Ecuador -- May 10, 2017(Updated thru May 12) -- Today
a TV episode by "The Dr. Oz Show," a popular daytime show in the U.S. was aired about
We were aware a couple of days ago that this would be a "hit piece," because of the
of an episode summary on the Dr. Oz website. The episode title makes clear the
purpose and intent of this program, "Black Salve: The Dangerous At-Home Cancer Treatment
Being Sold Online." Below that reads the follow, which reads like
it was written by a Hollywood script writer specializing in the horror genre:
On Friday, April 14, 2017, I received an email from
Ann Varney, a producer for the Dr. Oz show, indicating that Dr. Oz would like to interview
me for an upcoming segment on Black Salve. We arranged to have Dr. Oz interview me
via Skype the next business day (April 17). Early in the interview, it became apparent to
me that Dr. Oz was not predisposed to presenting a balanced view about escharotic salves,
as Ann had led me to believe. In fact, early on I was presented with a case that Dr. Oz
told me was a woman who had applied the Salve to an area that had been diagnosed as being
healthy. "She applied the Salve to an area of rough skin. She just wanted to improve
the appearance," Dr. Oz said. I was so stunned by something this ridiculous, that I sent the
following letter to Ms. Varney two days later:
Thank you for getting back to me yesterday
with the airdate.
I have a serious concern relating to the segment,
one that should be addressed before going forward.
Specifically, the one and only case that Dr. Oz brought up
during the segment was one that neither I, nor any
member of my staff is familiar. It involves a woman
who was using black salve -- Dr. Oz indicated that
it was ours -- for "cosmetic purposes" to "improve
the appearance of her skin." (The non-communication
from the user of this case is itself paradoxical,
because we have trained professionals who work
with our customers, and although we charge for
products, we have not, to this point, charged for
The problem lies in the fact that the way the issue
was framed, it appeared that we may have
encouraged this. The simple fact of the matter
is that neither we, nor anybody else we know in
our industry, would EVER recommend or encourage
the use of an escharotic for anything cosmetic.
For years now, we have had a page clearly
indicating the conditions for which escharotics, in
general -- ours or anybody elsewhere's --
are either indicated or contraindicated.
What Dr. Oz brought to the table was a case where
there is a clear contraindication. To apply the Salve
once for "testing" purposes would be an accepted
norm if one had reason to believe that they were
dealing with a malignancy or other diseased tissue
for which escharotics are indicated. But that was
not the case here. This is a case where repeated
applications were made to improve skin appearance.
That is never an acceptable practice . . . and frankly,
in all the 20+ years I've worked with escharotics,
I've never known anybody to do this. This itself
is anomalous when, once again, you consider that
we've worked with something on the order of
I understand that this area is not your domain,
but since you are the producer (or one of them)
of Dr. Oz's show, I feel that it's important to bring
this issue to his attention . . . otherwise, this entire
area of long-established medical art, one that I have
well documented, risks being wholly misrepresented.
Ms. Varney sent back a reply saying that
this "case" was not going to be used on the show. This would have allayed my
fears were it not for the fact that the entire interview was peppered with
questions and statements clearly indicating that the role was to present
"black salve," and possibly myself, in the worst possible light:
Dr. Oz asked what would happen if I "returned to the U.S."
(I replied that I didn't know, but I certainly have my passport.)
He asked if I was currently being pursued by any regulatory agency.
He asked if I was a medical doctor -- (to which I'm sure he already knew the answer,
as I have never claimed to be a medical doctor). I made it clear that I'm a medical researcher.
I brought a case to his attention where medical doctors sent a man home
to die with a case of mesothelioma so advanced that the coughing was incessantly.
The family used the Salve to literally pull the lung tumor out through
his back. (See Case #092415.)
It mattered not one whit to Dr. Oz that this man was able to extend his life, despite
his many other health problems, or that at the time of autopsy, the man was found to
be free of any lung cancer.
