The Ashwin is a webzine for ΑΩ Labs' customers -- June, 2017 Edition Formatted to 920 pixel width in this issue. Related Link: Ashwin Archives

"First We Ban Black Salve --
Then We Ban Water . . . "

"A global culture that cultivates all things fake --
fake news, fake education, fake medicine, fake science --
as long as it serves a financial or political agenda, is the
hallmark of a system that can ban anything useful to man . . .
or even things vital to the sustenance of life on this planet. "

Not even a week ago, I posted an Ashwin article for May (2017) that covered just now fake and fraudulent the world of orthodox medicine, in general, and peer reviewed medical studies, in particular, had become. If you haven't read the article, you should, because it segues into what I'm going to talk about with this installment.
Because so many people know that I work as both an herbalist and a medical researcher, I routinely get email from people who want my opinion about this study or that -- the majority of which are, like the studies mentioned in my previous Ashwin, peer-reviewed and/or made available through publication in a prominent medical journal. A couple months ago, I was sent a PDF of a review article from Australia entitled, " A Review of Black Salve: Cancer Specificity, Cure, and Cosmesis." 1 The person who sent me this said I really ought to read it, because several of the citations were taken from my own work, though overall not in a complementary light. (Do these people know Dr. Oz?) Before I get started, I want to make it clear that I'm not here to trash the entire endeavor. (The authors make clear in their introduction that "herbal medicines should not be dismissed without consideration," which is somewhat encouraging.) In fact, there are a few things discussed therein that I myself have emphasized, but -- once again -- this "review," authored, as it was, by five contributors who come straight from the bowels of orthodoxy, is not without a self-serving slant, which is -- in the points I enumerate below -- at odds with the experiences of naturopaths worldwide who are well versed in the practice of using escharotics. (Note that in my discussion below, I leave out, as much as possible, any reduplication of the studies / footnotes cited, as this is unnecessarily repetitive. Since I proceed through the review article's main points in the same order they appear in the document, readers can easily follow without undue redundancy.)
Let's go through my points of contention:

1. Recent Origins of Black Salve. This may seem unimportant, but early in this document, the authors lay the origin of "Black Salve" at the feet of American surgeon, Dr. Jesse Fell, circa 1858. 2 I am not unfamiliar with Fell's work, as I wrote about this in Meditopia thirteen years ago. 3. But if we broaden our search for "Cancer Salves" with caustic properties, we could confirm its origins at least to Hildegard of Bingen in the 12th Century. 4
   But even if we restrict ourselves to Black Salves with zinc chloride as an ingredient, our search would take us back thousands of years to ancient Egypt. As I make clear in my page on zinc chloride, Christopher Dunn has unearthed evidence that zinc chloride was clearly being manufactured INSIDE the pyramid of Giza. Although its varied uses in antiquity are unclear and our evidence circumstantial, are we to believe that the ancient Egyptians manufactured zinc chloride thousands of years ago, and were somehow ignorant of its ability to be mixed with a wide range of botanical material and work in the treatment of malignancies? Remember, we're talking about an advanced race of humanoids who produced feats of engineering that we cannot reduplicate to this very day.
   Yeah. Sure.
   My problem with this seemingly insignificant piece of poor academics is that it's based on an attempt to de-legitimize Black Salves by sounding as if they're of recent development -- a good 100 years into the industrial age. This runs parallel to their argument that Black Salves are untested and unproven (which we'll examine more closely shortly). After all, in the over 150 years that Black Salves have been more aggressively used around the world -- studied, tested, with numerous books written about them -- we couldn't possibly have enough evidence to know what they are, what they do, and the most effective formulary combinations, now could we? (Think about that.)
   
