Commentary

Dear Mr. Morgenthaler,

Thank you for the “Health & Wellness Update.” I look forward to each issue, and the solid information it provides.

Praise for
Smart Publications
Health & Wellness Update

"Wealth of information for anyone that chooses alternative healing methods. It's an education in itself just to read one of these newsletters! Every time I get one I read it from cover to cover! Easy to understand and easy to decipher when looking for products. Well done! It's a joy to read."

The Eggplant Cancer Cure

A Treatment for Skin Cancer and
New Hope for Other Cancers
From Natures Pharmacy

by Dr. Bill E. Cham, Ph.D.
$24.95 - 132 pages, hardcover

• Table of Contents
• Previous Chapter
• Next Chapter
  

CHAPTER 5:

Comparitive Available Treatment Regimes vs.
Curaderm BEC5

Various forms of Surgery vs. Curaderm BEC5

BCCs can be difficult to eliminate by other widely used procedures and 5 to 10 percent of BCCs can be resistant to treatment or locally aggressive, damaging the skin around them, and sometimes invading bone and cartilage. SCCs are more difficult to treat than BCCs and like BCCs, can cause disfigurement. A small proportion (3-5 percent) can spread to distant organs and become life-threatening.

Surgery is the most common treatment for these non-melanoma skin cancers. Unfortunately recurrence rates when surgical methods are used are very high (30-67 percent) for non-melanoma skin cancers55. Surgical excision is invasive with the attendant risks of infection and is expensive. Where surgical excision is adopted, reconstructive surgery may also be required to address residual scarring.

Tens of thousands of patients have now used Curaderm BEC5 successfully. Most patients have treated small to medium sized skin cancers. It has already been shown in Chapter 4 that large skin cancers can also be treated with Curaderm BEC5. In this Chapter it is now shown further that not only large, but also difficult to treat areas with skin cancers are also treated effectively with Curaderm BEC5. Surgical procedures for these skin cancers would have most likely resulted in disfigurement, skin grafting and other reconstructive surgery with the likelihood of loss of parts of the body. Figures 5-1 to 5-14 show clearly that skin cancers which are either large, invasive or positioned in areas where surgery or any other treatment procedures would have resulted in highly compromising results. The results with Curaderm BEC5, as can be seen, are exceptional. In particular one case is shown whereby the patient is an own internal control, meaning that the difference between Curaderm BEC5 therapy and surgery are directly comparable. This patient who was treated with Curaderm BEC5 for an SCC on the head visited his dermatologist after Curaderm BEC5 treatment because he had bumped his head accidentally. During the consultation his dermatologist questioned the patient’s participation in a Curaderm study and convinced the patient that Curaderm was unproven and that surgery was now necessary involving a skin graft on the Curaderm treated site. The patient was intimidated and scared and agreed to the surgery but requested the histological evidence after surgery that the SCC was still present following Curaderm therapy. After the surgery was completed, six areas of the surgically removed tissue representing the entire area of the surgically excised skin were analyzed histologically. There were no traces of cancer whatsoever in the surgically removed tissue. Thus, Curaderm had already removed the cancer altogether. Table 5-1 shows the histopathological report of the large surgically removed tissue. No traces of cancer could be found. This is a unique case, because it shows the end result of surgery and skin graft (Fig. 5-15) albeit from a suspected SCC lesion (already successfully removed by Curaderm BEC5 therapy) and the end result of the Curaderm BEC5 successful treatment (Figure 5-12) of the true lesion on the same patient at the same lesion site. These observations have now been published in a scientific journal 56. This is truly a case of Surgery vs. Curaderm BEC5. Thus, it can be concluded that Curaderm BEC5 is advantageous over surgical excision by demonstrating largely scar-free healing and complete removal of the cancer cells. Curaderm BEC5 treatment is efficacious convenient and inexpensive, being a patient administered therapy with excellent cosmetic results.

