomes most instructive. Their formulas and protocols were, from a functional point of view, nearly identical. So why did the medical community accept one with open arms and slander the other as a quack? This is one of many anomalies in the cancer establishment that defies logical explanation. Why did U.S. Federal authorities come after me because my Cansema, whose active principles were in the zinc chloride and chapparal, both of which appear or have appeared in approved cancer related products (in Mohs’ surgical paste and Actinex (NDGA))? Why was I made to plead to selling “an unapproved drug”? Is it because NDGA is okay if it’s made in a laboratory, but not okay if it comes from chapparal, the very plant from which the discovery was made — a plant with an extensive ethnobotanical history of use for medical purposes?

You find these and so many other “non sequitors” and “profit over logic” contradictions throughout the medical industry.

The third and last practitioner / specimen from 1858 is also instructive. T.T. Blake, M.D., published “Cancers Cured without the Use of the Knife.” Unlike Fell and Pattison, Blake would not reveal what his formula was. Nonetheless, the description he gives of the process follows so closely those of all other escharotics, and taking into account the uncanny origin of Pattison and Fell in New York during the very same time period, I would agree with Nat Morris’ interpretation that it was most probably an escharotic formulation that was close to theirs.

I feel quite certain that these historical cases represent mere shadows in the long list of practitioners who have used escharotic preparations. They were hugely successful and their clinical reports were most positive. So, why did escharotics fall into disuse?

Is it possible that the answers can be found in the “Ten Conditions” discussed in Chapter One? Is there a logical explanation that would refute them? Even in the medical records of antiquity we find evidence of the ubiquitous practice of suppression towards those therapeutic practices that would pose the greatest threat to organized medicine.

Long before the escharotic publications and pronouncements of 1858 — indeed, long before the miraculous cures of Parcelsus himself, the truth was evident to all who would investigate without vested interest. Paracelsus himself, in attempting to promote his accomplishments chose a namesake that would not refute the soundness of his escharotic protocols. “Paracelsus” is Latin for “above Celsus” — so who would Celsus have been that Paracelsus chose him as a point of lofty comparison? Why not “Paragalen”?

Shortly after the invention of printing press around 1450 by Johann Gutenberg, one of the first medical works to be published was “De medicina,” by Aulus Cornelius Celsus, the first century Roman physician and medical writer. Its initial publishing in 1478, just fifteen years before Paracelsus’ own birth, would lead to wide acceptance in the orthodox medical community. Divided into three parts, according to the type of treatment that various diseases demanded — dietetic, pharmaceutical, and surgical — Celsus’ work laid the foundation for many of the components of the modern medical paradigm in ways even more fundamental than those of Paracelsus. Even Celsus believed that “caustics should be tried before knife or cautery.” Before him, “caustics” were used by early Arab and Roman physicians.Viewed from a historical perspective this long, is it really possible that a truly effective way of curing cancer could so easily be suppressed?

In time, you’ll be able to answer this question for yourself, but since I myself sold my own escharotic preparations to untold thousands of practitioners and end users worldwide from 1990 to 2003, perhaps I should finish telling you my own story.


I found no evidence that Paracelsus used a zinc chloride base in his escharotics. It appears that ammonium chloride was his halide caustic of choice in his own formulary work. One prominent formula consisted of just three ingredients: Orpiment (arsenic sulfide) — good description: Paracelsus’ use of it in one cancer preparation: Arthur Edward Waite,Alchemical Medicine – Paracelsus, The Alchemical Press, Edmonds, Wash. (USA), p. 18. He combined the orpiment with fuligo (wood soot), see and with sal ammoniac (ammonium chloride) acting as the caustic halide in this formula. One aside: Chloride and iodine appear to be reoccurring halogens in this area, as I have never seen any compounds of bromide, flouride, let alone astatine, used in topical escharotic preparations.

Paul Ehrlich (not to be confused with our celebrated ecologist and author from Stanford) won the 1908 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work in immunity:


He is widely known for his REdiscovery an arsenic paste, his versions called Salvorsan and Neosalvorsan was used in treating syphilis in the early 20th century, and still in use in the veterinary community. Ironically, he also coined the term “chemotherapy,” a concept that was synonymous with quackery at a time when x-ray and radiation treatment were the prominent moneymakers in conventional cancer treatment. See: Kenny Ausubel, When Healing Becomes a Crime, Healing Arts Press, Rochester, Vermont; 2000. p. 233; quoting: Ralph W. Moss, Questioning Chemotherapy, p. 15-16; A. Gilman “The initial clinical trial of nitrogen mustard,” American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 105, 1963, pp. 574-78.

As early as 1895, orthodox physicians were using arsenic paste to treat skin cancer:

Paracelsus used litharge (lead monoxide) in a topical paste for cancer, which also contained salt water, alum (probably aluminum sulfate), and white vinegar. Litharge is a strong enough irritant, though not ideal by any means can be sufficiently transdermal to incure other toxicological implications. See: Arthur Edward Waite, Alchemical Medicine – Paracelsus, p. 7. Also see: MSDS Sheet for litharge (lead monoxide).

Manly P. Hall (1997), p. 7.

Fielding H. Garrison, A.B., M.D., (1929), p. 205.

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, p. 19.

A point made in the movie, When Healing Becomes a Crime, by Ken Ausubel. See

Jonathan L. Hartwell, Plants Used Against Cancer, Quarterman Publications, Inc., Lawrence, Mass., 1982. This book is no longer in print, and when I attempted in 1998 to get ahold of the publisher at their address at 5 South Union Street in Lawrence, Massachusetts (USA), the current occupant said they had never even heard of the publisher. Strange.

If you’re a little weak in remembering your high school chemistry, go to and follow along. The halogens are the second to the last column on the right, next to the noble gases. They include (starting from lowest molecular weight to highest) flourine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine.

Nat Morris, The Cancer Blackout, Regent House, Los Angeles, Calif. (USA), 1977 (Fifth edition), p. 43. Dr. F.W. Forbes Ross (M.D.) treated cancer as a mineral deficiency. He employed both potassium iodine and potassium citrate (the latter NOT a halide) along with phosphorus supplementation in London at the turn of the nineteenth century. Says Nat Morris:


“In the treatment of cancer, Doctor Ross prescribed potassium citrate and phosphate to correct the mineral deficiency, with a weekly dose of five grains of potassium iodide. His cancer patients were either the hopeless and inoperable or those who had refused surgery or irradiation. In a number of cases adjudged as hopeless, he was remarkably successful. He pre- scribed potassium routinely in all his other patients and claimed that over a period of fifteen years no patient under his care had contracted cancer.”


