The Cancer Cure and Politics

Life's too short. What's the Hoxsey Cancer Cure?

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. 

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 

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. 

He's back...

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

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

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. 

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.

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!

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".

Psychoneuroimmunology - Google Book Search