Fig. 5-1: BCC on the arm. Note initially how small the lesion appeared before Curaderm therapy (a). During therapy it is clear that Curaderm was attacking and killing all the cancerous cells (b), which prior to Curaderm treatment were not apparent. Curaderm exposes the clinically unnoticed cancer cells and eliminates them (c). Treatment period for this patient was 8 weeks. The clinical diagnosis was confirmed histologically by punch biopsy (d). After completion of the therapy histopathology determined that no residual cancer was present (e). Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-2: A clinically diagnosed BCC before treatment which appears to be two distinct lesions (a). During treatment Curaderm shows that it is one large BCC (3cm x 4cm) (b). After treatment the lesion is completely ablated and some scar tissue can be seen (c). Treatment period was 16 weeks. Histological analysis before Curaderm therapy shows characteristic infiltrated cancer cells well within the dermis (d); after Curaderm therapy there are no cancer cells (e). Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-3: BCC before treatment (a) and after 8 weeks of Curaderm treatment (b). The clinical diagnosis was confirmed histologically by punch biopsy (c). After completion of the therapy histopathology determined that no residual cancer was present (d). Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-4: BCC over the left eye of a patient before (a), during (b) and after Curaderm treatment (c). Careful application of Curaderm was required to ensure that the cream did not enter the eye. During Curaderm therapy the distinct tumour can be seen surrounded by some inflammation. After treatment there was no trace of the BCC. Confirmation by histological analysis of the BCC before treatment (d) and after treatment (e) are shown. The total treatment period was 9 weeks. Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-5: Clinical (a) and histological (c) diagnosed BCC before Curaderm treatment. The diameter of the lesion was 5cm. Clinical (b) and histological (d) analyses after treatment. Duration of treatment was 8 weeks. Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-6: Clinical (a) and histological (c) diagnosed BCC in the ear of a patient before Curaderm treatment. Clinical (b) and histological (d) analyses after treatment. Duration of treatment was 10 weeks. Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-7: This patient had a deep seated SCC under the chin (a). After 6 weeks treatment with Curaderm the cancer cleared up (b). The clinical diagnosis was confirmed histologically by punch biopsy (c). After completion of the therapy histopathology determined that no residual cancer was present (d). Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-8: SCC under the right eye of a patient before (a) and after Curaderm treatment (b). Careful application of Curaderm was required to ensure that the cream did not enter the eye. After treatment there was no trace of the SCC. Confirmation by histological analysis of the SCC before treatment (c) and after treatment (d) are shown. The total treatment period was 14 weeks. Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-9: SCC on the nose of a patient before (a), during (b) and after treatment with Curaderm (c). Treatment duration was 16 weeks. The clinical diagnosis was confirmed histologically by punch biopsy (d). After completion of the therapy histopathology determined that no residual cancer was present (e). Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-10: SCC on the head of a patient before (a), during (b) and after Curaderm treatment (c). Treatment duration was 6 weeks. The clinical diagnosis was confirmed histologically by punch biopsy (d). After completion of the therapy histopathology determined that no residual cancer was present (e). Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-11: A protruding SCC before (a, b) and after Curaderm therapy (c). Treatment duration was 8 weeks. The clinical diagnosis was confirmed histologically by punch biopsy (d). After completion of the therapy histopathology determined that no residual cancer was present (e). Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-12: SCC showing the effectiveness of Curaderm to specifically target cancer cells without affecting normal cells. Before Curaderm treatment (a), during Curaderm treatment (b) and after treatment (c). Treatment duration was 8 weeks. The clinical diagnosis was confirmed histologically by punch biopsy (d). After completion of the therapy histopathology determined that no residual cancer was present (e).

Fig. 5-13: SCC on the nose close to the eye (a). This SCC was starting to impair the vision of the patient. After Curaderm therapy the lesion was ablated (b). After completion on treatment the vision was restored. Treatment duration was 10 weeks. The clinical diagnosis was confirmed histologically by punch biopsy (c). After completion of the therapy histopathology determined that no residual cancer was present (d). Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Fig. 5-14: An intra-epithelial SCC on the penis of a patient before (a), during (b) and after Curaderm therapy (c). The prognosis of this patient before treatment with Curaderm was amputation. Treatment period was 6 weeks. The clinical diagnosis was confirmed histologically by biopsy (d). After completion of the therapy histopathology determined that no residual cancer was present (e). Clinical assessment 5 years post treatment revealed that there was no recurrence.