“Secret predates Mohs method: Perry Nichols and the escharotic cancer cure.” See:


Although this is an allopathic web site and the article’s author cannot faithfully report the facts without lacing it with disparaging spin, the essential points still come through.

The Complete Pyramid Sourcebook, John DeSalvo, Ph.D., Great Pyramid of Giza Research Association, 2003.

Ingrid Naiman, Cancer Salves and Suppositories (1994), p. 41.

Mohs, Frederic E., B.Sc., M.D., Chemosurgery: Microscopically Controlled Surgery for Skin Cancer. Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, Illinois, 1978.

Kenny Ausubel, When Healing Becomes a Crime (2000); p. 153-161. Hoxsey’s Salve contained zinc chloride, antimony trisulfide, and bloodroot. Note 29, p. 151.

J.T. Phelan, H. Milgrom, H. Stoll, H. Traenkle. 1962. The use of Mohs’ chemosurgery technique in the management of superficial cancer Surg. Gynec. Obstet. See: Harwell, p. 439, who notes “of 70 patients, 42 completely healed (of which 2 recurred).”

An important side note: all three doctors originally practiced in New York City, though both Fell and Pattison ended up moving to London. This should appear to the astute observer as more than coincidence.

Nat Morris (1977), p. 30. Most of the material on Blake, Fell, and Pattison is this section is taken from Morris’ work. The following four footnotes are also Morris’ and I provide them only on account of the increasing unavailability of his fine work. The Cancer Blackout was produced in five editions, the last of them having been printed in 1977.

Montague, M.F.A. and Musick, W.J.: A Yankee doctor in England in 1859, Bull of the Hist. of Med., 13, 217-288, Feb., 1943

Farrow, Ruth T.: Odyssey of an American cancer specialist, Ibid., 23, 236-252, May, 1949.

Nat Morris, p. 31.

37b. J. W. Fell: A Treatise on Cancer, London: John Churchill, 1857.

Morris, p. 37.

A. Hunton, “One some of the medical virtues of indigenous vegetables grown in the United States. N.J. Med. Rep. found in Hartwell, p. 433, wherein he notes, “(the ointment was) used successfully for over 30 years and obtained surreptitiously from an Indian doctor.” (p. 432).

Derrick Jensen, The Culture of Make Believe, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White River Junction, Vermont (USA), 2004. There are too many passages demanding thoughtful reflection in this book, just on our treatment of the native American Indians, to do it justice here. (And this is only one of the themes of this, Jensen’s last tomb). Among the more noteworthy: p. 122 (destruction of heritage); p. 162, 170 (General Sherman’s treatment of them); p. 172, 177, 308 (open Indian slaughter); p. 175 (Montezuma slaughter); p. 193 (General Smith’s “Burn and kill the natives!” campaign — “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn; the more you kill and burn the better you will please me” … including children down to the age of ten); p. 246 (the holocaust of the Cherokee indians); p. 311 (wipeout of Lakota and Cheyenne people), etc., etc. I had to read this 608 page book twice while in prison. I was too busy silently weeping to catch it all on the first go-around. I underlined the parts that really struck a nerve on the second pass — which ended up being about 30% of the book. Most people don’t read footnotes — and that’s too bad — I would have included this material in the main text (more amplified, of course) if it were more germane to the topic at hand. Actually, in a way, it is. You understand in studying Jensen’s work why a sustained medical holocaust would not only be possible in our culture — it is inevitable, a mere reflection of its very sick, inner nature.

Fell, p. 95, noted in Hartwell, p. 435. Fell himself was aware that bloodroot ointment was made and used by Indians of the Lake Superior region to treat cancer, even uterine.

Treatment of cancer by bloodroot. 1859. Boston Med. and Surg. J. noted by Hartwell, p. 437, wherein he notes the use of powdered bloodroot to treatment cancers in Pennsylvania as early as 1811.

J. Wolff, Die Lehre von der Krebskrankheit. G. Fischer Jena, Part IIIb., 1914, p. 618. Noted in Hartwell, p. 437, who comments: “Folk remedy of the Indians of the Lake Superior region.” (Breast cancer). “Folk remedy in Russia (1896-1897)” for non-specific cancers.

National Cancer Institute, central files. Same citation for members of the Larrea genus by Hartwell, p. 437, footnote #691. His comments: “Cancer — Louisiana; Pennsylvania; California; Tennessee; (Cherokee Indians); Oklahoma. All 1956-7.” Apparently, Hartwell uses the same citation to communicate that the NCI was well aware of its value as a salve and its common use in Texas, with “1955-8″ probably representing the dates during which an internal investigation of its usage at NCI was made.

Morris, p. 32.

Ibid., p. 33.

George Crile, Jr., M.D., Cancer And Common Sense, Viking Press, New York, 1955. p. 31.

Pattison, John: Cancer: Its nature and successful and comparatively painless treatment without the usual operation with the knife, London: H. Turner & Co., 1866.

Morris, p. 35.

Ibid., p. 35.

[ Find and cite Dr. Barbara's article in the June, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. ]

Morris, p. 38.

Jonathan L. Hartwell, Plants Used Against Cancer, Quarterman Publications, Inc., Lawrence, Mass., 1982. Section XI: Lloydia 34(4), p. 682. It remains a mystery, even to this author, why despite the depth of Hartwell’s work, he only cites one reference to any member of the Larrea genus (Zygophyllaceae Larrea tridentata). Its use among the indians of the U.S. Southwest is extensive, and yet he quotes a “Coville” source, noting “identified from sample of leaves and twigs by Dr. B.G. Schubert, U.S.D.A.” Here is the reference Hartwell provides: “National Cancer Institute, central files.” For someone like myself who has worked with indigenous sources for chapparal and knows how ubiquitous its use was and is in the Southwest, this, in and of itself, at least carries the appearance of a cover-up, and this, coming from one of Hartwell’s biggest fans. Chapparal was too widely used for Hartwell to not have been more familiar with its indigenous use in the treatment of cancer.

Alma R. Hutchens, Indian Herbology of North America, Shambhala Publications, Inc., Boston, Mass, 1973. p. 82-84. The Indian nations of Papoga, Pimas, and Maricopas, among others, were users of the Larrea genus to treat a variety of ailments including arthritis, cancer, chronic backache, acne and other skin ailments, including skin cancer; kidney infection, leukemia, bronchial and pulmonary conditions, etc.

