The Cancer Cure and Politics
Hi All
Came across this video which decribes alternative cures and how the mainstream associations or bodies chose to alienate the alternative treatment cures and some cures are also mentioned inside .
Very Interesting actually.
Heres the video link:-
Comments
-
Grace
I think I agree with what was discussed in the video.
Thanks for posting it as I feel it will of great help for everybody.
-
Life's too short. What's the Hoxsey Cancer Cure?
-
I went to the site, and clicked on one of the Alternative Treatment Centers links and immediately noticed they had spelled "Paget's" wrong, doesn't give you a lot of confidence.
Hugs, Shirlann
-
HI
I thought that this link would be helpful to some of us seeking a cure which maybe it may help somebody's life.
I think that what we are seeking is info and not spelling mistakes.
Thats my 2 cents.
Cheers
-
Graceths, there is no known cure for breast cancer. There is treatment that hopefully brings about a long-term remission. Anyone promising or suggesting a cure is misleading people.
-
I have to agree with LJ13. Many are fortunate with early detection to prevent a recurrence. However there is no guarantee or cure. 40,000 women/men who die every year from this disease were not all diagnosed at late stage. Many were victims diagnosed with early stage who later relapsed and it doesn't matter about the hormone receptor status, family hx, etc. The bottom line is breast cancer has one of the highest risks of recurrence and no one is cured until they can prevent mets. Mets is what kills not the isolated lump in the breast. Can you tell I'm a bit frustrated that this year has been a rather dry year with bc research and news.
-
Just as what the Video has mentioned that the medical profession will disclaim any news or methods which did not go through the test prescribed by them which cost over 90 Million to do!!!
I personally know of an insurance agent who was cured of her cancer not by going throught chemo but by taking organic plant foods. She is now an owner of a shop selling organic foods.
I aslo believe that there are many other cures in this world that we do not know of and one of them is the Hoxsey treatment mentioned in the above post.
Thanks Grace for the post.
This shows that there is still hope for sufferers instead of relying on chemo which is actaully a death sentence developed to suck the sufferer and thier families bone dry.
-
Thanks for your post lauren.
Yeah like what you said. There is another post also on similar topic recently "trip to tijuana changed my life".
-
I've read bits and pieces about the Hoxsey cancer treatment centers, and this video pulled it all together. What really escaped my notice when I first read about the center in Dallas was the timing. I was born in Ft Worth, just a stone's throw from Dallas. My father died of stomach cancer when I was barely 3 years old in 1962. Y'know, an anecdotal account of success would've suited this little 3 year old girl just fine if it had meant having my dad around as I grew up.
I can't help but wonder, could he have survived if he had tried the hoxsey treatment? Considering all of our options are so seriously flawed, I fail to understand why anecdotal evidence doesn't 'count'. Why can't one, that turns into 12, that turns into hundreds and then thousands be counted as some sort of study that satisfies the scientists, doctors, and pharmacists? Had animal studies been utilized years ago to the degree they are today, we'd be without aspirin and penicillin. And as we read, speak and type, more than 100,000 deaths each year are attributed to side effects of pharmaceuticals.
It's not as if we have something that has achieved the pinnacle of perfection that we would suffer irreparable harm by having more options from the 'alternatives'. If the hoxsey formula truly doesn't work, my dad would have been just dead with it as he was without it. Thanks to all the controversy surrounding the formula, I don't have the benefit of knowing if he could've been a survivor with nothing more than anecdotal evidence of the formula being effective.
-
Hi Alhea. I agree why don't the tens, hundreds, thousands, etc. be summarized and used as a study or one to promote more rigorous studies of alternatives. The same thing has happened with anecdotal evidence about taking glucosamine sulfate/chondroitin. Many, many people told their stories about how it has helped them with arthritis. The dr.s finally started looking at it more seriously and more research is being -- some is promising and some is not. But, at least they are studying it. I feel like we are going nowwhere with bc except towards more poisons. As one person said on a cancer panel of PBS - they cut us, burn us and poison us - isn't this barbaric. Sorry to go on but, I am trying to figure out how or why I would possibly stay on Arimidex is I already have osteopenia and am next going to ask about going on Evista and mistle toe.
Any suggestions, thoughts and lastly, what is the Hoxsey treatment.
Thank you , thank you E
-
The Hoxsey treatment was proven a fraud long, long ago and still it rears its ugly head. I suppose some people will believe anything. That is why those Nigerian scams about millions of dollars just waiting for you to claim keep making the rounds. Its kind of like the scam stock market. Rather than telling me, SHOW ME THE MONEY. In the is case, SHOW ME THE CURE. There is not a person alive who has ever been cured by the Hoxsey fraud or any other cancer cure scam. Easy to say it works, but where is the PROOF. Show us the medical records of ONE PERSON IN THE WORLD who was ever definitively diagnosed with Stage 4 Breast Cancer and then CURED by the HOXSEY Scam Never happened, never will, because its all ONE BIG SCAM TO SEPARATE THE DESPERATE FROM THEIR MONEY.
-
Hi elisabeth
Just click on the link on the first post and you'll find out.
I guess that some people will always believe what medical doctors tell them that is "there is no such thing as a cancer cure".
They would rather listen to doctors and get their body, money burned. They will cause thier love ones money to be burned too... real blood suckers (doctors).
I have NEVER heard of anybody going through chemo and lived happilly for the rest of thier lives without seeking or combining other forms of alternative treatment.
Most got "cured" and after a fews years and the cancer came back with a vengence to finish what they started out to do.
JUST WATCH THE MOVIE ON THE FIRST POST AND YOU'LL FIND SOME COVINCING EVIDENCE.
Thanks Grace for bringing the post.
-
Lauren, only nine posts from you and they are all about scam cancer cures, even that scam website you refer people to.
You are on the wrong board sweetheart. There are lots of breast cancer survivors here who have gone through chemo and are doing just fine. You can't provide documentation to show ONE person with stage 4 breast cancer who ever was cured by Hoxsey. NOT ONE.
Go sell your scam Hoxsey cure somewhere else.
-
He's back...
-
Hi Everone
I response to what was discussed above here are a few articles which substantiates the findings of the above posted video link:-
http://www.tldp.com/issue/166/166hoxs.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,936298-2,00.html
http://www.utne.com/2001-05-01/A-Second-Opinion-on-Harry-Hoxsey.aspxhttp://www.geocities.com/i_starwulf/Hoxsey.htm
I think that you will find more positive articles written on the above. Take your time to do research instead of going straight to the FDA website. Please also take you time to watch the videos in the initial post above as it explains clearly what actually went on.
Please do not let the fella discourage you from finding an alternative cure for cancer. We, after suffering so many years must seek alternative forms of treatment which are many but not known by many.
Bearing in mind that we should investigate more thoroughly for bogus alternative medicine which also are number by the scores.
On another note, a new cure for cancer was found from the web page:-
http://all-about-breast-cancer.com/208/new-exciting-cancer-cure-found.php/
-
I found this thread interesting because I always get a kick out of reading various assertions of dubious value, for example about the xyz magnet machine that cures all sorts of ailments. What is interesting is when put to the test in Court, where only actual evidence is considered, how those claims hold up. In the Hoxsey matter, A United States District Court of Appeal found there was no evidence to support any of the old Hoxsey claims. This was simply a decision based on the actual facts instead of on unfounded assertions of fact. Posted in its entirety for any who are interested. It is a 1952 case, but even back then the Courts ruled on the basis of the evidence before it:
United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports
________________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES v. HOXSEY CANCER CLINIC, 198 F.2d 273 (5th Cir. 1952)
UNITED STATES v. HOXSEY CANCER CLINIC et al.
No. 13645.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 31, 1952.
Rehearing Denied September 10, 1952.
William W. Goodrich, Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, Food & Drug
Division, Washington, D.C., James M. McInerney, Asst. Atty. Gen.,
Frank B. Potter, U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Vincent A.
Kleinfeld, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Bernard D.
Levinson and Joseph L. Maguire, Attys., Federal Security Agency,
Washington, D.C., of counsel, for appellant.
Herbert K. Hyde, Oklahoma City, Okla., James H. Martin, Dallas,
Tex., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and RIVES, Circuit
Judges.
RUSSELL, Circuit Judge.
