Thoughts on the Use of Escharotic Pastes for the Treatment of Cancer

[Guest guest]

Thoughts on the Use of Escharotic Pastes for the Treatment of

Cancer JoAnn Guest

Dec 27, 2006 10:51 PST

 

 

Thoughts on the Use of Escharotic Pastes for the Treatment of Cancer

August 30, 2005

 

Michael Tierra

 

While I tend to agree that local surgery and cauterization of basal

cell

carcinomas (BCC) is often preferable to the use of escharotic

salves,

this is especially true because of obvious liability issues to

anyone

involved with the process --- thus practicing in Mexico as Jonathan

suggests may be a wiser option (providing someone wants to live

there).

 

Due to the generosity of Ingrid Naiman, I have a copy of the medical

text, Chemosurgery by Frederic Mohs M.D., edition 1978. I also read

in

detail the citation offered by Paul Bergner,

http://naimh.com/x/web-3/escharotics.pdf , as criticism of the use

of

escharotic agents. I have also interviewed a number of people

including

a primary source individual (Clark Bigham) who was financially

involved

with funding Vipont Pharmaceutical Company, located in Fort Collins,

Colorado sometime in the 1960's. The company was specifically formed

to

research and bring to market a " Black Salve " consisting of

sanguinarea,

galangal and zinc chloride mixed with distilled water. The salve was

and

still is widely used in veterinary medicine throughout the Wyoming

and

Colorado areas. It was, and probably still is, used by individuals

on

local external cancers. It so happens that Clark lives in Santa Cruz

and

was a former student of mine. He said he was introduced to the salve

by

Howard McCreary a 'cowboy' in the region. Together with Howard's

investment, they formed Vipont Pharmaceuticals. Their research went

as

far as their money. They also have a letter from Sloan Kettering,

who

after their research, stated that their salve was the most effective

substance against cancer they had ever seen. They found that a

diluted

version (5%) of the salve is 100% effective as diluted eye drops for

macular degeneration and one type of glaucoma. Because when mixed

with

toothpaste at a 5% ratio with Tom's toothpaste, it cures gingivitis,

it

was bought out by Colgate-Palmolive and is presently sold as Viadent

toothpaste.

 

Clark's personal formula uses up to 50% zinc Chloride, to the

remainder

would obviously be bloodroot and galangal. He will dilute it (5 to

10%)

for various uses, especially cosmetic uses and uses it straight on

moles, warts and such. In over 28 years, he has never seen an

adverse

reaction.

 

The term anecdote (suggesting that something is unproven) is thrown

around so that I think its meaning is often stretched. By

definition,

one can offer both 'anecdotal' positive as well as 'anecdotal'

negative

because neither is proven. There's a question and to what degree

evidence becomes non-anecdotal. To my way of thinking to say that

something is effective based on personal observation, meaning not

confirmed by others, is anecdotal, but isn't saying that something

is

inefective based on personal observation also anecdotal (non

confirmed)?

Then who, how, under what circumstances and how many people need to

witness evidence before it becomes non-anecdotal?

 

I say that the escharotics deserve and are in need of more debate

and

scientific research. I suspect that there are problems on all sides

of

the issue.

 

In terms of their proponents, I question the escharotic power of

dried

bloodroot. I think the exudate, along with the exudates of celandine

and

the fresh oils of garlic are mildly escharotic, but the dried root,

for

some reason I've never just added water and topically applied it to

see

if it is. I've used the tincture topically for the treatment of skin

funguses and again think that the fresh herb tincture would be best.

 

So few people who are proponents of escharotics talk about the

properties and importance of a 'major' active in the formulation,

zinc

chloride.

 

In criticism of Mohs (directly reading his book) first published in

1958, gives absolutely no credence or acknowledgement to over a

century

of use of what is essentially the same paste used by Felter and the

Eclectics nearly 60 years previous. He also gives no acknowledgement

of

Harry Hoxsey's use of essentially the same paste for decades

previous up

into the 1950's. It is a glaring fact and in my opinion an obvious

prejudice among the medical community that Mohs misrepresented on

page 3

how he 'happened' to come upon his 'chemosurgery' formula.