Anthony J. Chichoke, D.C., Ph.D., Secrets of Native American Herbal Remedies, A Comprehensive Guide to the Native American Tradition of Using Herbs and the Mind/Body/Spirit Connection for Improving Health and Well-Being, Avery (Penguin Putnam, Inc.), New York, 2001. p. 35.

Judith Sumner, The Natural History of Medicinal Plants, Timber Press, Inc., Portland, Oregon; 2000, p. 172, 213. Notes the historic use of Larrea to treat skin infections, but falls for the fallacious orthodox admonition about “acute” hepatotoxicity. Shame.

Morris, p. 27-29.

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1986, Vol. 3 (Micropaedia), “Celsus, Aulus Cornelius,” p. 16.



Ingrid Naiman, Cancer Salves and Suppositories, Seventh Ray Press, Cundiyo, New Mexico (USA); 1994, p. 72.

Ibid., p. 94.

Ibid., p. 100.



Cansema – Deep Tissue The Truth? It Cures Cancer. 99% of The Time Topically. Period.

Granted, skin cancers are the easiest to treat and cure. But the scandal behind escharotics is that this skin cancer cure has existed for literally hundreds of years — something you learn by the time you complete Chapter 2 to the left. The zinc chloride-based “modern escharotics” have been in regular use since the 1850′s, though always the target of suppression by the orthodox medical community.

The reason for this suppression is obvious: skin cancers represent a large percentage of the dermatologist’s business. In some areas, basal and squamous cell carcinomas and melanomas and their pre-cancerous keratotic cousins represent better than 50% of their work. The AMA and pharmaceutical companies work very hard to maximize their market share. Anything that works this well, this inexpensively, and has self-diagnostic properties so that you don’t need the assistance of a physician, makes it anathema.

Nat Morris – ‘The Cancer Blackout’           Blackout

… it’s hard to determine which is more nauseating: the horrid stories of suppression and abuse in the cancer industry that Morris’ revealed in 1959 … or that nothing has changed in the over 45 years since. For more information on Suppression in the Cancer Industry and a list of suggested reading, see the page, Cancerolytic Herbs: A History of Suppression — on theAlpha Omega Labs site.

J. Weldon Fell – ‘Treatise on Cancer’       Treatise on Cancer

J. Weldon Fell, published his “Treatise on Cancer and Its Treatment” in 1857. An American with an extraordinary success at curing cancer in his practice in New York, he became an “ex-pat” in London to escape droves of jealous colleagues in the States. Although the book is just 95 pages, the last 30 pages are devoted to some of Dr. Fell’s more astonishing cures. Instead of including melanomas or other easier cases (which is child’s play to cure for those who know how to work with escharotics), he includes those instances which were considered among the toughest type cancers to cure in his day. The predominant number of cases he reports in the book are, therefore, breast cancer cases. Other cases he reports include one uterine and a couple of epithelial cancer cases of the nose — similar to those which comprise the “Sue Gilliatt” type frivolous lawsuits of the 21st century.

Dr. Ingrid Naiman – ‘Cancer Salves & Suppositories’

Cancer Salves

Naiman covers more of the historical details of escharotic use than I do, and she does a good job of this. However, the practicum material is so inaccurate it makes me wince at times. She states in one place that ” … starting from the beginning, it should be underscored that the experts, from Hildegard to the present, have all more or less concurred that the salves are not a cure. At best, they are an alternative to surgery. There is nothing about them that would prevent recurrence.” [61]. Well, that just isn’t true.

An experienced user of escharotics knows that to be mind-numbingly preposterous. Or perhaps Ms. Naiman wasn’t working with some of the better formulas. Cansema, for one, is a cure. And non-reoccurence is the rule. Frankly, in the thirteen years that I made and sold Cansema, I would say that AT LEAST 50% of all users saw absolutely no recurrence in their skin cancers, or other growths removed near the skin. At least. I myself have used Cansema on about five growths over the years. Only one of them returned such that I had to do another application, and that was about eight years later. Now, I realize that some of this may be attributable to the Cansema formula itself, refined as it was through constant reappraisal of end user and health care practitioner inputs over a thirteen year period.

In another place Naiman says, “even the most fervent advocates of the salve do not recommend the salves as a substitute for proper diagnoses.” [62. What she doesn't tell you is that this recommendation is made to mollify the all-powerful medical lobby. No experienced escharotic practitioner believes that their product is not self-diagnosing (i.e. it reacts only to cancerous or precancerous tissue). If an escharotic formula does NOT react to only cancerous or precancerous tissue than it is an inferior formula. So someone would make Naiman's statement only if they were inexperienced in the actual use of escharotics from a clinical point of view, or they dealt in inferior formulations, or they were cowtowing to the medical lobby to cover their hide. I can now speak honestly about this matter because I no longer make or sell my formulas. Prior to my incarceration, I had to lie just like everybody else.

And do heal overs really take as long as "seven months"? Naiman says this is "not unusual." 63. Such an occurrence was very rare with Cansema.

On her web site, Naiman made the statement: "I do not think zinc chloride has much capacity to discriminate healthy from malignant tissues. Depending on scar tissue and pigmentation and some other variables, it might be more readily absorbed by certain tumors, but the healthy tissue is definitely not impervious to this product.

"Zinc chloride is made by pouring hydrochloric acid over zinc. It is extremely caustic and will not merely damage skin but result in possibly extreme pain and scarring. However, it can be washed off with water when accidental contact is made outside the intended treatment area. Just keep in mind that it is caustic and needs to be used sanely and carefully."

Quite recently, she deleted the information on this one page and archived it, but then the very same information appears on her "zinc chloride and bloodroot" page (64). To counter this inaccurate information I added an FAQ question to the Alpha Omega Labs' site, plus a picture of my own hand scooping up a handful of zinc chloride, which I have worked in for up to an hour at a time with only mild skin irritation. (See picture below).

This is a sensitive issue for those of us who have worked with escharotics, because it is a standard piece of disinformation that the medical establishment espouses to scare people away from escharotics. After all -- why would anybody want to use a product that destroyed healthy as well as cancerous tissue? ... (though, quite ironically, conventional chemotherapy destroys both healthy and cancerous cells).

Its a malicious lie with no basis in scientific fact. Zinc chloride has a pH of about 5.0 and is only mildly caustic.


Kenny Ausubel - 'When Healing Becomes a Crime' Harry Hoxsey

Kenny Ausubel is to Dr. Harry Hoxsey what Barry Lynes is to Dr. R.R. Rife. Both biographers brought their subjects to the attention of the world.

Ausubel went the extra step and had a movie made, which canstill be viewed on the Alpha Omega Labs web site.