   
2. " Black Salve isn't natural. " Here's their logic: ( 1 ) Zinc Chloride & DMSO are "synthetic chemicals." ( 2 ) Both chemicals are frequently used to make Black Salve (particularly the former). ( 3 ) Therefore, Black Salve can't be a natural product.
   It isn't just that these two compounds are frequently used. The authors say that "black salve contains significant quantities of synthetic chemicals." (Plural.) And since we all learned new math in school, we all know what a huge number two is.
   First of all, the truth is that DMSO is rarely used to make Black Salve. At Alpha Omega Labs we only use it to make a variation called "Deep Tissue," and the only reason we use DMSO is because it enhances transdermal penetration. However, it is hardly a "requirement" to make an effective topical escharotic. Of all the U.S. patents that are cited in Chapter 1 of Meditopia, none that I know of lists DMSO as an ingredient. 5
   Furthermore, the authors work even more vigorously to test the stupidity of their readers by openingly admitting that DMSO is found in "cereals, fruits, and vegetables" -- (which presumably even the authors might admit are natural in origin) -- but since commercially sold DMSO is made from lignins, the suggestion that it's natural is somehow made illegitimate. The authors are insinuating that a molecule of DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide, or (CH3)2SO) from nature is different than a molecule of DMSO made synthetically. This is reminescent of the work of Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, who in their international bestseller, Life Extension (1982), devote an entire chapter making light of those who would suggest that natural molecular structures and and the very same compounds made synthetically were somehow different. 6 What bothers me is that the language used by the authors is intended to make it "sound" more artificial: "DMSO's chemical synthesis utilizes lignins free methyl radicals; these are coupled to sulphur and then oxidized." This is true, but so what? So what?
   What if we tell consumers instead that DMSO is a powerful scavenger of hydroxyl free radicals, "which are responsible for much of the damage which occurs following a crushing injury and which have also been implicated in arthritis." 7 Or that its use in Black Salve is aided by the fact that "DMSO penetrates the skin, acting as a powerful inhibitor of free radical activity . . . (that it) reduces the free radical damage and thereby allows faster healing." 8. What would such a revelation do to the ridiculous statement made in the authors' closing paragraph on this subject: "This knowledge may alter the treatment choices of CAM patients, a population often wanting to reduce their exposure to unnatural compounds." 9
   Now let's go back to the one remaining "unnatural" compound mentioned in the paper: zinc chloride. Although the authors admit that zinc chloride occurs naturally in the rare mineral, simonkolleite, they use the same ridiculous logic as they do with DMSO to suggest that because it is commercially "manufactured," it must somehow be artificial. Yes, zinc chloride is made from zinc metal and hydrochloric acid -- both compounds that are found in HUGE supply throughout nature. What we have here is a simple inorganic chemical reaction. How else would the authors propose that you make it? Is one molecule of ZnCl2 derived from simonkolleite any different than one molecule of ZnCl2 made by combined zinc and hydrochloric acid? Does the fact that zinc chloride is "manufactured" make it any less natural?
   What bothers me about this entire polemic -- and I see it all the time in my work -- is that given who is delivering the message, what we're dealing with here is what psychologists call reverse projection. The entire pharmaceutical industry is awash with molecular entities that exist nowhere in the natural world. Not on this planet. Not on any other planet. Not in our galaxy, and quite possibly in no other galaxy. This is true by definition and is a fundamental principle of patent medicine. If you want a proprietary "drug," you need to create a molecular entity that has not, hitherto, existed and been in commerce. Moreover, you need to construct fraudulent clinical studies that give lip service to the precautionary principle. How else are you going to prove that your new pharmaceutical drug, an unnatural molecular entity that can be found nowhere else in the known universe, is "completely safe"?
   Zinc chloride and DMSO may not be found in abundant amounts throughout nature -- but at least they exist. In addition, their judicious use do not bring a laundry list of side effects that are now part and parcel of most pharmaceutical drugs.
   The authors of this paper are not going to tell you any of this, so I will.
   