Proceeding under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act,[fn1] and relying particularly upon its provisions
defining labeling,[fn2] prohibiting introduction into interstate
commerce of any drug that is misbranded,[fn3] and deeming a drug
misbranded "If its labeling is false or misleading
Page 274
in any particular",[fn4] the United States sought in the trial
Court the injunctive relief provided by the Act[fn5] to prevent
the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, and Harry M. Hoxsey, from introducing
or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce bottles
of brownish_black, and pink, colored liquids intended for use in
the treatment and cure of cancer in man. It is alleged that the
drugs, which are distributed and dispatched to physicians,
practitioners, and other persons, by defendants are misbranded,
because their labeling, specifically a booklet accompanying them,
contains "general and specific statements which represent and
suggest that said drugs are efficacious in the treatment,
mitigation and cure of cancer in man, which statements are false
and misleading since said drugs are not efficacious in the
treatment, mitigation and cure of cancer in man." Two
substantially similar booklets are involved, though it appears
that one is no longer used.
For the establishment of its claims of general false and
misleading statements, the Government relies upon the import and
effect of statements made in an address, captioned: "Theory and
Application of the Hoxsey Method of Treating Cancer," by "J.B.
Durkee, D.O., Medical Director of the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic,
Dallas, Texas, before the Second Annual Convention of the
National Medical Society October 17, 1947 held at Royal Palms
Hotel, Los Angeles, Calif.", reprinted in the booklets, as well
as other statements and representations of the booklets which
represent that the Hoxsey medicines are effective in the cure,
mitigation, or treatment of internal cancer.
The claim of specific misrepresentations is predicated upon the
contention that a division of the contents of the booklet, which
includes the listing of individuals with their post office
address and statement of the portion of the body on which the
cancer appeared, reprint of proceedings and testimony of patients
thereupon given, "before and after" treatment photographs and
comment thereon, and the invitation to write to the individuals
listed "requesting first hand testimony regarding our treatment"
when read in conjunction with the statement "`we wish only to
present the facts and records of results and benefits received by
those who have taken our treatment' * * * leaves the clear
representation that the persons named were cured of cancer by the
Hoxsey drugs." The truth is said to be that "any of these
specific representations are downright falsehoods."
The defense, in the trial Court by pleading and testimony, and
renewed here by argument and brief, challenges each and all of
the Government's contentions. The position of the defendants is
that, as to the claim of general representations, the contents
and statements of the booklets, considered as a whole, expressly
deny that the medicines will cure all cases, but only that they
cure some, do not cure some, and "relieve some somewhat." As to
the specific charges of misbranding, the defendants' argument is
mainly that by use of the word "patients" in reference to the
individuals listed in the booklet there is removed any idea that
such persons have been cured. However, it is further contended
that the testimony does show that many of the listed individuals
were successfully treated and, in some instances, cured.
Underlying the entire argument is the fundamental contention that
the medicines in question are efficacious in some instances in
the cure and alleviation of cancer, and that they represent a
"revolutionary treatment", which is, in many cases, successful.
Running through the entire defense is the claim that the
medicines and supportive treatments produce a higher percentage
of more satisfactory results in the treatment of cancer than is
secured by the other methods of treatment more generally employed
of either x_ray, surgery, radium, or, in some instances, use of
some of the by_products of atomic bomb production. These
so_called orthodox methods are criticised as ineffective and in
some cases positively harmful, whereas defendants contend their
treatment does not have such harmful results and yet secures a
higher percentage of cures.
Page 275
The issues thus arising are still present here and require for
their solution determination of what representations, general or
specific, the booklets may fairly and reasonably be determined to
make in the circumstances to which they relate and to the persons
to whom they were made, and whether, as so construed and found,
the representations are false and misleading within the terms of
the statute. Implicit in the latter, and actually controlling
here, is whether the Government maintained either or both of its
positions that the medicines in question were not efficacious in
the cure of cancer in man, and that, in any event, assuming that
its claim of specific representation had been established, it had
proved such representation to be false.
The trial Court made findings of fact and entered conclusions
of law,[fn6] and, upon the ultimate ground that under the
testimony as a whole the Government had failed
Page 276
to show the correctness of its charges, concluded that the
injunctive relief sought should be denied.
The Government, as appellant here, strenuously insists that the
trial Court's findings and conclusions evidence misapprehension
of the legal effect of the competent evidence, as well as failure
to apply the controlling law. It is urged that the competent
evidence in the case presents undisputed proof of the
Government's specific charges of misbranding which entitled the
Government to a decree in its favor; that the Court's findings
were erroneously induced by consideration of, and reliance upon,
incompetent testimony from laymen that they had cancer; and that
they were cured; and that the controlling finding by the trial
Court that the Hoxsey drugs are not falsely represented as cancer
cures and that they do cure cancer are clearly erroneous, should
be set aside, and the issuance of an injunction directed by this
Court. Appellees relying upon the Court's finding that the
treatment "cures some, and some it does not cure, and some it
relieves somewhat. That respondents do not guarantee to cure",
cite it as confirmation of the finding that the representations
of the booklet are neither false nor misleading.
Our consideration of the booklets, which concededly constitute
the labeling referred to by the statute,[fn7] leaves us in no
doubt that as concerns the nature and extent of general
representation the content and statements of the booklet are
intended to, and do, convey the claim that the Hoxsey medicines
present a successful cure for cancer in only some cases, but the
recitation of their virtues is so emphasized and reiterated as to
induce in the mind of one thinking he suffered from cancer a
belief that he had an excellent chance to be one of those cases
in which the medicine would be successful. The language and
entire contents are so hedged about with denials that the
treatment is a "cure_all", or effective in all cases, that its
true import is only that the medicines are effective in a
substantial number of cases. For the purpose of this decision,
and in determining the truth of such representations, we will
accept the more restricted position, to which the Government is
driven, that the precise extent of successful cures is immaterial
since, it is contended, that the representation that any cure
can be effected by use of the medicines is false and misleading.
We think the claim of specific representation that the parties
listed and given as references for testimonials is sustained to
the extent claimed by the Government. It is difficult to imagine
that one thinking himself inflicted with the dire disease of
cancer and reading and considering the references to these listed
patients, and the testimony there set forth, and which is
prefaced as this is[fn8] and reiterated by conclusion,[fn9] would
reach any other conclusion than that the persons listed were
cured of cancer by
Page 277
the Hoxsey drugs. It is common knowledge that such is the
representation of "testimonial letters as is the usual custom."
It is clear that the general representation is that at least the
Hoxsey medicines will cure some cancer, and the specific
representation is that it has cured the persons listed as
patients, and who have testified as to cure, and to whom it is
suggested letters be addressed to obtain testimonials to the
efficacy of such medicines. The question of whether these
representations are false and misleading remains.
In approaching this question we are guided by some well
recognized beliefs and experience so universally entertained and
accepted by the practically unanimous aggregate of medical
science as that contradiction thereof does not raise a
substantial issue of fact. Thus, with practical unanimity, those
informed and in position to know are of the firm belief that
there is only one reliable and accurate means of determining
whether what is thought to be cancer is, in truth and fact,
actually cancer. This requires a biopsy, a microscopic
examination of a piece of tissue removed from the infected and
questioned diseased region. From this it follows that the opinion
of a layman as to whether he has, or had, cancer, or a like
opinion as to whether he has been cured and no longer bears the
disease, if, in fact, it ever actually existed, is entitled to
little, if any, weight. It is further true that despite the vast
and continuous research which has been conducted into the cause
of, and possible cure for, cancer the aggregate of medical
experience and qualified experts recognize in the treatment of
internal cancer only the methods of surgery, x_ray, radium and
some of the radio_active by_products of atomic bomb production.
This is so even though the ghastly truth is that these methods
frequently fail and are, in many cases, themselves
unsatisfactory. But it is true, nevertheless, that with present
enlightenment they are our sole defense against the scourge of
cancer. We think this statement evidences no acceptation of any
particular school or segment of qualified expert medical opinion
and belief, though it is not to say that persons activated by
self_interest or ignorance may be found to express a contrary
opinion. It is to say, however, that upon such subjects a Court
should not be so blind and deaf as to fail to see, hear and
understand the import and effect of such matters of general
public knowledge and acceptance, especially where they are
established by the overwhelming weight of disinterested testimony
as appears in the record now before us.