The relevance of Hoxsey's work to this chapter is the degree to which money and politics suppress even the most effective medical treatment that does not curry favor with the orthodox medical establishment, which demands that cancer treatment, in particular, meets the standards of their "high profit paradigm." Most effective cancer treatments are very inexpensive, and that makes them worthy of suppression. You get extreme doses of this reality when you study Hoxsey -- the success of his clinics and the tens of thousands who came to his support when the FDA came after him. The story of Hoxsey is the story of the brutality of profits over humanity, decency, and scientific principle.

The Hoxsey story has become a fitting metaphor for what's wrong with the "disease care" system we have today that has turned the health needs of ordinary citizens into a cruel system of financial servitude.

Richard Carter - 'The Doctor Business'          Rx Business

We cover some of this same territory with Wohl's 1984 work, The Medical Industrial Complex. Written in 1958, one gets a sense that the problem goes back to antiquity -- that organized medicine is inherently dangerous to one's health and callous to the needs of the ordinary person. He opens with a quote from Hippocrates (circa 400 B.C.) that is as true today as it was nearly 2,500 years when written:"Although the art of healing is the most noble of all the arts, yet, because of the ignorance both of its professors and of their rash critics, it has at this time fallen into the least repute of them all. The chief cause for this seems to me to be that it is the only science for which states have laid down no penalty for malpractice. Ill-repute is the only punishment."

In light of a 500 year suppression of escharotic preparations, one gets the sense that the "politics and greed" have been there all along. It's gotten worse, to be sure, but the seed was there long ago.

Robert Whitaker - 'Mad in America'    Treating The Insane Insanely

Your initial impulse might be one searching for relevancy. What does our treatment of the insane have to do with the suppression of medical technology to feed a hungry profit-driven vortex of corporate greed?


The way we treat those in our midst who are LEAST predisposed to speak for, represent, or defend themselves speaks volumes about how everyone else gets treated. Sanity is, after all, an entirely relative thing.

Whitaker's title truncates the essence of things, "Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill" (2001). The work itself is paced in four parts, dividing the American approach to the mentally ill into "The Original Bedlam" (1750-1990); "The Darkest Era" (1900-1950); "Back to Bedlam" (1950-1990s); and "Mad Medicine Today" (1990s - Present).

The truth is not only shocking, but reflective of the fertile soil in which one would expect the suppression of inexpensive, highly effective medical technologies to flourish. Amazingly, schizophrenics in the U.S. fare worse than patients in the world's poorest countries, "and quite possibly worse than asylum patients did in the early 19th century ... as a society (we are) deeply deluded about their efficacy."

Whitaker traces a history of treatment specifically designed to "silence patients and dull their minds." (Parallels?) Early on, patients were routinely "spun" until they grew "so weak and dizzy they couldn't move." They had their teeth, ovaries, and intestines removed, and in one shocking therapeutic contribution that speaks volumes about the inhumanity in orthodox medicine, patients were submerged in water so cold that hypothermia resulted.

When eugenics became the rage in the 1920's and 30's, other even more horrific therapies were introduced. The "lobotomy" was introduced that "worked" by damaging the brain, followed in the 1950's by electroshock and wave after wave of news that did little more than impair the patient. Neuroleptics numbed the nervous system and restricted motor movement. As studies emerged showing that these drugs didn't work, they were pushed aside under the influence of the powerful drug companies who made them. A litany of examples in the book show how the drug companies skew their studies and "employ charlatan scientists" to run them. The fact is, the new, more expensive "atypical" drugs are no more effective than the old; only, a new set of side effects have been found. Even more disturbing, patients have been encouraged to participate in experiments that "exacerbate their delusions." The money motive of the drug companies has a strong flavor that saturates the last two "parts" of the book.

And that brings us to my reason for including it as the final literary example for this section on medical suppression.

In another era, another age ... another place in time, the physician took a Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm..." and ... he meant it. In another era, another age, curing the patient was primary; making money was secondary. Are we, too, not patients? Are we, too, not being "dumbed down," anesthetized to the primary motives that drive our so-called "health care system"? Are we not treated in the same way that the insane are treated, the renderings just not as obvious? Are not all the same elements of cruelty, brutality, and callous disregard still left intact? One cannot study the history of the suppression of simple, effective, medical approaches, and then read this book without seeing the obvious correlations.

We may respond to a different poison, but we drink from the same cup.


Prevention, Protection, Protocols Another of Dr. Hugh Smith’s Client Education Series

This pamphlet is complimentary to Dr. Smith’s clients.


Dr. Hugh O. Smith 112 North Curry Carson City, NV 89703 760-613-8645

The information contained in this booklet is for educational purposes only. It is not to be considered medical advice, prescriptive or diagnostic. See your physician for qualified health care.

© Old Loft Ent., LLC., a Nevada Corporation.

None of the material may be reproduced in any manner without the express permission of Old Loft


The Cause(s) of Cancer

As of this writing (February 2006), we are being told that there is a flu pandemic approaching that has already killed 106 people worldwide. We are being warned to prepare with vaccines. But, we are in the midst of a pandemic now that is killing millions of people every year and it is cancer. We are not being told how to avoid it, prevent it or cure it.

In 1972, President Nixon declared “war on cancer” and stated that we would have a cure by the end of the decade. After more than 260 billion dollars of research, more people die now than in the 70’s. In his presidential campaign of 1992, Candidate Al Gore declared that “we must slow the rise of cancer.” We have now retreated to a defensive bunker rather than an offensive attack and cancer continues to advance. There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture.

In 1900 cancer (malignant growths) accounted for only 4% of the U. S. deaths; this figure rose to 15% in 1958 when Rachel Carson (The Silent Spring) expressed concern it might rise even further. Today we know 1 of every 2.5 Americans will get cancer and, many researchers believe, the figure will rise to virtually everyone by the year 2010.

Cancer is actually more than 100 diseases which are created by multiple causes or exposures and/or accidents. Cancer rears its ugly head only after the cell's DNA or genetic material becomes chronologically damaged or mutated. Cancer normally takes a series of exposures, mutations and/or accidents to be activated.

Unfortunately, the cause(s) of cancer is largely being ignored and/or covered by such catch-all phrases as “it runs in your family (genetic predisposition)” or “we need more research money to determine the cause.” Ignorance is not bliss. If we continue to disregard the obvious, we will get exactly what we deserve…a pandemic of epic proportions.

Attorneys may know more about the causes of cancer than the average doctor. Everyday we are inundated by advertisements that proclaim class action suits for those exposed to benzene, asbestos and other pollutants and contaminants. Unfortunately, litigation won’t cure cancer and it only makes us reactive victims rather than proactive champions. The cancer industry is money driven.