   
3. Black Salve indiscriminately attacks both healthy and malignant cells. The authors then spend the next two and half pages with a section entitled, "Black Salve Cancer Specificity and Normal Tissue Toxicity." 10 They begin with a footnote on the subject, taken from Altcancer.com FAQ 11 Therein, I indicate that a well-made escharotic (i.e. "Black Salve") attacks cancerous tissue and not healthy. I stand by this statement because it comports with my experience in working with escharotis since 1989, and communicating with thousands of end users -- falling into three categories: people who have used a Black Salve I made, people who have used a Black Salve made by another company, and people who have made Black Salve for themselves. The exception is certain systemic conditions to which I devote a separate page. 12
   Before we delve into the minutia of this section, let me say on the onset that this is yet another area of misinformation that I have to deal with routinely. If what the authors say in this section were true, I wouldn't get so many people calling me, asking why a Black Salve they have applied to a benign growth that they "thought" might be a malignancy, induces no reaction. This would not be possible if the authors or the authorities they cite in their footnotes knew what they were talking about. (Additionally, if you simply peruse our pictorial and testimonial section, you can visually examine the high degree of differentiation exerted by the action of Cansema® -- a property shared with any well-prepared "Black Salve.")
   The authors' make their position clear in the closing paragraph of this section with the simple statement, "black salve can also cause normal tissue necrosis."
   It goes without saying that misuse of ANY natural product has bring unintended result. But to get Black Salve -- at least the variations we make -- to actually kill healthy cells requires you to ignore the instructions, usually by way of using the Salve excessively or with longer "residence times." Many natural products will do this. Recently, I did an experiment on myself that resulted in a significant burn on my head. Like a lot of men my age, I have alopecia (male pattern baldness), so I was experimenting with a combination of a Andean hot pepper oil from "Rocoto" (Capsicum pubescens) and mutamba (Gauzuma ulmifolia). I made a paste from this, applied it to my head, and then went to bed. I woke up about four hours later with an intense burning sensation, at which point I went to the bathroom and saw that I had actually burned myself. Quite simply, I had used too much cayenne oil. I removed the paste, applied H3O, and the burn was healed within an hour. I realize now that most any Capsicum would have induced this reaction. Had I applied Tabasco® sauce to my head under the same conditions, I would have gotten the same reaction if I'd left it on long enough. Considering the ways one can misuse hot peppers, maybe we should get them regulated as a potentially dangerous natural plant. Do you see how absurd this can get?
   Going back to the review paper at hand, what follows is a breakdown of individual phytopharmacological constituents of common Black Salve botanicals in a series of convoluted arguments (supported by numerous citations from orthodox sources) so absurd that it brings to mind Winston Churchill's famous quip concerning the grave danger to the English language of ending a sentence with a proposition: "This is errant pedantry up with which I shall not put!"
   First the paper focuses on the alkaloids of bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), in particular, sanguinaria. The examples that follow are flawed at the onset by one simple proposition: "As a therapeutic product containing multiple bioactive compounds, the discriminating ability of black salve can be gauged by the cytotoxic potential of its individual constituents against malignant and normal cells." 13 In other words, if you tear Black Salve down to its individual phytochemicals, the entire composition can be judged based on the isolated property exerted by one particular component.
   No, it can't.
   Let me give you an example:
   My first mentor in the use of escharotics was Dr. Russell Jordan -- whose work and influence on my own career is covered elsewhere. 14 Dr. Jordan was a co-founder of not one, but two, successful, conventional pharmaceutical companies. Towards the end of his career, he began to realize how grossly flawed the fundamental principles guiding the pharmaceutical industry were, and he openly expressed this to me. ( I created a theoretical framework to explain it in Meditopia. 15 )
   His first pharmaceutical company was Vipont Pharmaceutical, which made a very effective dentifrice that contained both zinc chloride and bloodroot, which makes this example particularly relevant. After his company was sold to Colgate-Palmolive for $88 million, the geniuses at Colgate thought they'd improve on Vipont's toothpaset formula by getting rid of the bloodroot, and use extractions of bloodroot to try and improve the formula. Apparently, it made no difference that Jordan and Vipont Pharmaceutical had 15 U.S. patents on bloodroot in connection with its use as a dentifrice, and were really quite knowledgeable on the subject of bloodroot and its properties. Certainly, the technical team at Vipont was infinitely more knowledgeable than the authors of this review paper we've been discussing and the researchers and studies they use to populate their footnote section.
   The result? A dismal failure.
   Jordan told me that Colgate's resulting formulations actually made the product less efficacious. And why was that? Well, as any experienced herbalist will tell you, the broken down constituents of an herbal rarely exert the same properties as the unfragmented botanical. A true herbal is a living, biochemical symphony. Sure you can segregate out the components of an orchestra into its violinists, violists, clarinetists, etc., but you can't change the fact that there is a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. The very foundation of modern pharmacology is an attempt to negate this Natural Law. No orthodoxist can appreciate this fact and stay true to their work. Russell Jordan, my mentor, (who has since passed on), spent an entire lifetime working in the trenches of the Medical Industrial Complex before coming to grips with this reality.
   Going back to the Review Article, the text goes from one fragmentational study to another, one on the effects of sanguinarine on A431 epidermoid carcinoma; another showing that cell death is induced, one in the case of squamous cell carcinoma by apoptosis, in the case of keratinocytes, by necrosis; etc. The isolated effects of different herbals used with escharotics, some of which we ourselves originated as the online pioneers of Black Salve beginning in 1995, is then covered.
   Next, the viability of Black Salve is questioned because of variances in the bioactive principles in various botanicals. One study in particular is mentioned stating that "bloodroot rhizomes have been shown to have an up to fifteenfold variation in sanguinarine concentration." 16 No mention is made of the fact that herbal manufacturers can create their own systems of quality control to ensure that their end products exhibit consistent results. [As an aside, when I was learning the techniques used by various herbalists and shamans in the Amazon, I found it interesting that they use organoleptics (primarily the visuals, taste, and smell of herbals) to decide what plants they were going to use. Orthodoxists will scoff at this, and yet, many of these same indigenous practitioners are hounded by foreigners who seek them out because they so frequently deliver better results than even the best conventional practitioners. You get a sense of this if you see Nick Polizzi's documentary, The Sacred Science (2011) or spend time on their website. Watch Nick's documentary here.]
   Taking into account these various framentational exercises posing as officialdom's divinely-inspired decree, the authors issue their edict: "With a number of black salve constituents possessing in vitro normal cell cytotoxicity at low concentrations, health claims regarding black salve tumour specificity appear false." This is followed by a section entitled, "In vivo evidence of nonselectivity: histology," whose findings are self-evidence on the basis of the section's title. This, despite the fact that this runs counter to the empirical findings of thousands of naturopaths and alternative practitioners who are skilled in the escharotic art. This, despite the fact that I know of numerous practitioners in third world countries who USE Black Salve as a diagnostic tool, something that would be impossible and make no sense whatsoever if Black Salves possessed no tumour cell specificity. This, despite the fact that it is evidence at its face that Black Salve would NEVER have achieved the popularity that it has if Black Salve -- (and now we're seeing more "reverse projection," because chemotherapy really IS an indiscriminate killer of cells ) -- possessed no specificity in its action. 17
   The Review Article then moves on to: "In vivo evidence of non-selectivity: Mohs Paste." I knew this was coming because, as I point out in Chapter 1 of Meditopia, the add-on of a surgical process is essential to making escharotic use more profitable for Big Medicine. They need to bring in the apologists to explain this away. The truth is that if orthodoxists were ever -- even for a moment -- to admit that Black Salve was selective in its action, then they would automatically be admitting that Moh's surgery is a fraud. They cannot do that. Not now. Not ever.
   They go on to say: "Using the fixed tissue method, Mohs 5-year cure rate, despite a complicated case load where 20% of patients had recurrent disease was 99.3% for BCC based on 7,257 cases and 94.4% for SCC based on 2,551 cases." 18 I'm not impressed. If you're a naturopath using a well-prepared escharotic and you cannot achieve percentages at least this good, then you're incompetent. The authors cite these figures so that people will think that the high success rate is attributable to the surgery. It's not. It's attributable to the escharotic. Attributing these success rates to the surgical component of Moh's is just misdirection.
   