Two liquid medicines which are shown to have been distributed
by the defendants in interstate commerce for use in treatment of
cancer are involved in this action.[fn10] One is a black, or
brownish_black mixture; the other a pink medicine. Their
respective formulae are neither secret nor contested. The
analysis of samples of the drugs showed that the proportion of
ingredients of the black medicine varied, but contained potassium
iodide and extracts, (omitting the scientific names), from
prickly ash bark, buckthorn, red clover blossom, alfalfa, and
cascara sagrada. The pink medicine contained potassium iodide and
lactate of pepsin. These drugs are shipped in 16 ounce bottles,
to patients in diluted form, and to osteopaths in concentrated
form with direction to add enough water (in case of the black),
or elixir of pepsin (in case of the pink), to make a gallon.
Illustrative analyses of the dilution are: water, 62 per cent,
potassium iodide, 26.4 per cent, plant extractives, 7.9 per cent,
mineral matter other than potassium iodide, 6/10ths of 1 per
cent, and licorice flavoring; another, water 53.2 per cent,
alcohol, 5.1 per cent, sugars,
Page 278
12.6 per cent, potassium iodide, 29½ per cent, and the presence
of pepsin; another water, 94½ per cent, potassium iodide, 4½ per
cent, plant extractives, 9/10ths of 1 per cent, and the presence
of a licorice like flavoring; another, water, 76 per cent,
alcohol, 7.2 per cent, sugars, 15 per cent, potassium iodide, 1.3
per cent and the presence of pepsin, and this was a "slightly
acid preparation." The source of supply is the Hoxsey Cancer
Clinic in Dallas, Texas. The defendant, Harry M. Hoxsey, is not a
doctor, but a layman. It is his claim that the Hoxsey cancer
drugs were originated by his grandfather about 1840 in Kentucky;
were later used by his son, the defendant's father, and after the
defendant's father's death in 1919 the present Mr. Hoxsey carried
on the treatment and preparation of the drugs at the clinic,
which was in charge of a doctor. The present director is Dr. J.B.
Durkee, a doctor of osteopathy. The clinic operates through
osteopaths and the drugs may be obtained from the clinic in
Dallas, or from osteopaths in other states who have obtained the
medicines by shipments from the clinic. The clinic does not
maintain hospital facilities and patients who go there for
treatment take the medicines away with them for
self_administration. Supplies are replenished by shipments of the
medicines to them.
Upon the trial the Government, after establishing the
interstate shipments of drugs and booklets, and testimony as to
the formulae and analyses of the drugs in question, introduced
the testimony of highly qualified and experienced experts as to
the pharmacological and pathological reaction and effect of the
drugs in the Hoxsey medicines. Dr. David I. Macht, a physician
specializing in pharmacological and experimental therapeutics,
with impressive qualifications, who has done work on potassium
iodide and emodin bearing drugs such as cascara sagrada and
buckhorn, testified that potassium iodide could cause untoward
reactions in most people. The amount received from the black
medicine, when taken as recommended, could cause damage in some
people. There is no basis for therapeutic use of the drugs found
in the medicines, or any combination of them in the treatment of
cancer. A pathologist, Dr. Max A. Goldzieher, likewise qualified
and experienced in his specialty, had conducted extensive
research in cancer and in connection with his research had
studied and experimented in the use of potassium in cancer in
afflicted animals and also upon a group of 27 volunteer patients,
all of whom were "very far gone, inoperable and obviously
incurable cases of cancer." From these studies and experiments,
he concluded that potassium increases the rate of growth in
cancer and is not advisable in cancerous patients. It was his
opinion, based upon such experiments, that the result of a
patient with a malignant growth taking a daily dose as prescribed
of the Hoxsey medicine would be to speed the growth of the
cancer. Testimony was also presented of a controlled laboratory
experiment carried out at the Jackson Memorial Laboratories, Bar
Harbor, Maine, an institution engaged in the fundamental research
of the biology of cancer, to show the effects of both types of
Hoxsey medicine in treating cancerous mice. The physicians and
scientists participating in the test possessed superior
qualifications and extensive experience in such matters. It is
shown that the manner and method of such experiments was in
accordance with the best known and accepted practice and was
applicable to the treatment of cancer in humans to the extent
that "those agents which have been shown to produce beneficial
effects against cancer in man, in general have been - they
produce definite beneficial effects in some cancer on
experimental animals." The Hoxsey medication had no beneficial
therapeutic effect on the cancer of the afflicted mice. It was
testified by Dr. R.L. Clark, an expert of superior qualification
and experience, that the recognized and only accurate method of
diagnosing cancer is by a biopsy examination of the tissue, made
by someone who has made a special study of the process. He stated
that he knew of no medicine taken orally that would cure cancer,
and he considers that there are two different methods of curing
cancer known today, "one of them is by removing the tumor by
surgery,
Page 279
generally, and the other one is by using radiation therapy, which
constitutes x_ray, radium, and more recently some of the
products, by_products, of the atomic bomb production." This
witness was one of five directors and medical consultants at the
Atomic Energy Plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Against this background the Government developed its case by
presenting testimony in the form of case histories of sixteen
persons who had taken the Hoxsey medicine for treatment of
internal cancer. Nine of these persons are among those listed in
that part of the booklet which we have held to constitute
specific representations of cure. We shall not undertake to
lengthily detail the voluminous evidence. It followed the general
pattern of showing physical examination, the making of the biopsy
and pathological examination of the tissue, and dependent upon
the facts in the particular case, that, where actual malignancy
was present it was neither retarded nor cured by the use of the
Hoxsey medicines; or there was in fact no malignancy; and that
certain of the persons who had cancer were operated on for
cancer, or died, while taking the Hoxsey treatment; that one
patient with cancer declined surgery, used the Hoxsey medicine,
but died of cancer; and one regressed while taking the medicine
but improved with subsequent x_ray therapy. Each of these
critical circumstances was shown by the testimony of
examinations, diagnoses and result by medical doctors,
pathologists, and scientific examination, all had and done in
accordance with the generally accepted and approved methods and
means of ascertaining and determining the facts in such
instances. If such testimony be accepted as credible, it clearly
establishes the Government's contention that the Hoxsey drugs in
question are not efficacious in the treatment, mitigation and
cure of cancer in man, contrary to the general representation of
the booklet, and that the specific representation as to nine of
those persons listed by name in the booklet are not true in that
such persons were not cured of cancer by the use of such drugs.
The defendants countered the case of the Government with
testimony as to twenty_two cases of claimed cancer cure, as well
as the testimony of three osteopaths, Dr. Durkee, the director of
the clinic, Dr. Macauley, a general practitioner of Jefferson
City, Missouri, and Dr. Downs of Denver, Colorado. Mr. Hoxsey did
not testify. Eleven of the twenty_two cases concerned alleged
cancer of the skin and the result of the use of the Hoxsey powder
and salve. Some of these also took the internal medicine, though
it is not shown that this had any effect upon the alleged cancer
and the testimony is to the effect that the powders and salves
were escharotics which destroyed the cancer tissue, as well as
the normal tissue. In any event, the Government made no charge
with reference to the powder or salve or to external or skin
cancer, and contends here, correctly we think, that these eleven
cases were irrelevant to the question in issue, which dealt
solely with the efficacy of the black and pink drugs taken orally
for the cure of internal cancer. In three of the remaining eleven
cases of alleged cancer cure the only evidence that the patient
actually had cancer when he went to the clinic was the testimony
of the witness. Each of these was a patient at the clinic prior
to the beginning of Dr. Durkee's employment there in 1946. Over
the objection of the Government, they were permitted to testify
that they had cancer. In the cases of four of the eight remaining
alleged cancer cures the Government introduced medical testimony
of doctors who had treated and operated on the patients to show
that the cancerous condition had been successfully treated before
the patient went to the Hoxsey Clinic. In three of these cases
the absence of malignancy was shown by pathological examination.