We are being exposed to toxic pollution everywhere; smog, industrial waste, auto emissions, pesticides, cigarette smoke, synthetic additives/preservatives, spills, electromagnetic fields and hazardous wastes now are commonly found contamination our air, water, food, and soil, so much so that our natural detoxification process cannot function effectively.

Of the four things that cause cancer, stress, radiation, chemicals and diet, all of these must be eliminated or at least reduced to help effect a reversal. We will discuss these in detail. 2

However, I want to add a sidebar to the above statement. If these are known causes of cancer, why would I elect to choose radiation and/or chemo-therapy as a remedy? Will these lengthen my life? I have often advised clients to ask their oncologists two questions…

1. “If 100 patients did exactly what you tell them as a course of treatment, how many would walk out of your office cured?”

Answer: 3-5

2. “Of those who are “cured”, how many will have a re-occurance in 5 years?”

Answer: 100%

Approved, standard and accepted methods for treating cancer (with some notable exceptions…e.g. lymphoma) do not have a very high rate of success. Lymphoma, by the way, responds to chemo’ and radiation simply because they destroy white cells not the cause of the high white count which may be chemically or parasite induced.

Many cancer patients have a very high eosinophil count (a condition called eosinophilia) Eosinophils are a specific form of white cells that appear as a result of allergies, parasites or both. Since parasites and candida deplete the body of B12, the result is often allergies and, in severe cases, myeloblastic anemia and leukemia.

The Best Defense is a Good Offense.

Understanding the disease is the first line of defense. What we know about cancer is that

1. Cancer cannot live in oxygen

2. Cancer must have sugar to survive

3. Cancer requires a low pH

4. Cancer thrives in low immunity

Cancer requires nitrogen to survive. That means sugar…in any form. Several things occur as cancer begins to grow; angiogenesis and gluconeogenesis. Angiogenesis is the process of new blood vessel formation within the body. Gluconeogenesis is cancer’s “feeding” mechanism. To support its voracious appetite for sugar (cancer consumes 4-5 times the amount of sugar of a normal cell) cancer builds its network of capillaries and grows faster as it gets larger.

I have actually had cancer patients (on chemo’ and radiation) tell me that their energy levels were so low that their Dr. told them to eat candy bars for energy! Yikes!

Another factor then enters the equation and that is the massive free radical damage caused by cancer. This is the inability of the body to effectively utilize oxygen. Cancer cannot live in oxygen and, simply speaking, effectively causes the body to produce huge 3 amounts of free radicals or oxidized red blood cells. The addition of free radical scavengers (anti-oxidants) are of paramount importance to keep the blood oxygenated.

We suggest 2 capsules of Aptinol 1 3x daily for intensive use and 1 capsule 2x daily for maintenance.

The first line of defense then is dietary change. There are cases of cancer being cured by diet alone. See Dr Lorraine Day’s website at Elimination of sugars and toxins in the human body are absolutely key to fighting and winning the battle. There is no magic bullet. It is a multi-pronged attack. Toxins include chemicals and hormone imbalances. Breast, lung and ovarian cancers are caused by high amounts of estrogen, especially in women on HRT (hormone replacement therapy), birth control pills and diets high in hormones.

A cancerous tumor sends out a hormone known as HCG (human chorionicgonadotrophin). (This is the same hormone which is detected by home pregnancy test) . This hormone is also the same hormone given off by embryonic cells following conception during the first months of pregnancy. An embryonic cell and a cancer cell are essentially the same. After conception the cells which are growing to produce the embryo are rapidly growing cells, the same as cancer cells. Over a certain period of time genetic factors as well as certain pancreatic enzymes play a role in slowing the growth of the fetal cells.

The production of this hormone plays an important part in blocking the immune system from attacking the cells. (If you've never thought about it why does the immune system not attack a fetus? Because of HCG.) This hormone gives off a negative charge (-) and the white blood cells of the immune system also obtain the characteristic of a negative (-)charge. Thus two like charges repel each other. (A similar example is holding two magnets together with the same poles facing.. You can feel them pushing against each other. This is the same effect between the immune system and the hormone which protects the cancer cells as well as the fetal cells.)

We always advise enzyme therapy as an adjunct to fighting cancer. We recommend 5 Trimazyme, 3x daily to help dissolve this HCG hormone coating.Hormone ingestion comes from many sources; factory farming techniques which includes injecting hormones into livestock and chickens, water supplies improperly treated and some GMO foods.

Stress and/or negative emotions are also linked to degenerative diseases such as cancer. Eliminating these is also part and parcel of the cancer protocol. There are several ways to do this. One way is through the use of “guided” meditations and another is Ezov.  Aptinol is a proprietary blend of grapeseed, pinebark, quercetin and Adaptogens.

Ezov is Hebrew for hyssop and is a breakthrough supplement taken at bedtime to release negative emotions (available from line of defense is total detoxification of the liver. Liver detoxification is discussed in the end notes.


This is the very first thing you must do. Elimination of parasites is also a key factor in maintaining good health. There are many researchers and parasitologists who believe that cancer is caused by parasites. While I am not totally convinced, I do know that parasites set up housekeeping in the body by changing the environment in which they live…you! One thing they require is a lowered pH. Cancer needs an acid environment to survive, therefore it is imperative to eliminate parasites with a good parasite cleanse.

We are being bombarded every day by electromagnetic fields (EMF). These fields are produced by television, cell phones, satellites, etc., and this explosion of radiation is affecting our health in a myriad of negative ways. While there is no way to wrap yourself in an EMF protecting cocoon, there are devices that can convert these EMF’s into more innocuous frequencies.

“My working hypothesis is that, besides strengthening the natural bioenergy of a person, [Q-links] also appears to clarify the electromagnetic forces themselves. The combination of both would positively change the way electromagnetic fields interact with the body. My intuition and logic suggest that [Q-links] type products will be an important part of humanity’s future.”

These units are called “Q-Links” and are worn over the thymus. They are so effective in balancing the body’s bio-field that they are endorsed by the PGA.

Finally, there are “alternative” treatments that surpass “standard” cut, burn and poison methods.

Supplements with proven track records are a must. Squalene (shark liver oil) from Scandanavia has the ability to cut off the blood supply to tumors. “Squalene blocks the growth of blood vessels into a tumor, and therefore, it blocks the tumor’s growth, not because it kills the tumor cells, but because it simply cuts off their blood supply if you will.”

