Cure Rates

It's very difficult to determine the exact cure rate for botanical salve use. In skillful hands, such as those trained in the Mohs Method, basal cell carcinoma has a 99% success rate. In lay hands, it is simply impossible to know what sort of outcome to expect.

Escharotics are used to destroy and/or remove tumors. The treatment needs to be considered first in terms of how successfully a malignancy is destroyed and then on the basis of survival. Where destruction and removal are concerned, escharotics need only be compared to other methods of treatment having similar aims, such as radiation and surgery. The primary concern is the same with all methods that might be considered: all methods are more likely to be successful in the long run if the entire malignancy is destroyed; but due to the microscopic nature of individual cancer cells, this is not easy to determine at the time of the treatment. It is rather something that is often deduced years later.

Even in proper hospital settings, the absence of any further signs of a growth is usually regarded as a sign not merely of success but also of cure, whereas in reality, all that is certain is that there are no visible (or otherwise detectable) signs of remaining malignancy. In serious academic and professional circles (including insurance actuarial departments and most research facilities), the word "cure" is not generally used. In fact, many would deny that cancer is curable. Therefore, assessments are based on survival. We are all familiar with the five-year statistics, but different measuring sticks are used for more aggressive cancers than for less aggressive ones. There is no question but that some cancers are harder to "cure" than others so the generalized statistics are sometimes meaningless in personal situations.

By this, it should be understood that while Mohs and those who use his methods today (which includes doctors at Harvard Medical School and other such prestigious institutions) may have a 99% success rate with basal cell carcinomas using a combination of escharotics and minor surgery, no one claims a similar success rate with melanomas.

It is within this context that we have to evaluate the historic claim that escharotic treatments were approximately 75-80% successful.

In the material that I researched, outcome research was less formalized than it is today; but there were, in fact, a few long-term survival studies dating back more than 150 years. This said, it also appeared that diagnostic criteria have not been constant, not even in the last 20-30 years, much less the last centuries. The figures are, nevertheless, interesting because, in the past, most patients were probably diagnosed at relatively advanced stages of the illness, often after the tumor had ulcerated. This makes the figures quite impressive, even if some conditions treated with the method were not perhaps what we today call cancer.

Also, while the more modern figures may include a fair number of basal cell carcinomas, suggesting that success with other types of cancer is less effective, the historic figures were overwhelming weighted towards breast cancer with very little mention of skin cancers.

Additional Factors to Consider

The other side of cure rate issue is that while contemporary figures rely almost exclusively on the success of one particular modality, as with the Mohs microsurgery method, many of the more eminent practitioners in the past were eclectic. Their philosophy of cancer embraced theories of the blood and diet that involved adjunctive treatments that perhaps enhanced the success of the escharotic treatments.

So while Dr. Frederic Mohs and Harry Hoxsey used a similar paste, their methodologies and protocols differed quite significantly. Hoxsey placed a great deal of emphasis on the internal tonic, something ignored by surgeons both historically and today. Thus, if someone like Hoxsey could obtain 80% success over the long-term with cancers that were on the whole quite advanced, the number is hugely signficant since we know that Mohs was not achieving that rate on all cancers, merely an extremely high rate with relatively easy to treat skin cancers.

 

Comments:

There is no real consensus on the nature of cancer nor its proper treatment. Opinions over the centuries that I studied varied according to the "expert" and his experience. Many using topical botanical treatments combined them with internal tonics, elixirs that addressed eliminatory as well as other irregularities of the body. Some doctors denied the importance of these measures and others prescribed homeopathic remedies and rigorous diets to be followed for the rest of the patient's life—all in addition to the herbs and escharotic treatments. Some, such as Hildegard, had antimetastasis remedies as well as prescriptions for removal of the obstacles to cure, chief of which was, in her view, the absence of faith.

Please visit the page on blood purification that shows pictures of pictures of the blood of a patient using Seneca Elixir, a historic re-creation of the Compound Syrup Scrophularia of Dr. Eli G. Jones, an eclectic physician specializing in cancer treatment at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The different methodologies of all the prominent practitioners using escharotic and enucleating pastes are fully discussed in the book. A synopsis can be found on this site.

Safety of Escharotic Products

Table of Contents of the Introductory Section

Why I Started this Site My First Exposure to Cancer Salves
What are Cancer Salves Historic Escharotic Salves Secrecy around use of the Salves
Types of Cancer Salves Zinc Chloride Bloodroot
Responses Cure Rate Safety Comparisons with Surgery
Pros and Cons Treatment Supervision Using Salves Goldenseal

Photographs: Eschar Forming and Healed Site