After apparent cure, these patients went to the Hoxsey Clinic and
took the liquid medicine. In one of the cases within fifteen days
after the negative result of the biopsy examination had been
ascertained, Dr. Durkee, without a biopsy, stated he found
cancer. In the four remaining cases the patients were likewise
permitted to testify that they had cancer, or had been told that
they had cancer, but there is no evidence of biopsy, and any
proof of the nature of the disease these patients suffered is
Page 280
dependent upon the diagnosis and testimony of Dr. Durkee. Under
these circumstances, the Government contends that in no instance
is there reliable scientifically acceptable evidence that the
patient had a cancer when the Hoxsey medication was instituted.
Dr. Macauley had practiced his profession since 1941 and had
spent approximately a year at the Hoxsey Clinic. He admitted that
he is not a cancer expert. He conceded that the only proper
method of diagnosing a cancer is to make a biopsy and
pathological examination of the tissue. Dr. Downs testified to
the same effect. Dr. Durkee testified that he did not "need a
biopsy to make a diagnosis of cancer." Substantially his entire
experience and practice with cancer has been at the Hoxsey Clinic
where during the past five or six years he has personally
examined or treated five or six thousand patients. He personally
examines all of the patients, seeing thirty_five to fifty a day,
and spending between five and ten minutes with each on the
average, though with some longer than others. Of this number, he
estimates he has taken between three and four hundred biopsies.
Not many were made of patients by other people at his request.
The above restricted summaries are not stated in an attempt to
review in detail a voluminous record, but to show the general
nature of the case put forward by the plaintiff and the defendant
and to point up the difference in the type of proof presented by
the Government to establish the allegations of the complaint, and
the type of proof relied upon by the defendant to cast doubt upon
the Government's case as thus presented.
Based upon the claim of supremacy of scientific testimony and
pathological examination over the opinions of lay witnesses that
they had cancer and were cured, or their hearsay testimony of
what doctors had told them of their condition, and likewise over
the testimony of Dr. Durkee, who, it is contended, was not only a
vitally interested witness, but also without sufficient
qualifications as an expert, the Government contends that as to
the nine instances of specific misrepresentations its evidence is
actually undisputed and requires a decree in its favor. It is
also contended that it was prejudicial error for the trial Court
to permit laymen to testify that they had, or were cured of,
cancer, or as to what a physician had told them as to their
condition. The third major contention of the Government is that
the trial Court's findings that the Hoxsey drugs are not falsely
represented as cancer cures and that they do cure cancer are
clearly erroneous.
We have already stated the effect we think proper to give to
the general and specific representations set forth in the
booklets, the labeling of the drugs. Our consideration of the
record and the nature of the issues involved has led to the firm
conclusion that the trial Court's findings of fact that the
representations in the labeling were neither false nor
misleading, and that the brownish_black and pink colored
medicines were efficacious in the cure of cancer in man are
clearly erroneous. Thus, even if it be assumed, arguendo, that
there is some measure of conflict in the evidence relating to
the falsity of the specific representations referred to above,
still, it is clear that a finding that such representations are
true is not supported by substantial evidence. It is equally
clear that, without regard to any general rule of admissibility
of the testimony of laymen as to the existence of disease or
physical injury, or as to the curative effect of drugs,[fn11]
when the subject of investigation is the existence of cancer, the
personal testimony of the lay sufferer is entitled to no weight,
since the overwhelming preponderance of qualified opinion
recognizes that not even the experts can assuredly diagnose this
condition without the aid of biopsy and pathological examination.
Hearsay testimony of what such a person has been told by a
physician is entitled to no greater weight. Except for such
testimony and
Page 281
the testimony of the three osteopaths, two of whom did not claim
to be experts on the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, and the
third of whom is a definitely interested witness who testified as
to ability to diagnose contrary to all accepted scientific
knowledge, the testimony on behalf of the Government in the full
and complete establishment of its case of misbranding is not
substantially disputed. We think this so_denominated conflicting
evidence is wholly insufficient to cast such doubt upon the
testimony adduced in behalf of the Government as to authorize the
trial Court to find that the Government had failed to carry the
burden of establishing the truth of the allegations of its
complaint. To the contrary, we think that the evidence in this
case, considered as a whole, should, and must, induce a
conviction that the finding of the trial Court that the
representations were neither false nor misleading is so "against
the great preponderance of the credible testimony that it does
not reflect or represent the truth and right of the case."[fn12]
On the entire evidence we are "left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v.
United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542,
92 L.Ed. 746. We recognize, as we must, that the cause, effect
and cure of cancer are so obscure and indefinite that there
obtains in the entire subject an area of the unknown. It is
nevertheless the duty of a Court in making determination of
questions of such great public moment as those which now confront
us to give weighty consideration to the experience of the past
and the accepted views and findings of science as held and
confirmed by such experience and as likewise shown by the weight
of the testimony to be applicable to the specific facts of this
case. In this, as in other similar matters, that not all, or even
little, is known about the subject does not require us to
disregard that which is known and established. We do not have for
consideration the merits even of any claimed newly discovered, or
secret, drug or cure. The case involves the efficacy of only well
known drugs. As a cure for cancer these have been weighed and
found wanting.
It was not necessary for the Government to prove that each and
every representation in the booklet was false or misleading. The
statute seeks to prevent labeling which is false or misleading in
any particular. Proof that such representation in the case of at
least nine of the persons represented as cured was false
establishes the falsity of such representation in a most
significant particular. Furthermore, as we have held, the
overwhelming weight of the credible evidence requires a
conclusion that the representation that the Hoxsey liquid
medicines are efficacious in the cure of cancer is likewise false
and misleading. The evidence as a whole does not support the
finding of the trial Court that "some it cures, and some it does
not cure, and some it relieves somewhat."
We do not attempt to set ourselves up as arbiters of what
method of treatment the Hoxsey Clinic shall employ. We are not
authorized by law to do so. It is our duty to adjudge the merits
of the case in the light of the provisions and intent of the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supra, which close the
channels of interstate commerce against drugs which are
misbranded. There is no question in this case but that the drugs,
with the accompanying labels, were distributed by the defendants
in interstate commerce to patients, as well as to Dr. Downs. It
is stipulated that one such shipment was made to a patient only a
few days before the beginning of the trial. We find these
shipments and the accompanying labels to come within the
prohibition of the statute and the finding of the trial Court to
the contrary to be clearly erroneous.
The facts of the case require the issuance of an injunction,
and the Court's failure to do so evidences an abuse of
discretion. The judgment of the trial Court is reversed, and the
cause remanded with the direction that the trial Court order an
injunction to issue as prayed.
Reversed, and remanded, with direction.
[fn1] 21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.
[fn2] 21 U.S.C.A. § 321(m).
[fn3] 21 U.S.C.A. § 331(a).
[fn4] 21 U.S.C.A. § 352(a).
[fn5] 21 U.S.C.A. § 332.
[fn6]
"Findings of Fact.
1.
"The respondent did forward in interstate commerce to
physicians in other states who had been present at the Hoxsey
Clinic and studied its methods and efficacy for a considerable
time, and were using such medicines and prescriptions in their
similar treatment.
2.
"That accompanying such shipments were booklets containing the
statements and illustrations quoted in the pleadings of both
complainant and respondents.
3.
"That the respondents' treatment is not injurious. Some it
cures, and some it does not cure, and, some it relieves somewhat.
That respondents do not guarantee to cure.
4.
"That the statements contained in said labels so pleaded, are
neither false nor misleading. That if in doubt as to the
effectuality of the treatment, they take the patient on trial,
and frequently, without charge to the patient.
5.
"That the percentage of efficient and beneficial treatments by
respondents is reasonably comparable to the efficiency and
success of surgery and radium, and and without the physical
suffering and dire consequences of radium, if improperly
administered, and surgery, if not successful in completely
removing the entire malignant portion.
6.
"That cancer is an aggregation of outlaw cells with the
propensity to migrate and grow in size and in the territory
covered and the definite destruction of the body, or, a serious
portion thereof.
7.
"That the respondents do have two basic medicines to which are
added, if and when the examination of the patient calls for such
additions, a large number of drugs and mitigations in separate a
room at the clinic. (sic) That it also subtracts and changes the
basic elements of the two medicines as indicated, in the judgment
of the Medical Director of the clinic when indicated by the
examination of the patient, but that no such prescription
accompanies shipments made in interstate commerce to the doctors
in other states who are using the Hoxsey method, nor does the
same appear upon the bottles or receptacles of the medicine.
8.