   
4. Is Black Salve effective at curing cancer? The authors start out by stating that there are a mere "14 journal articles and abstracts that report the use of black salves derived from S. canadensis in 19 pathology confirmed skin cancers from 15 individuals." They continue, stating, "a number of Internet sites suggest that black salve can be used to treat melanoma effectively. The scientific literature does not support this claim." 19 Of course, it's not going to "support this claim."
   I suppose that I should write the untold number of people who have used Black Salve that I have communicated with over the years and inform them that the melanoma they got rid of years ago is a myth. They're wrong. Their doctors are wrong. The pathologists who confirmed their cancer-free state are wrong. And why are they wrong? Because their cures cannot be confirmed with conventional extant scientific literature.
   The authors continue by noting instances where patients are told that their use of Black Salve was unsuccessful, so conventional intervention was required. This is both predictable and, in my experience, routine. In one case, the patient dies of "metastatic BCC despite radical neck lymphadenectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy." The implication here is that the patient might be alive today had they not used Black Salve. Is it possible that the patient could have died from the surgery and radiotherapy -- both highly invasive? No, of course not. Let's not give that a second thought.
   From there, the report boasts high rates of success for surgical intervention -- something that contradicts what I see in my world. A huge percentage of our customers over the years have come to us as a result of metastasis following surgery? And why not? Physicians have known for 2,400 years that surgical intervention in treating cancer is inherently metastatic.
   The authors then end this section by emphasizing that "without an understanding of skin cancer biology and behaviour, unsuitable lesions can be selected by patients for black salve topical treatment, placing them at increased risk of recurrence and metastatic disease." 20 Just what is that risk? 2%? 5%? I'm only asking because when Black Salve is used properly, recurrence should be rare, and metastasis should be almost nonexistent. Seeing the results that I have seen over the past 28 years, you would think that I live in another universe from that of the authors -- and not one that is parallel.
   