No one is quite sure what the mechanism for this anti-angiogenic property is and many studies are underway to find out why. In the meantime, we suggest 15 mg per pound of bodyweight, divided into 3 doses over the course of a day, not to exceed 5,000 mg per day.

B17 is a proven cancer fighter. Remember laetrile? B17 contains cyanide which goes directly to cancer cells. It is very specific. Many foods contain B17, as well. They include:Apple seeds, alfalfa sprouts, apricot kernels, bamboo shoots, barley, beet tops, bitter William Tiller, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Stanford University and Guggenheim Fellow, USA

Bio-field is a term adopted by the National Institutes of Health in 1994 acknowledging the research that shows the subtle energy field that extends beyond our physical body.

Dr. Allen Sill, Johns Hopkins University

almond, blackberries, boysenberries, brewer’s yeast, brown rice, buckwheat, cashews,cherry kernels, cranberries, currants, fava beans, flax seeds, garbanzo beans,gooseberries, huckleberries, lentils, lima beans, linseed meat, loganberries, macadamianuts, millet, millet seed, peach kernels, pecans, plum kernels, quince, raspberries,sorghum cane syrup, spinach, sprouts (alfalfa, lentil, mung bean, buckwheat, garbanzo),strawberries, walnuts, watercress, yams. So diets that are high in these anti-cancer foods are also recommended.

The highest commercially available B17 is found in raw apricot seeds. YOU MUST START VERY, VERY SLOWLY WITH B17 AS IT WILL CAUSE NAUSEA IF STARTED TOO QUICKLY. If the dosage is worked up to then you won’t have any problems. We suggest beginning with one apricot seed once daily for 2 days then one seed twice daily for two days, one seed three times daily for 2 days, then 2 seeds in the a.m & 2 seeds in the p.m (4 /day) for 2 days then 2 seeds a.m & p.m and 1 additional seed at bedtime for 2 days, finally beginning 2 seeds three times daily as the treatment dose.You can certainly modify this schedule but we have found this the most useful. The most important thing is just working the doses up slowly over a 1-2 week period.

Rife technology. This is not really new. Royal Raymond Rife, a researcher in San Diego,Ca., cured 416 cases of terminal cancer out of 416 in the mid-30’s using what he called his Beam Ray. Yet, the units were outlawed in 1939 and Rife spent years in court being vilified and hounded.Today, these units are available in many high tech forms. While they cannot be deemed cancer cures or treatments, they can be purchased and used for individual use. Mediverse has small inexpensive units made in Germany that are less expensive and will help set upan environment in which parasites and pathogens have difficulty living.

Rife units are not a cure all and cancer must be addressed with a multifaceted approach.Raising pH is vital to treat cancer and disease. So a word about pH is in order.pH is a measurement of the potential for hydrogen in a substance. 7 is considered neutral and every move of 1/10th of a point is double…sort of a human Richter scale. There are disputes about what optimum pH should be, but a number between 6.9 and 7.4 is optimum.

How do you measure pH and how do you adjust it?

The simplest and most effective way to measure pH is what we call the lemon test. Upon arising in the morning, bite into a lemon wedge. Wait about 2 minutes and place a pH strip on your tongue. Immediately compare the color with the chart included in your litmus strips.

The Biowave 21 LCD units are about 240 Euro and are pre-programmed. For additional frequencies other chips may be purchased at a low cost. See the website fordetails. These are for research purposes only and no medical claims are made or implied.If your pH is in the above mentioned range, terrific. If not, some dietary adjustments need to be made; specifically your diet must consist of alkaline forming foods.

Liver and gallbladder cleanse without surgery


1/2 CupOlive Oil Extra Virgin

1 Big grapefruit (2 small) (Or 3 lemons)

4 tablespoon EPSOM salts = ( MgSO4 + 7H2O)

(EPSOM salts = Magnesium Sulphate = EPSOMITE = Magnesium Sulfate


3 cups water

You can substitute 3 cups water that is used in this recipe to dissolve Epsom salt)with 3 cups freshly pressed grapefruit juice, or freshly pressed apple juice . That way you will not feel unpleasant taste of Magnesium Sulphate ( = Magnesium Sulfate = Epsom salt = MgSO4 + 7H2O) ]

If using lemon juice, do not blend juice with oil.Drink a little oil, a little juice, from 2 different cups.If you mix oil and juice, it may (it doesn’t always happen) slightly congeal, and get a slimy consistency that is not easy to swallow.

This never happens with grapefruit juice!

Choose a day like Saturday for the cleanse since you will be able to rest the next day.Take no medicines, vitamins or pills that you can do without, they could prevent success.Stop the parasite program and kidney herbs too, the day before.

Eat a no-fat breakfast and lunch such as cooked cereal with fruit, fruit juice, bread and preserves or honey (no butter or milk), baked potato or other vegetables with salt only.This allows the bile to build up and develop pressure in the liver. Higher pressure pushes out more stones.

2:00 PM. Do not eat or drink after 2 o’clock. If you break this rule you could feel quite ill later. Get your Epsom salts ready. Mix 4 tbs. in 3 cups water and pour this into a jar. This makes four servings, 3/4 (three fourths) cup each. Set the jar in the refrigerator to get icecold (this is for convenience and taste only).

You can substitute 3 cups water with 3 cups freshly pressed grapefruit juice, or freshly pressed apple juice, it tastes better.

6:00 PM, Drink one serving 3/4 (three fourths cup) of the ice cold Epsom salts. If you did not prepare this ahead of time, mix 1 tbs. in 3/4 (three fourth) cup water now. You may add 1/8 (one eight) tsp. vitamin C powder to improve the taste. You may also drink a few mouthfuls of water afterwards or rinse your mouth. Get the olive oil (ozonated, if possible) and grapefruit out to warm up.

Alternative Schedule 1: Omit the first Epsom Salts dose at 6 p.m. Take only one dose, waiting till 8 p.m. Change nothing else. Many people still get stones with one less dose. If you do not, do the full course next time. “The Cure For HIV and AIDS” By Hulda Clark pg.585

8:00 PM. Repeat by drinking another 3/4 (three fourths) cup of Epsom salts.You haven’t eaten since two o’clock, but you won’t feel hungry. Get your bedtime chores done. The timing is critical for success.9:45 PM. Pour 1/2 (half) cup (measured) olive oil into the pint jar. Add 2 drops HCl to sterilize. Wash grapefruit twice in hot water and dry; squeeze by hand into the measuring cup. Remove pulp with fork. You should have at least 1/2 (half) cup, more (up to 3/4 (three fourths) cup) is best. You may use part lemonade. Add this to the olive oil. Also add Black Walnut Tincture. Close the jar tightly with the lid and shake hard until watery (only fresh grapefruit juice does this).