"That the Food and Drug inspectors seized medicines and
pamphlets and booklets such as are pleaded, from the doctors in
other states who have been using the Hoxsey method, and which
came interstate commerce. That such seizures were prior to the
institution of this suit, since which time the respondents have
made no interstate shipments of either pamphlets, or, medicines.
"Conclusions of Law.
"It is not necessary that mislabeling, or, misbrandings within
the meaning of the Act shall actually be on the container, but
they may accompany it, or, reach the user in some other manner.
There is some authority to the contrary, but I think the case of
Kordel v. United States, 335 U.S. 345, 69 S.Ct. 106, 93 L.Ed. 52,
and the case of United States v. Urbuteit, 335 U.S. 355,
69 S.Ct. 112, 93 L.Ed. 61, are controlling.
"The exemptions provided for in the Act with reference to
physicians' prescriptions, and the placing of the contents on the
bottle, or, container, are not applicable, nor can they be of any
use to the respondents here, because the respondents' method in
forwarding articles and pamphlets to the physicians in other
states who were using the method and treatments were not so
displayed. Nor can the plea of good faith, or, the charitable
inclinations of the respondents save them from the rigors of the
Act. Nor can the discontinuance of the practice of shipments to
physicians in other states, save the respondents from the
injunctive features of the Act, even though the Chancellor,
speaking in equity, will not require that which is useless.
"Nevertheless, the facts disclosed by the testimony and found
as above, as well as the failure of the government to
successfully carry the burden and show a preponderance of the
testimony, the correctness of its charges, merits, and must have,
a refusal of the injunctive relief sought, and a dismissal of the
bill, and such order and decree is, accordingly, announced."
[fn7] Kordel v. United States, 335 U.S. 345, 69 S.Ct. 106,
93 L.Ed. 52; United States v. Urbuteit, 335 U.S. 355, 69 S.Ct. 112,
93 L.Ed. 61.
[fn8] "We are not going to use printed space for testimonial
letters as is the usual custom, however, you will find a list of
patients following, with cases no doubt paralleling your own. We
are giving you their names and addresses. If you will write,
enclosing a self_addressed, stamped envelope we feel you will
receive a testimonial first_hand."
[fn9] "Space does not permit us to give a complete list of all
our patients, therefore, we have selected the above cases for the
reason that they represent a cross section of the various types
of patients treated at this instituion.
"You will no doubt find in this list a condition similar to
that with which you or some member of the family are afflicted.
We would suggest that you correspond with some of these patients,
enclosing a self_addressed envelope, requesting first_hand
testimony regarding our treatment."
[fn10] Throughout the booklets referred to, and in the testimony,
there are references to external, or skin cancers also. The
defendants, in addition to the liquid medicines for the treatment
of internal cancer, also have an escharotic treatment for
external, or skin, cancer. This consists of a corrosive or
caustic substance the basic ingredient of which is arsenic. The
government makes no contention as to this medicine, or with
reference to external cancer, and consequently this medicine and
the question of its use and efficacy in the treatment and cure of
external cancers, and, in fact, the entire subject of external
cancers is not here involved.
[fn11] Cf. United States v. 141 Bottles of Drug Products, S.D.
Texas, not reported, affirmed in Hall v. United States, 5 Cir.,
267 F. 795; Federal Trade Commission v. Kay, 7 Cir., 35 F.2d 160,
162.
[fn12] Sanders v. Leech, 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 486, 487.
Page 282
-
For completeness, here is a case that actually went to a Jury of people, who hearing all of the evidence, again rejected Hoxsey:
UNITED STATES v. 10 CARTONS, ETC., (1957)
152 F. Supp. 360
UNITED STATES of America v. 10 CARTONS, More or Less, Each Containing
26,332 Black Tablets of an Article of Drug LABELED IN PART "HOXSEY"
- 100 S C Tablets Black Control Number 06980 * * * Testagar & Co., Inc.,
Detroit, Michigan * * *" and 4 DRUMS, More or Less, Each Containing 62,900
Red Tablets of an Article of Drug LABELED IN PART "From Testagar & Company,
1354 West Lafayette, Detroit, Michigan Name Special Tablets S C red 06949
LACTOTABS * * *" etc.
Civ. No. 13251.
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.
May 28, 1957.
West Page 361
D. Malcolm Anderson, Jr., U.S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa.,
William W. Goodrich, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Health,
Education & Welfare, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Vincent M. Casey, Pittsburgh, Pa., James H. Martin, Dallas,
Tex., for defendant.
West Page 362
JOHN L. MILLER, District Judge.
This is an action by the United States under the seizure and
condemnation provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq., for the destruction of a large
quantity of red and black medicinal tablets and their labeling.
It is alleged that the tablets were misbranded while held for
sale at the premises of the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic at Portage,
Pennsylvania, after having been shipped in interstate commerce.
21 U.S.C.A. § 334(a). Upon a libel of information filed by the
government, a warrant of seizure and monition was issued from
this court, and on March 25, 1955, the tablets and certain
pamphlets, magazines, and leaflets alleged to be the labeling
were seized at the clinic. An answer to the libel has been
filed on behalf of the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic and Dr. Newton C.
Allen as claimants. The cause was tried before the court and a
jury and after lengthy contested proceedings resulted in a
verdict in favor of the United States. The claimants have filed
a motion for judgment in accordance with their motion for a
directed verdict and in the alternative a motion for a new
trial. In the interim, execution of the order of condemnation
entered on November 16, 1956, has been deferred.
The Hoxsey Cancer Clinic is an institution at Portage,
Pennsylvania, in the Western District of Pennsylvania,
specializing in the treatment of cancer and cancerous diseases
in humans by means of drugs and chemicals. It maintains a
staff of physicians, nurses and administrative personnel.
Persons from many parts of the nation suffering from cancer
visit the clinic in hope of obtaining relief. These persons
are not admitted as patients but visit the clinic for a day or
a few days at most during the course of which interviews and
examinations are conducted. The examinations include blood
tests, X_rays, rectal or vaginal inspection and other accepted
medical procedures which do not involve surgery. Biopsies are
rarely if ever performed. If as a result of the interviews and
examinations superficial or skin cancer is diagnosed an
escharotic compound - not the subject of this action - is
prescribed as the chief means of treatment. If internal cancer
is diagnosed, a prescription for the red or black tablets,
depending on the nature of the cancer, is written out by the
physician in charge. Other supportive medications, such as
vitamins, are usually prescribed. The tablets and medications
are received by the patient at the drug counter of the clinic
and are taken home with him for consumption according to given
directions. The basic fee for the cancer treatment, including
examinations and medications, is $400. In addition laboratory
fees of from $5 to $18 and X_ray fees at $10 per picture are
charged. If the patient acquires additional tablets no further
charge is made except for laboratory or X_ray services. The
tablets involved in this action, concededly "drugs" within the
meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, were prepared by a Michigan
pharmaceutical house at a cost of less than $2 a thousand and
were transported in interstate commerce. The red tablets are
composed of potassium iodide, red clover tops, stillingia root,
berberis root, poke root, buckthorn bark and pepsin; the black
tablets of potassium iodide, licorice, red clover tops, burdock
root, stillingia, berberis root, poke root, cascara sagrada,
prickley ash bark and buckthorn bark. The tablets are the
essential part of the Hoxsey treatment for cancer and potassium
iodide is considered by claimants the chief curative component.
The clinic began its operations in February, 1955, in an
atmosphere of great local interest. When the seizure was
effected on March 25, 1955, patients were being received for
examination and treatment. The medications, the subject of
this action, were then located in the drug and sterilization
rooms at the rear of the clinic in their original containers
from which they were eventually to be transferred to small
envelopes for distribution to patients. Copies of the leaflets
and printed matter described above
West Page 363
in the caption and seized with the tablets were found on a
table in the foyer of the clinic which adjoined a waiting room
used by patients and persons visiting the clinic. The bundled
copies of the "Defender" magazine were seized in one of the
rear rooms. The government, centering its attack only on
Hoxsey medications used in the treatment of internal cancer,
contends that the leaflets and printed matter caused the red
and black tablets to be misbranded in three particulars: by
making false or misleading representations with respect to the
adequacy or effectiveness of the tablets in the mitigation and
treatment of internal cancer; with respect to the terms of an
existing court decree prohibiting entities not parties to this
action from making such labeling claims for similar drugs
distributed in interstate commerce; with respect to a survey
allegedly discounting the effectiveness of X_rays, radium and
surgery in treating cancer patients. The issues submitted to
the jury were whether the printed matter and leaflets
constituted "labeling" within the meaning of the Food and
Drugs Act and if so, whether the labeling was false or
misleading in any of those three particulars.