   
5. Does Black Salve cause less scarring than surgery? The authors begin this section by noting that the filling in of the decavitation -- a natural part of the escharotic process -- takes place through "secondary intention" healing. Automatically, the assumption is made that this is inferior to post-surgical wound healing after the wound edges are placed in apposition.
   This sounds logical, but, again, it does not comport with our experiences. I myself have treated 12 to 15 different malignant growths since 1989, depending on how you count them: under my eye, at the edge of my lips, right clavicle, left cheek, armpit, and back, in some places where there were multiple growths. In every case, there was minimal scarring and in most of those locations, you cannot even tell that the area was ever treated. I even posted pictures of my self-treatment at various locations at the bottom of QuackWatch rebuttal page, which I posted in 2009.
   Because a large percentage of the people I work with have ALSO had cancer growths surgically removed, they have a basis to make a comparison. What am I told? That in the vast majority of cases, the end result is less scarring and a more aesthetic appearance.
   Does any of this make any difference in the orthodox world? Of course, not. It hasn't received the imprimatur of medical authorities, nor has it gotten funding from a pharmaceutical company so that the results could be published in medical journal.
   So, it couldn't possible be true.
   It's "anecdotal" -- a curse word to orthodoxists -- principally because orthodoxists can't control people's perceptions with fake information they way they can in stuffing medical journals with fake, self-serving, highly misleading, clinical data.
   