 

He does acknowledge that zinc chloride was found as early as the

19th

century to be the most " satisfactory " chemical for the paste because

it

produced the least toxicity and " did not impair the reactivity or

healing quality of the tissues beyond the deepest level of

fixation. "

 

So right off, we have the proponents of the folk application who

tacitly

seem to deny that the basis of their 'natural' therapy is herbal

(based

on the use of bloodroot) when a pure chemical zinc chloride is at

least

responsible for 50% of the activity of the formulation. On the other

side, we have Mohs, developing what to this day is regarded as an

effective external anti-cancer therapy (we're not talking about

minor

excrescences and spots on the skin, but large major areas of the

eroded

cancerous flesh, eye, breast, genitals, back, etc..) and thousands

of

cases that he, Mohs, personally treated with his method, while

giving

absolutely no acknowledgment, which I can only conclude is because

of

political reasons to the popular use of essentially the same paste.

 

Now the above reference paper submitted by Paul Bergner is written

by

dermatologists at the Vermont College of Medicine in Burlington.

There

are some problems with this paper which to my mind make it even more

suspect and biased against the popular use of the paste and its

value.

 

1. They claim to review the history of escharotics for skin disease

and

based on Mohs use alone, they claim that the use of " escharotics

without

surgery has been discredited by allopathic medicine " --- this is at

the

top of the article and there is no reference. Their conclusion is

for

the FDA to be given authority to regulate the production and

distribution of escharotics and by implication other herbal

preparations. --- so there is an agenda here.

 

Later, despite Mohs' use of essentially the same paste, these same

individuals claim that " Hoxsey's work has never been accepted as

valid

(not mentioned is that despite a will to prove otherwise, it has

also

never been proven to be 'invalid'). The claim that Mohs' method is

different only in the fact that it included surgery.

 

This last point is something to consider. I find that scientific

manuals

such as Mohs are generally poorly written (i.e. failing to impart

the

highest level of clarity) either deliberately or what is more

disgusting

to disguise certain elements that they specifically do not want the

reader to know.

 

So the research paper states that Mohs only used the salve as part

of a

" fixed tissue technique " as if everyone reading would understand

what

this means. Mohs, in his first chapter, does not help to define what

he

means by " fixation in situ " so I'll venture a surmise that the

application of the salve seems to destroy or " fixate " primarily

Cancerous lesions, and " did not readily penetrate the keratin layer

of

the skin. " This being the thicker, more impenetrable areas of the

skin

(similar to the soles of the feet). So healthier skin tissue seems

to be

more resistant to the topical application of zinc chloride --- this

seems to substantiate to some degree the claims of those who

popularly

use the salve. In fact, Mohs would have to specifically apply a

keratolytic chemical, namely dichloracetic acid first in some cases

to

allow the zinc chloride paste to penetrate. Then, on page 4, Mohs

says

the most pertinent thing " zinc chloride (with sanguinarea added) did

not

impair the reactivity or healing qualities of the tissues just

beyond

the deepest level of fixation. To this property was credited not

only

the rapid separation of the final layer of fixed tissue, but also

the

healthy infection-resistant granulation tissues, the rapid

epithelization and the minimal scarring that resulted from its use.

This

lack of damage to surrounding tissues by zinc chloride (my own

inclusion

is -- including sanguinarea) contrasted with the effect of

cauterization

of tissues by heat which could cause thermal damage to tissues just

beyond the deepest level of actual cauterization. "

 

So it seems that Mohs is opting for a chemical burn as opposed to an

actual thermal or radiation burn because the chemical burn is more

selective specifically to unhealthy cancer cells and causes far less

damage to healthy tissue. ---- again this is what is being claimed

as a

benefit by popular or folk protagonists who use the salve.