The Motion for Judgment
Under § 304(a) of the Food and Drugs Act,
21 U.S.C.A. § 334(a), any article of drug that is misbranded while held for
sale after shipment in interstate commerce is subject to
federal seizure and condemnation procedures in accordance with
the act. Under § 502, 21 U.S.C.A. § 352, a drug is misbranded
if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular, and
labeling is defined in § 201, 21 U.S.C.A. § 321, as meaning all
labels and other written, printed or graphic matter upon the
article or its container or "accompanying such article." In
their first point in support of the motion for judgment,
claimants present the contention that the leaflets and printed
matter involved in this action were not labeling in the
statutory sense. In Kordel v. United States, 1948,
335 U.S. 345, 350, 69 S.Ct. 106, 109, 93 L.Ed. 52, the Supreme Court
said:
"One article or thing is accompanied by another
when it supplements or explains it, in the manner
that a committee report of the Congress
accompanies a bill. No physical attachment one to
the other is necessary. It is the textual
relationship that is significant."
That case and United States v. Urbuteit, 1948, 335 U.S. 355,
69 S.Ct. 112, 93 L.Ed. 61, establish that if the written,
printed or graphic matter is used in the distribution or sale
of a drug which has been shipped in commerce to explain the
drug's use or usefulness, it may be considered labeling in a
functional sense, even though there is a separation between
the article and the printing. It is unnecessary to determine
here how wide the separation may be before written, printed or
graphic matter ceases to "accompany" the drug article. In the
present instance, the literature was prominently displayed and
available for reading by or distribution to patients or other
persons at the very place where the Hoxsey medications were
distributed. In addition, undisputed evidence demonstrated
that the literature was sometimes mailed to patients. Under
such circumstances, this court will not permit the yards of
distance between the clinic's waiting room and the drug rooms
or the intervening plaster walls to be the measurement of the
application of the federal regulatory law. The pamphlet
entitled, "Hoxsey Cancer Clinic"[fn1] states that its purpose
is to acquaint the public with the clinic and its method of
treating cancer "in terms the average layman can understand."
It contains the statement "we do feel that we have the most
advanced and efficient method of treating cancer today"
- a method not including X_ray, surgery or radiation. It
describes the procedure to be followed by prospective patients
desiring consultations or treatment. The leaflet, "Procedure
and
West Page 364
Information"[fn2] lists the fees charged by the clinic for the
cancer treatment and laboratory and X_ray services. The
article from "Man's Magazine" entitled, "I Conquered
Cancer"[fn3] details what appears to be a disinterested
person's statement and report on the case histories of seven
persons who were, the article indicated, treated successfully
by the Hoxsey method after other treatment had failed. It
includes a report on Mrs. Verne Kielbowick, sister of John
Haluska, a former member of the Pennsylvania legislature and
Administrator of the Portage Clinic. Mrs. Kielbowick
attributed the recovery of her health to the Hoxsey remedy and
is quoted as saying:
"If anybody doubts that Hoxsey cures cancer,
let him come to Patton and talk to the Haluskas."
The pamphlet, "Findings of Doctors"[fn4] contains the
statement:
"[O]ur investigation has demonstrated to our
satisfaction that the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic at
Dallas, Texas, is successfully treating
pathologically proven cases of cancer, both
internal and external, without use of surgery,
radium, or X_ray."
The "Defender" magazine[fn5] includes a reproduction of a
speech by former Senator Haluska to the Pennsylvania Senate in
which he referred repeatedly to cures of cancer victims by the
use of the Hoxsey treatment. It will be seen therefore that
the materials consistently extolled the merits of the Hoxsey
drugs in terms which the average layman would understand and
which would be appealing to persons afflicted with the disease
of cancer. Although modestly disclaiming that the drugs were
a "cure_all" and putting the case for the tablets in terms of
"you be the judge," the literature nevertheless explained what
the drugs were for and implied that they were effective and
superior medicines. The facts were clear and great liberality
was shown in permitting the jury to pass upon the contention
that the literature was not labeling.
In their second point, claimants argue that the drug
articles in question were not "held for sale * * * after
shipment in interstate commerce" within the meaning of §
304(a), supra. However, they concede that the red and black
tablets were shipped in interstate commerce and were the
"essential part" of the Hoxsey treatment for internal cancer in
humans and that in the ordinary case a charge of $400 was made
for a complete course of treatment exclusive of laboratory fees
and X_ray charges. Upon those undisputed facts it would seem
clear that the articles were held for sale. Claimants urge
nevertheless that the drugs were intended, not for sale in the
statutory sense, but for prescription by physicians in the
pursuit of a local practice of medicine with which the act was
not intended to deal and with which this court could not
interfere. In this contention they are wrong.
The overriding purpose of the federal Food and Drugs Law was
to protect the lives and health of the public by keeping
misbranded, adulterated and impure foods and drugs out of the
channels of interstate commerce. The coverage of the statute
was enlarged by the Act of 1938 to every article that had gone
through interstate commerce until it finally reached the
ultimate consumer by making its prohibitions applicable to
such articles "while * * * held for sale after shipment in
interstate commerce." United States v. Sullivan, 1947,
332 U.S. 689, 697, 68 S.Ct. 331, 336, 92 L.Ed. 297. It may be that
physicians are not understood as holding for sale the drugs
which they may administer or prescribe in connection with
their treatment of patients. But the potentiality of harm to
the public from misbranded drugs is not less because the
intervening agency of distribution may be a physician rather
than a layman. The terms
West Page 365
"while held for sale" have been given an expansive rather than
a technical construction, United States v. Koemond, 7 Cir.,
1952, 200 F.2d 370, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 924,
73 S.Ct. 782, 97 L.Ed. 1355; United States v. 1800.2625 Wine Gallons,
D.C.W.D.Mo. 1954, 121 F. Supp. 735, and must be deemed to
include the operations of the claimants in distributing their
drug tablets at the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic. It is not the
holding for sale in a technical legal sense which gives rise
to the federal jurisdiction in cases arising under § 304(a) but
the fact that the channels of commerce have been used. United
States v. 1800.2625 Wine Gallons, supra. Since interstate
transportation has been admitted, the ban of the section
applies to the tablets here involved regardless of the claims
of the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic and Dr. Newton C. Allen, its
medical director. If forfeiture works any interference with
claimants' practice of medicine it is a mere incident of their
violation of the law in making representations concerning their
drugs which the jury found were unwarranted, false or
misleading.[fn6]
The only other point which is urged in support of the motion
for judgment may be dismissed without much discussion.
Claimants say that the proper standard to be applied in
determining whether there was a misbranding of the Hoxsey
tablets while they were "held for sale" is to be found in
subsection (k) of § 301 of the act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 331(k), which
prohibits:
"The alteration, mutilation, destruction,
obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part
of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act
with respect to, a food, drug, device, or
cosmetic, if such act is done while such article
is held for sale (whether or not the first sale)
after shipment in interstate commerce and results
in such article being adulterated or misbranded."
Claimants construe that language very narrowly and say that
the government failed to sustain its burden of proof because
it did not show that anything affirmative was done to the
drugs themselves, which remained undisturbed in their original
containers. Section 301 sets forth "Prohibited Acts" and § 303,
21 U.S.C.A. § 333 makes violation of the provisions of § 301 a
criminal offense. Section 301 had no real application in this
civil proceeding for condemnation of misbranded drugs under §
304(a). In any event, the bringing into association of the
alleged labeling and the drugs was a sufficient act "with
respect to" the drugs which in this case rendered them
misbranded.
The Motion for a New Trial
Although more than twenty overlapping reasons have been
assigned in the motion for a new trial, all except those set
forth under points 4, 6, 8, 15 and 17 were expressly abandoned
by counsel for claimants on argument. Points 4 and 6 deal with
asserted errors in the admission of evidence; the remaining
points present alleged errors in the charge to the jury. The
objections to the evidence are dealt with first.
