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