   The authors also cite two cases where "the most extensive destruction however occurred with two female patients having the majority of their nose destroyed by black salve." There are two citations: #54 and #55. The latter involves a woman I know quite well named Sue Gilliatt, who admitted in a sworn deposition in July, 2004, that she used a variety of different products to treat her nose, so she doesn't even KNOW which one was responsible for damage. She also admits under oath that, in frustration, she removed her own nose with EMBROIDERY SCISSORS --- something I have to believe that most physicians would not recommend. I go into considerable detail in Chapter 3 of Meditopia as to just how fraudulent the Sue Gilliatt case is, wherein she and her doctors skillfully used the criminal justice system to get $800,000 in reparations out of my insurance company.
   What the authors leave out of their paper is the fact that in a highly litigious environment, "patients" will work with the plaintiff lawyers to make their case look as troubling as possible. They are highly incentivized to do this because the financial stakes are high and the elements necessary to secure the sympathies of a jury are well established. Product liability cases involve far more histrionics than they do factual representation. Any defense attorney specializing in product liability cases will tell you that.
   That said, let me tell what I know about escharotically-derived decavitations that do not fill in completely, having worked with thousands of cases in 28 years -- either using one of my products, or somebody else's. First of all, they are quite rare. I can recall no more than eight cases. Most occur in one of the following locations: nose, ears, or breasts. I know of one case involving an ear (a customer we had in Canada), three cases involving the nose (and, for the sake of arguement, I am including the case of Sue Gilliatt, and four cases involving the breast). In every one of these cases, the extent of the cancer growth was quite extensive, in terms of mass and area. In almost all of these cases, the doctor or doctors who were behind the original diagnosis recommended radical surgery to remove the affected part(s).
   For those practicing the escharotic art, let me tell you what we recommend: if you're dealing with a large cancer over an extensive area, know that the growth should always be removed in stages. Never attempt to take the growth all out at one time -- unless the growth is life-threatening, and physicians have advised the patient has a limited amount of time to live. By attacking a growth "in stages," there is sufficient cell memory to fill in the resulting decavitation completely. Instead of one significant "escharotic cycle," you have divided up the treatment to a series of "removal stages." One complete cycle is "shown" on our escharotic cycle page.
   I am personally aware of two extreme cases -- and in both cases the physicians who did the diagnosis recommended surgical removal from the onset, requiring cosmetic surgery in the aftermath -- where cosmetic surgery was required. In both cases, it involved the nose, and in both cases, the patient was satisfied with both the end result of the use of Black Salve, and the work done by their respective cosmetic surgeons.
   The authors then close with this damning indictment: "While portrayed as a cosmetically superior treatment to surgery, black salve's mechanism of action and suspected indiscriminate toxicity suggest this is not the case. Black salve has not spared a number of patients from requiring surgery to correct cosmetic damage or treat persisting malignancy. There are two issues here: cosmetic damage and persisting malignancy. As to "cosmetic damage," again, in my personal experience, this is very rare. A handful out of thousands of cases. As to "persisting malignancy," this is even more rare. I AM aware of a case that came to our attention two years ago. A man had a persistent SCC that covered a very large area of his right arm. The doctors recommended the amputation of the arm. We worked with this individual for several months, and although progress was made, the cancer grew faster than Black Salve could remove the cancer. In the end, the arm was amputated, as per the recommendation of the original physicians. It is the only such case that I have encountered in my many years of working with escharotics.
   
   
6. Discussion: The authors start off by attacking the Internet as an unregulated space where "there is the potential for inaccurate or misleading claims to result in choices leading to harmful health outcomes." This might be one of the few areas in which I agree with the authors' assessment. Again, drawing from last month's Ashwin, you have "bullshitters" in both the field of conventional and alternative medicine. However, only in conventional medicine has unending "bullshit" (again, I'm using Harry Frankfurt's definition for the term) been so thoroughly institutionalized, standardized, and made acceptable. When I hear conventional doctors talk about unreliable information on the internet, I do not disagree with them. But, then again, I cannot help but take note of the "reverse projection."
   I maintain that if you took out the fake, fraudulent, and rigged peer-reviewed studies, you'd have very little to publish. Most medical journals would have to go out of business. As far back as November, 2010, The Atlantic put out an article, entitled "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science," which opens with Greek hospitals duping immigrants by diagnosing them with appendicitis that they don't have, and moves on to other areas of official jaw-dropping fraud. The article's highlighted biostatistician, George Salanti, found after years of subsequent investigation that "as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed."
   Hmmm . . . 90% . . . new math . . . that's kinda high, isn't it?
   Is that why 90% of the information provided in this article review doesn't comport with my professional experience? Is there a correlation here?
   Fake studies in the medical field are now so prolific that according to a Guardian article published in August, 2015, retractions in academic journals have gone up more than 10 times, and keep in mind that medical journals have no built-in financial incentive to annoy their contributors by retracting their submissions and calling or implying that they're flawed. All of this, as I stated last month, has lead to a deep mistrust in official medical research and the articles that come out of them. It even lead Curt Rice to write an article in February, 2013, entitled, "Why you can't trust research: 3 problems with the quality of science, in which he concludes, "We have a system for communicating results in which the need for retraction is exploding, the replicability of research is diminishing, and the most standard measure of journal quality is becoming a farce." Although the article states that "ranking journals" is the problem, and that the system is broken "it should be abandoned," I suspect that something deeper is afoot.
   Truth just doesn't matter anymore.
   Like telling people that Black Salve isn't a natural product, when it is.
   Like telling people that Black Salve is indiscriminate in its action, when anyone who has experience with well-crafted escharotics knows this is patently false.
   Like telling people or suggesting that Black Salve produces more scarring that surgery, etc., when it is the overwhelming collective experience of those who have experienced both that this is patently untrue.
   