The testimony of Shanley and Gulledge, federal food and drug
agents. Shanley at the Portage Clinic and Gulledge at the
Dallas Clinic, posing as cancer patients, were examined in the
customary manner, told they had cancer and given a supply of
the Hoxsey medication to take home and consume. Neither had
cancer. The testimony was offered to show the similarity of
procedures at the two clinics and the inadequacy of the
procedures. The evidence, with other evidence in the case, was
relevant as bearing on the relationship between the two clinics
and on the question whether there was privity between the
Portage Clinic and the Dallas Clinic and Harry M. Hoxsey,
against whom and the Dallas Clinic a prior injunctive decree
had been entered. When the application of the
West Page 366
doctrine of collateral estoppel was exclusively reserved to
the court at the end of the case by withdrawing the question
of privity from the jury, the testimony of Shanley and
Gulledge, say the claimants, stuck out like a sore thumb. In
a case of long duration involving contested issues of legal
and factual complexity, it was impossible to foresee the exact
boundaries of the case to be submitted. The members of the
jury were told they were not to concern themselves with the
question of privity; they were told that the question of
misbranding did not depend on the intention or motives of
those distributing the drugs and that the diagnostic abilities
of the staff of the clinic were not in question. Under the
circumstances, this was sufficient.
The evidence revealing the deaths of Crescens Klemmer, James
Barger and Nicolei Lupanov. These persons were cancer victims
who were treated according to the Hoxsey method. The account of
their medical history, illness and death by relatives and
physicians was pertinent in showing whether they had been thus
effectively treated for their disease. It was not suggested to
the jury that their deaths were conclusive on the question.
Similar testimony was admitted in United States v. Kaadt, 7
Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 600, 603, a case involving a claimed cure
for diabetes.
The cross_examination of Doctor West. On direct examination,
West (employed as director of research at the Hoxsey
institution in Dallas, Texas) supported the claim of merit for
potassium iodide, the principal ingredient of the Hoxsey
medicines, which, according to his statement, had produced good
results in a large number of cases by a process of
strangulation or asphyxiation of abnormal tissue. The testimony
of the government's expert medical witnesses and researchers
had indicated that potassium iodide was either of no effect or
harmful in the treatment of cancer. Without first interrogating
West as to a past criminal record, government counsel placed in
evidence a certified copy of a complaint and record[fn7]
revealing that on May 14, 1953, the witness pleaded guilty to a
charge of practicing medicine without a license in the City of
Los Angeles. This procedure did not amount to a reversible
error. 3 Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.) § 980. In addition it
was shown through official records of the State of New
York[fn8] that West had been denied permission in 1951 to
practice medicine in New York because of insufficient training.
Both matters affected the qualifications of the witness, which
were directly in issue, and were properly received.
In their motion for a new trial, claimants renew their
argument relating to the holding for sale of the tablets in
question, this time contending that whether the tablets were
held for sale within the meaning of the statute should have
been determined by the jury and not by the court as a matter
of law. The court has adverted to and discussed the "held for
sale" requirement of § 304(a) extensively and has pointed out
that there was no substantial dispute as to the important
factors for determining whether there was a statutory holding
for sale: a substantial charge was made for the course of
treatment by the Hoxsey method and the treatment included
prescription of the tablets as its essential part. The tablets
at the time of the seizure had not yet reached the hands of the
ultimate consumers and were therefore held for sale. United
States v. Kocmond, supra, 200 F.2d at page 373. Nothing
remained for the jury.
Claimants take the view that the court erred in telling the
jury to consider in determining whether the Hoxsey medications
were misbranded the impression which the various articles of
literature would have upon the minds of victims of internal
cancer who came to the clinic as patients. Although exception
was taken to this point in the charge, claimants did not
either before or afterwards suggest to the court what other
West Page 367
standard they thought proper. However, the given instruction
was appropriate. Claimants designedly or at least willingly
made the labeling available for the use of unfortunate persons
who were afflicted with cancer or who thought they were and
who had come to the clinic for help. The literature would
naturally appeal to those persons as it was undoubtedly
intended to. They were the persons upon whom it would have its
greatest effect because they were likely to be less critical,
and less apt to question the representations by laymen and
others reported in the leaflets. It is therefore only fitting
that the truth or falsity of the literature or its misleading
nature be measured by its significance to them and not to
persons who for one reason or another would be likely to form
a more critical judgment. In this conclusion, the court is
supported by plentiful authority. United States v. Vitamin
Industries, Inc., D.C.Neb. 1955, 130 F. Supp. 755, 767; United
States v. 23 More or Less Articles, 2 Cir., 1951,
192 F.2d 308, 310; United States v. Kaadt, supra, 171 F.2d at page 603;
United States v. Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, 5 Cir., 1952,
198 F.2d 273, 276, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 928, 73 S.Ct. 496,
97 L.Ed. 714, rehearing denied 345 U.S. 914, 73 S.Ct. 642,
97 L.Ed. 1348.
The next argument is that it was a reversible error to tell
the jury that the question whether one suffering from internal
cancer has received adequate and effective treatment was
"essentially a medical question." A new trial will not be
awarded for this reason. Claimants argue that the statement
required the jury to give more credence to the doctors who
testified than to the patients themselves who were called by
claimants to testify as to their physical conditions before
and after receiving the Hoxsey treatment. Assuming this would
have been improper, claimants' assignment is merely an
instance of the long discountenanced practice of leveling
attacks at an isolated portion of the charge without regard to
what was said before and after. The issues to be decided were
made clear to a jury which after many weeks of trial was well
aware of the contentions and proofs of both parties and
equipped with more knowledge about the disease of cancer than
most laymen would ever acquire. They were told to evaluate
claimants' evidence in light of all the testimony, including
that of the doctors offered on both sides. There is no just
cause for complaint.
There remains to be considered only the assignments raising
the propriety of the submission to the jury of certain
statements in the printed matter as separate instances of
misbranding. The first of these[fn9] set forth a summary of a
report by Dr. George Hiley, described as medical director of
the Gotham Hospital, New York, and having impressive
qualifications, to a Congressional Committee relating to a
survey of cancer patients in Pennsylvania allegedly conducted
by Dr. Stanley Reimann. The substance of the report, as
summarized, was that Reimann's survey "over a long period of
time" had established that cancer patients fared better if
they did not receive treatment by radium, X_ray or ordinary
surgery. All of this, including the making of such a survey,
was denied by Dr. Reimann who was called as a witness for the
government and who also testified that he had notified the
committee that Miley's report was inaccurate. The literature
did not note his protest. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 321(n). Claimants
urge that no instance of misbranding was shown because the
report had in fact been made as set forth in the literature.
However, at least by indirection the printed matter created an
impression that it was a fact that such a survey had been made
and that the survey justified the conclusions asserted. It
would naturally tend to have greater effect upon a susceptible
reader not only because the author of the report was a member
of the medical profession but also because of the dignity of
the forum to which the report was addressed. On the evidence
the jury could have found that the facts implied in
West Page 368
claimants' literature were untrue. It is not possible for
claimants to escape responsibility for those implications now.
Drawn as they were, the statements made a more persuasive
appeal to cancer sufferers than if the representations implied
had been made directly by claimants alone and for that reason,
it has been said, they are not less but more obnoxious to the
law. United States v. John J. Fulton Co., 9 Cir., 1929,
33 F.2d 506; cf. United States v. Dr. David Roberts Veterinary
Co., Inc., 7 Cir., 1939, 104 F.2d 785, 789; cf. Moretrench
Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission, 2 Cir., 1942,
127 F.2d 792, 795. In submitting the issue to the jury, the court
merely followed the explicit canon of construction of the act
which the Supreme Court long ago set forth in United States v.
95 Barrels More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar,
265 U.S. 438, 442, 44 S.Ct. 529, 531, 68 L.Ed. 1094:
"The statute is plain and direct. Its
comprehensive terms condemn every statement,
design and device which may mislead or deceive.
Deception may result from the use of statements
not technically false or which may be literally
true. The aim of the statute is to prevent that
resulting from indirection and ambiguity, as well
as from statements which are false. It is not
difficult to choose statements, designs and
devices which will not deceive. Those which are
ambiguous and liable to mislead should be read
favorably to the accomplishment of the purpose of
the act * * *."