During the course of my discussion with Dr. Oz, the subject of the work of
Dr. Marcia Angell came up. (Dr. Angell is the former editor of The New England
Journal of Medicine and author of The Truth About Drug Companies:
How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It.) He said he was familiar with
Dr. Angell and her work. In light of what he's doing in his coverage of
Black Salve, what this tells me is that Dr. Oz is communicating,
"I will not
risk my professional standing . . . "
To those who know of my work and my successes,
the question may arise, "Why would you allow yourself to be exposed by a media opportunitist,
who even the British Medical Journal found is guilty of putting out questionable advise,
half of which is 'baseless or wrong.' " . . . and to friends
who advised me to avoid Dr. Oz and
gracefully decline the "invite," I replied that nobody in the mainstream media needs
your permission to ambush, defame, or railroad you. My feeling was that "appearing" --
if only to "make my case" -- was preferable to a complete avoidance of an opportunity
to talk with Dr. Oz . . . and I did my best.
In the end, it didn't matter.
The purpose of the episode was to "smear" Black Salve --
(no pun intended) -- and there would be no allowing facts to get in the way.
Dr. Oz could have chosen to "present both sides."
I know for a fact, both from my discussions with Dr. Oz and his producer, that he is
aware of the large number of people who are living testaments to the effectiveness
of Black Salve. He would not -- even for a moment -- lose any of his professional
reputation or standing by simply presenting both sides of the debate. He has chosen not
to do this, and this saddens me. In the tradition of the very worst traits of ambush
journalism, he has chosen to play the part of the medical 'shock jock.'
Speaking more personally, Dr. Oz and his staff
deliberately extracted tidbits from my interview to make it look like I was a cross
between a bumbling idiot and an online huckster. What is worse, Dr. Oz made me look as if I had
no idea what I was doing and I was endangering the welfare of the public by exposing them
to compounds that that were injurious on multiple fronts. Dr. Oz did nothing to convey the
reality of the market. I run a small herbal business that, in terms of the sale of escharotic
materials, probably represents no more than 2% of the global market. Even inside the
U.S., there are much larger competitors who sell significantly more product than I do,
and unlike myself, can be found on Amazon and Ebay. These market conditions exist even though
I pioneered the online market for escharotics
in the mid-1990's and have written more material about escharotics and their history
than anyone else I know. Nonetheless, to hear Dr. Oz tell the story, it sounds like I am closer
to 90% of the market. It is a convenient piece of fiction to help Dr. Oz advance his story.
In the end
Dr. Oz only managed to prove that you can turn anything 180 degrees and distort it into
pure fiction inside the Editing Room. Now, having reviewed the airing of this episode,
I can see that the presentation not only was not fair and objective.
It was never intended to be, nor should I ever have expected it to be.
Since the mid-80's, I've been writing articles defending various
natural products, therapies, and modalities -- first with a direct sales company I founded in 1984,
Consumer Express, and then with Alpha Omega Labs, which Cathryn and I started in the early 90's.
In no other area, have I seen hacks for the Medical Industrial Complex use such deceptive and misleading
practices as I have where it pertains to anything --- and I do mean anything ---
that could possibly be used as a replacement for the over-priced, poor-performing, toxic cancer
products, procedures and practices that conventional medicine has used to carve out an industry
that runs in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Sixteen years ago, I wrote an
novel article underscoring why it was impossible for any
meaningful, effective cancer product or therapy to ever come out of medical convention. The
points I enumerate in that article are no less true today than they were 10, 20, 50, or 100 years ago.
I'm not going to delve into the politics of cancer here,
especially since there are documentaries out there -- most notably, Ty Bollinger's docu-series,
The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest -- that do a relatively thorough job.
(I don't agree with everything that Ty does, but anybody who doesn't think
that Ty hasn't stuck his neck out to try to alert the public to the facts of the Cancer Industry,
doesn't know the Industry. I have personally recommended his books and videos to numerous people.) Additionally, there
is my own online work, Meditopia,
that provides my own contribution to the field.