 

Another distinction is that Mohs used surgery. Except for the

obvious

benefit in first debriding a large tumor before applying the paste.

It's

not clear why else he needed to use it, except that perhaps he

simply

did not want to wait out the couple of weeks before a complete and

distinct eschar would form and by itself, slough off. Consider this,

he

already admits that the paste fixates the cancerous area of a

lesion,

that it does not penetrate non-cancerous tissue (which is why he

uses

zinc chloride over other possible chemicals) and this is based on

Mohs'

personal treatment and observation of thousands of patients, but

after

the cancerous lesion is affected and begins to isolate, Mohs cuts it

away. He then microscopically examines the area and if continues to

apply the paste followed by surgery until there are no signs of

cancer.

 

So the difference between the popular recommendation of the salve is

they claim that once the eschar is formed, it should be allowed to

run

to completion and slough off on its own and this optimizes the

complete

excision of cancer from the site. Here criticism may well be in

order,

because experience seems to demonstrate that not always is the

cancer

completely removed after the initial eschar is sloughed off and so

amid

the success stories with the use of escharotics, there are the

negatives

of cancer recurrence that are also reported (how many times is this

true

after conventional chemo or radiation therapy?). Here it seems to be

would be a good place for cooperation between the two camps.

Selective

microscopic analysis and biopsy of the area after the eschar sloughs

off, seems a most appropriate use of that technology and would make

the

entire procedure exponentially that much more effective.

 

The issue of pain: In the past I have assisted a few with

escharotics

and I might add, without witnessing particularly dazzling results,

although I confess that this may well be because of my tendency to

err

on the side of being conservative. Nor will I sell the paste to

anyone

who requests it. Healing is a potentially risky business and

different

ones of us must choose their own personal level of risk and my own

would

not allow me to go the distance. However regarding pain, I have much

knowledge because after applying the paste, pain is to a greater or

lesser extent a reality sometime over the course of the first three

days. It is very idiosyncratic, for some it is a minor thing

somewhat

more than an irritation, for others it is excruciating to the point

that

no herbal pain killers, unless we could be permitted to use our

opiates,

would be effective. Aspirin and Tylenol, to opiates are a welcome

part

of therapy. After the initial few days, presumably when the nerve

endings have desensitized, pain killers are no longer necessary.

 

Scaring and mutilation: Before damning escharotics as being scaring

and

mutilating please consider the effect of other heroic measures such

as

surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Cancer is a serious disease and

its

treatment whether conventional or so-called natural is serious and

not

without consequences. Let's assume, again without the research that

I

would really like to see, that there are cases where the cancer

cells

extend beyond expected areas and the salves cause massive

disfigurement

and scaring. Or even that on some individuals the keratinized areas

of

the skin or deeper tissues are susceptible to damage by the salve

(although most claim it is not and I have never seen it to be),

there

will be a need for reconstructive surgery for some. Again, one only

chooses this technique not because it is risk free, but because it

offers the best possible outcome over any other method considered.

That

is the price that one pays. Some who undergo it, either ill advised

or

with misleading expectations, understandably may be seriously upset

with

the outcome, this happens all the time in conventional treatment of

cancer, so why should it not be a reality in so-called alternative

medicine.

 

The real question is should the potential benefits of escharotic

treatment for a wide variety of cancers be not one of the choices a

patient can opt for in deciding their best course? If conventional

medicine does not make this available and continues to ignore and

deny

research to an area that even one of their most respected members

gave

credence to, I believe that escharotic pastes will continue to be

available on a 'buyer beware' basis. Our right and freedom to

choose,

hopefully based on informed understanding, is what is at stake and I

don't believe that freedom should legislatively denied. Does this

sound

a bit familiar regarding other issues of the day?

 

Michael Tierra

 

 

 

From planetherbs.com

 

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets