As printed in the Bracebridge Examiner 1979 (Post humously by her request.)
Part 9
Essiac the subject of unfair hearing.
The inquest mentioned last week into the death of
Mrs Gilrouth was conducted by Dr S. Lawson of the Attorney General's department
and Dr E G Ellis, Coroner of Bracebridge Prof. Robinson, Prof. of Pathology
at the University of Toronto (one of the most distinguished pathologists
on the continent), and Dr Edgar Frankish, the Medical Legal Expert of the
Attorney General's department, made the post-mortem examination on Mrs
Gilrouth. Professor Robinson said that Dr Frankish had taken certain of
the organs to Toronto to study. The cause of death, Dr Frankish said, was
a large circular embolism in the pulmonary artery. The cause of death in
his report was - "Pulmonary Embolism". Professor Robinson said that in
one of the clots he found two fibrous tissue cells and he knew that the
clots were not new.
"In any event," he said, "there would have been no
time between the ' Essiac' injection and death, for such a clot to form."
He agreed with Dr Frankish that death was due to
a pulmonary embolism. I have asked myself many times why they subjected
me to this trial. Was it to afford publicity that would make the patients
and public less confident in the efficacy of " Essiac" as a beneficial treatment
for cancer? If it was, it failed its purpose, because more and more patients
came for treatment after the trial, than had been coming before, and more
doctors visited my clinic to see for themselves what was going on.
It seems so many years ago that I was a young nurse
full of enthusiasm for my work and love and respect for the profession
I had chosen, and full of love and respect for the doctors I had worked
with. Doctors in that day were doctors, dedicated men. Their oath meant
something to them. Their lives were dedicated to the healing of the sick,
the helping of suffering humanity in every way possible. It was a privilege
to be called to the bedside of the sick who needed them. There are still
such doctors today, but they are servile to the "powers that be", and cannot
do as they would wish to do. I found this out when I tried to prove the
merits of " Essiac - Herbal Treatment for Cancer", independent of the Cancer
Society.
After trying for over twenty-five years and presenting every possible type of proof demanded
to have my discovery of " Essiac" accepted by the medical profession,
It is my opinion that cancer is a closed book, because
if any cancer cure was discovered and accepted, it would revolutionise
the whole present day method of treatments.
It would do away with radium, deep x-ray and to some extent - surgery,
as treatments of cancer. It would also lose for the Cancer Organisation, control of the millions of dollars freely given
by our government and the public
In the
hope
of finding a cure for this Dread disease.
It is also my opinion that this Organisation has
powers beyond and not subject to our common laws. They have their own police
and their own Courts of Law, where they hear and report upon everything
presented as a cure or beneficial treatment for cancer. All these hearings
are held "in camera" and their report is accepted. The discoverer of the
treatment has no comeback. I speak with authority, because I was subjected
to such a hearing at such a loss, as this summary tells of my hearing before
the Ontario Cancer Control Board in 1938:
Report
The cases have been numbered for convenience and
in the following analysis, the forty-nine cases are referred to by number
only:
Diagnosis By Biopsy
| Recoveries attributable to radiation: |
3
|
| Recoveries attributable to surgery: |
1
|
| Recoveries attributable to Essiac: |
1
|
| Recoveries attributable to radiation plus Essiac: |
1
|
| Improvement claimed from Essiac: |
2
|
| TOTAL |
8 |
Diagnosis based on X-ray
|
No
|
CANCER
|
Treatment
|
RESULT
|
Comment
|
|
#10
|
STOMACH
|
Essiac only
|
RECOVERY
|
X-ray April 1937: large growth at the outlet of
the stomach too extensive for removal
X-ray September - no sign of growth or scarring.
X-ray October - very marked improvement over those taken
in April.
The first and last sets were done in the same lab. It is believed
the original reports were contradictory - an extensive cancer in or about
the stomach could not disappear without leaving a scar and this should
be detected by x-ray. |
|
#12
|
STOMACH
|
Essiac only
|
RECOVERY
|
X-ray report : "Probable suspicion of cancer." |
|
#16
|
STOMACH
|
Essiac only
|
.
|
X-Ray "Growth". :After some treatment, says "he passed it" (4'
long, 3/4" wide). |
|
#18
|
RECTUM
|
Essiac only
|
RECOVERY
|
X-ray report :"none of the usual symptoms of cancer of the rectum. |
|
#29
|
STOMACH
|
Essiac only
|
GETTING BETTER
|
.
|
|
#30
|
COLON
|
Essiac only
|
IMPROVEMENT
|
X-ray: "Diagnosis not positive." |
|
#36
|
BOWEL
|
Essiac only
|
RECOVERY
|
.
|
|
#41
|
COLON
|
Essiac only
|
LUMP SMALLER
|
.
|
|
#46
|
RECTUM
|
Essiac only
|
RECOVERY
|
X-ray: "discharge of pus from rectum after first treatment.
Wrong diagnosis. |
|
#48
|
RECTUM
|
Essiac only
|
. |
After some treatment something broke. Large discharge of pus
with immediate relief. Wrong diagnosis. |
| Diagnosis wrong . |
#16, #46, #48
|
| Diagnosis questionable. |
#10, #18
|
| Diagnosis not positive. |
#12, #30.
|
| Diagnosis accepted. |
#29, #36,# 41
|
| Recovery attributed to Essiac: |
1
|
| Improvement claimed from Essiac: |
2
|
|
|
|