Now visit the bathroom one or more time, even if it makes you late for your ten o’clock drink. Don’t be more than 15 minutes late. You will get fewer stones.10:00 PM. Drink the potion you have mixed. Take 4 ornithine capsules with the first sips to make sure you will sleep through the night. Take 8 if you already suffer from insomnia. Drinking through a large plastic straw helps it go down easier. You may use oil and vinegar salad dressing, or straight honey to chase it down between sips. Have these ready in a tablespoon on the kitchen counter. Take it all to your bedside if you want, but drink it standing up. Get it down within 5 minutes (fifteen minutes for very elderly or weak persons).

Lie down immediately. You might fail to get stones out if you don’t. The sooner you lie down the more stones you will get out. Be ready for bed ahead of time. Don’t clean up the kitchen. As soon as the drink is down walk to your bed and lie down flat on your back with your head up high on the pillow. Try to think about what is happening in the liver.

Try to keep perfectly still for at least 20 minutes. You may feel a train of stones traveling along the bile ducts like marbles. There is no pain because the bile duct valves are open (thank you Epsom salts!). Go to sleep, you may fail to get stones out if you don’t.

Next morning. Upon awakening take your third dose of Epsom salts. If you have indigestion or nausea wait until it is gone before drinking the Epsom salts. You may go back to bed. Don’t take this potion before 6:00 am.

2 Hours Later. Take your fourth (the last) dose of Epsom salts. You may go back to bed again.  ”The Cure For HIV and AIDS” By Hulda Clark pg.585

Alternative Schedule 2: After taking the first dose of Epsom salts in the morning, wait two hours and take a second dose of the oil mixture (but only 1/2 cup)and go back to bed.After two more hours take another dose of Epsom salts. This schedule can increase the number of stones you remove.”

After 2 More Hours you may eat. Start with fruit juice. Half an hour later eat fruit. One hour later you may eat regular food but keep it light. By supper you should feel recovered.How well did you do?

Expect diarrhea in the morning.Use a flashlight to look for gallstones in the toilet with the bowel movement.Use colander to make sure you collect all stones.

Look for the green kind since this is proof that they are genuine gallstones, not food residue. Only bile from the liver is pea green. The bowel movement sinks but gallstones float because of the cholesterol inside.

Calcified stones and stones containing protein may sink, but a colander will catch all stones.Count them all roughly, whether tan or green. You will need to total 2,000 stones before the liver is clean enough to rid you of allergies or bursitis or upper back pains permanently. The first cleanse may rid you of them for a few days, but as the stones from the rear travel forward, they give you the same symptoms again. You may repeat cleansesat two week intervals. Never cleanse when you are ill.

Sometimes, the bile ducts are full of cholesterol crystals that did not form into round stones. They appear as a “chaff” floating on top of the toilet bowl water. It may be tan colored, harboring millions of tiny white crystals. Cleansing this chaff is just as important as purging the stones.

How safe is the liver cleanse? It is very safe. My opinion is based on hundreds of cases,including many persons in their seventies and eighties. None went to the hospital; none even reported pain. However it can make you feel quite ill for one or two days afterwards, although in every one of these cases the maintenance parasite program had been neglected. This is why the instructions direct you to complete the parasite and kidney rinse program first.

This procedure contradicts many modern medical viewpoints. Gallstones are thought to be formed in the gallbladder, not the liver. They are though to be few, not thousands. They are not linked to pains other than gallbladder attacks. It is easy to understand why this thought: by the time you have acute pain attacks, some stones are in the gallbladder, are big enough and sufficiently calcified to see on X-ray, and have caused inflammation there. When the gallbladder is removed the acute attacks are gone, but the bursitis and other pains and digestive problems remain.

The truth is self-evident. People who have had their gallbladder removed surgically still get plenty of green, bile coated stones, and anyone who cares to dissect their stones can see that the concentric circles and crystals of cholesterol match textbook pictures of ”gallstones” exactly.

Another Encouraging Treatment!


Escharotic salves and pastes represent a botanical approach to cancer treatment.They are mostly applied topically, but can also be taken internally.The efficacy of a well-prepared cancer salve is 100%. This doesn’t mean that it is the appropriate treatment for all cancers, but when applied, it always works.

What is this medication, and what does it do?

The cancer salve is a paste, made of native American herbs, that is placed on a small spot on the skin, close to a diagnosed or suspected malignancy. The salve will cause the skin to react, but if there is no malignancy, nothing will happen. However, if there is a tumor present within the tissue under the selected spot, the salve forces the body to eject the tumor by bringing it to the surface, until it completely emerges and detaches itself from the skin. The process usually begins by puss-like fluid oozing through the lesion, then within 2-3 weeks the main tumor will emerge, without the need for any interference, and with no danger of metastasis. In some cases the tumor doesn’t come out as a solid object, but as thick fluid, or, in the case of prostate cancer, for instance, as a number of small, jelly-like globules. Should the cancer be melanoma, or another type of skin cancer, the salve will eliminate the condition through topical action.

Escharotics, as a cancer treatment, have a long history in North American medicine. Even as recently as during the past two decades, thousands of people used this method to get rid of their cancers. We managed to talk to dozens of women who treated themselves with breast cancer, or were helped by an expert in using the salve. One of them is an MD who brought out a tumor from her breast by this method. We were able to find only two NDs on the whole continent who have experience with the salve, and can be consulted on its use. One of them recently published a very well written and instructive book on the subject.

For someone to whom escharotic treatment is a completely alien concept, it is difficult to accept that breast cancer can be taken care of within a few weeks, at a cost of less than $100. Of course, if the tumor is very large, or there are other complications, the treatment must be prepared very carefully. It is always important for the person undergoing such treatment to place him/herself under the guidance of a holistic physician, who understands the whole procedure. Otherwise the patient may panic as the site opens up. At that stage, running to an oncologist or a doctor who has no idea of what is happening will likely result in totally unnecessary and dangerous surgical intervention. The emerging matter must be kept sterile until it is ready to completely detach itself from the skin. The process may cause some discomfort, mainly an itching or burning sensation that can be controlled by the use of colloidal silver, a special silver hydrosol product sprayed regularly on the site.