The second challenged statement is found in the printed
matter[fn10] under the heading "Court Rulings." In the text
appears a discussion of proceedings instituted by the United
States against the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic of Dallas, Texas, and
Harry M. Hoxsey in the District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. Then follows the statement that the
District Court in obedience to the mandate of the Court of
Appeals (5 Cir., 198 F.2d 273), on June 29, 1953, entered a
decree of injunction restraining the distribution in
interstate commerce of the Hoxsey medications containing
labeling representing that the substances were effective or of
value in the treatment of cancer "without appropriate
qualifying statements revealing the conflict of medical opinion
as to the truth of such representations." What the printed
matter failed to mention was that in mandamus proceedings
instituted against the District Judge, the Court of Appeals
determined that its mandate had not been obeyed and required
the lower court to expunge from its decree the qualifying
phrase quoted above. 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 567. This was done on
October 26, 1953.[fn11] Claimants do not deny the false or
misleading character of the representations made in the
literature but simply suggest that the omissions were not
material. This contention boils down to an argument that the
misrepresentations could not possibly be "labeling" - i.e.,
printed matter accompanying the drug in the sense of explaining
its use or usefulness. Kordel v. United States, supra. The
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit after carefully weighing
the evidence in the case had actually concluded as a fact that
the drugs, substantially identical to those involved here, were
of no value in the treatment of cancer, but the literature
created the impression that the Court had taken an indecisive
stand. It is the view of this court that the considered
judgment of such a tribunal of the United States with respect
to the merits of the very substances in question would
necessarily be of significance to any person interested enough
to read about the Hoxsey remedy and particularly to those who
were confronted with the choice of accepting or declining the
Hoxsey treatment. By implying that a court of the United States
had sanctioned the making of claims of effectiveness for the
drugs, the literature gave the impression that the Hoxsey
remedy in fact had merit and in this sense directly explained
its
West Page 369
usefulness. At most, the question is one upon which reasonable
persons could differ.
The vital issue in this case was the efficacy of the Hoxsey
treatment for internal cancer in humans. No claim is made that
the question of the adequacy and effectiveness of the tablets
was improperly submitted to the jury. Claimants were given the
fullest opportunity to state their case for the drugs but
their evidence was rejected by the jury. The court is not
called upon in this opinion to discuss the sufficiency of the
government's expert and lay testimony showing that the drugs
were without merit in the treatment of cancer and observes
only that the verdict of the jury is supported by persuasive
and overwhelming evidence. The Hoxsey medications have again
been weighed and found wanting.
The motions for judgment and a new trial will be denied.
[fn1] Government Exhibit 24.
[fn2] Government Exhibit 41.
[fn3] Government Exhibit 42.
[fn4] Government Exhibit 43.
[fn5] Government Exhibit 39.
[fn6] When Congress intended to exempt licensed practitioners
from the operation of the Act, it spoke plainly enough. See
§ 503(b)(2), 21 U.S.C.A. § 353(b)(2).
[fn7] Government Exhibit 210.
[fn8] Government Exhibit 209.
[fn9] Government Exhibit 24, p. 8.
[fn10] Government Exhibit 24, pp. 5_8.
[fn11] Government Exhibit 121.
West Page 370
-
I wish someone would put drug companies on trial for the chemos they give us. Many would be complete shocked at the poor success rate and how many die for chemo side effects.
Flalady
-
Hi blaest2
Thanks for your post.
As you can see Hoxsey did cure cancers although not all.
Althought I am not questioning the specailist doctors that testify a few things we need to ponder:-
1. Are they part of the group which is mentioned in the video.
2. Are they biase in thier practice as in they are open to accepting new treatments or alternative medication. Some doctors just can't accept alternative medication, example they will tell you that chinese medicine has this and that contents that will harm peoples' health but in actual essence the medication will consist of a few different herbs that counter the poisons of one plant thereby only taking the good of the plants.
Many people were cured of the disease throuhout ages.
3. The bodies are very powerful, influential and rich. Who is to say whether they did or not influence the test directly or directly? ... Just a thought...
I say that the fact that Hoxsey managed to treat some cancer patients has its merits for the authorities to look into it.
Why until now nobody (gov't bodies) has taken the initiate to really look into this? The mere mentioned "waste of taxpayers' money" is not a good excuse. In fact each and every known cures must be investigated regardless the money to save the future generations from this dreaded disease.
Just my thoughts.....
-
Blaest2
First I apologize to the ladies of this thread for posting this here, I am curious and hope to get an answer.
Blaest2
What perverse pleasure do you get coming to this site to aggravate and insult ladies who have cancer. You change your name from worriedhubby to truthseeker to blaest and then the addendum Numbers to keep posting. You claim to be a lawyer from Fla. yet you are void in the concept of common law. You cut and paste from west but seem to have trouble with simple legal terms.
The ability to insult, intimidate, or cyber stalk is not a virtue most of us strive for. Are you limited in social interaction, an inmate, or just one in need of help. Intelligence is not measured by harmful or hateful retorts. The ability to reason and step in the shoes of the one you debate will prove you IQ. Or in your case disprove it.
Again I apologize to the ladies here for interrupting your conversation.
-
I suppose Lauren it is a question of priorities and limited resources, and quite frankly, where the money is to be made. I agree that drugs are where the money is and that is where the research dollars are going to go. But come on, where do you draw the line about what is credible or not? Yes doctors are biased and know only what they are taught, but do you truly think scientists would hide or subvert a cure for cancer if it were really available? I just don't think that possible.
-
unfortunately FL Lady, its the best we have right now. At least there is now, to a degree, individualized treatment so that many can avoid chemo who would not have just a few short years ago.
-
Wow IBC, I'm willing to bet you are not considered a very nice person. I suppose that's why you are so popular on the Republican Thread.
-
HOXSEY CANCER CURE
Hope for Sale
People tend to look first to the medical community for cures to their diseases. When doctors fail, desperate patients seek hope in the form of quackery. Because it was so frightening and because medical researchers were frustrated in their efforts to find a cure, cancer attracted an unusual share of fake healers.
Coal Miner's Recipe
Among the most persistent was Harry M. Hoxsey, a coal miner who began selling liquid medicines and pills in 1924, promising miracle cures to cancer victims. According to his own account, Hoxsey's cancer medicine included licorice, red clover, burdock root, stillingia root, barberis root, poke root, cascara, prickly ash bark, buckthorn bark, and potassium iodide, an old family recipe. His grandfather developed the medicine to cure horses. The Food and Drug Administration ruled that Hoxsey's pills were useless for humans and maybe even promoted the growth of cancer.
The Cost of Treatment
Hoxsey survived many local, state, and federal attempts over the years to put him out of business, producing with unflagging energy a succession of patients attesting to cures at his seventeen clinics, with main offices in Dallas, Texas, and Portage, Pennsylvania. The cost was $460 per treatment in the mid 1950s. The FDA charged that Hoxsey's cures, which numbered in the hundreds by his account, fell into three categories: 1) people who never had cancer, 2) people who were treated by legitimate doctors as well as Hoxsey, and 3) people who died of cancer despite Hoxsey's pills.
Hoxsey was considered so pervasive a threat that the FDA issued a circular titled Public Beware! Warning Against the Hoxsey Cancer Cure. But he was not deterred. Hoxsey continued to offer cancer victims the benefit of his cure until his death in 1973 of pancreatic cancer at the age of seventy-two.
Physician, heal thyself......
As a lifelong volunteer fundraiser for cancer research, I see much hope in targeted gene therapies as well as other novel treatments. If someone is healed with roots and herbs and alkaline water, good. I think I'd rather try those miracle waters in Australia!
Good luck to us here who should be here!
-
HI Everyone:
Read this article..... trial out of Israel.... they mention not wanting to suppress the immune system... well what does chemo do? I feel like I've been walking down the wrong road for three months with the way my care has been handled. Wish I had this information sooner.
-
i read another article that Dexadron can actually protect the cancer cells from apoptysis (dying) during chemo but am unable to paste the page probably because of copy right restrictions. It worked in an email that I sent but will not paste on here. The article came from this book but will not take me to the page 241 where it is written under section E "Cell Survival".
-
Thank you... ibcspouse and YES you are a nice person:)
Flalady
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team