However, in this case, given the high-profile nature of
Dr. Oz's show and the misleading statement embedded in just the two-sentence introduction to this
episode, it would irresponsible not to respond with a rebuttal, if only because what little
Dr. Oz is revealing to the public about escharotics, in general, and "black salve," in particular,
is simply not true. Moreover, it is highly misleading.
Before I begin, it is important to point out that
Dr. Oz's position mimics points that form the backbone of QuackWatch's polemic on escharotics,
which are so provably false and misleading that I created a separate
QuackWatch rebuttal page in 2009 ---
going so far as to provide detailed pictures of five separate spots that I treated in that
same year on my own body. The end result was very little sensation and scarring that is minimal to
undetectable -- nothing that would
compare to what I would have had to endure if I'd had a dermtologist employ Moh's surgery.
(As I point out below, pain can be subverted using a handful of simple techniques that we've had
on our site for many years, all listed on the Cansema
Pain Management page.)
The Dr. Oz main areas of misrepresentation can be broken down
into the following areas, to which I respond in kind. The reason I use the word "deliberate" in
prefacing these misrepresentations is because I could tell from my conversation with Oz that
he clearly knew that large numbers of people had used escharotics successfully. He openly
admits during this segment that he had a hard time getting anybody to talk to him about their
experiences with Black Salve. He infers that this is because people are too embarrassed to talk
about their negative experience. We know this to be false. It's because the vast majority of users
have very positive experiences and the one thing that could turn that positive experience into a negative
experience is to speak out publicly, putting them at variance with officialdom. Early in the last century,
people spoke openly about their experiences with escharotics (read the Dr. Perry Nichols
section below), today almost all of our customers who are willing to provide us with a testimonial or
their medical reports ask us to do so anonymously.
The "deliberateness" is evident on other fronts as well:
Dr. Oz knew about the 2008 Portuguese study on 'chemosurgery' by
licensed dermologists attesting to its efficacy. I know to be true because I told him myself.
He knew about the history of successful
escharotic use going back centuries (more on that below). He knew that I myself have used
Black Salve on my own body not less than 15 times since 1989, all successfully with minimal
sensation and little to no scar tissue. I know that he knows all these things because we
covered these issues in my one hour interview with him on April 17.
Let's cover these core issues:
'Black Salve' will leave you disfigured.
We've taken the time to post
pictorials and testimonials on our information site,
and in the vast majority of cases, the end result of the escharotic removal of diseased tissue
is far more esthetic than if surgery had been employed -- even Moh's, which dermologists routinely
tout as less invasive than other forms of surgical intervention in cancer removal.
Furthermore, escharotics offer the advantage of not being
inherently metastatic. In those few cases where the end result of escharotic use is not
esthetically pleasing or neutral, the cancer is so invasive that any surgical removal
of the cancer would result in the recommendation for a cosmetic surgeon to improve appearance.
Let's review a few very high profile examples:
The mainstream media jumped on the
Sue Gilliatt case which was behind my
FDA travails in 2003. (A huge chunk of
Chapter 3 of Meditopia is devoted to debunking Gilliatt.)
In this case, you had a woman claim that Black Salve literally took off her entire
nose. In a July, 2004,
Gilliatt changed her story and claimed that she didn't know which of the products she was using
was responsible for what she claimed occurred to her nose,
but -- more importantly -- that she decided to remove her nose with
embroidery scissors -- something I believe most medical doctors would find ill-advised.
This isn't an interpretation of a testimony. This is what the alleged victim says in her own words
under oath in a sworn deposition.
In 2014, I wrote an article, entitled
Orthodoxy's Pathetic War Against Escharotics,
and in that article, I detail our communications with an Australian customer who went to see his doctor
to get better analgesics. In this particular case, the escharotic process was at the decavitation
stage. So was there a "hole" or a "pit"? Of course, there was. That's an essential part of the
process. So what does this medical doctor do? He runs and gets a camera, takes a photograph,
and then reports the case to the press. The photo
goes viral -- both in Australia and in the UK.
Subsequent to this, the decavitation filled in, exactly
as users expect. The customer sent us pictures showing very excellent results, apologized for what
happened -- (even though it was in no way his fault) -- and gave us permission to use this excellent
case as a testimonial. If you doubt this, please read the
article. Would any newspaper
on earth report what really happened or how the case really turned out? Of course not.
Because misrepresentation was the goal from the very beginning, just as it is
in this Dr. Oz segment.
Appearing in Dr. Oz's 30 second preview video, is a woman
named Paulette Teel, of Liberty Hill, Texas. This image was taken from QuackWatch and
I used it myself on my Quackwatch rebuttal
page --- (you'll find the case 60% of the way down the page).
These contrived cases always involve places on the body
that are highly visible -- intended to produce maximum repulsion on the part of the public.
We've only reviewed three cases above, but two of the three of them involve the nose. Why?
Because the nose is one of the most visible, exposed parts of the body, the face's "center of gravity,"
if you will, and in no other place on the body would its disfigurement carry more esthetic
impact. The simple truth is that if you stop at the decavitation stage, there is no case where
an escharotic -- any escharotic -- could not be used on the nose so that if you stop at the
decavitation stage and do a little Photoshopping, you can make the case look Frankensteinian. Let's study a recent (March, 2017) pictorial example . . . a customer of
ours who worked with one of our complementary practitioners on staff and gave us permission to
reproduce her photos anonymously. In this case, a woman in Australia had
extensive skin cancer on her nose, and made the decision not to have the dermatologist cut it out.
Let's take a look -- (also, know that each photo is "clickable,"
so you can see greatly enlarged, untouched images to catch even more detail):
Did you watch Robyn's YouTube?
Do you see any gaping holes?
Any signs of disfigurement?
Any report of notable pain?
Can you find any evidence whatsoever that would justify a call to
a plastic surgeon?
Of course you don't.
Robyn isn't speaking on behalf of the
medical establishment or the Dr. Oz show. She's just a regular person -- (her online celebrity aside) --
and she's just honestly and candidly talking about her experience with Black Salve and sharing
her experience, as she does on numerous other topics that involve health, diet, and general well-being.
Black Salve must be bad because one of its principal advocates (me) is a "convicted criminal."
Dr. Oz relies heavily on my travails with the U.S. FDA from 2003-2011 as proof that Black Salve must
be a scam. Dr. Oz does not seem particularly embarrassed that this is a complete "non-sequitir."
I go into exhaustive detail in Meditopia - Chapter 3
as to how dishonest and repressive the U.S. criminal justice system in the U.S. really is, to the
point where prosecutors brag, "We could convict a ham sandwich."
I would have left the U.S. on this account alone.
Nothing that has happened to me personally has any bearing on
an impartial examination of escharotics, anymore than the official condemnation against
Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis in the
1800's for writing that
surgeons should wash their hands before surgery is proof that patients would have better outcomes with
surgeons who go into the surgical room with filthy hands.
Dermatologists are unaminous: Black Salve is ineffective.
Let's define the field of battle: Dermatologists in the United States and most of the
first world are opposed to Black Salve. They take this position for economic reasons, something
I made clear 13 years ago when I wrote Chapter 1 of
Meditopia. But that is not the primary view in most of the rest of the world. I talk to doctors all
the time in the third world who use our Black Salve, personally and professionally. Moreover, as I make
clear in my June, 2015 Ashwin article,
we routinely have doctors tell
us that although they dispense chemotherapy and radiation as the "standard of care" in treating their
patients, they would never undergo these modalities themselves if they had cancer, or allow a family
member to undergo it. So the idea that Dr. Oz is speaking for the world community of medical doctors
or even dermatological specialists, simply isn't true.
Greg Caton is practicing medicine without a license.
Since the facts do not support Dr. Oz's political objectives as it pertains to Black Salve,
and the people who are urging him to do so, he goes even farther. He infers that I out here in the
hinderlands, practicing medicine without a license. Let's get something clear: I do not, nor have
I ever, practiced medicine. I do not see patients. I do not diagnose.
I do not prescribe drugs; and, in fact, here in Ecuador,
not only do I not see patients, I don't even recommend drugs or even natural products. I am a medical
researcher. I talk to people about the latest findings concerning natural products, and I talk to
customers about how to use our products because, in my view, it is irresponsible to sell natural
products and not tell people what they do. Even health food store owners in the U.S. do this.
It doesn't mean they are practicing medicine, either.
What we do do here at Alpha Omega Labs is provide
access to a medical doctor and naturopath who will discuss the particulars of their case. But even
there, we always make clear that there is nothing we can do here that is a replacement for a practitioner
who is able to see them in person to address their medical issues.
Black Salve is the bulk of our practice. I have explored countless remedies that are
part of the backbone of medical, ethnobotanical practices, both in the central Andes and in the Amazon.
The vast majority of my work has nothing to do with escharotics, and -- in fact -- with the rise of
producers inside the U.S., it comprises a diminishing part of what we do.
Dr. Oz attempts to portray exclusively
as a provider of Black Salve, and this is yet another serious misrepresentation.
Dr. Oz deliberately uses counterfeit product in his presentation.
If you look carefully on the segment, Dr. Oz shows product whose labels have black backgrounds.
They are the most prominent "examples" of the our products that he shows. There is a small problem
here: we did not make those products. They are unconnected to us.
Neither the labels nor the containers that are so labelled were made by me or somebody connected to me.
There can be only two possibilities concerning the source:
One, either Dr. Oz and his people secured this product from a "counterfeiter," in which case he would
know that it is not from "me" . . . OR . . . he had a graphic designer make up the labels and had them
produced specifically for his show. In either case, he's committing a fraud.
If Dr. Oz were in pursuit of truth in this matter, would it really be necessary for him to do this?
Dr. Oz distorts the long history of effective medical applications of Black Salve in particular,
and escharotics, in general. Amazingly, Dr. Oz readily admits that escharaotics have been used for
centuries and were even used up through the 1970's, where, as I myself make clear in Chapter 1 of Meditopia, Moh's surgery incorporated the use
of an escharotic which included zinc chloride and bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis).
In a classic case of "target fixation," Dr. Oz is so obsessed
with maligning Black Salve that he fails to grasp that anyone with a little common sense will realize
that he is unwittingly endorsing it. After all, is there anyone with a half a brain who is going to
believe that all around the world, escharotics were used continuously to treat cancers -- century after
century -- if they didn't work? Is there anything that would suggest that ordinary people from varying
cultures, worldwide, would subject themselves to a treatment that burned healthy tissue and did not
remove cancer over a span of time that is so great that it far exceeds the entire history of modern
medicine and the pharmaceutical age combined? Dr. Oz must think his audience is mind-numbingly stupid,
and since some people still take his show seriously, maybe they are.
Dr. Oz completely misrepresents the 'source of claims.' Early in the show, Dr. Oz
shows a series of startling claims, as if this is what I, or other producers of escharotics are claiming.
It's nonsense. I have not advertised whatsoever since 2003, and in those days, we just advertised our
websites. We did not make medical claims about any particular product. If you do this in the U.S.,
it's the kiss of death for ANY producer. Now, I suppose it is possible
that I have competitors who are making these medical claims or otherwise advertising escharotics.
But, if they are, I'm not aware of it. Even today, operating from Ecuador, where most of my customers
are outside the U.S., still, you will find no medical claims on our sales sites. Why? Our FDA attorneys,
long ago, forbid it.
What you DO have happening out there is a host of end users who
are sharing their experiences with other citizens, and the insertions of a few paid shills aside, the vast
majority the stories they tell are honest expressions of experience -- and they are overwhelmingly
positive. God forbid. People relating their honest, truthful experiences online. What an awful thing.
But that is not the same as a PRODUCER going out and making medical claims publically.
Nonetheless, Dr. Oz framed the issues as if that is precisely what was happening. It was dishonest,
deceptive, and misleading, and Dr. Oz knew it when he did it.
Dr. Oz misrepresents the particulars of my case, using my person in his "ad hominem" attack
on Black Salve. My purpose in my making reference to my being on the Interpol Red List
in 2009 when I spoke to Dr. Oz last month was to point out how scandalous it was. It was so scandalous that
the Ecuadorian government later took the position that my kidnapping in 2009, which the FDA orchestrated,
was illegal. I go into considerable detail
about this in Chapter 3, Section 3 of Meditopia.
In fact, when I spoke to Oz's producer, Ann Varney, she spoke glowingly of Dr. Oz's familiarity
with Mike Adams' take on my kidnapping -- (see YouTube Video above). She did this only in the
interest of getting me on their show.
Knowing all these things, what does
Oz's people do in the editing room? They make it out like I'm bragging about it --
even thumbing my nose at law enforcement -- which is a total distortion of what I said to him.
Were the FDA's multiple attacks on me not so rife with contradiction, scandal, and subterfuge,
I would have had no reason to write Meditopia
in the first place. The most important chapters are 1 through 4 and it's a free read online.
People can log on, read my work, and come to their own conclusions, which is all I've ever
asked people to do.
Dr. Oz misrepresents my comments on results. What I SAID to Dr. Oz, which contradicts
what he presents in his segment, is that since 1990, I have directly or indirectly worked with
about 25,000 cases, a large percentage of these through the primary practitioner. Out of those
cases, I know of five skin cancer cases where the cancer was not fully removed. If there were more,
the customers or practitioners involved did not communicate it with me.
In other words, the results in these five skin cancer cases
were not positive. Neither I nor the attending physician in those cases (where applicable) could
explain why. Both in my work and historically speaking, internal cases have a lower percentage
of cancer-free results. So what does Oz do? To make me out like a quack, he says that I'm representing
that Black Salve produces 100% results. Again, it's an attempt to twist my language into
the touchstone expressions of quack language.
Dr. Oz takes the ridiculous position that only medical doctors can 'diagnose.'
I told Dr. Oz in my interview that I have removed about fifteen cancer growths from my own
body since 1989 using Cansema. From that Dr. Oz interjects in his segment that I had
"self-diagnosed" in a way that suggested that because I didn't have formal biopsies,
I'm an amateur who simply didn't know what he was doing. Again, Dr. Oz must think his
audience members are idiots. First of all,
of skin cancer, broken down by cancer cell type, are well-established. It isn't rocket science.
If you have a skin growth or growths that don't heal; are raised, red, and itchy; are growing in
size and changing in color, you most probably have skin cancer. Moreover, Cansema and escharotics
similar to it will "tell" you if you have cancer because the post-application reaction has
been well-defined for at least the last two centuries. In my case, every one of the growths
that I have self-treated over the past 28 years have reacted precisely as I knew they would.
This conventional medical arrogance does nothing short
of drive me crazy. The implication of "Dr. Oz thinking" is that you aren't allowed to
investigate what's going on with your own body, because only a licensed physician can give
you a diagnosis, when people who don't have a fraction of the knowledge of medical science
that I have, successfully diagnose themselves every day.
Ordinary people use over-the-counter preparations
all the time to successfully treat everything from colds, flu, warts, rashes, fungal infections
(jock, athlete's feet, tinea versicolor, etc.), conjunctivitis, diarrhea, constipation,
cuts, bruises, etc., etc. With further self-education, the average consumer can broaden the
range of medical conditions they can successfully self-diagnosis, as good or better than
most medical doctors. Medical doctors are not the only ones who can read medical texts,
studies, and technical literature, although many would like to pretend otherwise.
Conventional doctors, particularly those who incorporate
no naturopathic principles into their practices, hate this, and I understand their angst.
In their perfect world, you wouldn't be allowed to wipe your own ass without their
permission, approval, and medical oversight -- proctologists and accounts-receivable clerks in tow.
Now none of this negates the fact that proper and timely
testing has its place. As it relates to internal cancers, reliable, non-invasive tests,
such as the AMAS test,
OncoBlot test, and the
blood test exist, and we frequently recommend them.