Table 5-1: Histopathology report of the patient described in figures 5-12 and 5-15.

Fig. 5-15: Skin graft of a surgically removed area which the dermatologist assumed had residual cancer after Curaderm therapy. This patient is represented by Fig. 5-12. Analysis of the surgically removed area of the skin revealed that there was no residual cancer present (see Table 5-1), thus this patient underwent unnecessary surgery and skin grafting. Curaderm had already successfully removed all cancer cells prior to skin graft surgery.

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) vs. Curaderm BEC5

Of the established treatment regimes, 5-FU has been used extensively as an alternative to surgery and cryotherapy in respect of actinic keratoses. The use of 5-FU for the treatment of superficial BCC was established after it was prescribed on an “off-label” basis. Efficacy rate of 5-FU is very low against superficial BCC. Additionally, 5-FU is a “conventional” cytotoxic compound with a corresponding inherent toxicity profile and so should be used sparingly. Consequently physicians are reluctant to prescribe 5-FU for use on BCCs that are not located on “low risk” sites such as limbs or trunk area.

By comparison, Curaderm BEC5 has an exceptional safety profile. It has been established that neither the active glycoalkaloids (BEC) ingredients of this natural drug nor their breakdown products enter the blood stream in quantities detectable by a very sensitive procedure (Mass spectrometry). Local effects of use are limited to slight inflammation, erythema (reddening of the skin) and stinging.

Moreover, Curaderm BEC5 preferentially seeks out and destroys cancer cells and can be used upon substantial and sub-cutaneous (deep within the skin) cancers, rendering it a far superior option. Contrast the position with 5-FU which does not differentiate in killing dividing cells, whether they are normal or cancerous. Curaderm BEC5 preferentially kills cancer cells only and not normal cells. In addition Curaderm BEC5 kills cancer cells whether they are dividing or whether they are “resting”. Finally, Curaderm BEC5 has a clinically proven very high efficacy rate.

Photo-Dynamic Therapy (PDT) vs. Curaderm BEC5

In some authorities PDT has been approved for the treatment of BCC. PDT has significant limitations. The efficacy of PDT in the treatment of BCCs is low and is limited to superficial BCCs. Side effects can prove disproportionate to the disease and may include local swelling and inflammation in and around the oesaphagus and lungs. All PDT patients experience photosensitivity for approximately 30 days due to the continued presence of the drug in the body, and exposure to bright light or direct sunlight should be avoided to prevent sunburn, redness and swelling. Other reported side effects include nausea, fever and/or constipation. The patients are advised to avoid direct sunlight and bright indoor light for at least six weeks after treatment.

PDT centres are capital intensive and so access is limited. Moreover, not every centre incorporates a light source suitable for the treatment of all possible PDT treatable cancers. In addition, cost, lack of safety and limited efficacy are significant deterrents for PDT compared to Curaderm BEC5. For all these reasons PDT is not used much.

Imiquimod vs. Curaderm BEC5

Imiquimod (as “Aldara”) is presently available as a treatment for external anogenital warts. Unlike Curaderm BEC5, topical Aldara demonstrates systemic toxicity and reported adverse drug reactions include fever and general malaise. When used to treat BCCs a range of very serious adverse effects have been reported.

Table 5-2 shows comparative profiles of the various treatment types:

Table 5-2: The above Table refers to BCCs. Only surgery and Curaderm BEC5 have proven to be effective in the treatment of SCCs.

It is important to note that the clinico-physical health benefits go hand-in-hand with mental benefits resulting in improved lifestyles. Herewith, a letter received from a patient together with photographs of before, during and after Curaderm BEC5 therapy of a large SCC on the head.

Figure 5-16. SCC on the head of a patient before (a), during (b, c) and after (d) Curaderm BEC5 treatment. The arrow indicates where the lesion was prior to treatment. It is difficult to distinguish where the cancer once was. This SCC is similar to the one described earlier (Figures 5-12, 5-15). Again it is shown that the cosmetic result is excellent.

Although Curaderm BEC5 treats large skin cancer lesions, it is extremely important that patients in consultation with their health professionals treat skin cancers in their early stages. The smaller the lesion, the shorter the treatment duration and the less troublesome for the patient.