   The authors continue with a celebration of the success of the highly profitable Moh's procedure, followed by the a statement that is so breathtakingly bullshitty that I had to read it twice to confirm what I'd read: "Substituting highly effective conventional therapies with an unproven alternative such as black salve should not occur outside the framework of a clinical trial." [emphasis added] 21 What unfettered nonsense.
   Earlier in this article, the authors acknowledged that people were flocking to alternative medicine and the internet in record numbers (presumably in connection with cancer, the subject of this article review.)
   Is there anybody with an IQ above mid-double-digits who would believe that people would do this if conventional therapies -- most of which are paid for by the government and insurance companies, rather than the patient -- were highly effective?
   From this point, the authors segue into lamenting the availability of black salve, going so far as to cry over individuals making their own. (How dare people ever have the right to prepare their own health product for their personal use.) The unquestionable "takeaway" from this one section is that Black Salve should be banned at all cost.
   When you read between the lines, there is no other way to interpret what the authors are recommending.
   
   
7. Conclusion: More studies are needed. Yes. Always more studies. They're very profitable, you know!
   If you don't believe that black salve has been studied to death, go ahead and read Chapter 2 of Meditopia. Sixteen years ago, I wrote an article entitled, Impossible Dream: Why the Cancer Industry is Committed to Not Finding a Cure, and If They Do Run Across One, Suppressing It! If you think that there is anything about this article that is "fair and balanced," read that article.
   
   
8. Competing Interests. This entire section, resting just above the Reference section, is just one sentence long: "The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest."
   And with that little jewel, I rest my case as it relates to this Review Article.
   
   

---

I might close on that note, except that I am unnerved by the tone and obvious recommendation of the article, as much or more so as Dr. Oz's recommendation to have all Black Salve banned last month.
The problem is our time is that the general public has become so obtuse to the machinations of authority and "hive mentality," that with enough effort, authorities can ban almost anything.
With enough effort, you can get anything banned. You can get ordinary plants banned (i.e. marijuana). You can get Black Salve banned. Hell, you can get people to agree to ban or highly regulate WATER.
Back in 2006, Penn & Teller did a social experiment where they got everyday citizens to sign a petition, banning water. Yes, banning water. Now, granted, they used the term "dihydrogen monoxide" (H2O), but even if you flucked high school chemistry, would you be gullible enough to sign a petition to ban water. Before signing a petition, might you ask what's "dihydrogen monoxide" is?
If you think this is an anomaly, Alex Jones did the same social experiment ten years later and got the very same result.

Question: If you can find people who are stupid enough to sign a petition to ban water, how much easier would it be to get people to sign a petition banning black salve?
It scares me to contemplate the answer to my own question.
That is why it is more important than ever for people to stand up for their own sovereignty and speak the truth. Because if you don't, you get people who will read review articles by those advancing the tyranny of medical authorities. But even worse, you'll get people who just might be gullible enough to believe them.

© 2017 Alpha Omega Labs • Cuenca, Ecuador • All rights reserved. This page posted : 31 May 2017.