We strongly encourage alternative doctors to participate in seminars where this remarkable cancer treatment would be explained to them. It cannot be emphasized enough how important it is to consult with as many advisors as possible on this matter. There are experts who bring out deep, inoperable tumors from the most unlikely locations within the body by applying the salve topically. It is obvious that this whole field is unexplored, and it is vitally important to build a data bank and share it with everybody. EMI will assist those who are interested in forming a group and attending a workshop with one of the experts. Please keep in mind that almost any cancer, even if sometimes as a last resort, can be treated in this manner. This is not to say that the salve should be regarded as a mono-therapy. It should always be part of an integrated protocol. Having said that, let us state in no uncertain terms: When a woman is diagnosed with a tumor in her breast, before any surgical intervention, even before a biopsy, an expert should be contacted and a treatment with escharotics should be discussed. Chances are that the cancer can be eliminated without danger, at a very modest cost. Inoperable brain tumors were drained through a lesion on the neck with this method, and lung cancer has been successfully treated with the salve. All these positive results do not mean that this therapy is without risk. No one should enter self treatment recklessly, without the supervision of a knowledgeable practitioner.

Although completely unknown by virtually all physicians, escharotics have a century-old history of medical use. Like so many other natural modalities, it has been suppressed and totally eradicated from standard medical practice. It is one of the greatest tragedies of current medical policy that women, who should have no more difficulty getting rid of a newly diagnosed breast cancer than of a flu or the common cold, are subjected to mutilation, and are dying by the thousands from this condition.

At this point the question can be raised, and not without justification: is this whole presentation some elaborate scam? Is it possible that such a dread disease like breast cancer, that claims the lives of hundreds of thousands of women, can be eliminated with a ridiculously simple and cheap method? If this is true, where are the headlines? The announcements? Even the Nobel prize?

We don’t discuss political and philosophical issues in our literature. Our task is to present solutions, and make these solutions accessible to our readers. Keep in mind that although the cancer salve may appear a little more bizarre than some other treatments, it is not an exception where complete blackout of its efficacy is concerned. Like many other treatment modalities that completely disappeared from the practice of orthodox medicine, the cancer salve, too, was well known among physicians in England and North America.

Dr. Ingrid Naiman tells us in her book the following:

“Dr. J. Weldon Fell was one of the founders of the New York Academy of Medicine. In 1858 he published his studies on the treatment of cancer, particularly breast cancer, with escharotics. For many years he treated patients with remarkable success using the salve.

”John Pattison, MD, published his studies on the cancer salve in 1866. He reported on thirteen years of experience, with over four thousand cancer patients. Dr. Pattison had also been affiliated with the New York University.

”Dr. Eli G. Jones, MD, Ph.D., a homeopath as well as a member of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, published his studies on the use of the cancer salve in 1911, as the result of over forty years of experience, with more than 20,000 cancer patients. He also held training seminars from as early as 1894.

By the turn of the century, cancer salves were available in most corner drug stores in the United States.

”Perry Nichols, MD, operated a highly respected private sanatorium for cancer patients. He treated 19,000 patients over the course of more than thirty years. In his treatments he relied almost exclusively on the use of escharotic salves.

”Dr. John Christopher, a naturopathic doctor, died in 1983. He used escharotic salves in his treatment of cancer in conjunction with internal herbal tonics, tinctures, and teas. He developed his therapeutic methods to a high level of effectiveness, and achieved a very high rate of success.”

These are but a few examples, taken from Dr. Ingrid Naiman’s remarkable book,”Cancer Salves, A Botanical Approach to Treatment”. Dr. Naiman, a renowned naturopathic doctor and herbalist, researched the subject for eight years. It is a clear indication of the need for, and the interest in this information that within two months from the date of its publication, 6,000 copies of the book were sold. It is most unlikely that this “secret treatment” will remain a secret for long. The book is a treasure house of practical, therapeutic information.

For those who wish to obtain the salve either for internal or external use, several sources exist. Although all of them provide some instruction, none of them should be used without the guidance of a practitioner who is trained in this modality.

There is no doubt about the well demonstrated fact that it is possible to remove tumors with escharotic salves. The point on which all doctors, using the salve,historically agreed upon, is that the removal of the tumor is not equivalent with a cure. The salve, if it is selected as a treatment, should always be part of an integrated protocol that includes dietary changes and supplementation.

NAME OF TREATMENT: Escharotic Salves


We strongly recommend that you contact Two Feathers, Inc., Mr. Robert Roy,P.O. Box 8033 Reno, Nevada 89507-8033. Tel: 775-324-4889. I have interviewed him several times on my radio show and find him to be a pleasant and informative gentleman. Please tell him Dr. Smith recommended his company. This formula can be taken orally, applied topically, or used in an enema. (We were told in my interviews with Mr. Roy, that salve enemas are particularly useful with tumors or malignant polyps in the intestine.) Individual cases can be discussed in detail with Mr. Roy. He taught over 20 thousand persons how to use the compound. We strongly recommend you visit his Web site, where detailed instructions and many important information about the salve can be found:

COST OF TREATMENT: The substance itself generally costs between $100 and $200 for the whole course. The cost of consultation and guidance varies with each practitioner, but it is not extravagant.14

Company Profile

BioCytonics is a division of Old Loft Enterprises, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Corporation.

Hugh Smith, Ph.D., founder of Biocytonics is an internationally respected and well known researcher in chronic illnesses and mycoplasma infections. Many M.D.’s depend on Dr. Smith for consultation and often refer their “difficult” patients to him for help.

His background in microscopy represents over 25 years of research in nutrition, bio-psychology, bio-energetics and Targeted Nutritional Intervention-TNI. Dr.Smith writes for several magazines, researches for nutrition companies as well as the design of training programs for health care professionals interested in adding nutritional counseling to their practices. His expertise in nutrition is represented in nationwide seminars.

Based upon his clinical observations, Dr. Smith has developed several innovative products designed to slow the aging process and naturally combat chronic illnesses. Nutritional counseling is effective with ADD/ADHD, fibromyalgia,chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, weight loss, arthritis,candidiasis and more.

Dr. Smith specializes in Vital Hematology (or Real Time Microscopy) as a means of observing cell wall deficient forms and the living blood (BioCytonics) of clients to recommend nutritional interventions to reverse risk factors for chronic disease and nutritional deficiencies. If an individual is interested in scheduling a consultation, please e-mail for details and fee schedules to or call the office at 760-613-8645.

Initial client visit includes the observation of living blood and nutritional counseling for chronic illness and potential risk factors.Dr. Smith also trains healthcare practitioners in the study of living tissue. For details and information please e-mail or call760-809-4498.


One Response to Escharotics for Cancer

  1. My Homepage says:

    … [Trackback]…

    [...] There you will find 50835 more Infos: [...]…