However, it is beyond me why someone would undergo a biopsy or other
invasive technique just for skin cancer, when any well-made escharotic will react to a
suspicious growth and tell you whether it's cancerous or not, while at the same time,
eliminating cancer cells. Moreover, I work with physicians of all stripes around the
world who use Cansema® precisely
to take advantage of these properties.
One of things that is the most misleading of all with
popular coverage of 'Black Salve,' or any other aspects of the escharotic art, is that it fails
to acknowledge its centuries-old usage and
long history of effective use, which I detail
extensively in Meditopia. Instead, what
gets communicated is that Black Salve is some dangerous snack oil remedy of recent creation that is
the current "con job 'de jeur'" . . .
Last month I made an additional to Meditopia, Chapter 2,
with a rarely told story about a
medical doctor, named Perry Nichols, M.D., whose family ran
successful medical clinics -- (the last and best known being a 200-bed hospital in Savannah, Missouri) --
that succeeded in curing cancer patients for no less than 60 years (from 1896 to 1956).
[From the geneological record, I believe my wife, Cathryn (Nichols) Caton, N.D., to be a distant relative.]
Rather than embracing the "slash, burn, and poison"
"standard model of care" in treating cancer that haunts conventional medical practice to this very day, they used
escharotics -- almost exclusively -- with formulary practices that are close to our own.
Although with a complete staff of highly competent medical doctors,
they had the ability to perform surgical intervention, they choose to do so in only
about 1% of all their cases. Surgery was considered only after other options failed to produce
results, because Dr. Perry understood that all surgical intervention in cancer is
In fact, Hippocrates understood this 2,400 years ago,
and wrote about it. The strict practice of avoiding surgery, wherever possible, is something
that the Nichols Sanatorium continued long after Dr. Perry himself passed away in 1925.
As I retell in
year after year, for the better part of a half century, the Nichols Sanatorium produced annual
volumes listing the name and personal address of thousands of patients who were completely cured
of their cancers using Nichols' simple, non-invasive methods. At least 70,000 cancer cures
have been documented from the work at the Sanatorium, and this only includes those patients who
were willing to have their names and personal addresses published.
Was anybody in the Nichols' family rewarded for this
exemplary service -- above and beyond their normal fees? Can their story be found in any history
books of note? Do medical students ever hear their names, or know of their successes, which could
only shine a light on what a travesty today's approach to cancer treatment really is?
The answer is "no" on all three counts.
Even in my own case, I am familiar with
the Perry Nichols' story only because of written materials produced by the
Sanatorium itself, combined with a handful of documents that remain to
attest to the fact that it ever existed. So thoroughly has this 20th century
success story in treating cancer patients been buried in obscurity.
" The sad fact is that escharotics and other, effective, natural
methods of treating cancer will never be fully embraced by conventional medicine and those who tout its
'superiority.' And the reason for this is simple: for this to happen, modern medicine would
have to ascend to something greater than systemic racketeering . . . It would have to hold ethics,
morals, and empathy at a higher level than power, profits, and privelege. Given how entrenched
the current system is, I do not expect to see any change within my lifetime . . . "
The response to Dr. Oz has overwhelmingly negative. Even on Dr. Oz's own website,
the comment section -- two days later -- had 48 comments and
not a single one of them were supportive. (Late Note: The link provided was updated to May 31st, but by then,
the Dr. Oz site admininstrator had removed some of the most damning posts, which got to 90 before being edited
out -- still we copied and pasted the
earlier posts and were able to capture a total of 58 posts.) Quite the contrary, Dr. Oz was called out in the
majority of the comments as being a whore for Big Medicine. The response, a complete blowout, even surprised me.
In our own offices, we received two negative comments,
both by people who knew nothing about the subject. Another two dozen comments, sent by
phone and via email, were extremely supportive of our company, what we do, and me personally.
Alpha Omega Labs
May 8, 2017 (Updated to May 16, 2017)